REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL
Title:
Control #:
Issue Date:
Water Loss Management Planning – Columbia Basin Region
RFP2013-10
Wednesday, August 8, 2012
Purpose of the Request for Proposal (RFP):
Participating local governments in Columbia Basin Trust’s (CBT) Columbia Basin Water Smart Initiative
(Water Smart) are seeking a consultant to develop comprehensive Water Loss Management (WLM)
plans for their water utilities.
Receipt Confirmation Form:
Proponents interested in responding to this RFP should fill out and return the Receipt Confirmation
Form attached as Appendix A. All subsequent information regarding this RFP, including changes made
to this RFP and notices regarding Proponent information meetings, may be directed to only those
Proponents who return the form. Subsequent information regarding this RFP may also be posted on
CBT’s website, www.cbt.org.
Instructions for Proposal Delivery:
Closing Time: Proposal must be received on or before the following date and time:
Date: Monday, September 10, 2012
Time: 3:30 PDT / 4:30 MDT
Closing Location: Proposal must be received at the following email address:
Email address: watersmart@cbt.org
Attn: Heather Mitchell
Faxed or Mailed Proposals will not be accepted.
Number of Copies and Type of Submission:
When submitting a proposal by email, the Proponent should clearly mark the email with the name of the
Proponent, the Request for Proposals title and control number, and should address the email to the
attention of Heather Mitchell. Once proposals have been received, CBT will send a confirmation email.
When a Proponent submits their Proposal by email:
a) the email containing the Proposal will be deemed to have been received at the Closing
Location at the date/time stamped/tagged by CBT’s email system; and
b) the Proponent assumes the entire risk that the email is received by the addressee and is
complete, including the risk that CBT’s system will properly receive the email and any email
attachments before the Closing Time. CBT’s inability to receive an email or email attachment,
for any reason, shall not constitute an exception to the mandatory requirement to submit
Proposal by the Closing Time, and CBT assumes no risk or responsibility that any email will
be received.
August 2012
Page 1 of 27
Table of Contents
1.
DEFINITIONS .................................................................................................................3
2.
CBT CONTACT PERSON ..............................................................................................3
3.
PROPONENT INFORMATION MEETING ...................................................................... 3
4.
BACKGROUND, OBJECTIVES AND DELIVERABLES ................................................. 3
4.1
BACKGROUND ..................................................................................................3
4.2
OBJECTIVES OF RFP ........................................................................................4
4.3
DELIVERABLES .................................................................................................5
5.
PROPOSAL DETAILS ....................................................................................................5
5.1
FORMAT .............................................................................................................5
5.2
CONTENT ...........................................................................................................5
6.
EVALUATION AND NEGOTIATION ...............................................................................5
6.1
EVALUATION COMMITTEE ...............................................................................5
6.2
MANDATORY CRITERIA....................................................................................5
6.3
DESIRABLE CRITERIA ......................................................................................5
6.4
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION.............................................................................6
6.5
INTERVIEWS ......................................................................................................6
6.6
SELECTION AND NEGOTIATION ...................................................................... 6
7.
GENERAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS ......................................................................... 7
7.1
NO OBLIGATION TO PROCEED ....................................................................... 7
7.2
ACCEPTANCE OF TERMS AND CONDITIONS ................................................. 7
7.3
ADDENDA...........................................................................................................7
7.4
LATE PROPOSALS ............................................................................................7
7.5
CHANGES TO PROPOSALS..............................................................................7
7.6
COMPLETENESS OF PROPOSAL .................................................................... 7
7.7
CONFLICT OF INTEREST ..................................................................................7
7.8
PROPONENTS’ EXPENSES .............................................................................. 7
7.9
NO CLAIMS ........................................................................................................8
7.10 CURRENCY AND TAXES ...................................................................................8
7.11 JOINT PROPOSALS AND SUB-CONTRACTING .............................................. 8
7.12 LIABILITY FOR ERRORS ...................................................................................8
7.13 OWNERSHIP OF PROPOSAL AND CONFIDENTIALITY .................................. 8
7.14 USE OF REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL ................................................................ 8
7.15 NO LOBBYING ...................................................................................................9
APPENDIX A RECEIPT CONFIRMATION FORM ................................................................... 10
APPENDIX B TERMS OF REFERENCE AND DELIVERABLES ............................................ 11
APPENDIX C LIST OF POTENTIALLY PARTICIPATING COMMUNITY WATER UTILITIES..............14
APPENDIX D SUMMARY OF WATER UTILITY SPECIFICATIONS...........................................15
APPENDIX E SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS AVAILABLE TO SUCCESSFUL PROPONENT(S).........24
APPENDIX F MAP OF THE COLUMBIA BASIN.........................................................................25
August 2012
Page 2 of 27
1.
