MPRWA Regular Meeting Agenda Packet 04-11-13 PDF

Agenda
Monterey Peninsula Regional Water Authority (MPRWA)

Regular Meeting

7:00 PM, Thursday, April 11, 2013
Council Chambers
Few Memorial Hall
Monterey, California

ROLL CALL

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

REPORTS FROM BOARD DIRECTORS AND STAFF

PUBLIC COMMENTS
PUBLIC COMMENTS allows you, the public, to speak for a maximum of three minutes on any
subject which is within the jurisdiction of the MPRWA and which is not on the agenda. Any person
or group desiring to bring an item to the attention of the Authority may do so by addressing the
Authority during Public Comments or by addressing a letter of explanation to: MPRWA, Attn:
Monterey City Clerk, 580 Pacific St, Monterey, CA 93940. The appropriate staff person will contact
the sender concerning the details.

APPROVAL OF MINUTES

1. February 14, 2013

2. March 14, 2013

AGENDA ITEMS

3. Receive Report From The Monterey Regional Water Pollution Control Agency and The
Monterey Peninsula Water Management District Regarding The Ground Water
Replenishment Project (Israel, Stoldt)

a. Review Scopes of Work for Feasibility and CEQA Analysis

4. Receive Report Regarding The Status of the Monterey Peninsula Regional Water
Management District Back Up Projects (Stoldt)

5. Receive Report and Provide Direction on Second Governance Committee Meeting
(Burnett)

a. Cal Am Request for Qualifications for Design Build Firms Desalination Plant

6. Review and Provide Direction on Public Outreach Budget for FY 2013 -2014 (Reichmuth)

7. Receive Update Report from Cal Am Regarding Compliance with Conditions for Authority
Support of Cal Am Desal Project (Bowie)

8. Receive Update and Provide Direction for California Public Utilities Commission Testimony
Hearing for Application (A-12-01-019)
Thursday, April 11, 2013
2

ADJOURNMENT

The Monterey Peninsula Regional Water Authority is committed to include the disabled in all of
its services, programs and activities. For disabled access, dial 711 to use the California Relay
Service (CRS) to speak to staff at the Monterey City Clerks Office, the Principal Office of the
Authority. CRS offers free text-to-speech, speech-to-speech, and Spanish-language services
24 hours a day, 7 days a week. If you require a hearing amplification device to attend a
meeting, dial 711 to use CRS to talk to staff at the Monterey City Clerks Office at
(831) 646-3935 to coordinate use of a device or for information on an agenda.

Agenda related writings or documents provided to the MPRWA are available for public
inspection during the meeting or may be requested from the Monterey City Clerks Office at 580
Pacific St, Room 6, Monterey, CA 93940. This agenda is posted in compliance with California
Government Code Section 54954.2(a) or Section 54956.

MI NUTES
MONTEREY PENINSULA REGIONAL WATER AUTHORITY (MPRWA)
Regular Meeting
7:00 PM, Thursday, February 14, 2013
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBER
FEW MEMORIAL HALL
MONTEREY, CALIFORNIA

Directors Present: Edelen, Kampe, Pendergrass, Rubio, Alternate Talmage, Della Sala

Directors Absent:

None

Staff Present: Executive Director, Legal Counsel, Clerk

ROLL CALL

President Della Sala Called the Meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.



Director Pendergrass reported on the unanimous approval of the Governance Agreement by
the Monterey Peninsula Water Management District. All aspects were unanimous and mirrored
the Authority approval except for the item related to Surcharge 2. President Della Sala reported
that the Monterey County Board of Supervisors unanimously approved the agreement and
reported Cal Am is still reviewing the document but might have edits in the near future. Director
Rubio requested that the Ground Water Replenishment (GWR) be fully flushed out for the
public and requested the TAC explore the project to ensure all parties understand it on the
same level. The Authority unanimously approved this request and directed the TAC to take up
the item.

PUBLIC COMMENTS

President Della Sala invited public comment for items not on the agenda. Nelson Vega
requested that the Authority not overlook the Salinas River as a source of water and consider a
petition to the State Water Resources Board about wasting a resource that could be better
utilized. Tom Rowley requested that the Authority lobby to ensure all Land Use jurisdictions be
directly represented on the Monterey Peninsula Water Management District Board. He thanked
the Authority for adopting the position statement to move forward and for including an alternate
water source as source water is a critical issue. Sue McCloud requested that the Authority take
another look at the format the agenda materials are distributed in. With no further requests to
speak, President Della Sala closed public comment.
MPRWA Meeting, 4/11/2013 , tem No. 1., tem Page 1, Packet Page 1
MPRWA Minutes Thursday, February 14, 2013

Monterey Peninsula Regional Water Authority
Regular Meeting Minutes - Thursday, February 14, 2013
2

APPROVAL OF MINUTES

1. January 10, 2013 Special Meeting
Action: Approved

On a motion, and carried by the following vote, the Monterey Peninsula Regional Water
Authority approved the minutes of January 10, 2013.

AYES: 6 DIRECTORS: Edelen, Kampe, Pendergrass, Rubio, Talmage,
Della Sala
NOES: 0 DIRECTORS: None
ABSENT: 0 DIRECTORS: None
ABSTAIN: 0 DIRECTORS: None
RECUSE
D:
0 DIRECTORS: None

2. January 24, 2013 Regular Meeting
Action: Approved

Authority approved the minutes of January 24, 2013 as amended.

Della Sala
RECUSED: 0 DIRECTORS: None

3. January 31, 2013 Special Meeting
Action: Approved

Authority approved the minutes of January 31, 2013 as amended.

Della Sala

AGENDA ITEMS

4. Approve Amendment to Contract for Executive Director Services with the City of Monterey to
Include Licensed Professional Engineer and Authorize Increase of Insurance Premiums as
Required (Action)
Action: Approved

3

Legal Counsel Freeman spoke to the item indicating the appointed Executive Director Bill
Reichmuth is a licensed professional engineer and risk managers for the member cities have
recommended increasing the Authoritys Special Liability Insurance Policy (SLIP) to cover the
MPRWA in the event of litigation. In order to obtain the increased SLIP, an amendment to the
agreement to include the professional designation is needed and additional funding not to
exceed $3,000 will be required and would be paid through the budget line item contingency
fund. President Della Sala opened the item for public comment and with no requests to speak,
closed public comment and brought the discussion back to the Authority for a motion.
On a motion by Director Edelen, seconded by Director Rubio and carried by the following vote,
the Monterey Peninsula Regional Water Authority approved the amendment to the contract for
Executive Director Services with the City of Monterey to include Licensed Professional
Engineer in the designation and authorized an increase of insurance premiums, not to exceed
$3,000.

Della Sala

5. Approve and Authorize the President to Execute an Agreement to Form the Monterey
Peninsula Water Supply Project Governance Committee Together with California-American
Water Company, the Monterey Peninsula Water Management District, and the County of
Monterey and Appoint the Water Authoritys Representative to Said Committee
(Discussion/Action)
Action: Discussed and Approved

Della Sala introduced the item as written in the staff report. Executive Director Reichmuth
acknowledged staff who worked diligently on this project. He clarified that the attachment in the
packet is not the final agreement but that some non substantial word changes have been
requested by Cal Am legal counsel. Mr. Reichmuth recommended approval of the agreement
today and again at a future meeting if changes are significant. Legal Counsel Freeman
recommended that the Authority approve the document as written and appoint representative
members at this meeting.
President Della Sala opened the item to public comment. Nelson Vega expressed concern that
too much effort was used to be collegial and he cautioned that with the proposed agreement
the Authority will have less power. He commended the Authority for making unprecedented
progress and creating trust in the community that the project will move forward. Doug Wilhelm
expressed concern that there is no oversight after the facility is constructed and requested
incorporation before adoption.

4
Bill Hood expressed frustration that specific concerns he provided to the Authority have not
been incorporated, and the document does not allow the Authority any control over the project.
He encouraged revising the document as it does not provide adequate cost control and Cal Am,
being a regulated utility, has no incentive to control costs. He also cautioned about involvement
which would lead to becoming the lead agency for CEQA. Lastly, he cautioned the Authority
about the potential changes Cal Am is making as the history of this negotiation has shown Cal
Am has substantive concerns and the public has allowed the concerns to overrule what their
needs are. He said exercising more control will not hurt Cal Am but will reduce waste and
protect the rate payers.
Sue McCloud appreciated all the efforts to include many public comments in the document. She
brought up the following concerns about the draft agreement:

Questioned if the Authority reached out to the Desalination Manager in Sand City
Expressed concern for continuity from the four proposed members of the Governance
Committee due to term limits, and recommended returning to an advisory committee
structure
Questioned how the MPRWA representative will be able to speak for all six cities
Discouraged the ability to vote by proxy without hearing full discussions
Expressed Concern nothing in the document addresses financing yet many decisions
will impact finances

George Riley questioned the term of the Governance Committee of 40 years and questioned if
the intent was for the Authority to also have a 40 year life. Second, he questioned what pre-
construction entailed and was concern that the phase would not be accessible to the public.
With no further requests to speak, President Della Sala closed public comment and staff
responded to public comments.
Director Pendergrass welcomed questions from the Authority regarding the Sand City
Desalination facility as well as working with Cal Am and he indicated they always pushed for a
public-private partnership and have a positive relationship and working experience with the
plant. He indicated he is willing to provide information to the TAC, Authority Directors and the
MPWMD, if requested.
President Della Sala responded to Mrs. McClouds comments indicating that the appointed
Governance Committee representative could speak for the Authority with direction provided by
the Authority and would be required to get approval on substantial issues prior to voting. The
financing aspect is still being developed and investigated and the Authority will be taking a
position on financing in the near future. He then spoke to Mr. Riley's comments about the 40
year agreement term and said by the time the water is flowing, this organization will disband.
Legal Counsel Freeman spoke to Mr. Hoods question and indicated that three CEQA attorneys
reviewed the document to keep the CPUC as lead agency, and to keep from making large
decisions that will help delay the project. He acknowledged that delay is an issue and the goal
is to steer a course that will provide oversight over all categories. What the Authority does not
have oversight over, the CPUC does. Also, it was made to be a Brown Act agency compliant
with the Public Records Act as a way the public can participate and to ensure transparency.

The Authority discussed some of the known unsubstantial changes and discussed the length of
involvement for the Authority. The Directors agreed that there should be no need for the
Governance document and oversight once water is flowing.


5
On a motion by Director Kampe, seconded by Director Rubio, and carried by the following vote,
the Monterey Peninsula Regional Water Authority Authorized the President to Execute an
Agreement to Form the Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project Governance Committee
Together with California-American Water Company, the Monterey Peninsula Water
Management District, and the County of Monterey:

Della Sala

President Della Sala opened public comment for selecting a Director to act as the Authority
representative for the Governance Committee. Nelson Vega suggested it be Mayor Della Sala,
because he represents the largest population, has the necessary expertise, and would be an
excellent choice. With no further requests to speak, public comment was closed.
Director Rubio offered his services to the Governance Committee and noted that Supervisor
Potter was appointed to the committee from the Board of Supervisors. Alternate Director
Talmage nominated President Della Sala indicating that continuity is critical and cannot be
overstated. Director Edelen spoke to Director Rubios experience but in the interest of continuity
nominated President Della Sala.
Authority appointed Vice President Burnett as the Primary representative to the Governance
Committee and President Della Sala as the alternate representative.
Della Sala

6. Review the First Amended and Restated Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement and Recommend
Execution by Member Cities and the County of Monterey to Add the County of Monterey as a
Member of the Water Authority and to Make Other Modifications to the Agreement
(Discussion/Action)
Action: Discussed and Approved

Legal Counsel Freeman presented the report and indicated that the agreement presented
included two amendments; inclusion of Monterey County as a representative member to the
Authority and deleting the requirement to have an Authority Director to be the Chair of the TAC.
He then clarified that voting on this document does not ensure it will happen but will allow the
California Attorney General to respond to the submitted letter regarding a conflict of interest,
then the agreement must be circulated to each member agency for signature of approval. The
approval requested today is to authorize the two changes to the document and then circulate
among member agencies

6
President Della Sala opened the item for public comment. Tom Rolwey thanked Legal Counsel
Freeman and spoke to his excellent work then asked for a tentative time table for approval. Bill
hood expressed appreciation for the efforts of the Authority then spoke to the purpose of the
JPA agreement. Appointing the Fifth District Supervisor as a representative with the County
would cause a conflict due to his other affiliations. The conflict does not have to be an actual
conflict of interest, but a potential conflict and does not believe the amendment addresses the
conflict, but instead is a duplication of powers. Nelson Vega indicated it is important to have
County participation because representation for the unincorporated areas is needed. He
cautioned that the Authority wait until the Attorney General responds. He then acknowledged
Director Burnetts participation at the Monterey Peninsula Water Management District meeting.
Having no more requests to speak, public comment was closed.
Mr. Freeman responded to Mr. Hood's request regarding the County participation indicating the
action taken tonight is just to approve and allow circulation of the changes and further stated
that the County will not participate without the opinion of the Attorney General. Mr. Freeman
then answered questions from the Board.

On a motion by Director Burnett, seconded by Director Rubio, and carried by the following vote,
the Monterey Peninsula Regional Water Authority Approved the Amendment and Circulation of
the First Amended and Restated Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement:
Della Sala

7. Update on Member City Approval of Increased Member Contributions for FY 2012-13
(Information)
Action: Received Update

Executive Director Reichmuth indicated this item was a reminder to the Member Cities about
the Authoritys budget adjustment and requested that any city that has not approved the
increase please do so in the near future. Director Rubio acknowledged that the City of Seaside
has approved the budget adjustment. Sand City and Del Rey Oaks are still outstanding.

8. Approve Future Meeting Dates (Discussion/Action)
Action: Approved

President Della Sala opened to public comment and had no requests to speak.
On a motion by Director Kampe, seconded by Director Edelen, and carried by the following
vote, the Monterey Peninsula Regional Water Authority Approved the Presented Future
Meeting Dates;

7

Della Sala

ADJOURNMENT

With no more business to come before the Authority, President Della Sala Adjourned the
meeting at 9:58 p.m.

ATTEST:

Lesley Milton, Clerk to the Authority Chuck Della Sala, MPRWA President


MI NUTES
MONTEREY PENINSULA REGIONAL WATER AUTHORITY (MPRWA)
Regular Meeting
7:00 PM, Thursday, March 14, 2013
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
FEW MEMORIAL HALL
MONTEREY, CALIFORNIA

Directors Present: Burnett, Edelen, Kampe Pendergrass, Rubio, Della Sala

Directors Absent:

None

Staff Present: Executive Director, Legal Counsel, Clerk of the Authority

ROLL CALL

President Della Sala Called the meeting to order at 7:02 p.m.



