TAC MPRWA Agenda Packet 06-03-13

7/28/2019 TAC MPRWA Agenda Packet 06-03-13

1/22

AgendaMonterey Peninsula Regional Water Authority (MPRWA)

Technical Advisory Committee (TAC)Regular Meeting

2:00 PM, Monday, June 3, 2013Council Chamber580 Pacific Street

Monterey, California

CALL TO ORDER

ROLL CALL

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

REPORTS FROM TAC MEMBERS

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

APPROVAL OF MINUTES

1. May 6, 2013

2. May 23, 2013 Special Meeting

AGENDA ITEMS

3. Review and Provide Direction Regarding Term Sheet for Power Sales Agreement from theMonterey Regional Waste Management District to Cal Am for Powering DesalinationFacilities (Merry)

4. Discuss and Make Recommendations Regarding Revised Ground Water ReplenishmentDraft Criteria (Stoldt/Israel)

5. Receive Update and Discuss the Draft Request for Proposal for Design Build Services forthe Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project

ADJOURNMENT

The Monterey Peninsula Regional Water Authority is committed to include the disabled in all ofits services, programs and activities. For disabled access, dial 711 to use the California Relay


2/22

Created date 05/31/2013 12:01 PM Monday, June 3, 2013

2

Service (CRS) to speak to staff at the Monterey City Clerks Office, the Principal Office of theAuthority. CRS offers free text-to-speech, speech-to-speech, and Spanish-language services24 hours a day, 7 days a week. If you require a hearing amplification device to attend ameeting, 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 publicinspection during the meeting or may be requested from the Monterey City Clerks Office at 580Pacific St, Room 6, Monterey, CA 93940. This agenda is posted in compliance with CaliforniaGovernment Code Section 54954.2(a) or Section 54956.


3/22

M I N U T E SMONTEREY PENINSULA WATER AUTHORITY (MPRWA)

TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE (TAC)Regular Meeting

2:00 PM, Monday, May 6, 2013COUNCIL CHAMBER

FEW MEMORIAL HALLMONTEREY, CALIFORNIA

Members Present: Burnett, Stoldt, Riedl, Alternate Member Bob Holden, Narigi, Riley

Members Absent: Huss

Staff Present: Legal Counsel, Executive Director, Clerk

CALL TO ORDER

Chair Burnett called the meeting to order at 2:06 p.m.

ROLL CALL

Chair Burnett announced that Member Siegfried has stepped down from the TAC and hethanked him for his service.



Chair Burnett invited reports from TAC members and had no requests to speak. He thenreported that the California Public Utilities Commission hearings had concluded and he wouldpresent a more detailed report later in the meeting. He also requested that items 4, 5, and 6 bediscussed simultaneously.

PUBLIC COMMENTS

Chair Burnett invited public comments for items not on the agenda and had no requests tospeak.

APPROVAL OF MINUTES

Chair Burnett invited comments on agenda items one and two. Member Riedl requested onecorrection to the minutes of April 15, 2013.

1. April 1, 2013Action: Approved


4/22

MPRWA TAC Minutes Monday, May 6, 2013

2

2. April 15, 2013Action: Approved

On a motion by Member Stoldt, seconded by Member Narigi, and carried by the following vote,the Monterey Peninsula Regional Water Authority TAC approved the minutes of April 1, 2013

and April 15, 2013 as amended.

AYES: 5 DIRECTORS:Burnett, Stoldt, Riedl, Narigi, Riley

NOES: 0 DIRECTORS: NoneABSENT: 1 DIRECTORS: HussABSTAIN: 1 DIRECTORS: HoldenRECUSED: 0 DIRECTORS: None

AGENDA ITEMS

3. Receive Report on California Public Utilities Commission Settlement Conference (Burnett)Action: Received Report

Chair Burnett reported on a workshop preceding the initial CPUC Settlement meeting on April25, 2013 hosted by the Authority and the Monterey Peninsula Water Management District. Allparties that submitted intervening applications for the California Public Utilities Commission(CPUC) application A1204019 Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project (MPWSP) wereinvited to attend as well as the public. He indicated this meeting was to precede the formalsettlement meetings and to engage on the full range of topics which will be under negotiationprior to being bound by CPUC rules requiring confidentiality of discussions. Chair Burnett noteda productive discussion, including the issue of brine discharge which the Authority has nottaken a position on. Chair Burnett then opened the discussion to comments from others thatattended the Workshop.