Definitions
Throughout this RFP, the following definitions apply:
a) “CBT” means Columbia Basin Trust;
b) “CBT Contact Person” is the person named in section 2 of this RFP;
c) “Closing Location” is the location or locations specified on page 1 of this RFP;
d) “Closing Time” is the date and time specified on page 1 of this RFP on which Proposal must be
submitted to the Closing Location;
e) “Proponent” means an entity that submits, or intends to submit, a Proposal in response to this
RFP;
f) “Proposal” means a proposal submitted in response to this RFP;
g) “Successful Proponent” means the successful Proponent to this RFP who enters into a written
contract with one or more of the participating communities;
h) “Evaluation Committee” means a committee formed by CBT, which may consist of one or more
persons including members of the Columbia Basin Water Smart Team and staff from each of the
participating communities. The Evaluation Committee may consult with others including CBT staff
members, the communities participating in this RFP, third party consultants and references, as
the Evaluation Committee may in its discretion decide is required.
2.
CBT Contact Person
All enquiries related to this RFP, including any requests for information and clarification, should be
directed, in writing, to the following person. Information obtained from any other source is not official
and may not be relied upon. Enquiries and any responses will be recorded and may be distributed to
all Proponents at CBT’s option. No oral conversation will affect or modify the terms of this RFP or
may be relied upon by any Proponent.
Name:
Phone:
Email:
Heather Mitchell, CBT Program Manager, Water Initiatives
1.250.344.2445
watersmart@cbt.org
Proponents finding discrepancies or omissions in this RFP, or having doubts as to the meaning or
intent of any provision, should promptly notify CBT’s Contact Person. If CBT determines that an
amendment is required to this RFP, CBT’s Contact Person will issue an addendum in accordance
with section 7.3 of this RFP.
3.
Proponent Information Meeting
There is no information meeting for Proponents planned.
4.
Background, Objectives and Deliverables
4.1
Background
CBT Mission
CBT supports efforts by the people of the Basin to create a legacy of social, economic and
environmental well-being and to achieve greater self-sufficiency for present and future generations.
CBT serves the people who live in the Basin and assists communities in addressing their needs by:
• providing resources and funding;
• focusing on local priorities and issues;
• bringing people together around key issues;
• providing useful, credible, accessible information and expertise;
• encouraging collaboration and partnerships;
• seeking ongoing input from Basin residents; and
• investing prudently in Basin power projects, businesses and real estate.
August 2012
Page 3 of 27
The Columbia Basin Water Smart Initiative:
Columbia Basin Water Smart (Water Smart) is a regional water conservation initiative of
Columbia Basin Trust that provides support to 24 participating Regional Districts,
Municipalities and First Nations to identify and address their local water conservation needs.
Water Smart aims to achieve a 20 per cent reduction in gross community water consumption
in participating communities by 2015 (see www.cbt.org/watersmart for more information).
Water Loss Management Planning for Water Smart Communities
Through Water Smart,, CBT provides a wide range of technical assistance and expertise to
Water Smart communities that support the achievement of local water conservation targets.
Water loss in water distribution systems represents a significant opportunity to achieve water
conservation targets in the Columbia Basin. Water loss management has been identified by
participating communities as a key water conservation priority.
Two overview technical sessions on this topic were presented at the March 2011 Water
Smart Conference in Nelson. In January 2012, two EOCP certified technical Water Loss
Management courses were delivered to over 60 water operators and utility managers in the
East and West Kootenay. Water operators in the Basin will also have the opportunity in
2012/2013 to access three in-depth Water Loss Management training workshops on a range
of Water Loss Management topics, including night flow analysis, district metered areas,
pressure management, IWA water audits and acoustic leak detection.
A Regionally Coordinated Approach to Water Loss Management Planning:
Due to the distribution of many mid- and small-sized communities and water utilities across
the Columbia Basin, there is reasonably a cost benefit to issuing a multi-community RFP for
water loss management planning services. It is anticipated that this multi-community
approach may result in several key benefits for the communities and for bidding Proponents,
including:
For participating communities:
• Improved efficiency in the RFP tender, review and award processes; and/or
• Cost efficiencies gained through economies of scale and identification of
implementation synergies.
For bidding Proponents:
• A single Proposal process for multiple potential contracts;
• Reduced contract administration and travel time;
• Reduced project development time; and/or
• Reduced business development time.
Working collaboratively with all participating community water utilities, CBT is the coordinating and
issuing agency for this RFP, but CBT will not be responsible for executing and administering
contracts for services, or remuneration to the successful proponent(s). Proposals will be reviewed
and the successful proponent(s) determined collaboratively by a selection committee comprised of
communities participating in the Water Loss Management Planning RFP and members of the
Columbia Basin Water Smart Team.
4.2
Objectives of RFP
The participating community water utilities are seeking a consultant to develop Water Loss
Management (WLM) plans for their water utilities. In addition to developing work program(s)
for Water Loss Management for each utility, the plans are intended to:
• build the internal technical capacity of utility staff to implement best practices in water
loss management gained through the Water Smart training courses; and
August 2012
Page 4 of 27
•
support senior staff and elected decision makers in the process of policy development
and budget allocation for water loss management.
The unique plan for each utility must address the deliverables outlined in Appendix B.