President Della Sala invited reports from Directors and Staff. Vice President Burnett noted that
Staff is working with the State Water Resources Control Board and the Coastal Commission to
coordinate permits for the Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project (MPWSP). He then
confirmed that Cal Am had submitted their application to City of Marina for the test well project
and he has requested Congressman Farr to assist with coordination of all of the State and
Federal permitting agencies that will be involved. Legal Counsel Freeman informed the
Authority and the public that next Governance Committee meeting is on Wednesday, March
30,
,
2013 at 4:00 p.m. and staff is currently forming an agenda distribution list and anyone
interested to be included in distribution should contact Arlene Tavani at www.mpwmd.net.
PUBLIC COMMENTS

President Della Sala invited public comments for items not on the agenda. George Riley
questioned a recent conference call regarding the process of the California Public Utilities
Commission (CPUC) evidentiary hearings and the schedule for witness testimony. He
questioned the legitimacy of a comment about settlement discussions and informed the
Authority that they should anticipate litigation. Nelson Vega spoke about recent Monterey City
Council meetings and is concerned there is no consensus. He then requested the Authority be
in communication with The State Water Resources Control Board requesting an extension to
the Cease and Desist order, in the event the MPWSP stalls. President Della Sala clarified that
Council Members are also citizens and have the right to speak their position at any time. Vice
President Burnett commented that staff and Directors are reaching out to the SWRCB but does
not think the timing is ripe for requesting and extension.
Jim Cullem questioned the location of the MPWSP facility and specifically questioned the right-
of-way assessments. He asked if the Directors had considered requesting first rights of refusal
for the public right away then suggested working with the Transportation Agency of Monterey
County (TAMC). Executive Director Reichmuth responded that discussions are being facilitated
and TAMC is in the appraisal process to determine fair market value. The land was purchased
with State Lands funds, and currently there is no objection for pipeline utilization. Rick Riedl
indicated that portions of the land are owned by the City of Seaside and encouraged
MPRWA Minutes Thursday, March 14, 2013

Regular Meeting Minutes - Thursday, March 14, 2013
2
discussions to include the City. Sue McCloud encouraged the televising of the Governance
meetings to ensure access to the public and also requested clarification between the different
Boards and their responsibilities, so there is not duplication of efforts. Lastly, she encouraged
the ability to have information distributed earlier so it could be reviewed by the public prior to
the meeting. Vice President Burnett responded that staff will work to determine the
responsibilities for the different Boards.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES

Action: Continued to Next Meeting

Action: Approved as Amended

On a motion by Director Kampe, seconded by Directors Pendergrass, and carried by the
following vote, the Monterey Peninsula Regional Water Authority approved the mintues of
February 28, 2013 as amended
AYES: 6 DIRECTORS: Burnett, Edelen, Kampe, Pendergrass, Rubio,
Della Sala

AGENDA ITEMS

3. Review and Provide Recommendations on Cal Am Draft Outline of RFQ and List of Qualifications and
Selection Criteria
Action: Recommendations Provided

Vice President Burnett presented the item and reported about the comments made at the Governance
Committee meeting regarding the proposed Request for Qualifications (RFQ). He qualified that under
Category B1 of the Authority adopted policy agreement, the Governance Committee can make a
recommendation and if Cal Am chooses not to follow, they need to provide written documentation. Vice
President Burnett then spoke to the outline in the packet, and to the time frame provided by Cal Am.
They are currently talking with eight qualified firms. The RFQ will be issued by the April 1,
,
2013 to
narrow the field from eight to four firms. In June, 2013 the Request for Proposal (RFP) will be released
with a 90 day response time, and the winning firm will be selected. Vice President Burnett then read a
list of changes to the document suggested by the Governance Committee and the Directors discussed.
Executive Director Reichmuth added that this will likely be a design-build contract, which reduces the
liability to Cal Am and leaves it with contractor. Also, the extent and type of State and Federal funds
used will determine if prevailing wages are required. Vice President Burnett answered questions from
the Directors

3
Director Rubio spoke to the prevailing wage requirements and requested the RFQ to include compliance
with Federal and Local requirements regarding prevailing wage. Director Edelen disagreed and
expressed it will drive the cost up to the consumer. He added that considerations for energy efficiency
and LEED certification (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) should only happen as long as
it does not increase the costs of water. Director Pendergrass questioned hiring a firm before the
California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) makes a decision and supported Director Rubios
request. Vice President Burnett clarified if Cal Am utilizes public funding; the project would be required
to employ only prevailing wage workers.
President Della Sala opened the item to public comment. Doug Wilhelm spoke to Director Pendegrass
comment and encouraged developing a critical path and a schedule, including a safety factor. Nelson
Vega spoke in support of Director Edelen's comment indicating cost is the most important factor and that
most of the people on the peninsula don't earn paid a prevailing wage and the goal should be to have
the best value for the dollar spent. Jim Cullem questioned how much more the construction would cost if
prevailing wages were required and requested that criteria be added to the RFP to include
maintainability and adaptability of the facility, noting that processes might be very efficient, but might not
be easy to maintain. He also requested the firm be required to be able to design to emerging
technologies to make it less costly to operate in the future. With no more requests to speak, President
Della Sala closed public comment and brought the discussion back to the Board to provide
recommendations on the RFQ.
The following recommendations were made:
1. Consider eliminating the requirement for LEED design, but maintain requirements for energy
efficiency to the extent that it delivers real savings to customers.
2. The maintainability and adaptability of the plant over time, that is open to new technologies

4. Report from Cal-Am Regarding Test Well Design, Development and Permitting
Action: Update Provided by Cal Am Water Representative

Cal Am Water Representative Catherine Bowie discussed changes that have occurred since the last
Authority update. She reported that four of the six required permits have been submitted; the State
Lands Commission and the Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary are outstanding. Construction of
the test wells is on track to begin in November 2013 and the project is on track to meet the current
construction schedule. Ms. Bowie then answered questions from the Authority.
Vice President Burnett added that with respect to the City of Marina application, it has not yet been
approved due to an agreement with the Sierra Club. The permit requires any applicant requesting a
Negative Declaration Environmental Impact Report (EIR) have approval from the Sierra club. Vice
President Burnett has been working with Marina Mayor Delgado with respect to this requirement.
Congressman Farr is assisting with coordinating with the federal agencies for alignment of interest to
expedite the permitting processes.
President Della Sala opened the item to public comment and had no requests to speak.
5. Receive Report on First Governance Committee Meeting and Provide Direction
Action: Recommendations Provided


4
Vice President Burnett reported on the first meeting of the Governance Committee and indicated the
largest agenda item was discussion of the RFQ. He reported that he was elected as Chair of the
Governance Committee and will be working on agenda management to determine appropriate timing of
decisions. Also discussed was the timeline for the Ground Water Replenishment(GWR) project, and the
Committee agreed to send a letter requesting the CPUC to hold a workshop on the issue in the future.
Director Pendergrass questioned the status of support and progress of the GWR project and indicated
that the MPWSP is impacted because the GWR project will determine the ultimate size of the MPWSP
facility that will need to be built. President Della Sala reminded the Directors and public that this body is
in support of GWR but is working with the timeline to get it online at the same time the desalination
facility. If that is not feasible, the Authority would support a larger desalination facility.
MRWPCA Director and TAC Member Keith Israel have identified the following criteria that will be
needed for the GWR to be successful:
1. Course complete and certify an EIR
2. Water rights are secured for the recycled water project
3. Public support from groups
4. Cost estimate should be less than
5. Time estimate no later than January 2017
6. Permit status is consistent with schedule
7. Receive SRF Funds
8. Complete preliminary design
9. Commitment to purchase water
Director Kampe assumed that GWR would be a preferred substitute for desalinated water, but requested
to see that the confirmation of the cost factors is comparable or less than that of desalinated water. Vice
President Burnett confirmed that cost would be less than $300 per acre foot from the well head and
noted the TAC will take up the item again on March 18, 2013.
President Della Sala opened the item for public comment. Nelson Vega thinks there is overemphasis of
the GWR as it will come as a price and encouraged the Authority to continue to focus on which facility is
the lowest cost and produces the highest volume of water. Catherine Bowie spoke to answer some
questions asked previously about the timeline to hire the design build contractor indicating the decision
to hire the prior to the CPUC decision will assist with the ability to obtain the Coastal Commission permit,
three months earlier. President Della Sala followed up by asking; in the event Cal Am was able to hire a
design build contractor prior to the CPUC decision being released, how much would the ratepayers
would be at risk. Ms. Bowie responded that the only projects the firm would be tasked with is working
toward obtaining permits and does not know if any public funds would be at risk. With no further
requests to speak, President Della Sala closed public comment.
Vice President Burnett also reported on discussions of procurement of alternative power by the
Governance Committee and indicated he will contact the Monterey Regional Waste Management
District to begin discussions of opportunities and will report back.
6. Review of Mid-Year Budget and Projections for Remainder of Fiscal Year
Action: Discussed and Recommendations Provided


5
Executive Director Reichmuth gave a brief overview indicating the report is informational and staff is
seeking direction prior to adoption of the budget for Fiscal year 2013-14. Clerk Milton provided details
about current obligations still pending, the proposed changes for the next fiscal year and requested
feedback from the Authority. The Authority discussed the need for additional public outreach in addition
to televising Authority meetings to include items such as increased web presence, educational materials,
press releases and more.
President Della Sala opened the item for comments from the public. Nelson Vega spoke in support of
increased public outreach and suggested an effective tool to use for outreach would be a comparison to
the user water bill. He encouraged Authority to spend funds to ensure the public is informed prior to the
water rates increasing. Sue McCloud suggested giving a bonus to the contractor for finishing ahead of
time and a penalty for not completing on time. She also proposed an idea of utilizing students from
California Polytechnic Institute and their design team to assist with the design work to save cost. Dale
Heikus requested caution with public outreach as the public is very skeptical. He said the Authority holds
many meetings, produces many reports, and has many discussions, but should begin outreach only
when there is something significant and unmistakable that can prove the project has moved forward.
With no further requests to speak, President Della Sala closed public comment.

Director Edelen requested that public relation efforts be focused on energizing the public to support the
projects and not to publicize the successes of the Authority.
Director Kampe clarified what public funds can be spent on for public outreach, but agrees to the need
for outreach. He indicated the focus should be informing about the best course for best results for the
water users on the Peninsula. As a comprehensive approach, there must be education on all the
projects and elements including, GWR, ASR, backup plans, Contingency plans and the Local Small
Water Projects. He encouraged the program to be diligent, to make information as accurate and
available as possible. In the absence, it undermines what the Authority and other agencies are trying are
trying to do.
Vice President Burnett suggested using their positional influence as mayors, if provided with a
cost effective tool, such as a position statement, presentation or brochure that could be
distributed at meetings, events, or functions. Director Rubio spoke against a focused public
outreach campaign indicating that the Authoritys position is monitoring and advising and
cannot be seen as trying to sway public opinion. Any project should be tasked with the
community outreach and describing their project to the public. President Della Sala requested
that staff propose a public outreach program including the associated costs, at the 20K 40K
level and to allow the Authority to make an informed decision.

7. Review Rebuttal Testimony Submitted To California Public Utilities Commission for Application (A- 12-
04-019) and Provide Direction
Action: Discussed and Recommendations Provided

Vice President Burnett spoke to the item and highlighted the most relevant sections as it pertains to the
Authority adopted Position Statement. He reported that Cal Am is working toward meeting the conditions
and also agreed to add an eighth condition, the consideration of tax principles. Cal Ams rebuttal
testimony included a large focus on the requirement that Cal Am accept public funding, and Cal Am staff
presented reports from several outside financial and tax experts who pointed out the challenges
associated with public contributions. Chair Burnett provided an update on each of the conditions as set
forth below, and then answered questions from the Directors.

6
1. The summary on condition one, we are working though, have had some success, recognize the
overall framework, but will take tremendous work to come to an agreement.
2. Adoption of a Governance Agreement: Agreement has been signed and the committee is
operational.
3. Electricity Rates: Addressed in Rich Svinland's testimony. Meetings will be forthcoming with the
Monterey Regional Waste Management District, and the Governance Committee will assist. Cal
Am Water has agreed with the condition in principle.
4. Surcharge 2: General testimony is in support of conditions for utilization that funds can only be
applied to tangible assets that do not leave stranded costs.
5. Subsurface Wells: Point to the CEQA process as the way to justify compliance with the condition.
6. Alternative Intake Strategies: Still in progress. Cal Am understands the need for contingencies,
but is not currently planning on fully developing the contingencies as we stipulated.
7. SRF Financing: No report at this time.
8. Address Sea Level and Coastal Erosion: Issue will be covered in the Environmental Impact
Report (EIR), the main infrastructure will be behind the dunes and safe from those factors.

President Della Sala opened the item for public comment. Dale Heikus expressed caution with
regard to finance and the availability of public funds. He requested the Authority try to identify
ways to lower the project risk before using public funds, including the development of a risk
assessment. Nelson Vega questioned the status of a water purchase agreement and spoke to
Mr. Heikus comment that there will always be risk. With no further requests to speak, President
Della Sala closed public comment.
Executive Director Reichmuth responded to Mr. Heikus comment by referring him to review the
testimony of Mr. Linlam, which was included in the Agenda Packet. The testimony lists the
principles for utilization of public funds. He suggested reviewing pages 92, 93, and 94 to help to
explain the financial issues.
Director Kampe spoke to the adopted condition for the development of a contingency plan and
encouraged Cal Am to not lose sight of that. He expressed that the testimony of the hydrologist
Tim Durbin was notable, due to the uncertainty of the productivity of the slant wells but there is
still a need for alternate sourcing.

ADJOURNMENT

With no more business to come before the Authority, President Della Sala Adjourned the
meeting.

ATTEST:

Lesley Milton, Clerk to the Authority Chuck Della Sala, MPRWA President

Agenda Report

Date: April 11, 2013
Item No: 3.

08/12

FROM: Prepared By: Clerk to the Authority

SUBJECT: Receive Report from The Monterey Regional Water Pollution Control Agency and
The Monterey Peninsula Water Management District Regarding The Ground
Water Replenishment Project (Israel, Stoldt)

DISCUSSION:

There is no written report for this item. An oral presentation given by TAC Members Stoldt and
Israel will take place at the meeting.


Agenda Report

Item No: 4.

08/12


SUBJECT: Receive Report Regarding The Status of the Monterey Peninsula Regional Water
Management District Back Up Projects (Stoldt)

DISCUSSION:

There is no written report for this item. An oral presentation given by TAC Member Stoldt will
take place at the meeting.


Agenda Report

Item No: 5.

08/12


SUBJECT: Receive Report on Second Governance Committee and Provide Direction
(Burnett)

DISCUSSION:

There is no written report for this item. An oral presentation will take place at the meeting.