Member Stoldt acknowledged a productive meeting and spoke to the identification of 15 issues.Member Riley commented that most of the issues were the same which were discussed duringthe evidentiary meetings.

Chair Burnett opened the item to public comment. Nelson Vega questioned the current status ofthe confidential negotiations and requested feedback if the Authoritys positions would prevail.He then asked what the process will be for reconsideration of items in a public venue beforefinal action is taken. Dale Heckhuis expressed concerns about formulating a settlementagreement in the absence of critical information. He also expressed concern that the project isoperating on state imposed deadlines, and encouraged engaging or advocating for the publicinterest now, or risk being less relevant. With no further requests to speak, Chair Burnett closedpublic comment and responded to Mr. Vega's comments. He indicated he would only advocatefor the Authority adopted policy decisions and if there was a need to take a position on an itemoutside of the policy agreement, he would bring it back before the Authority.

4. Discuss Ground Water Replenishment Draft Criteria (Stoldt/Israel)Action: Discussed with Items 5 & 6

Member Stoldt introduced items 4, 5 and 6 and spoke to the need to develop draft criteria for


5/22


3

the Ground Water Replenishment (GWR) project prior to the CPUC hosted GWR workshop inJune of 2013. He reported that the CPUC has requested a more defined criteria for inclusion ofhow the GWR project would interact in the overall Monterey Peninsula water supply solution.The signed Memorandum of Understanding for the Governance Committee includes the needfor development of specific GWR criteria and the Authority has indicated that Cal Am is not theright party to develop or evaluate the criteria but that it should be left in the hands of the public

agencies.

He noted that the TAC reviewed the draft criteria at the April 15, 2013 meeting, the GovernanceCommittee then evaluated and approved, and additionally the MPWMD Water SupplySubcommittee also reviewed and revised the criteria. Member Stoldt then spoke to the draft listprovided in the packet and outlined the changes from the previous version. He noted that aqualification regarding debt equivalence should also be included. Member Stoldt answeredquestions from the TAC.

Cal Am Representative Catherine Bowie commented that Cal Am is amenable to amending theGovernance Committee agreement to allow the public agencies authority to make the decisionfor GWR to proceed.

Member Narigi questioned who would be conducting the cost benefit analysis of theenvironmental policy externalities and if there was a timeline update to GWR progress.Alternate Holden projected that GWR is projected to be online by the end of 2016. MemberStoldt reported on the feasibility work which is expected to be completed in six to eight weeks.

Member Narigi questioned the status of conversations with the Agricultural Community.Alternate Member Holden reported that there have been recent meetings with the City ofSalinas to discuss opportunities for utilization of their produce wash water and storm water.Discussions are also occurring with the Marina Coast Water District regarding their wastewater. Chair Burnett followed up by reporting on a meeting with Salinas Mayor Gunter, CityManager Corpus and the Director of Public Works and indicated they are scheduled to come

and talk to the Authority in the near future. Salinas Representatives understand impacts fromwater shortages on the Peninsula will impact Salinas as well. They that the partnership willbring jobs and stability to the region. They are also looking for a more cost effective process fortheir waste water, which will benefit the agricultural opportunities.

Member Riley agreed that the subject of debt equivalency, should be included within the criterialist.

Chair Burnett opened public comment on items 4 5 or 6. Nelson Vega spoke to the lack ofanswers but instead justifications for not requesting an extension for the cease and desist

order. He then questioned why Salinas would give away their waste water rather than processand utilize in their own region to minimize the salt water intrusion. Last, he questioned waterrights and the logic between ownership of sewer water and salt water and crossing jurisdictionallines. Tom Rowley spoke representing the Monterey Peninsula Taxpayers Association spoke tothe Notice of Preparation for the Environmental Impact Report and to potential lawsuits and heurged the Authority to petition for an extension due to the potential roadblocks and delays thataffect the time table. Having no more requests to speak, closed public comment on items 3, 4,and 5.


