|
Agenda Item: 15(e) |
Prepared By: Jeffrey E Poteet, General Manager |
|
Business: City Council Item |
Department: Water & Sewer |
Subject:
Title
Discussion - Request for Qualifications (RFQ), Engineering Services for the Reclaimed Water Production Facility Upgrade to the Meet Grizzle-Figg Statute - Jeffrey E. Poteet, General Manager, Water & Sewer Department
Body
BACKGROUND:
This discussion item is divided into two sections:
1. RFQ/RFP Process
2. Proposed Scope of Work
RFP vs. RFQ Process
At the July 7, 2025, City Council meeting, Council directed the City Manager to issue a Request for Proposals (RFP) to retain a consulting firm specializing in wastewater treatment and nutrient removal. However, under Florida law, engineering services must be procured through a qualifications-based process rather than by price. This is governed by the Consultants’ Competitive Negotiation Act (CCNA), outlined in Florida Statutes Chapter 287.055, which mandates that public agencies use a Request for Qualifications (RFQ) rather than an RFP when procuring engineering services.
The City utilizes two RFQ approaches:
Project-Specific RFQ
• A tailored RFQ is issued for a defined project.
• Submitting firms are ranked based on qualifications.
• The top-ranked firm is invited to submit a proposal, and contract negotiations begin.
• There are no financial limits on this process.
• However, it can take 2 to 5 months to complete the procurement and execute a contract.
Continuing Services Library (CSL) RFQ
• An RFQ is issued to create a pre-qualified pool of firms.
• Firms that meet the City’s minimum qualifications in specific categories (e.g., wastewater treatment) are added to the Continuing Services Library (CSL).
• The City may request a proposal from any qualified firm within the CSL.
• If the proposal is deemed fair and reasonable by staff, procurement may proceed.
CCNA fiscal limitations for using CSL firms are:
• Construction cost must not exceed $4 million per project.
• Professional service fees must not exceed $500,000 per study.
If the proposed cost is below $50,000, the City Manager may authorize the work directly via purchase order. If the cost exceeds $50,000, the item must be brought before Council for approval.
Using a firm from the CSL can significantly reduce the project timeline. However, Council discussion on July 7 indicated a potential preference not to engage firms currently under contract with the City. If the projected design or construction costs exceed the CSL thresholds, a project-specific RFQ will be required if City Council wishes to proceed with full design and construction.
Staff is flexible and will proceed with either approach, depending on the Council’s preference.
Proposed Scope of Work
Project Background and Objectives
The City’s Reclaimed Water Production Facility (RWPF) currently operates at Advanced Secondary Wastewater Treatment (SAWT) standards. To comply with the Grizzle-Figg statute and enhance environmental stewardship, the City intends to upgrade the facility to meet Advanced Wastewater Treatment (AWT) standards, which impose stricter limits on Total Nitrogen (TN) and Total Phosphorus (TP).
This effort will involve hiring an engineering firm to evaluate upgrade options and associated costs. The selected firm will deliver an assessment and cost comparison between the current operations and potential AWT configurations.
Proposed Scope of Services
Facility Assessment
• Review RWPF design, operational capacity, and historical performance.
• Identify site, equipment, and permitting constraints and opportunities.
Regulatory Compliance Evaluation
• Confirm AWT requirements under the Grizzle-Figg statute.
• Identify gaps between current effluent quality and future compliance targets.
Technology Alternatives Analysis
• Evaluate and compare up to three (3) treatment process alternatives, such as:
o Biological Nutrient Removal (BNR)
o Chemical nutrient removal
o Filtration or membrane technologies
Cost Estimation
• Provide planning-level cost estimates for each alternative, including:
o Capital costs (CAPEX)
o Operational and maintenance costs (OPEX)
o Net change from current to projected operating costs
Recommendations and Reporting
• Recommend a preferred upgrade approach based on cost-effectiveness, regulatory compliance, and feasibility.
• Provide a final report with analysis, cost data, and conceptual schematics.
• Optional: Present findings to City Council at a public meeting.
FUNDING SOURCE / FISCAL IMPACT: N/A - This item is for discussion only.
RECOMMENDATION: Direct the City Manager to:
1. Proceed with either a project-specific RFQ or select a qualified firm from the CSL, based on the Council’s preference.
2. Finalize the scope of work to align with the City Council’s intended outcomes.
POTENTIAL MOTION: No motion needed.