ATTACHMENT:

Cal Am Request for Qualifications for Design Build Firms Desalination Plant Final
Version

MONTEREY PENINSULA WATER SUPPLY PROJECT
DESALINATION INFRASTRUCTURE - REQUEST FOR QUALIFICATIONS

REQUEST FOR QUALIFICATIONS Desalination Infrastructure
April 1, 2013

DESALINATION INFRASTRUCTURE

REQUEST FOR QUALIFICATIONS
Request for Qualifications from
Prospective Design-Build Entities

April 1, 2013

Pacific Grove, California
MPRWA Meeting, 4/11/2013 , tem No. a., tem Page 1, Packet Page 21

April 1, 2013

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. Introduction ................................................................................................................... 1
2. Utilization of Women, Minority, And Disabled Veteran Owned Business
Enterprises and Local Contractors/Suppliers ............................................................. 2
2.1 Utilization of Women, Minority, and Disabled Veteran Owned Business Enterprises .... 2
2.2 Utilization of Local Contractors and Suppliers .............................................................. 3
3. Project Overview ........................................................................................................... 3
3.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................. 3
3.2 Project Background and Objectives ............................................................................. 3
3.3 Project Description ....................................................................................................... 4
3.3.1 Brine Conveyance Pipeline ................................................................................... 5
3.3.2 Salinas Valley Desalinated Water Return Pipeline ................................................ 5
3.3.3 Desalination Plant ................................................................................................. 5
3.3.4 Desalinated Water Conveyance ............................................................................ 7
4. Schedule Summary ....................................................................................................... 7
5. Submission Instructions and Requirements ............................................................... 8
5.1 Instructions .................................................................................................................. 8
5.2 Submission Requirements ........................................................................................... 9
5.2.1 Questionnaire ....................................................................................................... 9
5.2.2 Experience ...........................................................................................................12
5.2.3 Interview ..............................................................................................................19
6. Selection Criteria ......................................................................................................... 19
7. Other Rules and Procedures ...................................................................................... 20
7.1 CAW Rights and Procurement Conditions ..................................................................20
7.2 Expenses of the Design-Build Entities.........................................................................21
7.3 Use of Information.......................................................................................................21
7.4 Confidential Information ..............................................................................................21


April 1, 2013

EXHIBITS
Exhibit A Design-Build Entitys Proposal Manager
Exhibit B Questionnaire
1. Declaration
2. Design-Build Team
a. Design-Build Entity
b. Design Consultants
c. Specialty Consultants
d. Construction Subcontractors
3. Licensure
4. Financial Information
5. Safety
6. Insurance
7. Termination/Failure to Complete; Violations; Claims, Arbitration and Litigation
Exhibit 1 General Statement of Bank Credit
Exhibit 2 Bonds and Insurance
Exhibit C Experience
Project Profiles Design-Build Entity
Project Profiles Engineer of Record
Project Profiles General Contractor
Project Profiles Other Team Members
Exhibit D Ineligible Firms
Exhibit E Illustrative list of Permits
Exhibit F Guarantor Acknowledgment Form


April 1, 2013
Page 1 of 21

1. Introduction
Project: DESALINATION INFRASTRUCTURE
To: PROSPECTIVE DESIGN-BUILD ENTITIES
Subject: REQUEST FOR QUALIFICATIONS FOR A QUALIFIED FIRM TO DESIGN AND
CONSTRUCT THE MONTEREY PENINSULA WATER SUPPLY PROJECT
DESALINATION INFRASTRUCTURE (RFQ)
This RFQ is being issued by California American Water in anticipation of the issuance of a
request for proposals (RFP) for the Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project Desalination
Infrastructure (Project). Design-Build Entities interested in submitting proposals in response to
the anticipated RFP must submit a Statement of Qualifications (SOQ) in response to this RFQ.
The SOQ must be received by California American Water (CAW) no later than 4:00 p.m.
Pacific Time on Wednesday, May 1, 2013, at the following address:
CALIFORNIA AMERICAN WATER
511 FOREST LODGE ROAD, SUITE 100
PACIFIC GROVE, CA 93950
Attn: Lori Girard, Corporate Counsel
CAW is expected to shortlist and request Proposals for the Project from the four (4) highest
scoring Design-Build Entities that submitted SOQs in response to this RFQ, but reserves the
right to request proposals from more or less entities as deemed appropriate by CAW in its sole
discretion. An RFQ point scoring evaluation will be completed to short-list the Design-Build
Entities that will proceed into the RFP phase.
The following capitalized terms shall have the meanings identified below:
Design-Build means a project delivery method in which both the design and construction of a
project are procured from a single entity.
Design-Build Entity means a partnership, corporation, or other legal entity that is able to
provide appropriately licensed design, construction, and commissioning. For purposes of this
RFQ to the extent a Design-Build Entity is intending to utilize a contractor or subcontractor to
deliver a significant component of the services, information regarding such contractor or
subcontractor must be provided as if such entity were part of the Design-Build Entity.
Desalination Infrastructure means the desalination plant and the facilities located within the
desalination plant site that are used to create potable water from either an ocean source water,
brackish source water or a combination thereof, and appurtenant facilities needed to dispose of
brine to the brine discharge infrastructure, dispose of wastewater (i.e. process water and
sanitary discharge), and any needed facilities that may be required to prevent export of native
Salinas River Groundwater Basin water.
The firms listed in Exhibit D have been involved in the analysis of the Monterey Peninsula Water
Supply Project (MPWSP) and will not be allowed to participate as part of any Design Build
Entity in any capacity.

April 1, 2013
Page 2 of 21

Immediately upon receipt of the RFQ, each Design-Build Entity interested in participating in the
RFQ process shall (1) designate one individual as its Proposal Manager who will be responsible
for all communications during the RFQ process, (2) shall complete EXHIBIT A, Design-Build
Entitys Proposal Manager, attached to this RFQ, and (3) e-mail the completed form to Lori
Girard, Corporate Counsel, California American Water, at Lori.Girard@amwater.com. Please
identify the e-mail in the subject line as: MPWSP RFQ Exhibit A.
The Design-Build Entitys Proposal Manager shall be the single point of contact for questions,
inquiries, clarifications, and correspondence (including RFQ and RFP addenda) during the
entire RFQ and RFP process. Any substitution of Design-Build Entitys Proposal Manager
during the RFQ and RFP process shall be made in writing to CAW.
This Project budget is estimated to be within a range of $70,000,000 to $100,000,000.
The Project is a significant component of the MPSWP described in Section 3.0 below. CAW, the
Monterey Peninsula Regional Water Authority, the Monterey Peninsula Water Management
District, and the County of Monterey have formed an oversight committee (Governance
Committee) to help ensure efficient and effective public input into the development and
operation of the MPSWP. The Governance Committee was formed pursuant to agreement of
the Governance Committee members dated March 8, 2013 (Governance Committee
Agreement).
Additional information concerning the Project history, site conditions, background technical and
environmental compliance documents, procurement, the Governance Committee Agreement,
and public outreach are available on the project website at www.watersupplyproject.org.
2. Utilization of Women, Minority, And Disabled Veteran Owned Business
Enterprises and Local Contractors/Suppliers
2.1 Utilization of Women, Minority, and Disabled Veteran Owned Business
Enterprises
CAW acknowledges the contributions of women, minority and disabled veteran business
enterprises (WMDVBE) to Californias economy, in part, through California Public Utilities
Commission (CPUC) General Order 156. In accordance with General Order 156, CAW is
committed to promote and facilitate full participation in these programs. Please also refer to the
2012 Annual Report to the CPUC on Diversity and Inclusion. This report can be found on the
project website.
CAW has established a combined WMDVBE participation goal for the Project of twenty-one and
one-half percent (21.5%) of the contract price.
Each Proposer will be required to prepare and submit a WMDVBE Subcontracting Commitment
Utilization and Reporting Plan (WMDVBE Utilization Plan) as part of its response to the RFP.
The WMDVBE Utilization Plan is a written commitment to contract with Women Owned
Business Enterprises, Minority Owned Business Enterprises, and Disabled Veteran Business
Enterprises that have been certified through the CPUCs Supplier Clearinghouse, as part of the
Project.

April 1, 2013
Page 3 of 21

CAW will require that the Design-Build Entity monitor and report the continued implementation
of the WMDVBE program goals, as stated in the WMDVBE Utilization Plan, throughout
performance of the contract.
2.2 Utilization of Local Contractors and Suppliers
CAW and the local stakeholders acknowledge the benefit that the local community receives
through utilization of local contractors, laborers, and suppliers.
The Design-Build Entity will be required to prepare and submit a Local Resources Utilization
and Reporting Plan (Local Resources Utilization Plan) as part of its response to the RFP. The
Local Resources Utilization Plan is a written commitment to contract with local contractors,
subcontractors, sub-consultants, vendors, suppliers, and labor forces.
CAW will require that the Design-Build Entity monitor and report the continued implementation
of the Local Resources Utilization Plan throughout performance of the contract.
3. Project Overview
3.1 Introduction
CAW submitted an application to the CPUC for the MPWSP in April 2012. As part of this
application, an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) will be prepared by the CPUC pursuant to
the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The EIR will analyze and assess the
potential environmental impacts of a proposed new water supply project for the Monterey
Peninsula. The water supply is needed to replace existing surface and groundwater supplies.
The MPWSP will produce desalinated water, convey it to the existing CAW distribution system,
and increase the systems use of storage capacity in the Seaside Groundwater Basin. The
Project consists of several distinct components: a source water intake system consisting of slant
wells; a 9.6 million gallons per day (MGD) desalination plant; a brine discharge system;
product water conveyance pipelines and storage facilities; and an aquifer storage and recovery
(ASR) system. In addition, the Monterey Regional Water Pollution Control Agency (PCA) is
pursuing a 3,500 acre foot per year (AFY) groundwater replenishment (GWR) project that if it
is implemented will reduce the size of CAWs proposed desalination plant from 9.6 MGD to 6.4
MGD.
The CPUC, as the Lead Agency under CEQA, is actively working on the EIR and expects to
issue a Draft EIR in July 2013, followed by a Final EIR (FEIR) in November 2013. With the
FEIR date approaching, CAW would like to have the Desalination Infrastructure design-build
team in place so as to begin the design and permitting of the Desalination Infrastructure as soon
as possible upon issuance of the FEIR. A final order from the CPUC approving the entire
MPWSP is expected in January or February of 2014.
3.2 Project Background and Objectives
CAW has served the Monterey Peninsula since it acquired properties from California Water &
Telephone Company in 1966. CAWs Monterey service area is located in the semi-arid central
California coastal area that is entirely dependent on local rainfall for its water supply; imported
water is not an available option. By reason of its geography and rainfall patterns, the area is
prone to severe droughts. Wells located along the Carmel River that draw water from the

April 1, 2013
Page 4 of 21

Carmel River Aquifer are the primary source of water for CAW. An additional source of water
for CAW is a network of eight wells located in the Seaside Basin, which CAW shares with a
number of users and purveyors. The CAW Monterey service area, also known as the Monterey
District, includes six incorporated cities, the Monterey Airport District, the unincorporated areas
of Carmel Highlands, Carmel Valley, and Pebble Beach, and other unincorporated areas in
Monterey County. The City of Marina, unincorporated Castroville, and other areas of
unincorporated Monterey County lie north of the CAW service area. The proposed water supply
is needed to replace existing supplies that are constrained by recent legal decisions affecting
the Carmel River and Seaside Groundwater Basin water resources: State Water Resources
Control Board (SWRCB) Order No. WR 95-10 (Order 95-10); and, the Monterey County
Superior Court adjudication of water rights in the Seaside Groundwater Basin. Both rulings
reduce CAWs use of its two primary sources of supply for the Monterey District and provide the
most immediate impetus for the MPWSP. In addition, in October 2009, the SWRCB issued a
Cease and Desist Order (CDO) claiming that CAW had not complied with Order 95-10
requiring CAW to terminate unauthorized diversions from the Carmel River, and that these
diversions constitute a trespass of water. The CDO imposed a deadline of December 31, 2016
for CAW to reduce by approximately 70% its diversion of water from the Carmel River. The
MPWSP is the result of a multi-year planning effort that has considered several different
proposed projects and various related documents. Since 1989, several options have been
proposed that proponents have hoped would meet the water supply needs of the Monterey
Peninsula and address the impacts on the Carmel River underlying Order 95-10, as well as the
Seaside Basin adjudication. The objectives that were considered during development of the
MPWSP projects are as follows:
Satisfy CAWs obligations to meet the requirements of Order 95-10;
Diversify and create a reliable drought-proof water supply;
Protect the Seaside Groundwater Basin for long-term reliability;
Protect the local economy from the effects of an uncertain water supply;
Minimize water rate increases by creating a diversified water supply portfolio;
Minimize energy requirements and greenhouse gas emissions per unit of water
delivered to the extent possible;
Provide facilities that can accommodate sea level changes;
Explore opportunities for regional partnerships; and
Provide flexibility to incorporate alternative water supply sources, such as GWR.
3.3 Project Description
The Design-Build entity will be asked to provide all necessary permitting, engineering and
construction services to bring the Desalination Infrastructure on-line as close as possible to the
CDO deadline of December 31, 2016. The paragraphs below contain a narrative description of
the nature and composition of the facilities that are included as part of this procurement. Please
note that certain permits that relate to the entire MPWSP, such as the Coastal Development
Permit, will not be the responsibility of the Design-Build Entity, however, certain information from
the Design-Build Entity will be required to assist CAW in obtaining such permit. Refer to Exhibit
E for an illustrative list of permits. The Design-Build Entity will not finance, own, operate or
maintain the Project.
The desalination plant will be required to achieve specified performance standards during
acceptance testing and for a warranty period following acceptance. The warranty period is

April 1, 2013
Page 5 of 21

expected to be for a period of time in excess of one year. The specific standards that will be
required will be set forth in the RFP. A portion of the technical evaluation points under this RFQ
will be dedicated to the demonstrated ability of the Design-Build Entitys facilities to meet
required performance standards. Design-Build Entities are informed that the RFP will seek the
best proposals as evaluated over the life cycle of the Project. The evaluation of proposals
submitted pursuant to the RFP will take into account capital costs as well as anticipated
electricity, operation, maintenance, repair and replacement costs.
For detailed information on the project description, estimated costs, and project size please
refer to the Attachments in the Supplemental Testimony of Richard C. Svindland which can be
found under the Download area of the project website.
3.3.1 Brine Conveyance Pipeline
The Brine Conveyance Pipeline is needed to convey brine or concentrate from the desalination
plant to the headworks of the PCAs outfall, where it will mix with effluent from PCAs Regional
Treatment Plant (RTP) and be discharged to the ocean through the existing outfall diffusers.
For this Project, the Design-Build Entity is to assume the pipeline terminates at the fence line of
the desalination plant property.
3.3.2 Salinas Valley Desalinated Water Return Pipeline
The Return Pipeline is needed to convey desalinated water to the Salinas Valley Groundwater
Basin. For this Project, the Design-Build Entity is to assume the pipeline terminates at the fence
line of the desalination plant property.
3.3.3 Desalination Plant
The desalination plant is to be constructed on an approximately 46 acre site of currently vacant
and disturbed land owned by CAW located west of the RTP and adjacent to Charles Benson
Road. For most of the site, ground elevations range from 90 feet to 114 feet above sea level.
Structures and facilities at the site would consist of the following: feedwater receiving tanks; pre-
treatment process; filter backwash supply system; waste washwater storage and settling basin;
desalination process; post-treatment process and chemical systems; brine storage tanks;
desalinated water storage tanks and pumping station; and non-process facilities.
The following sections describe in concept each of these facilities:
Feedwater Receiving Tanks
Feedwater will be pumped from the feedwater intake wells directly to two above-ground
feedwater receiving tanks at the desalination plant site.
Pretreatment Process
Feedwater from the feedwater receiving tanks will be piped directly to pressure or gravity
multimedia sand filters for removal of small particles that could otherwise foul the downstream
cartridge filters and/or reverse osmosis (RO) membranes.