6/22


4

Member Stoldt responded to Mr. Vegas previous requests for the cost to the average ratepayer. He directed the public to visit the website www.watersupplyproject.org, select thedownloads tab, then under presentations select April 2012. He indicated that there is a Cal Ampresentation that evaluated both a large and a small desalination facility and which projects theimpact to residential water bills.

Chair Burnett indicated it was important to ensure that the CPUC EIR team has adequatelyevaluated the GWR project. He questioned if the TAC was comfortable recommending theproposed criteria.

On a motion by Member Stoldt, seconded by Member Narigi, and carried by the following vote,the Monterey Peninsula Regional Water Authority TAC approved forwarding the proposed draftcriteria as presented to the Authority Directors for consideration and to direct its representativesto forward to the CPUC for inclusion in the June 12, 2013 Ground Water Replenishmentworkshop.

AYES: 5 DIRECTORS:Burnett, Stoldt, Riedl, Narigi, Riley

NOES: 0 DIRECTORS: NoneABSENT: 1 DIRECTORS: HussABSTAIN: 1 DIRECTORS: HoldenRECUSED: 0 DIRECTORS: None

5. Discuss and Establish Criteria for Decision on Desalination Plant Sizing (Burnett)Action: Discussed with Items 4 & 6

6. Discuss and Provide Direction on Criteria for Ground Water Recovery WorkshopRecommendation for June 12, 2012 Public Utilities Commission Workshop (Burnett)Action: Discussed with Items 4 & 5

7. Discuss and Provide Direction on Brine Discharge Systems (Cal Am Representative)Action: Discussed

Chair Burnett reported that the MPWSP proposed brine discharge system was an item ofconcern brought up at the workshop on April 25, 2013 and that the Authority does not currentlyhave a policy position for brine discharge. Cal Am is currently proposing a passive dischargesystem, with a contingency for providing pressurized diffusers. Modification to a differentdischarge system would add an estimated cost of $10 million. Chair Burnett requestedfeedback from the TAC if they would like to recommend specific a position on brine dischargesystems to the directors.

Cal Am representative Catherine Bowie spoke to the item. She indicated that several of the

intervening parties have issues with the current system and it was expected by Cal Amdesigners. There were four different options that were addressed when determining the bestsystem; 1) modification of existing outfall 2) a new outfall at Semex facility 3) a brine pipeline atMoss Landing and 4) a modified existing marine refectories outfall. Ms. Bowie noted that highvelocity diffusers also have potential impacts to marine life due to velocity of the nozzle. TheEIR will address the brine discharge impacts and will include mitigation to deal with theenvironmental change.


7/22


5

Member Stoldt indicated that there is disagreement in the marine environment researchcommunity about which system would be best or least harmful. He reported that Dynagy is notsupportive of letting others use their outfall. And if they did, it would modify the conditions of theNDPS permit. The Sanctuary reiterated that it does not want any additional pipes in theSanctuary so a standalone outfall would meet resistance. Mr. Stoldt suggested allowing CEQAto work out the alternatives, as it would be difficult without brining in scientists, for the TAC to

make an informed decision.

Chair Burnett opened the item to Public Comment: Jim Cullem spoke to a current system that isworking in Ventura County, where a public agency collects and disposes of the brine. Heindicated that there are other systems out there that are currently working and this is anopportunity worth exploring and report back. Having no further requests to speak, Chair Burnettclosed public comment and requested that Mr. Cullem provide the contact info to AlternateMember Holden.

The TAC unanimously agreed that the Authority does not need to take a position on brinedisposal or brine discharge systems this item at this time, but to let the lead agencies with theexperience research and recommend appropriate action. The Authority should continue to

focus on its core mission at this time.

ADJOURNMENT

Respectfully Submitted, Approved,

Lesley Milton, MPRWA Clerk Chuck Della Sala, MPRW President


8/22


9/22

M I N U T E SMONTEREY PENINSULA WATER AUTHORITY (MPRWA)

TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE (TAC)Special Meeting

3:00 PM, Thursday, May 23, 2013MONTEREY PENINSULA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT

5 HARRIS COURTMONTEREY, CALIFORNIA

Members Present: Israel, Riley, Riedl, Burnett

Members Absent: Huss, Narigi, Stoldt,

Staff Present: Clerk, Executive Director, Legal Counsel

CALL TO ORDER

Chair Burnett called the meeting to order at 3:10 p.m.