4.3
Deliverables
The Terms of Reference and the deliverables for the services that are sought under this RFP are set
out in Appendix B.
5.
Proposal Details
5.1
Format
The following format, sequence, and instructions should be followed in Proposals:
a) all pages should be consecutively numbered; and
b) Proposals should include:
• a table of contents including page numbers;
• a short summary of the key features of the Proposal; and
• the body of the Proposal, including all aspects noted in Section 5.2.
5.2
Content
Proposals should include a detailed response to the following:
• all elements of the RFP as outlined above at Section 5.1 and in Appendix B;
• proposed methodology;
• three references for relevant completed projects with local governments;
• a list relevant corporate experience;
• a list of all project personnel and each individual’s relevant project experience; and
• sub-consultants, if any, must be identified.
6.
Evaluation and Negotiation
6.1
Evaluation Committee
The evaluation of Proposals will be undertaken by an evaluation committee formed by CBT, which
may consist of one or more persons. The evaluation committee may consult with others including
CBT staff members, the community water utilities participating in this RFP, third party consultants and
references, as the evaluation committee may in its discretion decide is required.
6.2
Mandatory Criteria
CBT will review Proposals on a preliminary basis to determine whether they comply with the following
mandatory criteria. Proposals that fail to meet the following mandatory criteria will be excluded from
further consideration during the evaluation process.
Criteria
a) The proposal must be received at a Closing Location on or before the Closing Time.
b) The proposal must be in English.
6.3
Desirable Criteria
The evaluation committee will evaluate proposals meeting all of the mandatory criteria against the
following desirable criteria to determine the Proposal(s) that is(are) most advantageous to CBT.
Criteria
a) Demonstrated understanding of the services being sought under the RFP.
August 2012
Page 5 of 27
b) Proposed methodology for providing the services.
c) Qualifications and experience, including three references for relevant completed projects
with local governments. Proposals should list relevant corporate experience, all project
personnel and each individual’s project experience.
d) Fees and expenses.
e) Any comments on or proposed changes to Appendix B (Terms of Reference and
Deliverables).
f) Additional considerations at the discretion of the Evaluation Committee.
The Evaluation Committee may apply the criteria on a comparative basis, evaluating the proposals by
comparing one Proponent’s proposal to another Proponent’s proposal.
6.4
Additional Information
The Evaluation Committee may, at its discretion, request clarifications or additional information from a
Proponent with respect to any Proposal, and the Evaluation Committee may make such requests to
only selected Proponents. The Evaluation Committee may consider such clarifications or additional
information in evaluating a Proposal.
6.5
Interviews
The Evaluation Committee may, at its discretion, invite some or all of the Proponents to appear
before the Evaluation Committee to provide clarifications of their Proposals. In such event, the
Evaluation Committee will be entitled to consider the answers received in evaluating Proposals.
6.6
Selection and Negotiation
CBT may, in its discretion:
a) select one preferred Proponent and enter into negotiations with that Proponent to finalize service
contracts with each community water utility;
b) divide up the services and deliverables into more than one contract (based on service
requirements or other factors according to the Evaluation Committee’s judgment of its best
interest), and select more than one preferred Proponent to enter into negotiations to finalize
service contracts with each community water utility; or
c) decline to select a Proponent.
Working collaboratively with all participating community water utilities, CBT is the coordinating and
issuing agency for this RFP, but CBT will not be responsible for executing and administering
contracts for services, or for remuneration to the successful proponent(s). Proposals will be reviewed
and the successful Proponent(s) determined collaboratively by an Evaluation Committee comprised
of community water utilities participating in the Water Loss Management Planning RFP and members
of the Columbia Basin Water Smart Team. Final service contracts will be executed with each
individual community water utility. Each community water utility retains the right to award or reject the
successful proposal(s) altogether. The Evaluation Committee retains the right to award contracts to
more than one proponent.
By submitting a Proposal, each Proponent agrees that if the Evaluation Committee selects the
Proponent as a preferred Proponent, the Proponent will enter into negotiations with each individual
community water utility to finalize a service contract.
If, at any time, the Evaluation Committee reasonably forms the opinion that a mutually acceptable
service contract will not be finalized within thirty days of notification of selection of a preferred
Proponent, the Evaluation Committee may, at its sole discretion at any time thereafter:
• terminate negotiations with that Proponent and either negotiate a service contract with another
Proponent; or
• choose to terminate the RFP process and if the Evaluation Committee elects, proceed with the
project in some other manner.
August 2012
Page 6 of 27
7.
General Terms and Conditions
7.1
No Obligation to Proceed
This RFP is not a tender or an agreement to purchase goods or services. Neither CBT nor the
participating community water utilities are bound to select a preferred Proponent or to enter into an
agreement with the Proponent(s) who submit(s) the lowest priced Proposal or with any Proponent.
CBT and the participating community water utilities reserve the complete right to at any time reject all
Proposals and to terminate this RFP process.