April 1, 2013
Page 6 of 21

Filter Backwash Supply System
The filters will be backwashed periodically (approximately once per day) using process filtrate
as backwash supply.
Waste Backwash Storage/Settling Basin
Waste from the backwashing process will flow from the filters by gravity to a basin.
Desalination Process
RO is a molecular separation process that uses semi-permeable membranes to remove salts in
saltwater and produce desalinated water (which is also called product water or permeate).
Pretreated seawater is forced at very high pressures through the membranes, and the water
molecules, smaller than almost all impurities, including salts, are selectively able to pass
through the membranes. The remaining impurities and residual water are discharged as
concentrate, which is commonly called brine.
Post-Treatment and Chemical Systems
Hardness, alkalinity, and pH of the product water would be adjusted after the RO process to
protect piping and plumbing materials and to make the water more compatible with the other
sources of supply in the CAW system. Facilities will be included at the desalination plant to add
carbon dioxide (to adjust alkalinity), followed by re-hardening (the addition of calcium), and
addition of sodium hydroxide (to adjust pH). Sodium hypochlorite will also be added for
disinfection.
Brine Storage Basin
If there is an interruption of brine discharge, brine would be diverted to a lined open basin on the
desalination plant site. This storage will provide time for the plant to remain in operation for a
short period to allow plant personnel to adjust or cease production and for system personnel to
increase production from other sources (ASR wells, Seaside wells, Begonia Iron Removal
Plant).
Desalinated Water Storage Tanks and Pumping Stations
Following post-treatment, desalinated water would flow by gravity to two on-site storage tanks,
called clearwells.
Non-Process Facilities
A building to house visitor reception, offices, restrooms, locker rooms, break rooms, conference
rooms, control room, laboratory, equipment storage and maintenance area, and electrical
service equipment for the adjacent Desalination/Post-Treatment/Chemical Building is required.
Power Supply
Power to the MPWSP intake wells and desalination plant would be supplied by the existing
power grid and no new power plant or other industrial emissions sources would be constructed.

April 1, 2013
Page 7 of 21

The Governance Committee Agreement, however, contemplates that subsequent to the
CPUCs issuance of the Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity, the Governance
Committee may issue decisions concerning procurement of alternative (non-Pacific Gas &
Electric) energy supplies for the Project, including but not limited to waste-to-energy, so long as
such decisions result in lowering the Projects estimated unit price for power. Thus, in addition
to the planned Pacific Gas & Electric connection, there is the potential for an additional power
supply for the Project.
3.3.4 Desalinated Water Conveyance
CAW Supply
Desalinated water will be pumped by the desalinated water pump station at the desalination
plant into a 36-inch diameter product water pipeline. For this Project, the Design-Build Entity
should assume the pipeline terminates at the fence line of the desalination plant property.
4. Schedule Summary
The following table is a summary of the anticipated timeline for the events in the RFQ and RFP
process (all of which are subject to change at CAWs sole discretion):
RFQ Process Due Date Due Time (all Pacific)
Published date April 1, 2013 N/A
Briefing Conference Call (not mandatory) April 12, 2013 11:00 am
Written questions due April 15, 2013 5:00 pm
Distribute answers to written questions April 19, 2013 5:00 pm
Submit SOQ May 1, 2013 4:00 pm
Interviews (if desired by CAW) May 6 May 24, 2013 TBD
Shortlist Notification May 31, 2013 5:00 pm

RFP Process Approximate Date Due Time
RFP and Draft DB Contract issued to short-listed
entities
June 17, 2013 TBD
Mandatory RFP Pre-proposal conference July 9, 2013 TBD
Meetings with proposers to discuss technical
issues
July 9 July 12, 2013 TBD
Meetings with proposers to discuss
legal/contractual issues
July 15 July 18, 2013 TBD
Proposer comments on DB Contact and written
questions due
July 31, 2013 TBD
CAW issues revised DB Contract and distributes
answers to written questions
August 16, 2013 TBD
Project Proposals due September 17, 2013 TBD
Proposal Interviews September 30 October
3, 2013
TBD

April 1, 2013
Page 8 of 21

Selection of preferred proposer October 9, 2013 TBD
Final DB Contract and all proposals to
Governance Committee for recommendation
October 21, 2013 TBD
Agreement Execution November 15, 2013 TBD

5. Submission Instructions and Requirements
5.1 Instructions
As part of the procurement process, it is important to maintain the same firms and personnel
identified as part of the SOQ when submitting a proposal in response to the RFP. Therefore,
any Design-Build Entity (firm) or team members (key personnel) listed and proposed in the SOQ
must be listed by the Design-Build Entity in the Proposal submitted during the subsequent RFP
process. Design-Build Entities must submit requests to substitute teams and team members for
good cause to CAW in writing for approval. Design-Build team and team member substitution
requests will cause CAW to re-evaluate a Design-Build Entitys SOQ and may cause CAW to
rescind a Design-Build Entitys invitation to participate in the RFP process, and possibly offer an
invitation to participate in the RFP process to another Design-Build Entity.
All prospective Design-Build Entities must complete EXHIBIT B - Questionnaire set forth
in this RFQ. Design-Build Entities not completing EXHIBIT B - Questionnaire, will not be
evaluated under EXHIBIT C Experience, as set forth in this RFQ, and their SOQ will not
be further evaluated.
Questions: Any questions arising during the RFQ process must be submitted in writing by
email to:
Lori Girard, Corporate Counsel
Email: Lori.Girard@amwater.com
Please no telephone calls.
Please identify the e-mail in the subject line as: MPWSP RFQ Questions. Written questions
should be submitted by the due date and time as required in the Schedule Summary table
above. Questions received after the date indicated may not be considered. Copies of all the
questions CAW chooses to answer, and the answers to those questions, will be distributed by
the date indicated in the Schedule Summary table above, in a written clarification document to
all Design-Build Entities Proposal Managers that have properly submitted Exhibit A.
Except as outlined above, prospective Design-Build Entities or anyone receiving the RFQ, shall
not contact, discuss with, or inquire of any CAW employee, any ineligible firm, County of
Monterey, official, representative or staff member, Monterey Peninsula Regional Water Authority
official, representative, technical advisory committee member or staff member, or Monterey
Peninsula Water Management District official, representative or staff member on any matter
relating to the Project, the MPWSP or this procurement process; provided, however, Design-
Build Entities may contact, discuss with, or inquire of any permitting agency, including those
identified above, about the Project or the MPWSP but only for the limited purpose and within the
limited scope of obtaining information relating to the permitting requirements for the Project.
This requirement is to ensure the integrity of the procurement process. Failure to comply with

April 1, 2013
Page 9 of 21

this requirement may result in immediate disqualification from the procurement process.
Information obtained outside this RFQ process cannot be relied upon as accurate.
The completed SOQ package which shall include one (1) original 3-ring binder and five (5)
Compact Discs (CDs) each with an electronic file copy in PDF-format must be received by:
Attention: Lori Girard, Corporate Counsel
511 FOREST LODGE ROAD, SUITE 100
PACIFIC GROVE, CA 93950
4:00 p.m. Pacific Time on Wednesday, May 1, 2013
The SOQ shall be limited to a five (5) double-sided page Executive Summary (10 pages total)
plus an Appendix containing the information as requested in this RFQ. The SOQ shall be
written on 8.5 x 11 inch paper with font size no smaller than 10-point and no larger than 14-
point. All exhibits, forms, resumes, and project experience should be included in the Appendix.
The electronic file copy shall be one compiled PDF document for ease of distribution. If file size
is restrictive (>10 MB), the PDF may be split into no more than three (3) separate PDF
documents.
No faxed copies will be accepted. Submittals shall be provided in sealed packaging that is
clearly marked with the Design-Build Entitys firm name, address, contact person(s), and phone
number, as well as "Statement of Qualifications for Design-Build of the Monterey Peninsula
Water Supply Project Desalination Infrastructure.
Submittals received after the specified time and date will not be considered and will be returned
unopened to the sender. THIS SUBMISSION DEADLINE WILL BE STRICTLY ENFORCED.
5.2 Submission Requirements
5.2.1 Questionnaire
Design-Build Entities must complete and submit the declaration and qualifications as described
in detail in the attached EXHIBIT B - Questionnaire. If the Design-Build Entity submits a
questionnaire that is incomplete, CAW reserves the right to request additional information from
the Design-Build Entity or to reduce the evaluation score.
The SOQ Evaluation Team will evaluate the Questionnaire for completeness, conformance to
project requirements, safety records, and history of violations, claims, arbitration and/or
litigation. A general description of the questions is provided below:
1. Declaration: The Design-Build Entity shall declare that the information provided in the
Questionnaire has been prepared using reasonable diligence and is true and complete
to the best of the signers knowledge.
2. Design-Build Team: Identify firms proposed by the Design-Build Entity to be part of the
Design-Build Team. Each responding Design-Build Entity must submit qualifications (as
described in EXHIBIT C - Experience) for firms, including: a General Contractor,
appropriately licensed in California, as well as an Engineer of Record, a Process Design

April 1, 2013
Page 10 of 21

Lead, an Electrical Design Lead, a Design Project Manager, and a Commissioning
Manager, all of which must also be appropriately licensed in California. In addition, the
Design-Build Entity should submit qualifications for other firms and the qualifications
each brings to the team, or any other notable design consultant(s), each appropriately
licensed in California. These or combinations of the above disciplines may be provided
by a single firm or by several firms.
3. Licensure: Submission of evidence demonstrating possession of all required licenses,
registration, and credentials that are required to design and construct the Project in
California.
4. Financial Information: Submission of evidence, including financial statements, that
establishes that the Design-Build Entity has the capacity to perform the work under the
Project and to obtain all required payment and performance bonding as identified in
EXHIBIT B - Questionnaire. To this end, the Design-Build Entity may propose to
supplement its financial strength by proposing a parent or affiliate company Guarantor to
guarantee all of the obligations of the Design-Build Entity under the design-build
contract. A Design-Build Entity will not be pre-qualified pursuant to this RFQ based on
financial information provided by an entity that will not have a contractual relationship
with CAW (either through the design-build contract or through a parent company
Guaranty Agreement). Accordingly, a parent company guaranty will be required if a
Design-Build Entity chooses to submit financial information for pre-qualification from an
entity other than the entity proposed to serve as the Design-Build Entity under the
design-build contract with CAW.
All of the financial information provided in Exhibit B for the Design-Build Entity shall also
be provided for the Guarantor, including a Guarantor Acknowledgment Form as set forth
in Exhibit F signed by a representative of the Guarantor who is authorized to sign such
form and to commit the Guarantor of its obligations contained in the Guarantor
Acknowledgment. A Certificate of Authorization (Attachment 1 to the Guarantor
Acknowledgment) attesting to such authorization must also be submitted. If the
Guarantor is a partnership, the Guarantor Acknowledgment shall be signed by one or
more of the general partners. If the Guarantor is a corporation, an authorized officer
shall sign his or her name and indicate his or her title beneath the full corporate name.
If the Guarantor is a joint venture, an authorized representative of each firm in the joint
venture shall sign a separate Guarantor Acknowledgment. Anyone signing as an agent
must file with it legal evidence of his or her authority to execute such Guarantor
Acknowledgment. If there are multiple Guarantors, each shall be jointly and severally
liable and each shall enter into an independent Guaranty Agreement. If the Guarantor
is a joint venture, each member firm of the joint venture shall independently execute the
Guaranty Agreement.
It is CAWs preference that the Design-Build Entity or, if applicable, the Guarantor be a
sufficiently capitalized United States entity. If either the Design-Build Entity or the
Guarantor is other than a United States entity, the respondent shall describe any
procedural or substantive limitations on the ability of CAW to enforce the DB Contract or
Guaranty Agreement against the Design-Build Entity or the Guarantor, as applicable.
For purposes hereof, a United States entity is one that is incorporated domestically or
otherwise duly organized under the laws of the United States.

April 1, 2013
Page 11 of 21

5. Safety: Submission of evidence indicating safety performance of the Design-Build
Entity. Refer to EXHIBIT B - Questionnaire for specific questions relating to safety.
6. Insurance: Submission of evidence that establishes that the Design-Build Entity has the
capacity to obtain liability insurance, Workers Compensation, and errors and omissions
insurance, and other insurance requirements as identified in EXHIBIT B - Questionnaire.

7. Termination/Failure to Complete; Violations; Claims, Arbitration and Litigation:
Submission of information and details concerning all of the items listed below. For some
items listed there are specific references to California law. In addition to providing
responses for such items with respect to California law, please also respond with respect
to similar laws and regulations in states other than California and countries other than
the United States of America.
7.1 Any bid, performance or payment bond called or a surety company required to
finish work, on any project by any member of the Design-Build Entity on or after
January 1, 2003.
7.2 Construction or design claims or litigation with alleged damages totaling more
than five hundred thousand dollars ($500,000) against any member of the
Design-Build Entity on or after January 1, 2003.
7.3 Violations of the California Occupational Safety and Health Act, as provided in
Part 1 (commencing with Section 6300) of Division 5 of the Labor Code, settled
against any member of the Design-Build Entity on or after January 1, 2003.
7.4 Violations of federal, state or local law, including, but not limited to, those laws
governing the payment of wages, benefits, or personal income tax withholding, or
of Federal Insurance Contributions Act withholding requirements, state disability
insurance withholding, or unemployment insurance payment requirements,
settled against any member of the Design-Build Entity on or after January 1,
2003. For the purposes of this sub-clause, only violations by a Design-Build
Entity member as an employer shall be deemed applicable, unless it is shown
that the Design-Build Entity member, in his or her capacity as an employer, had
knowledge of his or her subcontractor's violations or failed to comply with the
conditions set forth in subdivision (b) of Section 1775 of the Labor Code.
7.5 Information and details that the Design-Build Entity or its members, any officer of
the Design-Build Entity or its members, or any employee of the Design-Build
Entity or its members who has a propriety interest in the Design-Build Entity, has
ever been disqualified, removed, or otherwise prevented from bidding on, or
completing a federal, state, or local government project because of a violation of
law or a safety regulation on or after January 1, 2003.
7.6 Violations of the Contractors State License Law (Chapter 9 (commencing with
Section 7000) of Division 3 of the Business and Professions Code), excluding
alleged violations or complaints, on or after January 1, 2003.
7.7 Conviction of any member of the Design-Build Entity of submitting a false or
fraudulent claim to a public agency on or after January 1, 2003.