ROLL CALL



Chair Burnett requested switching the order of the agenda items for those that were at theGovernance Committee meeting preceding this meeting which discussed this item. TACmembers agreed.

Chair Burnett invited reports from TAC members and had no requests to speak. He thenreported that Cal Am is continuing to look at a revised location for the test wells to reduce theconcern over the snowy plover habitat and avoid conflict with the US Fish and Wildlife service.Congressman Sam Far, on behalf of the MPRWA, submitted a letter seeking guidance onfinding a less controversial location.

PUBLIC COMMENTS

Chair Burnett invited public comments for items not on the agenda and had no requests tospeak.

AGENDA ITEMS

1. Review and Provide Direction Regarding Term Sheet for Power Sales Agreement from theMonterey Regional Waste Management District to Cal Am for Powering Desalination Facilities(Reichmuth)Action: Continued

2. Review and Provide Recommendations Regarding Draft Request for Proposal for Design-BuildServices for the Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project (Cal Am Representative)Action: Discussed and Provided Recommendations


10/22

MPRWA TAC Minutes Thursday, May 23, 2013

2

Chair Burnett reported on the Governance Committee meeting which took up this item andindicated that this meeting was an opportunity for the TAC to provide comments to the Authorityon the draft request for proposal, and if agreed, return to the Governance Committee to provideto Cal Am. He reported that his meeting was off schedule because of the tight turnaround timestipulated in the Governance Committee agreement. The final recommendations will be due on

Tuesday, May 28, 2013 at 2:00 to the Governance Committee. The final RFP will be releasedto the public on June 17, 2013.

Chari Burnett spoke to the analysis of the draft RFP conducted by SPI Consultants, at theAuthoritys request. Copies were provided to the TAC and the public. He then reported onconcerns that were raised during the Governance Committee meeting to request the TAC toweigh in on. Concerns were as follows:

Concern that the document has been made to be too prescriptive and does not allowroom for design modifications for a design build RFP.

Questioned if it is appropriate to equally weight the scores on the different size plants

Should the facility be evaluated at a 20 or a 30 year NPV valuation Is evaluation criteria of 40% on technical merits and 60% on cost appropriate

Discussion of the penalty for late delivery and inclusion of a bonus for early delivery

Eric Sabolsice spoke representing Cal Am and described how the RFP was developed; theexpertise utilized to develop, and discussed the level of prescription to be able to do a validcomparison of the submissions. He then spoke to concerns expressed about being tooprescriptive. The goal was to be able to compare the proposals but leave enough flexibility touse their experience and knowledge they have developed, and include cost savings. This willalso be to enable a baseline comparison. He then answered questions from TAC members.

Member Riedl spoke to concerns about limiting the amount of salt in the waste water, and

comments in the document about adding additional chemicals to reduce corrosion thedistribution system. Mr. Sabolsice acknowledged it will be a problem and is willing to entertainsuggestions to balance the non-aggressive water and will share with the technical team. Thewater that will be traveling from the plant to the Seaside Basin will be corrosive. Water leavingthe facility needs to be potable as well as not cause issues from the plant to the distributionsystem.

Member Riley questioned how many firms or teams responded to the Request for Qualificationsand how many will be allowed to submit for the RFP. Mr. Sabolsice responded that nine arebeing considered and expected to respond to RFQ, and staff hope the RFP yields fiveresponses.

Member Riley then questioned what the implications are if the Cease and Desist deadline ismissed and if there is no penalty, there is no need for an incentive bonus. Chair Burnett clarifiedthere is a penalty for delay in the RFP, but no bonus for earlier delivery but is encouraging earlydeliver as a way to petition good faith, and reduce the potential penalties opposed. Mr.Sabolsice responded that the document was written strategically to allow the bidders to presentthe best price and the best schedule, and from there a bonus could be determined. He alsonoted that the contract has provisions for delay not under the contractors control (such aspermitting issues or legal stays) and companies may be compensated.