7.2
Acceptance of Terms and Conditions
Submission of a Proposal indicates acceptance of all the terms and conditions set out in this RFP,
including those included in any addenda issued by CBT. By submitting a Proposal, the Proponent
represents that it has carefully read and examined the RFP in its entirety and has conducted such
other investigations as were prudent and reasonable in preparing its Proposal. The Proponent agrees
to be bound by the statements and representations made in its Proposal.
7.3
Addenda
CBT reserves the right to modify the terms of this RFP at any time in its sole discretion. If CBT
determines that an amendment is required to this RFP, CBT’s Contact Person will issue a written
addendum that will form part of this RFP. No amendment of any kind to the RFP is effective unless it
is contained in a formal written addendum issued by CBT’s Contact Person.
7.4
Late Proposals
It is the sole responsibility of the Proponent to ensure its Proposal is received at the Closing Location
before the Closing Time. Proposals received after the Closing Time will not be accepted. In the event
of a dispute, the receipt time as stamped/tagged by CBT’s email system shall prevail.
7.5
Changes to Proposals
An amendment to a Proposal will be considered only if the amendment is received in writing at the
Closing Location before the Closing Time. Amendments must be signed by an authorized signatory of
the Proponent.
7.6
Completeness of Proposal
By submitting a Proposal, the Proponent represents that, if this RFP is for Proposals to design, create
or provide a system or manage a program, all components required to run the system or manage the
program have been identified in the Proponent’s Proposal or will be provided by the Successful
Proponent as part of the proposed cost or fee and at no further charge to CBT.
7.7
Conflict of Interest
CBT will not be obligated to evaluate any Proposal from a Proponent whose current or past interests
may, in CBT’s opinion, give rise to a conflict of interest in connection with the project described in this
RFP. This includes, but is not limited to, involvement by a Proponent in the preparation of this RFP. If
a Proponent is in doubt as to whether there might be a conflict of interest, the Proponent should
consult with CBT’s Contact Person prior to submitting a Proposal.
7.8
Proponents’ Expenses
Proponents are solely responsible for their own expenses in preparing, and submitting Proposals, and
for any meetings, negotiations or discussions with CBT or its representatives and consultants, relating
to or arising from this RFP.
August 2012
Page 7 of 27
7.9
No Claims
By submitting a Proposal, each Proponent:
a) agrees that CBT and its Board members, employees, representatives, agents, consultants and
advisors will not under any circumstances be liable for any claims, whether for costs, expenses,
losses (including loss of anticipated profits), damages or liabilities which are or may be incurred or
suffered by any Proponent arising from or in any way connected to this RFP, including if CBT
accepts a materially non-compliant proposal or otherwise breaches any express or implied term of
the RFP; and
b) waives any and all claims against CBT or any of its Board members, employees, advisors,
representatives, consultants or advisors.
7.10 Currency and Taxes
Prices quoted in Proposals should be quoted in Canadian dollars and exclusive of the Harmonized
Sales Tax.
7.11 Joint Proposals and Sub-Contracting
a) Two or more entities may work together to submit one Proposal. Entities submitting a joint
Proposal should describe in their Proposal the proposed allocation of responsibilities between the
entities.
b) Proponents may propose to use sub-contractors. Proposals proposing to use one or more
subcontractors should identify the name and proposed role of the proposed subcontractor(s).
c) Sub-contracting to or joint venturing with any firm or individual whose current or past interests
may, in CBT’s opinion, give rise to a conflict of interest in connection with the project or program
described in this RFP will not be permitted. This includes, but is not limited to, any firm or
individual involved in the preparation of this RFP. If a Proponent is in doubt as to whether a
proposed sub-contractor gives rise to a conflict of interest, the Proponent should consult with
CBT’s Contact Person prior to submitting a Proposal.
7.12 Liability for Errors
While CBT has attempted to ensure information in this RFP is accurate, the information contained in
this RFP is supplied solely as a guideline for Proponents. The information is not guaranteed or
warranted to be accurate by CBT, nor is it necessarily comprehensive or exhaustive. Nothing in this
RFP is intended to relieve Proponents from forming their own opinions and conclusions with respect
to the matters addressed in this RFP and CBT accepts no responsibility for any errors or omissions in
the information contained in this RFP.
7.13 Ownership of Proposal and Confidentiality
All Proposals submitted to CBT become the property of CBT. All proposals will be received and held
in confidence by CBT, subject to the provisions of the Freedom of Information and Protection of
Privacy Act and this RFP. If the Evaluation Committee and participating local governments select a
preferred Proponent and enter into a contract with them, CBT may publicize a notice of the contract
award, including a brief description of the agreement and the name of the successful Proponent.
7.14 Use of Request for Proposal
Any portion of this document, or any information supplied by CBT in relation to this RFP may not be
used or disclosed for any purpose, other than for the submission of Proposal. Without limiting the
generality of the foregoing, by submitting a Proposal, the Proponent agrees to hold in confidence all
information supplied by CBT in relation to this RFP.