April 1, 2013
Page 12 of 21

7.8 Violations of environmental laws or environmental compliance conditions
resulting in issuance of a Notice of Violation or other action on or after January 1,
2003.
7.9 Violations of prevailing wage or other labor laws on or after January 1, 2003.
7.10 Declaration that the Design-Build Entity will comply with all other provisions of
law applicable to the Project, including, but not limited to, the requirements of
Chapter 1 (commencing with Section 1720) of Part 7 of Division 2 of the Labor
Code.
CAW, when requested by the Design-Build Entity, shall use reasonable efforts to hold in
confidence any information provided in response to items 7.1 to 7.9, above. Notwithstanding
the foregoing, CAW will not be responsible or liable in any way for any losses that the Design-
Build Entity may suffer from the disclosure of information or materials to third parties.
5.2.2 Experience
Each Design-Build Entity must complete and submit its experience as described below and in
the attached EXHIBIT C - Experience. The Design-Build Entity, its team, and key personnel
experience will be evaluated by the SOQ Evaluation Team and allocated points for the relative
merit of written data and responses to the following sections.
1. Design-Build Team:
a. Organizational Chart
b. Firm Profiles
2. Personnel Resumes:
a. Key Design-Build Entity Management Personnel Resumes
b. Key Design Team Personnel Resumes
c. Key Construction Team Personnel Resumes
3. Project Profiles:
a. Design Experience
b. Construction Experience
4. Project References
5. Project Approach
Submit evidence that establishes the Design-Build Entity and the Design-Build team (firms)
have completed, or demonstrate the capability to complete, projects of similar size, scope, or
complexity, and that proposed key personnel have sufficient experience and training to
competently manage and complete the design and construction of the Project.
Submit any evidence that establishes the Design-Build Entity, the Design-Build team (firms) and
key personnel have completed projects with any of the following characteristics:
water/wastewater facilities; water/wastewater facilities in California; desalination facilities and
related infrastructure; facilities with SCADA systems; facilities with post-treatment for corrosion
control and stability; energy efficient facilities; sustainable green design facilities; and/or
extensive/complex permitting requirements.

April 1, 2013
Page 13 of 21

Submit evidence that projects designed, built and/or commissioned (or operated if a Design-
Build-Operate project) by the Design-Build Entity have successfully passed acceptance testing
and have performed following testing in accordance with expected performance standards.
Submit evidence of the Design-Build Entitys experience obtaining regulatory approvals for
similar projects.
Submit evidence of the Design-Build Entitys experience commissioning similar projects.
Submit evidence of the Design-Build Entitys experience addressing issues of maintainability
and adaptability of the facility over time to new technologies or processes.
If the Design-Build Entity does not submit all necessary information, CAW reserves the right to
request additional information from the Design-Build Entity or to reduce the evaluation score.
Firm Profiles, Personnel Resumes, and Project Profiles must clearly identify the relevance of
specific project experience to the requirements of the proposed Project.
The information provided must clearly identify the relevance of each example in regard to the
requirements of the Project. The Design-Build Entity should provide specific project-related
experience and individual team histories in Design-Build delivery, relevance of size, scope, and
complexity. In order for a project to qualify as relevant, the information submitted must
demonstrate that the teams or the individual key personnels involvement with the project began
at the initial stages and extended through completion and acceptance of the project by the
owner. If applicable, provide examples of projects the team members and key personnel have
previously completed together.
1 Design-Build Team:
A. Provide an organizational chart as part of the Appendix demonstrating the proposed
make-up of the participants in the Design-Build Entitys team. The organizational chart
assists the evaluators in understanding how the team envisions working together. The
RFP phase will include the development of a detailed management plan. The
organizational chart will be scored based upon its clarity in identifying the key teams and
key personnel, and in describing the relationships between the team members during
design, construction, and commissioning. Identify the firms in the Design-Build Entity
and their anticipated contractual relationship. List major sub-consultants and
subcontractors on the team.
B. For the Design-Build Entity and for each team member listed in EXHIBIT B -
Questionnaire, submit firm profiles with company history and significant
accomplishments, providing evidence that establishes the firm has completed or
demonstrates that the firm has the capability to complete projects of similar size, scope
and complexity to the proposed Project. Submit any evidence that establishes the
Design-Build Entity and the team members have completed projects with any of the
following characteristics: water/wastewater facilities; California water/wastewater
facilities; desalination facilities and related infrastructure; facilities with SCADA systems;
facilities with post-treatment for corrosion control and stability; energy efficient facilities;
sustainable green design facilities; and/or extensive/complex permitting requirements.
The profile for the Design-Build Entity shall be limited to eight (8) double-sided pages.

April 1, 2013
Page 14 of 21

The profiles for other Design-Build team members shall be limited to one (1) double-
sided page for each profile. The profiles shall be part of the Appendix.
2 Key Personnel Resumes:
Submit resumes of key personnel who will be assigned to this Project and who will contribute a
significant effort. Each resume must include name, qualifications and the anticipated degree of
involvement during each of the design, construction, and commissioning phases of the Project.
The resumes should provide evidence that the key personnel have sufficient experience and
training to competently manage and complete the design and construction of the Project.
Personnel resumes shall be limited to one (1) double-sided page in length for each resume and
shall be part of the Appendix. Submit the following resumes:
A. Key Design-Build Entity Management Personnel Resumes: Key personnel include:
Project Executive, Design Principal, Construction Principal, and any other management
team leaders with key responsibility for day-to-day execution of the Project.
B. Key Design Team Personnel Resumes: Key personnel include professionals who will be
assigned to this Project to provide quality control, and design leadership. Identify any
specialty design consultants, or any other notable design consultant(s).
C. Key Construction Team Personnel Resumes: Key personnel include professionals who
will be assigned to this Project to provide schedule, quality control, safety and
construction leadership in specific areas of the work.
D. Key Commissioning Team Personnel Resumes: Key personnel include professionals
who will be assigned to this Project to provide schedule, quality control, and
commissioning leadership.
Design-Build Entities are encouraged to submit additional resumes as necessary to fully
communicate any special knowledge or capabilities to be provided by the team.
3 Project Profiles:
Each Design Build Entitys SOQ shall include the design and construction project profiles
described herein. Project profiles must be completed using the applicable Project Profile
Information Sheet provided in EXHIBIT C Experience.
Each project profile should clearly identify the relevance of the project described to this Project.
Include a narrative addressing the design/construction philosophy and salient features for each
project. Indicate the degree of involvement by key construction personnel proposed in the SOQ
for each project. Additional information, photos and other graphic materials may be included.
Project profiles shall be limited to projects completed on or after January 1, 2003. Project
profiles are to be limited to two (2) double-sided pages total per submitted project and shall be
part of the Appendix.
Submit the following project profiles:

April 1, 2013
Page 15 of 21

A. Design-Build Entitys Experience: Submit a portfolio of project profiles representative of
the Design-Build Entitys experience.
Each Design-Build Entity shall provide design and construction project profiles for five
(5) projects completed on or after January 1, 2003. These profiles are independent from
Specialty Consultant and General Contractor profiles discussed separately below.
Clearly identify the relevance of each project. Project profiles are to demonstrate the
teams design, construction and commissioning experience on similar projects in terms
of significant new construction, complexity, scope, function, size, fixed price, cost
control, dollar value, and Design-Build experience. Provide information regarding any
national, regional, or local awards or recognitions received for exceptional design,
construction, architectural, or environmental achievements. Project experience may be
shown for design, construction and maintenance of all projects, public and private.
B. Engineer of Records Experience: Submit a portfolio of project profiles for up to four (4)
projects completed after January 1, 2003 representative of the Engineer of Records
ability. List at least two (2) projects with a construction cost each in excess of $50 million
dollars. List at least two (2) projects using the Design-Build delivery method.
Provide examples of completed projects of similar complexity to this Project and
describe the design approach. Include information that addresses the General
Contractors ability to create a project demonstrating:
1. Commitment to complete the work in good faith to meet the stakeholders vision for
the site, and as articulated in the project goals, objectives and design criteria, and in
a partnership, collaborative approach with project owners.
2. Demonstrated experience and expertise in the following areas:
a. Analysis and Design
i. Design of water and wastewater facilities, particularly those in California.
ii. Design of desalination facilities
iii. Design of water treatment facilities utilizing post-treatment application of
chemicals to the water for corrosion control and stability.
iv. Design energy efficient facilities and sustainable green design facilities.
v. Knowledge of treatment of water for the purpose of meeting water quality
standards.
vi. Knowledge of SCADA/Control Experience for water treatment facilities.
vii. Ability to successfully manage multiple, complex permit process.
b. Construction and Field Engineering
i. Field engineering and construction implementation of large-scale projects. To
include conforming and adapting the design to unknown/unknowable
subsurface and field conditions, and/or field conditions which may change
during the course of the construction phase, in a manner that does not
compromise prevailing design criteria.
ii. Development of construction documents and other resources to enable
systematic adaptation of the design to unknown/unknowable subsurface

April 1, 2013
Page 16 of 21

conditions in real time during construction, in a manner that does not
compromise prevailing design criteria.
iii. Successful sustained design collaboration with construction contractor to
optimize designs with respect to field conditions during the construction period,
including development and implementation of design adjustments within short
timeframes.
iv. Proactive management, anticipation of long-lead items, and identification and
resolution of construction and design bottlenecks to limit delays in construction
progress.

3. Ability to discuss and review project issues with stakeholder groups having diverse
technical backgrounds, organizational mandates and interest levels relative to the
project.
4. Coordination with permitting and regulatory agencies, and successful negotiation and
completion of permit modifications while minimizing schedule effects.
C. General Contractors Construction Experience: Submit a portfolio of project profiles for
up to six (6) projects completed after January 1, 2003 representative of the Constructors
ability to provide construction excellence. List at least three (3) projects with a
construction cost each in excess of $50 million dollars. List at least three (3) projects
using the Design-Build delivery method.
Provide examples of projects completed of similar complexity to this Project and
describe the construction approach. Include information that addresses the General
Contractors ability to construct a project demonstrating:
1. Commitment to complete the work in good faith to meet the stakeholders vision for
the site, and as articulated in the project goals, objectives and design criteria.
2. Demonstrated experience and expertise in the following areas:
a. Construction implementation of large-scale projects. To include conforming and
adapting the design to unknown/unknowable subsurface and field conditions,
and/or field conditions which may change during the course of the construction
phase, in a manner that does not compromise prevailing design criteria.
b. Successful sustained collaboration with other contractors to optimize designs
with respect to field conditions during construction, including development and
implementation of design adjustments within short timeframes
c. Proactive management, anticipation of long-lead items, and identification and
resolution of construction and design bottlenecks to limit delays in construction
progress.
d. Construction of water/wastewater facilities, particularly those in California.
e. Construction of desalination facilities.
f. Construction of reverse osmosis treatment technology.

April 1, 2013
Page 17 of 21

g. Construction of energy efficient facilities and sustainable green design facilities.
h. Ability to adjust operations to changing field conditions in order to expeditiously
complete the work.
i. Post-construction testing, start-up and commissioning.
3. Ability to discuss and review project issues with stakeholder groups having diverse
technical backgrounds, organizational mandates and interest levels relative to the
project.
4. Coordination with permitting and regulatory agencies, and successful negotiation and
completion of permit modifications while minimizing schedule effects.
D. Other Major Team Members Experience: Submit a portfolio of project profiles for up to
three (3) projects completed after January 1, 2003 per major team member
representative of the abilities of other major team member firms and major sub-
consultants and subcontractors.
Provide examples of projects completed where the firm performed a role similar to their
proposed involvement in this Project.
4 Project References:
Provide Project References as part of the Appendix for each project profile submitted. The
reference should be from the projects owner or the project owners representative. Each
reference must include at least the following information:
- Project name and the references firm name, contact name, contacts title, phone
number, e-mail address and relationship to the project.
5 - Project Approach:
Provide the Design-Build Entitys approach to addressing Design-Build projects including the
philosophy and approach to the design of projects similar in size, scope, and complexity. This
section is limited to three (3) double-sided pages and shall be part of the Appendix. The Design-
Build Entity shall also demonstrate its understanding of Design-Build projects by identifying
those features and risks that are critical to Design-Build projects with a description of how those
features and risks have been addressed to ensure successful projects.
The Design-Build Entity shall demonstrate a clear understanding of the need and process for
ensuring that CAW receives the quality product required in design, construction, and
commissioning. Each Design-Build Entity shall identify specifically who will be responsible for
its quality program and how it will be developed and managed. In particular, each Design-Build
Entity shall define its internal and external design review process, field inspection process,
submittal review process, deficiency identification, correction and tracking process, non-
conformance process, and level of senior management involved. The Design-Build Entity shall
also identify the Quality Assurance/Quality Control (QA/QC) officer for the Project and their
projected time on-site during design and construction of the Project. This individual must have

April 1, 2013
Page 18 of 21

experience as a QA/QC officer during at least two (2) similar projects. This section is limited to
three (3) double-sided pages and shall be part of the Appendix.
The design member of the Design-Build Entity shall submit a summary of its standard QA/QC
plan, which outlines the design quality management program to be used on the Project. The
builder member of the Design-Build Entity shall submit an example of a QA/QC plan, which
demonstrates the construction quality management program to be used on the Project. This
section shall be part of the Appendix.
Points will be allocated based upon the Design-Build Entitys response to the following items:
1. How has the Design-Build Entity ensured the design was in conformance with the
contract, complied with CEQA and other environmental requirements, and addressed
the risks involved with this type of work?
2. How has the Design-Build Entity ensured a high level of quality and that the intent of
the design was fulfilled during construction? Describe the Design-Build Entitys
philosophy to producing quality projects and the approach to quality control that
ensures the highest level of design and construction. Provide information on the
approach to minimizing warranty callbacks and provide documentation to attest to
the success of this approach. Describe how good coordination has been achieved
between design disciplines and how it was communicated to the construction
team(s). Include documentation illustrating how the Design-Build Entity minimizes
design errors and omissions in the construction documents
3. How has the Design-Build Entity limited the impact on adjacent neighborhoods and
ensured good relations with the community?
4. How has the Design-Build Entity addressed safety and security on site?
5. How has the Design-Build Entity addressed its commitment to complete the project
within the contract time?
6. How has the Design-Build Entity addressed its commitment to work collaboratively
and in partnership with project owners? Does the Design-Build Entity have any
experience with utilizing a formal Partnering process on previous projects?
7. How has the Design-Build Entity addressed its method of managing sub-consultants,
subcontractors and suppliers?
8. How has the Design-Build Entity addressed its utilization of WMDVBE firms and its
utilization of local contractors, laborers and suppliers?
9. What is the number and value (individually and per project) of change orders initiated
by the Design-Build Entity on or after January 1, 2003?
10. How has the Design-Build Entity addressed its responsiveness to the project owner
after project completion, including correction of deficiencies in work?