11/22

MPRWA TAC Minutes Thursday, May 23, 2013

3

Member Israel questioned the process for disposal of water that did not meet specifications. Mr.Sabolsice responded that it would be discharged as waste to the Monterey Regional PollutionControl Agency. Mr. Israel suggested it could be used for agricultural uses. He then spoke tothe significant level of inversion occurring in the proposed location and the fact it is likely higherthan the bidding firms are accustomed to. Because of the unique environment, this should beclarified for warranty provisions and design modifications. Legal Counsel Freeman agreed and

urged Cal Am to include the uniqueness of the atmosphere as it will affect the warranty period.

Dave Stoldt arrived at 4:46 p.m.

Chair Burnett requested the TAC agree upon a list of recommendations to report on to theAuthority directors for their meeting at 7:00 p.m. The TAC agreed to the below list ofrecommendations:

Support advocating for Net Present Value (NPV) valuation be based on 30 years, not 20years.

Recommend the document to be modified to allow more creativity in design and allow

more consideration be given to creativity within the scoring criteria as well.

Rate of corrosion and inversion layer in excess of other marine environments needs tobe factored in

Consideration of an early completion incentive or bonus. Recommendation would basedon the CPUC and the CDO penalties.

Mr. Sabolsice agreed that Cal Am would reconsider and revising the document as a way to notstifle creativity.

Member Riedl spoke again to the issue of salt management and the fact there is a local issuewith too much salt in the waste water. If the Cal am project changed their process it would savea lot of money down stream in salt mitigation.

ADJOURNMENTExecutive Director Reichmuth requested that Item 1 that was moved to the last agenda item, betabled until a future meeting and the TAC agreed. With no further business to come before theTAC, Chair Burnett adjourned the meeting at 5:23 p.m.

Respectfully Submitted, Approved,

Lesley Milton, Committee Clerk President MPRWA


12/22


13/22

DRAFTMPWSP DESAL INFRASTUCTURE

POWER QUALITY CONSIDERATION FOR DESAL PLANT

Interruptions

1. Scheduled Interruptions for Maintenance or Repair:a. Number per year 2; ???b. Duration: not to exceed 120 hours total. ???

The IEEE Standard 1159-1995 IEEE Recommended Practice for Monitoring Electric PowerQuality lists definitions for three durations of interruptions as shown below. Suggestedperformance criteria, tailored for the water treatment plant, has been set for each duration ofinterruption.

1. Long Interruptions (unscheduled): greater than 1 minutes: Number per year 3 ???2. Temporary Interruptions (unscheduled): Between 3 seconds and 1 minute: Number per

year 3 ???

3. Momentary Interruptions (unscheduled): Between 0.5 cycle (1/120th of second) to 3seconds 4 ???

B. Voltage VariationsVoltage (RMS) shall be controlled to 5% of nominal voltage

C. Frequency ControlFrequency control shall be 60Hz +4% - 6% (for island system not connected to PG&E grid);1% when connected to PG&E grid

D. Voltage Sags

Defined as decrease to between 10% to 90% of the normal voltage for a duration of 0.5 cyclesto one minute. The sag count can be used as a criterion.Number of Sags per month: 2 ???

E. Voltage SwellsDefined as an increase to between 110% and 180% of a normal voltage for a duration of 0.5cycles to one minutes. The well count can be used as a criterion.Number of Swells per month 2 ???

F. Loss of a PhaseProtective relaying on the CAW equipment will cause immediate shutdown upon loss of aphase.

Number of loss of phase events per year 1 ???

G. Unbalanced Voltage (also termed Ratio of Negative Sequence Imbalance)Unbalanced voltage shall be less than 2%


14/22

H. HarmonicsHarmonics are currents that are integer multiples of the fundamental frequency. Harmonics areoften caused by variable frequency drives. Harmonics are often caused by the end user(customer).

Harmonic limits are set by the IEEE 519-1992 and are evaluated at the point of commoncoupling.

I. TransientsTransients are very short duration high amplitude voltage spikes. The most severe transientsare caused by lightning strikes. Proper grounding and bonding and surge protection areimportant in protecting against transients. All transients are to be investigated and minimized.

J. FlickerFlicker is a voltage fluctuation that causes output from lamps to vary. Flicker causes discomfortto humans in the form of headaches and possible nausea. Flicker can have many sourcesincluding variable power generation from solar, wind, and landfill gas.

Number of Complaints per Year: 2 ???