August 2012
Page 8 of 27
7.15 No Lobbying
Proponents will not attempt to communicate directly or indirectly with:
a) any employee or representative of CBT, including any member of the evaluation committee or any
Board members of CBT;
b) members of the public; or
c) members of the media,
about the project described in this RFP or otherwise in respect of the RFP, other than as expressly
directed or permitted by CBT. CBT may reject a Proposal from any Proponent that fails to comply with
this provision.
August 2012
Page 9 of 27
Appendix A Receipt Confirmation Form
RFP Title:
Water Loss Management Planning – Columbia Basin Region
Control:
RFP2013-10
For any further distributed information about this RFP, please return this form as soon as possible to:
Name:
Phone:
Email:
Heather Mitchell, CBT Program Manager, Water Initiatives
1.250.344.2445
watersmart@cbt.org
All subsequent information regarding this RFP, including changes made to this RFP may be directed to
only those Proponents who return the form.
Company Name:
Contact Person:
Title:
Street Address:
City:
Postal Code:
Province/State:
Country:
Fax Number: (
)
Phone Number: (
)
Email Address:
Please indicate how you heard about the RFP?
CBT’s website
CBT staff
BC Bid website
Word of mouth
Other:
August 2012
Page 10 of 27
Appendix B Terms of Reference and Deliverables
Project Purpose:
Water Loss Management Planning for Columbia Basin Water Smart (Water Smart) Communities
Through Water Smart , Columbia Basin Trust provides a wide range of technical assistance and expertise to
Water Smart communities to support the achievement of local water conservation targets. Water loss in
distribution systems represents a significant opportunity to achieve water conservation targets in the
Columbia Basin and water loss management has been identified by participating communities as a key water
conservation priority.
Two overview technical sessions on this topic were presented at the March 2011 Water Smart Conference in
Nelson. In January 2012, two EOCP certified technical Water Loss Management courses were delivered to
over 60 water operators and utility managers in the East and West Kootenay. Water operators in the Basin
will also have the opportunity in 2012/2013 to access three in-depth WLM training workshops in a wide range
of water loss management topics, including night flow analysis, district metered areas, pressure
management, IWA water audits and acoustic leak detection.
The water loss management plans that are the subject of this RFP are intended to:
• support the implementation of locally appropriate WLM strategies that apply the technical expertise
gained through the training courses;
• to build the internal technical capacity of utility staff; and
• to support senior staff and elected decision makers in the process of policy development and budget
allocation for water loss management.
The approach to WLM that has been the focus of the training for Water Smart is cyclical and the water loss
management plans developed through this RFP must support/reflect this approach. For more information,
please review the course materials from the 2012 WLM Training. The plans must also support senior staff
and elected decision makers in the process of policy development and budget allocation for water loss
management.
Deliverables:
This RFP is issued by Columbia Basin Trust (CBT) on behalf of potentially multiple participating community
water utilities in the Columbia Basin, listed in Appendix C.
The communities are collectively seeking a consultant to develop Water Loss Management (WLM) plans for
their water utilities. The unique plan for each utility must include the following core components and
deliverables:
• Executive Summary appropriate for distribution to senior staff and elected officials in each utility;
• Project background;
• Methodology employed to determine possible water loss in each utility and water loss results of each
methodology;
• An assessment of each utility’s distribution system for core water loss management needs and
opportunities, including, at minimum:
1. system description, including the number of water meters, pressure zones, length/age/material
of pipe if known; pump stations, gravity flow; reservoirs local ground conditions if known,
2. discussions with utility operators and management staff on known problem areas for water
loss and a leakage and repair history, and
3. review of each utility’s Water Master Plan and Columbia Basin Water Smart Action Plan (to be
provided by each utility – see also Appendix D and E);
• Based on the system assessment, recommendations for implementation of appropriate water loss
management strategies that directly address the needs and opportunities identified in the system
assessment;
August 2012
Page 11 of 27
• At minimum, recommendations must:
1. include the types of Water Loss Management practices to be implemented, including timing,
frequency, and implementation methodology,
2. include an assessment of whether each recommendation can be performed in-house or if
external consultants are required,
3. identify where external consultants are required, and a cost estimate is to be included;
4. include a summary of recommended short and long- term capital infrastructure repairs/
replacements/ installations,
5. include a summary of hardware acquisitions necessary for implementation of proposed Water
Loss Management strategies, including cost estimates,
6. include a summary of human resources implications and necessary protocol/work plan
considerations,
7. include cost estimates for implementation of each recommended action,
8. estimate of potential water savings that may result from implementation of the Water Loss
Management plan recommendations,
9. support senior staff and elected officials in the process of policy development and of both
short- (current fiscal year) and long-term (capital) budget deliberations, and
10. be primarily implementable by in-house water utility staff with the potential for occasional
guidance and assistance of contract personnel for select technical components;
• Conclusion;
• Glossary of Technical Terms and Acronyms.
The successful Proposal(s) will include the provision of on-site technical guidance to each utility’s in-house
personnel through much of the investigative stage. Proposals must clearly state how the proponent will work
collaboratively with in-house utility personnel in the gathering and assessment of all background information
required to develop the recommended approach to water loss management in each utility as well as in
development of the recommendations. Recommendations resulting from the investigative stage are to
assume that all physical work necessary to implement the recommended work program(s) will be performed
by the utility’s in-house personnel.
