| | | | | | | | Council Communication
Department: Public Works Admin
Case/Project No.: PW24-18
Submitted by: Matthew Cox, Public Works Director | Resolution 23-207
ITEM 6.C. | Council Action: 7/24/2023 |
|
| | | | | | | | Description
Resolution authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to execute an agreement with HDR Engineering, Inc. for engineering services in connection with the WPCP Centrifuge Replacement. Project # PW24-18 |
|
| | | | | | | | Background/Discussion
The centrifuge at the Water Pollution Control Plant (WPCP) is used to process digested sludge for biosolids production. Centrifugal thickening and dewatering of sewage sludge is a high speed process that uses the force from rapid rotation of a cylindrical bowl to separate wastewater solids from liquid to produce a non-liquid material referred to as “cake.” Dewatering wastewater solids reduces the volume of residuals, improves operation, and reduces costs for subsequent storage, processing, and disposal.
The facility operates with one centrifuge, with a second model as back-up. Both existing centrifuges have manufacture dates from the mid-1990s, and are now having reliability issues. One was recently removed from service due to poor operation. The cost to repair the unit cannot be justified, given its age and obsolescence. The excessive unit vibration and noticeable wear has expedited the need for a replacement.
The replacement equipment will increase resiliency and sustainability of the treatment process. The new centrifuge will produce the same class of biosolids and use the existing polymer feed systems.
This project was included in the FY24 CIP and has a revised budget of $600,000 in GO Bonds. Any additional project costs will be paid with Sewer funds.
The Engineer was selected based on their ability to provide the necessary services utilizing the selection criteria outlined in the Professional Services Policy. Statements of qualifications were solicited from five engineering firms on the pre-qualified list. Three submittals were received and each was reviewed and individually scored by the selection team. The evaluation criteria included team qualifications (35%); past experience on similar projects (40%); project approach and understanding (20%); and clarity and conciseness of the proposal (5%). HDR received the highest score and was selected as the most qualified for this particular project.
|
|
| | | | | | | | Recommendation
Approval of this resolution to enter into an agreement with HDR Engineering, Inc.
|
|
|