April 1, 2013
Page 19 of 21

11. How has the Design-Build Entity addressed the maintainability and adaptability of the
facility over time to new technologies or processes?
5.2.3 Interview
If CAW determines interviews with one or more respondents to this RFQ are desired, the
interviews would provide the opportunity to clarify and elaborate on the written material
previously submitted in the SOQ and to give the Selection Committee the opportunity to meet
key personnel. Key personnel as identified in the SOQ should attend the interview. Additional
personnel from the Design-Build team may attend the interview as determined by the Design-
Build Entity.
6. Selection Criteria
The SOQs will be evaluated based on two major categories: technical and financial. For
purposes of selecting the shortlisted firms that will receive the RFP, SOQs will be evaluated
using the following criteria:
Team/Technical Qualifications - 70 points
Design-Build Entity/Project Team
Project Manager
Key Project Staff
Design Experience
Construction Experience
Schedule Management Experience
DB or DBO Experience
Regulatory Compliance and Permitting Experience
Commissioning Experience
Safety Experience
QA/QC Experience and Program
Satisfaction of Acceptance and Performance Requirements
Project Approach
Environmental Law Compliance Experience
Prevailing Wage and Other Labor Law Compliance Experience
WMDVBE Firm Hire Experience
Local Firm Hire Experience
References
Financial Qualifications - 30 points
Financial Strength (Design-Build Entity and Guarantor, if applicable)
Ability to obtain required security for performance
______________________________________________________

Total - 100 points

April 1, 2013
Page 20 of 21

The evaluation of the technical and financial qualifications will be based on the SOQs received,
correspondence with the Design-Build Entity and personnel references, and an analysis of other
publicly available information.
CAW may conduct such investigations, as it deems necessary or appropriate, to assist in the
evaluation of any submittal and to establish to CAWs satisfaction the responsibility,
qualifications, and financial ability of any Design-Build Entity.
CAW, at its sole discretion, has the right to seek clarifications from each of the Design-Build
Entities that submits an SOQ in order to fully understand the nature of the submissions and
evaluate the Design-Build Entities.
7. Other Rules and Procedures
7.1 CAW Rights and Procurement Conditions
CAW reserves, holds without limitation, and may exercise, at its sole discretion, the rights and
conditions with regard to this RFQ set forth below. Such rights and conditions are in addition to
and shall not serve to limit any of the specific rights and conditions set forth in this RFQ. By
responding to this RFQ, respondents acknowledge and consent to the following CAW rights and
conditions:
1. CAW reserves the right to terminate the procurement process by written notice to the
respondents for any reason whatsoever.
2. CAW reserves the right, for any reason, to decide not to award a contract as a result
of this procurement process.
3. CAW reserves the right to waive any defect, technicality or any other informality or
irregularity in any SOQ.
4. CAW reserves the right to change or alter the schedule for any events associated
with this procurement process upon notice to the respondents, and a respondent by
submitting the SOQ agrees to be bound by any schedule modification made by
CAW.
5. CAW reserves the right to eliminate any respondent that submits an incomplete or
inadequate response, or is not responsive to the requirements of this RFQ, or is
otherwise deemed to be unqualified during any stage of the procurement process.
6. CAW reserves the right, at any time, to determine that any or all respondents will not
be qualified for further consideration and to notify such respondents of CAWs
determination.
7. CAW reserves the right to require respondents to send representatives for interviews
and presentations.
8. CAW reserves the right to request additional information and to conduct clarification
discussions, at any time, with one or more respondents.

April 1, 2013
Page 21 of 21

9. CAW reserves the right, at any time prior to execution of a contract, to change the
required services, to omit services, or to include services not currently contemplated.
10. CAW reserves the right, without prior notice, to supplement, amend or otherwise
modify this RFQ, or otherwise request additional information.
11. CAW reserves the right to receive questions concerning this RFQ from potential
respondents and to provide such questions, and CAWs responses, if any, to all
registered respondents.
12. CAW reserves the right to visit and examine any of the facilities referenced in the
SOQs and to observe and investigate the operations of such facilities.
13. CAW reserves the right throughout the procurement process to conduct independent
investigations with respect to the qualifications and experience of each respondent
included in its SOQ, by contacting project references, accessing public information,
contacting independent parties, or any other means, and reserves the right to
request additional evidence to support any such information.
14. CAW reserves all rights to take any action affecting the RFQ process, the RFP
process, or the Project that is determined to be in CAWs best interests.
7.2 Expenses of the Design-Build Entities
CAW accepts no liability or responsibility for the costs and expenses incurred by the Design-
Build Entities in responding to this RFQ, the RFP, responses to clarification requests and
resubmittals, potential interviews, clarification meetings or negotiations. Each Design-Build
Entity that enters into the procurement process shall prepare the required materials and
submittal at its own expense and with the express understanding that it cannot make any claims
whatsoever for reimbursement from CAW for the costs and expenses associated with the
process.
7.3 Use of Information
Regardless of whether CAW awards a design-build contract, all SOQs submitted in response to
this RFQ and proposals submitted in response to the forthcoming RFP, including the data,
information, concepts and ideas contained therein, will become the property of CAW and CAW
shall have the right to use such SOQs and proposals in any manner or combination it so elects,
without notice or the consent of the respondent(s).
7.4 Confidential Information
Per section V.D. of the Governance Committee Agreement, at the appropriate time CAW will
provide the Governance Committee a copy of all responsive SOQs, proposals or bids received
for the pertinent work, except for any proprietary information provided by contractors submitting
responsive SOQs, proposals or bids. If respondents identify such proprietary information in
their SOQs, CAW will use reasonable efforts to hold in confidence such proprietary information.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, CAW will not be responsible or liable in any way for any losses
that the Design-Build Entity may suffer from the disclosure of information or materials to third
parties.

REQUEST FOR QUALIFICATIONS EXHIBIT A Design-Build Entitys Proposal Manager
Desalination Infrastructure
April 1, 2013
1248829.6 001092 MRK

EXHIBIT A - DESIGN-BUILD ENTITYS PROPOSAL MANAGER
April 1, 2013

REQUEST FOR QUALIFICATIONS EXHIBIT A Design-Build Entitys Proposal Manager
April 1, 2013
A-1

DESIGN-BUILD ENTITYS PROPOSAL MANAGER
Name of Design-Build Entity:

Design-Build Entitys Proposal Manager:

Name:

Title:

Firm/Company:

Address:

Telephone No.: Fax No.:

Email address:

E-mail this form to:

Attention: Lori Girard, Corporate Counsel
Email: Lori.Girard@amwater.com
Note: Any substitution of Design-Build Entitys Proposal Manager for the RFQ and RFP process
shall be made in writing to CAW and shall subject the DB Entity to re-evaluation. Submit written
request to the above address.

REQUEST FOR QUALIFICATIONS EXHIBIT B Questionnaire
April 1, 2013



EXHIBIT B - QUESTIONNAIRE
1. DECLARATION
2. DESIGN-BUILD TEAM
3. LICENSURE
4. FINANCIAL INFORMATION
5. SAFETY
6. INSURANCE
7. TERMINATION/FAILURE TO COMPLETE: VIOLATION; CLAIMS
EXHIBIT 1 GENERAL STATEMENT OF BANK CREDIT
EXHIBIT 2 BONDS AND INSURANCE
April 1, 2013

April 1, 2013
B-1
1248829.6 001092 MRK

NOTICE TO DESIGN BUILD ENTITIES

EXHIBIT B - QUESTIONNAIRE
Name of Design-Build Entity: ____________________________________________
IMPORTANT PLEASE READ AND COMPLETE QUESTIONNAIRE
BEFORE SIGNING:
Design-Build Entity must sign the declaration below, in addition to specific declarations as
required, that the information provided in EXHIBIT B - Questionnaire is true and correct.
1. DECLARATION
I, __________________________________________________, authorized agent of the
Design-Build Entity,
___________________________________________ (Design-Build Entity), hereby declare
that the information provided in EXHIBIT B - Questionnaire has been prepared using reasonable
diligence and is true and complete to the best of my knowledge.
Signed: ______________________________________ Dated: _________

April 1, 2013
B-2
1248829.6 001092 MRK
2. DESIGN-BUILD TEAM
Organization: (Check the applicable organization.) Corporation_____,
Partnership______, Joint-Venture_____, Sole Proprietor______, Other______
Design-Build Entity
Role: D-B Entity Primary Contact License No.
Name/Firm/Address:

Phone No.:

Fax No.
General Contractor
Name/Firm/Address:

Phone No.:

Fax No.
Number of years in business under current Company name:_________
Other
Name/Firm/Address:

Phone No.:

Fax No.
Identify the other firms proposed for this Design-Build Entity:

April 1, 2013
B-3
1248829.6 001092 MRK
2. DESIGN-BUILD TEAM (continued)
For the General Contractor, please provide the following information for each of the following
three categories (1) within California, (2) within the United States (including California), and (3)
worldwide (including the United States):
1. Number of full-time employees:
a. Office: ________
b. Field: ________
2. Annual value of work your company has performed in the last three (3) years:
a. 2012:
b. 2011:
c. 2010:
d. 3 Year Average:

3. What percentage of the ThreeYear Average of No. 2 was in the area of
water/wastewater facilities construction (water treatment plants, pumping stations,
intakes, etc.): ________%.
4. Number of full-time superintendents for water/wastewater projects: ________
5. Number of project managers for water/wastewater projects: ________
6. List the types of work which will be performed by the General Contractors own forces:
7. List work General Contractor will subcontract:


April 1, 2013
B-4
1248829.6 001092 MRK
Design Consultants:
Indicate the role in the Design-Build team by circling either D-B Entity or Sub-consultant.
Engineer of Record
Role: (D-B Entity or Sub-consultant) Primary Contact License Class/No.
Name/Firm/Address:

Phone No.:

Fax No.
Email: Website:
Type:_________________________
Role: (D-B Entity or Sub-consultant) Primary Contact License No.
Name/Firm/Address:

Phone No.:

Fax No.
Email: Website:
Type:__________________________
Name/Firm/Address:

Phone No.:

Fax No.
Email: Website:

April 1, 2013
B-5
1248829.6 001092 MRK
Other: _______________________
Name/Firm/Address:

Phone No.:

Fax No.
Email: Website:
Other:________________________
Name/Firm/Address:

Phone No.:

Fax No.
Email: Website:
Other:__________________________
Name/Firm/Address:

Phone No.:

Fax No.
Email: Website:

April 1, 2013
B-6
1248829.6 001092 MRK
Other:___________________________
Name/Firm/Address:

Phone No.:

Fax No.
Email: Website:


April 1, 2013
B-7
1248829.6 001092 MRK
Specialty Consultants:
Type: : __________________________
Name/Firm/Address:

Phone No.:

Fax No.
Email: Website:
Type: : __________________________
Name/Firm/Address:

Phone No.:

Fax No.
Email: Website:
Type: : __________________________
Name/Firm/Address:

Phone No.:

Fax No.
Email: Website:

April 1, 2013
B-8
1248829.6 001092 MRK
Type: __________________________
Name/Firm/Address:

Phone No.:

Fax No.
Email: Website:

April 1, 2013
B-9
1248829.6 001092 MRK
Construction Subcontractors:
Type: : __________________________
Name/Firm/Address:

Phone No.:

Fax No.
Email: Website:
Type: : __________________________
Name/Firm/Address:

Phone No.:

Fax No.
Email: Website:
Type: : __________________________
Name/Firm/Address:

Phone No.:

Fax No.
Email: Website:

April 1, 2013
B-10
1248829.6 001092 MRK
Type: : __________________________
Name/Firm/Address:

Phone No.:

Fax No.
Email: Website:

ATTACH ADDITIONAL SHEETS AS REQUIRED.


April 1, 2013
B-11
1248829.6 001092 MRK
3. LICENSURE
1. All Design-Build Entities must have a General Contractor actively licensed in the State of
California. Provide the following information.
Company Name:
(under which license is held)
__________________________________________________________________
Contractors State of California A or B License Number, name under which license is held, and
expiration date:
License No. _______________
Name:_______________________________________ Exp. Date: ________
a. Has this license ever been revoked?
Yes ___________ No ___________
If so, please explain below or on a separate attachment:
b. Has the company had any violations of the Contractors State License Law (Chapter 9
commencing with Section 7000) of Division 3 of the Business and Professional Code),
excluding alleged violations or complaints?
Yes ___________ No ___________
If so, please explain each incident below or on a separate attachment:

April 1, 2013
B-12
1248829.6 001092 MRK
3. LICENSURE (continued)
2. All Design-Build Teams must include an Engineer of Record licensed in the State of California.
Provide the following information:
Company Name:
__________________________________________________________________
Engineers License Number, name under which license is held, and expiration date:
SE No.__________________________
Name:_________________________________________ Exp. Date: _________
Yes ___________ No ___________
b. Has the company had any violations, disciplinary, citations, and/or criminal action from the
California Board of Professional Engineers and Land Surveyors, excluding alleged violations or
complaints?
Yes ___________ No ___________

April 1, 2013
B-13
1248829.6 001092 MRK
3. LICENSURE (continued)
3. Other firms licensed in the State of California. Provide the following information:
Company Name:
__________________________________________________________________
License Number, name which license is held, and expiration date:
License No. __________________________
Name:____________________________________ Exp. Date: ______________
Yes ___________ No ___________
b. Has a complaint ever been filed with the State License Board against you or your company that
required a formal hearing or inquiry?
Yes ___________ No ___________

April 1, 2013
B-14
1248829.6 001092 MRK
4. FINANCIAL INFORMATION
1. Financial Statements and Supplementary Information
Financial pre-qualification will be established by determining capacity to perform the contract in the
following manner:
a. Working capital is determined from the most recent balance sheet submitted, by subtracting
current liabilities from current assets.
b. Available lines of credit or other credit facilities are then added to the working capital, and the
sum is multiplied by ten.
c. Uncompleted work on contracts, which have been awarded to you (backlog), will be subtracted
from the amount determined in paragraph b. above.
d. The number resulting from paragraph c. above must be greater than $70,000,000.
Should the Design-Build Entity not qualify on the basis of the above calculation, CAW will consider
any alternative information the Design-Build Entity can provide that, in its sole judgment, assure
CAW the Design-Build Entity has the capacity to perform the Project Agreement. This information
must include the required data described below, and sufficient supplementary analysis and
description as needed to clearly present the Design-Build Entitys position. This information must be
submitted with the SOQ. It is the Design-Build Entitys responsibility to make the above-described
calculation and determine if additional information will be required to demonstrate the Design-Build
Entitys ability to perform the Project Agreement.
2. Information you must submit includes:
a. Full set of financial statements for the Design-Build Entitys (each member if partnership or joint
venture) most recent three (3) complete fiscal years, accompanied by either an audit or review
report prepared by an independent Certified Public Accountant. Compiled or internally
prepared financial statements will not be accepted. Statements, which are older than six
months, must be supplemented by internally prepared financial statements, which update the
information to no more than six months from the date of submission. Such statements must be
prepared in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles, including all required
informative disclosures.
b. Letter from a financial institution in support of available lines of credit or other facilities, if the
Design-Build Entity wishes them to be considered in qualification. See Exhibit 1 (General
Statement of Bank Credit) for example.
c. Schedule indicating contracts, which have been awarded to the Design-Build Entity, and
reconciling the original award, any amendments, completed portion and uncompleted portion of
such contracts. This is the Design-Build Entitys backlog of work awarded but not yet complete.
d. D&B rating, credit scores, annual reports for publicly traded firms, and a breakdown of what is
owned versus what is leased, in the way of equipment/buildings.