The proposed work program(s) must feasible, taking into consideration each utility’s currently available inhouse resources as well as the unique operational objectives and water conservation targets for each utility.
Where contracted services may be required to complete any recommended work program(s), these are to be
clearly identified, including estimated costs.
The successful Proponent(s) will provide at-distance guidance to in-house personnel as they implement the
various stages of any work programs recommended by the proponent. Proposals must clearly state the
amount of time and cost allocated to this item within the proposed budget, and must also state an hourly rate
for support services to a community that may occur in excess of time allowed for within the Proposal budget.
The Proposal must include a concise summary of the assessment methodology clearly identifying the means
by which the Proponent will satisfy the project purpose and deliverables outlined above. Proposed site visits,
community conference calls etc.. are to be clearly outlined.
Affiliations and Conflicts of Interest
Proponents must identify any existing relationship or affiliation with company(s) that manufacture, supply,
and/or install water loss management hardware, software, and/or and supplies, as well as identifying any
other potential or perceived conflicts of interest.
Reporting Specifications
The Proponent shall be responsible for preparing a draft and a final Water Loss Management plan for each
community.
A draft plan shall be submitted to the project manager at each participating community for review and
revision prior to submission of a final report. At the discretion of each community the Columbia Basin Water
Smart Team may provide review and comment on draft plans.
August 2012
Page 12 of 27
Final reports are to be submitted in the following forms:
• 1 hard copy
• 1 digital copy in PDF (.pdf) and Word (.doc) formats.
• 1 digital copy on CD ONLY in the case that the final documentation size exceeds 10 MB.
The above deliverables and specifications outlined above are the minimum requirements that will be
accepted by CBT and the participating community water utilities. However Proponents are encouraged to
offer creative and appropriate alternatives. Additionally, contracting community water utilities retain the right
to exclude or include components listed above in order to mitigate total project costs or meet their goals.
Timing
Proposals must indicate a potential start and completion date for services. It is anticipated that:
• the services outlined herein could begin immediately following notification of successful proponent(s)
and as late as within six months of the date of notification;
• draft reports are to be submitted to communities not more than four months following commencement
of work, with commencement and final delivery deadlines to be negotiated with individual water
utilities;
• Communities may opt to commence work after January 1, 2013 in order to accommodate the fiscal
year’s budgets; and
• Proponents are eligible to propose alternative project timing if required.
Pricing
The proposed cost for water loss management planning services is to be inclusive of all project fees. Fees
for follow-up, at-distance support may be indentified as a separate line item. Proposals must include a
unique price estimate for each community taking into consideration community size and scope of project.
The Proponent is directed to familiarize themselves with the location and transportation options available to
each of the participating communities so as to ensure development of a cost-effective travel plan for site
visits.
A discount structure based on the number of community water utilities executing an agreement with the
successful Proponent(s) is acceptable.
Community water utilities may have budget constraints in the current fiscal year. Therefore, proposed pricing
must be guaranteed for a minimum of six months from the date of notification of successful Proponent(s).
As outlined at section 7.1 of this RFP, each participating community reserves the right to award or reject the
successful bid(s) for water loss management planning services. The evaluation committee retains the right to
award contracts to more than one Proponent.
Insurance
The successful Proponent(s) is required to carry, at minimum: general liability insurance; insurance on
proponent supplied equipment; automotive liability insurance; and Worker’s Compensation coverage.
Specific insurance requirements must meet the specifications of each community at time of contract
finalization and may differ for each community. The successful Proponent(s) is required to name each
contracting community as additional insured.
Supporting Documentation
The successful Proponent(s) are provided with, at minimum, the supporting documentation for each
participating community (see Appendix C), as outlined at Appendix E. A summary of specifications for each
utility is provided at Appendix D.