15/22

Estimated Power Requirements during Construction

6.4 MGD with Wells

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

May-16

J un-16

J ul-16

Aug-16

Sep-16

Oct-16

Nov-16

Dec-16

J an-17

Feb-17

Mar-17

Apr-17

May-17

J un-17

J ul-17

Aug-17

Sep-17

Oct-17

N1

Month

Power,MW

Construction Power Requirements kWhr Consumption per Month


16/22

Estimated Power Requirements dur ing Construction

6.4 MGD without Wells

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

May-16

J un-16

J ul-16

Aug-16

Sep-16

Oct-16

Nov-16

Dec-16

J an-17

Feb-17

Mar-17

Apr-17

May-17

J un-17

J ul-17

Aug-17

Sep-17

Oct-17

N1

Month

Power,MW



17/22


9.6 MGD with Wells

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

May-16

J un-16

J ul-16

Aug-16

Sep-16

Oct-16

Nov-16

Dec-16

J an-17

Feb-17

Mar-17

Apr-17

May-17

J un-17

J ul-17

Aug-17

Sep-17

Oct-17

No1

Month

Po

wer,MW



18/22


9.6 MGD without Wells

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

May-16

J un-16

J ul-16

Aug-16

Sep-16

Oct-16

Nov-16

Dec-16

J an-17

Feb-17

Mar-17

Apr-17

May-17

J un-17

J ul-17

Aug-17

Sep-17

Oct-17

No1

Month

Power,MW



19/22

Monterey Peninsula Regional Water Authority

Agenda Report

Date: June 03, 2013

Item No: 4.

06/12

FROM: Clerk to the Authority

SUBJECT: Discuss Ground Water Replenishment Draft Criteria (Stoldt/Israel)

RECCOMENDATION:

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

ATTACHMENTS:

Draft GWR Criteria 5/3/13 TAC Meeting


20/22


21/22

Governance Committee C/O Monterey Peninsula Water Management District P.O. Box 85 Monterey, CA 93942

GOVERNANCE COMMITTEE

FOR THE

MONTEREY PENINSULA WATER SUPPLY PROJECT

California American Water Monterey County Board of Supervisors

Monterey Peninsula Regional Water Authority Monterey Peninsula Water Management District

Recommendations from

Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project Governance Committee to

California American Water re Request for Proposals for

Design and Construction of Desalination Infrastructure

May 28, 2013

1. The request for proposals (RFP) continue to require detailed bids for the base-case design

in order to facilitate the comparison of bids but should do more to encourage creativity in

development of alternative designs that may save money and/or increase value. Alternative

designs should require same level of detail as the base-case design and meet or exceed same

performance standards.

2. The RFP should state that all workers will be paid, at least, the prevailing wage.

3. The Governance Committee supports inclusion of a goal for local hiring. California American

Water (Cal-Am) shall review the County of Monterey ordinance that specifies local hires and

consider inclusion of that or similar language in the RFP. The bidders local utilization plan

should be a factor in the 40% technical evaluation criteria.

4. Establish a 30-year net present value cost comparison, instead of (or in addition to) a 20-

year term.

5. Bidders should be advised that the rate of corrosion is high in the local coastal marine

environment. Good quality materials are required so that Cal-Am and the rate payers will not

be responsible to pay for replacement of components that have developed rust after a short

period of time.

6. The Governance Committee agrees with the approach to apply penalties for late delivery, but

understands and agrees with the approach to not provide for a bonus for early project

completion.

7. The Governance Committee understands that Cal-Am is proposing to ask for an estimated

schedule for both permitting and construction and that the date for completion (and associated

penalties for late delivery) would be set relative to the signing of the Design-Build contract. The

Governance Committee requests that Cal-Am consider ways to bifurcate the permit schedule

from the construction schedule, recognizing certain parts of the permitting process will beoutside the control of the Design-Build firm/team.

Note: A number of other items were discussed by the Governance Committee and offered to Cal-Am

for consideration. It is the Governance Committees understanding that Cal-Am will incorporate many

of those items into the RFP.

U:\Arlene\word\2013\GovernanceCommittee\Minutes\20130528recommendationsFinal.docx


22/22

TAC MPRWA Agenda Packet 06-03-13

Documents

Transcript of TAC MPRWA Agenda Packet 06-03-13