April 1, 2013
B-15
1248829.6 001092 MRK
4. FINANCIAL INFORMATION (continued)
3. Surety and Bonding Requirements
a. Approximate bonding capacity: $_______________per project, aggregate $_______________
b. Attach a notarized statement from the bonding company the Design-Build Entity proposes to
use indicating the bonding companys commitment to provide a performance and payment
bond for at least $100,000,000. Refer to Exhibit 2 (Bonds and Insurance) attached to this
Qualification Questionnaire for bonding requirements for this project.
c. List the names of bonding companies utilized by the firm in the last five (5) years, for projects
over $70 million. (State the number of times the bonding company has completed any part of
your work during the last five (5) years.

April 1, 2013
B-16
1248829.6 001092 MRK
5. SAFETY
1. Provide a written safety policy, mission statement or other document addressing the company's
attitude and responsibility towards worker safety and the safety of the general public during
construction. (NOTE: Please do not send full copies of safety manuals. If desired, in addition to the
above, an index or Table of Contents from the manual is sufficient.)
2. Provide your Safety Officers qualifications, work experience, authority, job duties, percentage of
time spent in fulfilling his duties as safety officer, and who this individual reports to.
3. Safety Performance
a. Please consolidate your firms injury and illness data for the last ten (10) years, on or after
January 1, 2003, for the General Contractor and complete the table below. The information
provided must be for your company as a whole, not individual office locations. Provide copies
of your OSHA 300 and OSHA 300A logs for the last 3 years.
Event
Year
2003
Year
2004
Year
2005
Year
2006
Year
2007
Year
2008
Year
2009
Year
2010
Year
2011
Year
2012
A. Average Number of
Employees.

B. Number of Fatalities.
(Total from Column G of
OSH 300 Log)

C. No. of cases that
involved days away
from work, or cases
with job transfer or
restrictions, or both.
(Totals from Columns H
and I of OSH 300 Log)

D. Other Recordable
Cases Medical Only.
(No. of cases without
lost or restricted
workdays.) (Totals from
Column J of OSH 300 Log)

E. Total Recordable
Cases. (Totals from
Columns G +H+I+J of OSH
300 Log)

F. Total Hours Worked.
G. OSHA Total Recordable
Incident Rate:
(E above) x
200,000/Employed Hours
Worked (Given Year)

H. OSHA Lost Workday
Case Incident Rate:
(C above) x
200,000/Employed Hours
Worked (Given Year)

For each fatality, please attach a description of the accident, including cause, actions taken
resulting from that fatality and actions taken to prevent future fatalities.

April 1, 2013
B-17
1248829.6 001092 MRK
b. Please list all OSHA (or other health and safety agency) violations issued against your
company for the last ten (10) years, on or after January 1, 2003. Please include a description
for each offense. Also, please provide us with all the names of legal entities under which you
perform work.

April 1, 2013
B-18
1248829.6 001092 MRK
5. SAFETY (continued)
c. Please provide your Worker's Compensation Experience Ratings (Experience Modifier) for the
past ten (10) years, on or after January 1, 2003.
1.
________
(Year)
________
(EMR)
2.
________
(Year)
________
(EMR)
3.
________
(Year)
________
(EMR)
4.
________
(Year)
________
(EMR)
5.
________
(Year)
________
(EMR)
6.
________
(Year)
________
(EMR)
7.
________
(Year)
________
(EMR)
8.
________
(Year)
________
(EMR)
9.
________
(Year)
________
(EMR)
10.
________
(Year)
________
(EMR)

Please attach the endorsement page from your policy listing your EMR, or have your insurance
carrier or broker provide this information on their letterhead.
If your EMR exceeds 1.0 for any one or more years, please explain:
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
d. Please have each subcontractor fill out this questionnaire as well.

April 1, 2013
B-19
1248829.6 001092 MRK
6. INSURANCE
Refer to Exhibit 2 (Bonds and Insurance) attached to this Qualification Questionnaire for insurance
requirements for this project. Each policy of insurance carried by the Design-Build Entity for this project
shall be issued by an insurance company approved to do business in California with a rating classification
of A- or better and a financial size category rating of VII or better according to the latest addition of
AM Bests.
Attach a notarized statement from the Workers Compensation carrier specifying contractors current
Experience Modification Rating for Workers Compensation for the State of California. Also, attach a
declaration from an insurance broker that such limits as described in Exhibit 2 are obtainable by the
Design-Build Entity submitting this application from an insurance company as described above.

April 1, 2013
B-20
1248829.6 001092 MRK
7. TERMINATION/FAILURE TO COMPLETE; VIOLATIONS; CLAIMS,
ARBITRATION AND LITIGATION
1. Provide a declaration certifying that applying members of the Design-Build Entity have not had a
performance or payment bond called, or a surety company finish work on any project on or after
January 1, 2003.
Declaration:
I, _____________________________________________, authorized agent of the
Design-Build Entity, hereby certifies that the members of
_________________________________________________________ (Design-Build Entity),
have not had a performance or payment bond called, or a surety company finish work on any
project on or after January 1, 2003. I hereby declare that the above information has been
prepared using reasonable diligence and is true and complete to the best of my knowledge.
Signed: ________________________________Dated: ____________________

April 1, 2013
B-21
1248829.6 001092 MRK
ARBITRATION AND LITIGATION (continued)
2. Provide information and details below for any construction or design claim, arbitration or litigation
with alleged damages totaling more than five hundred thousand dollars ($500,000) or five (5)
percent of the annual value of work performed, whichever is less, settled against any member of
the Design-Build Entity on or after January 1, 2003.
a. PROJECT: _____________________________________________________________________________________
Location: ________________________________________________________________________________________________
Amount of Claim: $____________________________ Resolution Yes No Date: ___________________________
Nature of Claim: ___________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Final Status: ______________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________________________

b. PROJECT: _____________________________________________________________________________________

Location: ________________________________________________________________________________________________


Nature of Claim: ___________________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Final Status: ______________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
c. PROJECT: __________________________________________________________________________________

Location: ________________________________________________________________________________________________
Nature of Claim: ___________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________________________

April 1, 2013
B-22
1248829.6 001092 MRK

________________________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Final Status: ______________________________________________________________________________________________

April 1, 2013
B-23
1248829.6 001092 MRK
3. Provide information and details below for any serious violations of the California Occupational
Safety and Health Act, as provided in Part 1 (commencing with Section 6300) of Division 5 of the
Labor Code, settled against any member of the Design-Build Entity.
_____________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________
4. Provide information and details of any violations of federal or state law, including, but not limited to,
those laws governing the payment of wages, benefits, or personal income tax withholding, or of
Federal Insurance Contributions Act (FICA) withholding requirements, state disability insurance
withholding, or unemployment insurance payment requirements, settled against any member of the
Design-Build Entity on or after January 1, 2003. For the purposes of this subclause, only violations
by a Design-Build Entity member as an employer shall be deemed applicable, unless it is shown
that the Design-Build Entity member, in his or her capacity as an employer, had knowledge of his or
her subcontractor's violations or failed to comply with the conditions set forth in subdivision (b) of
Section 1775 of the Labor Code.
_____________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________

April 1, 2013
B-24
1248829.6 001092 MRK
5. Provide information and details that the Design-Build Entity or its members, any officer of the
Design-Build Entity or its members, or any employee of the Design-Build Entity or its members who
has a propriety interest in the Design-Build Entity, has ever been disqualified, removed, or
otherwise prevented from bidding on, or completing a federal, state, or local government project
because of a violation of law or a safety regulation on or after January 1, 2003, and if so explain the
circumstances (Public Contract Code Section 10162).
_____________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________
6. Provide information and details of any violations by the Design-Build Entity of the Contractors State
License Law (Chapter 9 (commencing with Section 7000) of Division 3 of the Business and
Professions Code), excluding alleged violations or complaints.
_____________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________

April 1, 2013
B-25
1248829.6 001092 MRK
7. Provide information and details of any conviction of any member of the Design-Build Entity of
submitting a false or fraudulent claim to a public agency on or after January 1, 2003.
_____________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________
8. Violations of environmental compliance conditions resulting in issuance of a Notice of Violation or
other action on or after January 1, 2003.
_____________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________
DECLARATION
I, ___________________________________________________, authorized agent of the
Design-Build Entity,
______________________________________________ *Design-Build Entity), hereby declare
that the information provided in EXHIBIT B - Questionnaire, questions 7.2 to 7.7 has been
prepared using reasonable diligence and is true and complete to the best of my knowledge.
Signed:__________________________________________ Dated: _____________________


April 1, 2013
B-26
1248829.6 001092 MRK
9. Provide a declaration that the Design-Build Entity will comply with all other provisions of law
applicable to the project, including, but not limited to, the requirements of Chapter 1 (commencing
with Section 1720) of Part 7 of Division 2 of the Labor Code.
Declaration:
I, _________________________________, authorized agent of the Design-Build Entity, hereby
declare that __________________________________________________
(Design-Build Entity) will comply with all other provisions of law applicable to the Project,
including, but not limited to, the requirements of Chapter 1 (commencing with Section 1720) of
Part 7 of Division 2 of the Labor Code.
Signed: ______________________________________ Dated: _______________

April 1, 2013
Page 1 of 2
1248829.6 001092 MRK
EXHIBIT 1

GENERAL STATEMENT OF BANK CREDIT

------------------------------------------
(Date)
Bank Reference # ------------------------------------------
Gentlemen:
In connection with the pre-qualification of
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------,
(Name of Design-Build Entity)

we hereby declare that the Design-Build Entity has been extended a line of credit in a total
amount not exceeding $ _____________________________, and that such credit will not be
withdrawn or reduced without notice to CAW.
This letter is signed with the understanding that it is a document to be used by CAW only for the
purpose of determining the financial resources of the Design-Build Entity available for use in
performing a Design-Build Agreement on the Project, which may be awarded by CAW.
This General Statement of Bank Credit supersedes and replaces any General Statement of
Bank Credit from the same Bank, which may have been filed with the current Design-Build
Entitys Statement of Experience and Financial Condition and will EXPIRE with the Annual
Contractors Statement of Experience and Financial Condition for which the line of credit was
issued.
------------------------------------------------------------------
(Name of Bank)
------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------------------------------------------
(Address)
By --------------------------------------------------------------
(Signature of Bank Representative)
----------------------------------------------------------------
(Printed name and Title)
----------------------------------------------------------------
(Phone)

April 1, 2013
Page 2 of 2
1248829.6 001092 MRK
PLEASE NOTE: This form is optional and may be used to augment your Working Capital or
help your firm establish a rating when completed by your bank; if they prefer, one with the same
provisions may be issued on the banks own letterhead.

April 1, 2013
Page 1 of 2

EXHIBIT 2

INSURANCE
Insurance
This Exhibit 2 is illustrative of the types of insurance CAW expects to require for the
Project. The specific insurance coverage required shall be identified in the RFP.
At no expense to CAW, DESIGN/BUILDER shall (1) obtain and keep in force during the term of this
Agreement, and any renewals or extensions hereof, and (2) either extend its own insurance such that it
covers its subcontractors or require its subcontractors to obtain and keep in force during the terms of their
respective contracts, the following minimum insurance limits and coverage. The insurance coverage limits
stated below are minimum coverage requirements, not limitations of liability, and shall not be construed in
any way as American Waters acceptance of the responsibility of DESIGN/BUILDER. This exhibit is
illustrative of the requirements, the RFP will indicate the specific insurance requirements for the project.
1. Commercial General liability:
$1,000,000 per occurrence Combined Single Limits
$1,000,000 General Aggregate
$1,000,000 Products and Completed Operations Aggregate
CGL ISO 1996 or later Occurrence form including Premises and Operations Coverage, Products and
Completed Operations, Coverage for Independent contractors, Personal Injury Coverage and Blanket
Contractual Liability, and Contractors Protective Liability if the DESIGN/BUILDER subcontracts to
another all or any portion of the Work. Completed Operations shall be maintained for a period of three
(3) years following Final Completion for any construction, renovation, repair and/or maintenance
service.
2. Workers Compensation
A. Applicable Federal or State Requirements: Statutory Minimum Employers Liability:
Each Accident $1,000,000
Each Employee Disease $1,000,000
Policy Limit Disease $1,000,000
B. Other States insurance.
The Workers Compensation policy shall also include U.S. Longshoreman and Harbors Workers
Compensation Act Coverage, if any Work shall be done over or within 100 feet of any body of water,
or otherwise at the sole discretion of Water Company. It shall provide maritime (Jones Act) coverage
if a boat or vessel of any type is used
3. Automobile Liability (including owned, hired, borrowed and non-ownership liability)
Bodily Injury and Property Damage $1,000,000 each accident Combined Single Limits
4. Umbrella Liability
$50,000,000 each occurrence and annual aggregate in excess of Employers Liability, General
Liability and Automotive Liability (no more restrictive than underlying insurance)
5. Professional Liability Professional Liability or Errors and Omissions insurance acceptable to
American Water covering DESIGN/BUILDERs liabilities for loss due to error, omission, negligence,

April 1, 2013
Page 2 of 2
1248829.6 001092 MRK
mistakes, or failure to take appropriate action in the performance of business or professional duties of
their employees in the amount of at least $10,000,000 per claim and in the aggregate shall be
procured and maintained during the contract term and for a period of at least one (1) year after
completion of the contract evidenced either by renewal of the policy for one year or by endorsement
or addition of an Extended Reporting (or Discovery) Period for at least one year following the policy
expiration date. Policy shall be endorsed to provide contingent bodily injury and property damage
liability coverage.
6. Builders Risk The DESIGN/BUILDER shall be required to obtain and maintain the required
insurance to be specified in the design-build contract, including builders risk insurance during
construction.
7. Environmental Impairment Liability (EIL) or Pollution Liability - The DESIGN/BUILDER shall be
required to obtain and maintain insurance covering losses caused by pollution conditions that arise
from the DESIGN/BUILDERs work.