August 2012
Page 13 of 27
Appendix C List of Potentially Participating Community Water Utilities
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
City of Castlegar
District of Elkford
Village of Fruitvale/Beaver Valley Water Board
Village of Kaslo
City of Kimberley
Village of Nakusp
City of Nelson
Regional District Central Kootenay – Erickson
District of Sparwood
August 2012
Page 14 of 27
Appendix D Summary of Water Utility Specifications
City of Castlegar
Length of Pipe (m)
Diameter
Asbestos
Cement
PVC
Ductile or Cast
Iron
Steel
Total
Hyprescon
100
100
100
1140
10906
910
276
13232
150
1177
23754
9084
89
34104
200
2074
10977
4128
250
951
2526
300
759
1368
2127
350
2084
2084
450
386
386
500
251
50
17179
3579
102
3936
4187
3936
76978
600
Total
6101
45637
20737
Normal Service Population:
7879
Gross Water Volume (2011):
2627 ML
567
Water Source (name; surface or ground): Arrow Lake
Storage Reservoirs (# and volume):
Meadowlark 500,000 gallon
School Concrete 150,000 gallon
School Steel 150,000 gallon
Park Steel 150,000 gallon
Park Concrete 150,000 gallon
Meadowbrook 150,000 gallon
Mary Creek 150,000 gallon
Blueberry 400,000 gallon
August 2012
Page 15 of 27
District of Elkford
Length of Pipe (m)
Diameter
Asbestos
Cement
PVC
50
150.53
100
262.14
Ductile or Cast
Iron
Copper
Total
150.53
557.80
819.94
9623.84
150
3,262.39
5,690.40
671.05
200
9,437.12
4,059.21
31.76
250
3,270.96
300
2,044.87
23.19
13,551.28
3,270.96
4,369.09
2,324.22
350
450
Steel
1,758.41
1,758.41
385.77
385.77
500
Total
Approx age
of pipe for
each type
18,813.78
12,631.63
2,461.22
23.19
Last 30 yrs
34 yrs
41 yrs
41 yrs
Normal Service Population:
2463 – 2011 census
Gross Water Volume (2011):
1,234,652 cubic meters
33,929.82
Town Centre Well – Ground
Service Commercial Well #1 – Ground
Water Source (name; surface or ground):
Service Commercial Well #2 – Ground
Industrial Park Well - Ground
Storage Reservoirs (# and volume):
1 – 100,000 gallon wood stave
2 – 250,000 gallon concrete
1 – 450,000 gallon concrete
August 2012
Page 16 of 27
Village of Fruitvale – (RDKB) Beaver Valley Water Service
Length of Pipe (m)
Diameter
Asbestos
Cement
PVC
Ductile or Cast
Iron
100
Steel
Copper
Total
6861
6861
150
1364
4202
5566
200
6755
4825
11580
300
360
1360
1720
8479
17248
25727
2-10 years
for PVC
10-30 years for
Ductile
Total
Approx age
of pipe for
each type
Normal Service Population:
2850
Gross Water Volume (2011):
686,529 cubic meters
Water Source (name; surface or ground):
Kelly Creek Watershed – surface / 2 wells; one at Maple and another
at Columbia Gardens – both ground
Storage Reservoirs (# and volume):
Kelly Creek Reservoir – 2,727,600 L / Fruitvale Tank Reservoir –
1,091,040 L / Mill Road Reservoir – 454,600 L / Water Treatment
Plant trains – 611,000 / Total is 4 locations and 4,884,240 L of Water
Storage
August 2012
Page 17 of 27
Village of Kaslo
Length of Pipe (m)
Diameter
Asbestos
Cement
PVC
Ductile or Cast
Iron
Steel
Total
Copper
50
140
0
1000
0
0
1140
100
2640
0
560
0
0
3200
150
9080
0
1200
0
0
10280
200
2910
0
0
0
0
2910
250
700
0
700
0
0
1400
300
2250
0
1270
300
0
3820
17720
4730
300
<32 yrs
>32 yrs
32 yrs
350
450
500
Total
Approx age
of pipe for
each type
Normal Service Population:
1200
Gross Water Volume (2011):
488,000 L/day3
22750
Water Source (name; surface or ground): Kemp Creek (surface)
Storage Reservoirs (# and volume):
3 (total 1.705M)
August 2012
Page 18 of 27
CITY OF KIMBERLEY
LENGTH OF WATER LINE IN (m)
DIAMETER
PVC
AC
DI & CI
STEEL
50
-
-
-
-
100
-
-
3,938
198
12,714
2,815
2,961
3,251
1,235
1,316
131
-
150
200
250
300
350
1,221
COPPER
25
GAL
HDPE
5,097
482
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
3,687
WI
HYPRESSCON
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
933
2,549
450
132
-
500
-
-
-
-
-
-
560
-
-
-
-
-
-
900
-
-
-
-
-
-
9,341
4,475
21,245
5,097
6,649
753
1998
1966
1968
1954
2007
1951
TOTAL
Approx
Age
1,462
25
1958
Service Population
Gross Water
Volume
Water
Source
3506ML
Mark Creek
(surface)
Storage Reservoirs
1) Mark Creek Head Tank 134.5 m3
-
753
-
500
2,185
1,729
-
-
-
1,729
TOTAL
5,604
4,440
17,783
9,027
2,682
3,770
132
2,229
2,185
1,462
49,314
1980
6300
Matthew(surface)
2) Downtown Reservoir 1136.5 m3
3) Lois Creek Reservoir 1136.5 m3
4) 1260 Reservoir 681.9 m3
5) Shi Hill reservoir 1136.5 m3
6) Norton Ave Reservoir (emergency fire storage) 454.6 m3
7) Cemetery Reservoir (proposed use Taylor Mill Deve.) 681.9m3
8) Teck Mill Reservoir (never commissioned) 435.3 m3
9) Marysville Reservoir #1 (emergency fire storage) 1136.5 m3
10) Marysville Reservoir #2 (emergency fire storage) 1136.5 m3
August 2012
Page 19 of 27
Village of Nakusp
Length of Pipe (m)
Diameter
Asbestos
Cement
PVC
Ductile or Cast
Iron
Steel
50
100
Copper
Total
805
805
9372
10,372
12,960
12,960
1000
150
860
4,219
250
936
936
300
2580
2580
200
3359
350
450
Total
Approx age
of pipe for
each type
4359
22,332
4,376
805
45
45
45
45
Normal Service Population:
1772
Gross Water Volume (2011):
495,543 cubic meters
31,872
Water Source (name; surface or ground): Halfway & Upper Brouse Creeks – surface + Well #1 - ground
Storage Reservoirs (# and volume):
1. Million Gallon Reservoir
2. 200,000 Gallon Reservoir
August 2012
Page 20 of 27
City of Nelson
Diameter
Length of Pipe (m)
Asbestos
Cement
PVC
Ductile
or Cast
Iron
Steel
Copper
12
29.1
19
606.2
25
64
GI
Total
96.9
126.0
25.6
67.8
699.6
1609.8
1000.2
410.7
3,084.7
850.7
109
60.9
1,020.6
926.2
3179.5
4,106.7
63.8
63.8
37
50
MPE
1
76
100
90.2
4304.1
1053.8
5,448.1
150
574
36809.7
375.2
37,758.9
200
7430.1
7520
227.6
15,177.7
250
157.9
3967.2
4,125.1
300
2768.9
7522.4
10,291.3
350
561.2
146.8
708.0
3641.6
3,641.6
400
450
0.0
500
0.0
Total
Approx age of pipe for
each type
11,647.3
4.6
0.0
63,911.8
1,656.6
3,095.8
2,061.0
3,879.6
45.4
68.2
29.3
3
46.7
Normal Service Population:
10254
Gross Water Volume (2011):
2,257,071 Cubic metres
Water Source (name; surface or ground):
Five Mile Creek, surface water
Mountain Station Reservoir - 5,730,000 US Gallons, Fairview
Reservoir - 500,000 Imp Gallons, Rosemont Reservoir 300,000 Imp Gallons
Storage Reservoirs (# and volume):
August 2012
Page 21 of 27
Regional District of Central Kootenay – Erickson Water System
Length of Pipe (m)
Diameter
Asbestos
Cement
PVC
Ductile or Cast
Iron
Steel
Copper
Total
5100
50
5100
75
400
400
100
830
1350
3730
150
1600
8300
10,900
200
20
7850
7870
2000
250
2250
19,500
2800
30,250
250
Total
7950
1550
Normal Service Population:
Estimate 1700
Gross Water Volume (2011):
Estimate 1220 ML including mainline leakage.
Water Source (name; surface or ground): Arrow Creek
Storage Reservoirs (# and volume):
2 Million US Gallon
August 2012
Page 22 of 27
District of Sparwood
Length of Pipe (m)
Diameter
50
Asbestos
Cement
PVC
Ductile or Cast
Iron
Steel
Total
Copper
342.6
19.3
100
361.9
259.8
259.8
10876.7
150
2249.3
8627.4
200
2356
3701.2
250
325
7.1
300
4086.8
350
916.7
400
107.2
6247.9
190.7
332.1
4480.5
393.7
916.7
214.1
106.9
450
0
500
0
Total
Approx age
of pipe for
each type
10383.6
12595.5
393.7
297.6
19.3
33
43
28
27
32
Normal Service Population:
3360 Approx.
Gross Water Volume (2011):
1421365 m³
Water Source (name; surface or ground):
2 Wells – Untreated Ground Water (Mackenzie Springs)
1 Well – Untreated Ground Water
Storage Reservoirs (# and volume):
Sparwood Heights Reservoir – 1820 m³ Approx.
Sparwood Proper Reservoir – 2291 m³ Approx.
23689.7
August 2012
Page 23 of 27
Appendix E
Supporting documents available to successful proponent(s)
The following documents will be made available to the successful proponent(s) following award of service
contracts by each community: The summary of system specifications (Appendix D) and available
supporting documentation listed below is given to the best of the Water Smart Team’s ability as of the date
of posting this RFP. The successful proponent will be required to verify these estimates and information
availability during the course of their work on the project for each community.
j)
d)
i
m
k)
e)
n)
s)
r
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Pump to
reservoir gravity feed
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Gravity /
pump
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
No
Gravity
No
No
Yes
Kimberley
Yes
No
Yes
Nakusp
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
3 yr only
24 of 27
3Page
yr only
Nelson
Yes
No
Yes
Elkford
Fruitvale/Beav
er Valley
Water Board
Kaslo
Gravity
Yes
Both
Gravity
August 2012
RDCK Erickson
Sparwood
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Gravity
No
No
No
Yes
Pump
through
distribution
to storage
Yes:
OCP Tech
Suppleme
nt & 2005
Assessme
nt
Yes
Yes
August 2012
Page 25 of 27
August 2012
Page 26 of 27
Appendix F
Map of Columbia Basin Region
August 2012
Page 27 of 27