REQUEST FOR QUALIFICATIONS EXHIBIT C Experience
April 1, 2013
1248829.6 001092 MRK



EXHIBIT C - EXPERIENCE
A. PROJECT PROFILES (DESIGN-BUILD ENTITY)
B. PROJECT PROFILES (ENGINEER OF RECORD)
C. PROJECT PROFILES (GENERAL CONTRACTOR)
D. PROJECT PROFILES (OTHER TEAM MEMBERS)

April 1, 2013

April 1, 2013
C-1
1248829.6 001092 MRK
PROJECT PROFILES - INFORMATION SHEET
A. DESIGN BUILD ENTITY
Name of Firm: _______________________________________________________________
Submit profiles for five (5) projects completed on or after January 1, 2003 or under current contracts that
represent similar type work as this Project. Clearly identify the relevance of each project. Photos and
other graphic materials may be included. Water/wastewater experience is of importance. Submittal of an
equivalent project listing form is acceptable, provided it contains the requested information.
Project Manager (for Architect): _______________________________________________________________________________
Principal In Charge: ________________________________________________________________________________________
Project Name & Description: _________________________________________________________________________________
Location: ________________________________________________________________________________________________
Owner: _______________________________ Representative: _________________________ Telephone: __________________
General Contractor:________________________________ Engineer of Record: _______________________________________
Mechanical Engineer: ______________________________ Electrical Engineer: ________________________________________
Structural Engineer: _____________________________ Other Relevant Consultants: ___________________________________
Project Type: _______________________________________________ Capacity (if applicable): __________________________
Scheduled Completion Date: ______________________________ Actual Completion Date: ______________________________
Explain Difference, if any: ___________________________________________________________________________________
Original Contract Amount: ____________________________________ Final Contract Amount: ____________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Delivery Method: ________ Design/Build ____________ Design/Bid/Build Other: _______________________________
Describe role in the Delivery Method: __________________________________________________________________________
Sustainable Building Measure Incorporated:
1. Desalination (describe) _ ________________________________________________________________________
2. SCADA (describe) ____________________________________________________________________________
3. Energy efficient facilities and sustainable green design facilities (describe) _________________________________
4. Post-treatment for corrosion control/stability (describe) ________________________________________________
5. Complex permitting (describe) ____________________________________________________________________
Other Relevant Factors: (Managing the design & construction process, cost estimating, Project Controls, etc.) _________________
_ _______________________________________________________________________________________________________
ATTACH ADDITIONAL SHEETS AS REQUIRED

April 1, 2013
C-2
1248829.6 001092 MRK
PROJECT PROFILES INFORMATION SHEET
B. ENGINEER OF RECORD
Name of Firm: _______________________________________________________________
Submit examples of relevant projects completed on or after January 1, 2003 or under current contract (at
least one must be in California). Clearly identify the relevance of each project. Photos and other graphic
materials may be included. Water/wastewater experience is of importance. Submittal of an equivalent
project listing form is acceptable, provided it contains the requested information.

Project Manager (for ______________________________): ________________________________________________________
Principal in Charge: ________________________________________________________________________________________
Project Name & Description: _________________________________________________________________________________
Location: ________________________________________________________________________________________________
Owner: ____________________________ Representative: _____________________________ Telephone: _________________
General Contractor: ____________________________________ Engineer of Record: ___________________________________
Structural Engineer: ____________________________________ Mechanical Engineer: _________________________________
Civil Engineer: __________________________________ Electrical Engineer: __________________________________________
Other Relevant Consultants: _________________________________________________________________________________
Project Type: _________________________________________________ Capacity: (if applicable) _________________________
Scheduled Completion Date: ___________________________________ Actual Completion Date: _________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
2. SCADA (describe) ____________________________________________________________________________

_ _______________________________________________________________________________________________________

April 1, 2013
C-3
1248829.6 001092 MRK
C. GENERAL CONTRACTOR
Name of Firm: _______________________________________________________________
Project Name & Description: __________________________________________________________________________________
Location: ________________________________________________________________________________________________
Project Type: _________________________________________________ Capacity: (if applicable) _________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
2. SCADA (describe) ____________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________________________

April 1, 2013
C-4
1248829.6 001092 MRK
D. OTHER TEAM MEMBERS (PERMITTING, PROCESS, SCADA, ELECTRICAL, ETC.)
Name of Firm: _______________________________________________________________
Project Name & Description: __________________________________________________________________________________
Location: ________________________________________________________________________________________________
Project Type: _________________________________________________ Capacity: (if applicable) ________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
2. SCADA (describe) ____________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
ATTACH ADDITIONAL SHEETS AS REQUIRED

REQUEST FOR QUALIFICATIONS EXHIBIT D Ineligible Firms
April 1, 2013
1248829.6 001092 MRK



EXHIBIT D - INELIGIBLE FIRMS

April 1, 2013

REQUEST FOR QUALIFICATIONS EXHIBIT D Ineligible Firms
April 1, 2013
D-1

Ineligible Firms
The following firms are ineligible from the Design-Build Entity, or the Design-Build Entitys team:
RBF Consulting
Trussell Technologies
URS Corporation
Kris Helms Consulting
Separation Processes, Inc.


REQUEST FOR QUALIFICATIONS EXHIBIT E Illustrative List of Permits
April 1, 2013
1248829.6 001092 MRK



EXHIBIT E ILLUSTRATIVE LIST OF PERMITS

April 1, 2013

April 1, 2013
E-1

Illustrative List of Permits
The following is an illustrative list of permits that could be expected for the Project and the party
anticipated to be responsible for obtaining such permits. The final list of permits, and the entity
responsible for obtaining such permits will be provided in the RFP.

Federal Agencies
Regulatory Agency Regulatory Permit, Authorization or Approval
Responsible
Party

U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (USFWS),
Ecological Services Branch
Biological Opinion or letter of concurrence and
Incidental Take Statement as a result of coordination
under Section 7 Endangered Species Act, (ESA)
CAW
National Oceanic &
Atmospheric Administration
(NOAA)
Consultation under Section 305(b), Magnuson-
Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act
(16 U.S.C. Section 1855(b))
CAW
National Oceanic &
Atmospheric Administration
(NOAA), National Marine
Sanctuary Program (NMSP),
Monterey Bay National
Marine Sanctuary (MBNMS)
Authorization under the MBNMS Management Plan
and the National Marine Sanctuary Program (15
Code Fed. Regs. Part 922)
CAW
U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers (USACE)
Individual or Nationwide Permit in accordance with
Section 404 Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. Section
1344)
CAW

State Agencies

Responsible
Party

Regional Water Quality
Control Board (RWQCB)
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) General Permit For Storm Water
Discharges Associated With Construction Activity
(WQO No. 2009-0009-DWQ) D/B Entity

Waste Discharge Requirements (WDR) per Porter-
Cologne Water Quality Control Act. (Water Code
Section 13000 et seq.) D/B Entity
Water Quality Certification in accordance with
Section 401 Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. Section
1341) D/B Entity
California State Lands
Commission
Land Use Lease (Right-of-Way Permit) (Pub. Res.
Code Section 6000 et seq.; 14 Cal. Code Regs.
Section 1900 et seq.) CAW
California Department of
Fish and Game (CDFG)
Incidental Take Permit in accordance with the
California Endangered Species Act (CESA) (Fish &
Game Code Section 2081) CAW

April 1, 2013
E-2

State Agencies

Responsible
Party

California Coastal
Commission (CCC)
Coastal Development Permit in accordance with the
California Coastal Act (Pub. Res. Code Section
30000 et seq.) CAW
Public Health (CDPH)
Permit to Operate a Public Water System (Health &
Safety Code Section 116525) D/B Entity
Parks and Recreation Office
of Historic Preservation
Coordination under Section 106 of the National
Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) (16 USC 470 et
seq.) CAW
Transportation (Caltrans)
Encroachment Permit (Streets & Highway Code
Section 660 et seq.) D/B Entity

Local/Regional Agencies
Responsible
Party

Monterey County
Encroachment Permit (Monterey County Code Title
14 Chapter 14.040) D/B Entity
Use Permit (Monterey County Code Chapter 21.74) D/B Entity

Combined Development Permit Process (Monterey
County Code Chapter 21.76) D/B Entity
Coastal Development Permit (See CCC Above) CAW

Grading Permit (Monterey County Code Chapter
16.08) D/B Entity

Erosion Control Plan (Monterey County Code
Chapter 16.12) D/B Entity

Protected Tree Removal Permit (Monterey County
Code Chapter 16.60) D/B Entity

Permit to Construct Desalination Treatment Facilities
(Monterey County Code Chapter 10.72) CAW
Monterey Peninsula Water
Management District
(MPWMD)
Water System Expansion Permit in accordance with
Ordinance 96 of the MPWMD Board of Directors
CAW
Monterey Bay Unified Air
Pollution Control District
(MBUAPCD)
Authority to Construct in accordance with Local Rule
3.1 D/B Entity
Permit to Operate in accordance with Local Rule 3.2 D/B Entity

REQUEST FOR QUALIFICATIONS EXHIBIT F Guarantor Acknowledgment Form
April 1, 2013
1248829.6 001092 MRK



EXHIBIT F GUARANTOR ACKNOWLEDGMENT FORM

April 1, 2013

REQUEST FOR QUALIFICATIONS EXHIBIT F Guarantor Acknowledgment Form
April 1, 2013
F-1
1248829.6 001092 MRK
GUARANTOR ACKNOWLEDGMENT FORM
(to be typed on Guarantors Letterhead)
_____________ (the Design-Build Entity) has submitted herewith a Statement of
Qualifications (SOQ) in response to the Request for Qualifications from Prospective Design-
Build Entities for the Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project Desalination Infrastructure, as
amended, (the RFQ) issued by California American Water (CAW), pursuant to which it is
seeking to be qualified by CAW to provide the services described in the RFQ. CAW will issue a
Request for Proposals (RFP) to the pre-qualified Design-Build Entities that will require the
selected Design-Build Entity to enter into an agreement to perform the services, to comply with
all applicable permits, licenses, approvals and other applicable law, and to perform the other
related and ancillary services described in the RFP.
The Guarantor has reviewed the Design-Build Entitys SOQ which will form the basis for
pre-qualification. The Guarantor hereby acknowledges and represents that it intends to
guarantee pursuant to a Guaranty Agreement to be agreed upon by the Guarantor and CAW,
which agreement will be based on the draft Guaranty Agreement issued with the RFP, the
performance of all of the Design-Build Entitys obligations under the design-build contract to be
agreed upon by the Design-Build Entity and CAW, which contract will be based on the draft
design-build contract issued with the RFP, if the Design-Build Entity is issued an RFP by CAW
and selected for negotiation and execution of the design-build contract.
_____________________________________
Name of Guarantor
_____________________________________
Name of Authorized Signatory
_____________________________________
Signature
_____________________________________
Title


Agenda Report

Item No: 6.

08/12

FROM: Executive Director Reichmuth

SUBJECT: Review 2013 -2014 Budget for Public Outreach and Provide Comments to Staff

RECOMMENDATION:

Provide guidance and direction to staff regarding scope and price of planned public
outreach/public information for Fiscal Year 2013-14 agency budget.

DISCUSSION:

At the most recent Authority meeting, Directors requested staff for a more fully developed public
outreach and information program than what the initial budget draft had intended, primarily
website improvements and televising meetings. Using information from the undersigned
experience and some rather helpful information provided by the Transportation Agency for
Monterey County, a possible program for a significant increase in scope would involve the
following elements:

Consultant Services $45,000

Materials production

Research

Brochure design

Direct mail design

Website Update/Redevelopment $15,000
Polling $40,000
Focus Groups (4) $40,000
On-line Survey and Two Kiosks $25,000
Brochure and Direct Mail Production $150,000
(est 52,000 copies/mailing)

Speakers' Bureau Support $20,000
Translations (Spanish, etc.) $3,000
Conferences and Meetings $10,000

Televising Meetings $14,000

TOTAL $362,000


Given that the Authority will likely want a reduced scope, I've asked the Board's Clerk Milton to
revise the draft budget for Fiscal Year 2013-14 to reflect a line item total of $250,000 so as to
enable the Board to evaluate overall budget impacts.

ATTACHMENTS:

Proposed Fiscal Year 2013-2014 Budget


Proposed Budget FY 2013-14

Adopted
Budget
12-13
Carry
Over
From
12-13
Proposed
Budget
NO PR
Funds
Requested
NO PR
Proposed
Budget
WITH PR
Funds
Requested
WITH PR
Professional Services

Legal Counsel $20,000 $4,500 $63,000 $58,500 $63,000 $58,500

Attorney of Record $149,412 $0 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000

Staff $35,000 $0 $35,000 $35,000 $35,000 $35,000

Financial Advisor
Services $12,500 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Executive Director $131,868 $63,548 $94,680 $31,132 $94,680 $31,132
Studies $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $0 $10,000 $0
Project Evaluation $86,650 $1,545 $20,000 $18,455 $20,000 $18,455
Contract Assistance $0 $0 $15,000 $15,000 $15,000 $15,000
Travel

$0 $0 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000
Public Outreach $0 $0 $0 $0 $362,000 $362,000
Insurance $4,000 $86 $7,000 $6,914 $7,000 $6,914
Audit $5,000 $0 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000
Contingency $22,295 $2,738 $20,000 $17,262 $20,000 $17,262

Total Budget
FY 13-14 $476,726 $82,417 $374,680 $292,263 $736,680 $654,263

Member City Contributions

Member City
Approved
%
Distribution
Total
Contributions
FY 2012-13
Total
Contributions
FY 2013-14
-No PR
Total
Contributions
FY 2013-14
-WITH PR
Carmel By the Sea 9.30% $44,336 $27,180 $60,846
Sand City 1.30% $6,197 $3,799 $8,505
City of Pacific Grove 18.80% $89,624 $54,945 $123,001
City of Seaside 22.00% $104,880 $64,298 $143,938
City of Monterey 46.50% $221,678 $135,902 $304,232
City of Del Rey Oaks 2.10% $10,011 $6,138 $13,740
Total Income $476,726 $292,263 $654,263
Total Budget $476,726 $374,680 $736,680

* Carry Over Balance Reduces total Contribution


Agenda Report

Item No: 7.

08/12


SUBJECT: Receive Update Report from Cal Am Regarding Compliance with Conditions for
Authority Support of Cal Am Desal Project (Bowie)

DISCUSSION:



Agenda Report

Item No: 8.

08/12


SUBJECT: Receive Update and Provide Direction for California Public Utilities Commission
Testimony Hearing for Application (A-12-01-019) (Burnett)

DISCUSSION:



MPRWA Regular Meeting Agenda Packet 04-11-13 PDF

Transféré par

Informations du document

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

MPRWA Regular Meeting Agenda Packet 04-11-13 PDF

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Agenda

Monterey Peninsula Regional Water Authority (MPRWA)

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi