HomeMy WebLinkAboutRFP_WRF Facility Plan Update_April 2020
WATER RECLAMATION FACILITY
2020 FACILITY PLAN UPDATE
REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS
CITY OF BOZEMAN
PO BOX 1230
BOZEMAN, MT 59771‐1230
APRIL 2020
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City of Bozeman (City) is requesting proposals from qualified
engineering consulting firms to perform a facility plan update for the City of Bozeman Water
Reclamation Facility (WRF). The WRF is classified as a major POTW by Montana DEQ and is
authorized to discharge treated effluent to the East Gallatin River under MPDES Permit No.
MT0022608. The facility plan update will identify capital improvements, process optimization
strategies, pollutant minimization program elements, and long range permit compliance
approaches necessary to attain water quality standards promulgated by the State of Montana as
the City continues to grow over the next 20 years.
The complete Request for Proposals packet is available for download on the City’s website at
https://www.bozeman.net/government/city‐clerk/bids‐rfps‐rfqs.
All proposals must be provided as a single, searchable PDF document file and be submitted
digitally as an email attachment to the RFP Recipient email address below. Respondents are
advised that Recipient’s email attachment size limit is 25MB and that only one PDF file will be
allowed per response. The subject line of the transmittal email shall clearly identify the RFP title,
company name and due date/time. File sizes greater than 25MB in size may be uploaded to
bzncloud.bozeman.net upon special arrangement of the Recipient; however, it is the
respondent’s sole responsibility to ensure the file upload is completed, and that the Recipient is
separately notified via email of same, prior to the given deadline.
The deadline to submit the RFP response is Wednesday, May 13th, 2020 at 3:00 p.m. MST. It is
the sole responsibility of the responding individual to ensure their email transmittal is digitally
timestamped as being sent to the Recipient’s email address prior to the prescribed closing time as
late submittals will not be accepted.
RFP Recipient Email Address: bheaston@bozeman.net
NON‐DISCRIMINATION
The City of Bozeman is an Equal Opportunity Employer.
Discrimination in the performance of any agreement awarded under this RFP on the basis of race,
color, religion, creed, sex, age, marital status, national origin, or actual or perceived sexual
orientation, gender identity or disability is prohibited. This prohibition shall apply to the hiring
and treatment of the awarded entity’s employees and to all subcontracts.
As such, each entity submitting under this notice shall include a provision wherein the submitting
entity, or entities, affirms in writing it will not discriminate on the basis of race, color, religion,
creed, sex, age, marital status, national origin, or because of actual or perceived sexual
orientation, gender identity or disability and which also recognizes the eventual contract will
contain a provision prohibiting discrimination as described above and that this prohibition on
discrimination shall apply to the hiring and treatment of the submitting entity’s employees and
to all subcontracts.
Failure to comply with these non‐discrimination provisions is cause for the City to disqualify the
firm from selection.
Any administrative questions regarding RFP transmittal procedures or noticing materials shall be
directed to: Mike Maas, City Clerk, (406) 582‐2321, mmaas@bozeman.net.
Any and all questions or clarifications relating to the RFP scope of services, submittal contents,
evaluation criteria, or selection procedures shall be directed solely and exclusively in writing to:
Brian Heaston, Senior Engineer, bheaston@bozeman.net. The respondent, and any of its
associating parties, shall not contact other City staff in the preparation of its response to this RFP.
Emailed questions or clarifications will be accepted until Wednesday, April 29th, 2020 at 11:59
p.m. MST after which time the questions will be compiled, anonymized and provided with a
posted response on the City’s RFP webpage. Further questions will not be entertained after the
question period has elapsed. Due to the Covid‐19 Pandemic, access or tours of the WRF will be
prohibited.
The City reserves the right to amend or modify any element of this RFP by issuance of an
addendum at any time prior to the given submittal deadline. Any addenda that may be issued
for this RFP will be individually noticed on the City’s RFP webpage. It is the respondent’s
responsibility to determine if any addenda have been issued.
DATED at Bozeman, Montana, this 12th day of April, 2020.
Mike Maas
City Clerk
City of Bozeman
For publication on:
Sunday, April 12, 2020
Sunday, April 19, 2020
Sunday, May 3, 2020
I. INTRODUCTION
The City of Bozeman (City) is requesting proposals from qualified engineering consulting firms to
perform a facility plan update for the City of Bozeman Water Reclamation Facility (WRF). The
WRF is classified as a major POTW by Montana DEQ and is authorized to discharge treated
effluent to the East Gallatin River under MPDES Permit No. MT0022608. The facility plan update
will identify capital improvements, process optimization strategies, pollutant minimization
program elements, and long‐range MPDES permit compliance approaches necessary to attain
water quality standards promulgated by the State of Montana as the City continues to grow over
the next 20 years.
The release of this RFP alone shall not commit the City to enter into a Professional Services
Agreement, to pay any expenses incurred in preparation of any response to this request, or to
procure or contract for any supplies, goods or services.
II. PROJECT BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION
A facility plan update for the City’s WRF is needed to address hydraulic and treatment capacity
impacts caused by rapid and sustained growth occurring in the City of Bozeman along with
substantial changes to the State of Montana’s nutrient water quality standards. Analysis of
population statistics compiled by U.S. Census Bureau over the 2013 – 2019 period indicate the
City experienced a continuous annual growth rate of 3.9% – a staggering factor that has placed
Bozeman atop the fastest growing micropolitan communities in the United States. The WRF is
currently rated for an average daily effluent flowrate of 8.5 MGD and a peak day of 12.7 MGD.
The actual average daily effluent discharge in 2019 was 6.2 MGD. Rated influent loading is
generally consistent with a typical residential strength waste.
The Bozeman WRF is a biological nutrient removal treatment facility that has been skillfully
optimized by its operators to concurrently maximize the removal of total nitrogen and total
phosphorous. Following influent screening, grit removal and primary clarification processes, the
WRF employs 5‐stage Bardenpho bioreactors along with secondary clarification and UV
disinfection prior to discharging its treated effluent to the East Gallatin River. The solids
processes generally consists of primary sludge collection followed unified fermentation and
thickening ahead of a series of anaerobic digesters, and secondary sludge collection followed by
rotating screen thickeners and anaerobic digestion. The fully digested sludge is sent to a
dewatering facility where coagulant feed occurs ahead of a screw press that produces a finished
cake product currently being landfilled for disposal. Liquids pressed from the cake are returned
to the bioreactors. Biogas produced at the anaerobic digesters is collected and sent to boilers to
generate heat to operate the WRF digesters, but the boilers are fired by natural gas during
periods of the year when biogas heat is inadequate to satisfy the heating demands of the WRF.
The WRF is authorized to discharge to the East Gallatin River under MPDES Permit No.
MT0022608. Current permit limits are being achieved; however, max day ammonia limit
difficulties have occurred, but without violation, during sporadic peak day influent events driven
by unusual I/I events. Average nutrient effluent concentrations during the summer season are
4.8 mg/L TN and 0.16 mg/L TP – remarkably low values given the absence of tertiary filtration.
The East Gallatin River is listed on the State’s 303(d) impaired waters list for TP, TN, and pH
upstream of the WRF outfall. A TMDL exists on the East Gallatin River and a WLA has been
assigned to the WRF. The State of Montana has approved numeric nutrient criteria on the East
Gallatin River, which are contained in DEQ Circular 12A. Montana DEQ has developed a nutrient
standards variance program that is contained in DEQ Circular 12B, which provides for a general
variance and an individual variance. These two Circulars together with DEQ’s water quality
administrative rules at ARM 17.30 constitute the nutrient water quality standards for the State
of Montana. Numeric nutrient criteria in Circular 12A for the reach of the East Gallatin River to
which the WRF discharges its treated effluent are 0.04 mg/L TP and 0.30 mg/L TN. Assimilative
capacity for nutrient mixing does not presently exist in the reach as it is impaired for nutrients
above the WRF outfall. The WLA for the WRF in the Lower Gallatin TMDL requires nutrient
effluent discharge concentrations equivalent to the numeric nutrient criteria.
Nutrient water quality standards are reviewed triennially by DEQ and are subject to rulemaking
revision as part of this review. During triennial review, particular emphasis is given to nutrient
standards variances in Circular 12B such that incremental progress may occur towards achieving
nutrient water quality standards across the entire state. The variance program has been
designed to incrementally reduce the nutrient effluent discharge concentrations allowed in
discharge permits over time to a point where the variance concentrations will become essentially
equivalent to the numeric nutrient criteria themselves. All revisions to these water quality
standards must satisfy federal implementing regulations of the Clean Water Act and be approved
by EPA.
The Upper Missouri Waterkeeper, a non‐profit organization, has sued the EPA on two separate
occasions for its approval of certain elements of the State’s nutrient water quality standards.
Both of these lawsuits are being actively litigated as of the date of this RFP; one as an Appeal to
the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, the other as a recently filed complaint with the U.S. District Court
of Montana in Great Falls. These lawsuits have disrupted the City’s ability to efficiently and
effectively complete a facility plan update for its WRF. Given the ongoing litigation, the current
legal status of the State’s nutrient water quality standards is uncertain. It is unknown where
these nutrient standards may ultimately land, creating uncertainty in planning for the future.
The WRF discharge permit has expired, but a timely renewal application was filed by the City
ahead of permit expiration and DEQ has thus administratively extended the current permit. The
discharge permit renewal will require DEQ to approve a nutrient water quality standards variance
should the variance program and numeric nutrient criteria continue to exist upon resolution of
Waterkeeper litigation.
A likely enforceable permit component of obtaining a nutrient variance will be for the City to
develop and implement a Pollutant Minimization Program. A PMP is a new regulatory concept
for the EPA and Montana DEQ that has broad sideboards. It is unknown how PMPs will be exactly
applied as an enforceable permit requirement tied to a nutrient variance given the nascent status
of the PMP concept and the current absence of any meaningful or developed implementation
guidance at either the state or federal level.
A $55mln capital investment has been made by the City in nutrient reduction with its current
WRF which was brought online in 2012 and won’t have its issued bond debt retired for at least
another 10 years. The City seeks to maximize the utilization of its current WRF investment, not
only in the pending outcome of its discharge permit renewal, but also by not stranding the
expenditures it has already made that provide for future hydraulic and treatment capacity
expansion.
The main goal of the WRF facility plan update is to identify cost effective means and methods to
maintain compliance with Montana’s water quality standards as the City continues to grow over
the next 20 years. The facility plan update will be a comprehensive effort tasked with evaluating
multiple combinations of capital improvements, process optimization strategies, and pollutant
minimization activities necessary to arrive at a systematic, yet adaptable, long‐range compliance
approach. The City has particular interest in compliance paradigms that will provide for growth‐
related headworks loading increases while continuing to satisfy anti‐backsliding provisions of the
MPDES permitting system over the 20‐year planning horizon of the WRF facility plan update.
Completion of the WRF facility plan update will be an especially challenging endeavor given the
multiple compounding factors increasing the complexity and uncertainty of the planning process.
Of paramount importance is maintaining adequate treatment capacity to sustain ongoing City
growth while remaining continuously compliant with discharge permit limits and other
enforceable permit requirements in the most cost effective manner possible.
III. PRELIMINARY SCOPE OF WORK
Release of this RFP with the preliminary scope of services contained herein does not commit the
City to contracting with a selected firm for all scope items identified. For purposes of this RFP
the term ‘selected firm’ can mean a single engineering consulting firm, or a prime engineering
consulting firm together with sub‐consultant engineering firm(s) forming a respondent team.
The preliminary scope of work involved for this project is outlined below. The City desires for the
scope of work to be completed in a diligent manner. Additional tasks and work elements may be
inserted into the scope of work during contract negotiations with the selected firm. It is also
possible that tasks or elements could be removed during negotiations or not included in an initial
contract because of regulatory uncertainty, budget limitations, contracting strategy or any
combination thereof. In its proposal, a firm may recommend addition/deletion of tasks and/or
modification of tasks in describing its particular understanding and approach for the project.
Proposals must clearly identify any elements of the proposed scope of work that would not be
provided by the prime engineering consulting firm. Any sub‐consultants which comprise the
respondent team must be identified along with a description of past working history between
the firms.
A. Project Management
1. Develop and manage project schedule and budget.
2. Manage and coordinate consultant resources and sub‐consultants (if any) to provide
identified deliverables that meet the QA/QC plan.
3. Facilitate meetings with the City and provide meeting minutes for a project kickoff
meeting and for any other scoped meetings needed to gain consensus or inform
decision points.
4. Prepare and submit monthly invoices for progress payments.
5. Document and track project assumptions, decisions and risks within project
deliverables, and recommend contract changes commensurate with new
information as it may become available over the course of the project (e.g.
resolution of litigation).
6. Develop and manage a QA/QC plan to ensure quality of deliverables prior to City
review, as well as to incorporate any City comments.
B. Discharge Permit Renewal Assistance and Long‐Range Nutrient WQS Compliance
1. Serve as the City’s technical expert and advocate in ongoing conversations with DEQ
surrounding the current WRF discharge permit renewal.
2. Prepare any necessary documentation to support and defend a nutrient water
quality standards variance request, including but not limited to water quality
sampling, analysis and modeling.
3. Provide advice, direction and strategic recommendations for permit renewal
negotiations with DEQ that put the City in the best position to grow into the future
and satisfy anti‐backsliding provisions with subsequent permit renewals.
4. Collaborate with City Staff in representing the City’s interests during triennial
reviews of state water quality standards.
5. Develop a spreadsheet tool that determines the cost threshold representing the
maximum level of treatment that the City can afford before substantial and
widespread economic impacts occur that use demonstration methods of those
impacts approved by DEQ and EPA. The analysis must include the city‐provided costs
associated with other 20‐year maintenance and capital needs in the City’s
Wastewater Fund, not just at the WRF.
6. Develop reasonably foreseeable and feasible long‐range nutrient WQS compliance
scenarios to utilize for the Basis of Planning update. Describe the likelihood of
success of each scenario and document the pertinent assumptions, risks, obstacles,
regulatory approvals, rule amendments, and/or statutory authorizations necessary
to achieve the desired outcome.
C. Basis of Planning Update
1. A 20‐year planning period will be evaluated.
2. Align the planned service area of the WRF facility plan update with the planned
service area of City’s Wastewater Collection System Model Update that is currently
in progress.
3. Update the WRF service area characteristics to be consistent with and
representative of the City’s Growth Policy Update that is currently in progress.
4. Define the basis for cost estimating and constructability reviews used to develop and
evaluate alternatives.
5. In consultation with the City incorporate select long‐range nutrient WQS compliance
scenarios into the Basis of Planning.
D. Flows and Loads, Monitoring, Sampling and Data Analysis
1. Analyze plant data and monitoring results to assess performance and capacity of the
current secondary treatment process during the winter period, the nutrient period,
and significant wet weather events.
2. Develop dry weather and wet weather flow and load projections that will be used to
determine treatment capacity needs over the 20‐year planning period in
coordination with City Staff and the consultants working on the Wastewater
Collection System Model Update and the Growth Policy Update.
3. Provide sampling and testing needs as may be required for characterization of plant
influent after review of existing influent sampling data and sampling data acquired
to develop the City’s pretreatment program local limits.
E. Existing WRF Facility Major Process Evaluations
1. Facilitate a work session with WRF and Engineering Division staff to discuss existing
performance of major process elements.
2. Determine remaining available capacity for each of the major process elements of
the WRF with all equipment online as well as capacity available in the event of critical
equipment failure.
3. Prepare alternatives to correct existing deficiencies identified above in this scope
section. Provide estimated costs for the alternatives and develop a recommended
capital improvement plan to correct the identified existing deficiencies. This CIP is
intended to cover any immediate needs to implement ahead of a major capacity
upgrade.
F. WRF Treatment Capacity Upgrades Alternatives Development and Analysis
1. Develop capacity upgrade alternatives necessary to meet projected flow, load and
treatment needs for each of the long‐range nutrient WQS compliance scenarios
selected for the Basis of Planning.
2. Provide estimated costs of the upgrade alternatives for major process elements and
associated side/support processes.
G. Effluent Management and Solids Disposal Alternatives Development and Analysis
1. Evaluate alternative effluent management options that may be feasible to
implement. Document the risks, assumptions, data gaps, limitations, regulatory
processes, and estimated costs that must be overcome to achieve a successful
outcome. Effluent management options will at a minimum include: surface water
discharge; effluent non‐potable reuse; dispersed discharge to shallow groundwater;
aquifer recharge via deep well injection; or any combination thereof.
2. Evaluate final solids disposal options that may be feasible to implement. Document
the risks, assumptions, data gaps, limitations, regulatory processes and estimated
costs that must be overcome to achieve a successful outcome. Solids disposal
management options will at a minimum include: landfill disposal, land application,
and production of a marketable compost product.
H. Resource Recovery Evaluation and Economic Feasibility Analysis
1. Prepare an economic feasibility analysis of resource recovery options potentially
available for implementation at the WRF. The analysis will determine required plant
capital improvements necessary to maximize potential resource recovery along with
an economic evaluation of ROI and current market potential. This analysis will be
performed for nutrient recovery for both phosphorous and nitrogen, methane
cogeneration for heat and power, and finished sludge as compost.
I. Pollutant Minimization Plan
1. Identify potential pollutant minimization plan activities reasonably feasible to
implement at the WRF to reduce nutrient loading to the East Gallatin River.
Document the risks, assumptions, data gaps, limitations, regulatory processes,
equipment/instrumentation requirements and costs that must be provided or
overcome to implement the identified PMP activities. The PMP will be structured
into major categories of activities that will include at a minimum: biological nutrient
removal process optimization; nutrient pretreatment; alternative effluent
management;
2. Identify, evaluate and prioritize prospective nonpoint source nutrient trading
options and projects. Document the risks, assumptions, data gaps, limitations,
regulatory processes and cost effectiveness of the trading options and projects.
J. WRF Capital Improvement Plan
1. Develop a recommended Capital Improvement Plan for each of the selected long‐
range nutrient WQS compliance scenarios in the Basis of Planning utilizing
alternatives and costs evaluated in the foregoing Scope of Work sections.
K. WRF Facility Plan Update
1. Each section of the Scope of Work above will be independently documented in a
Technical Memorandum. An Executive Summary will be written highlighting the
major findings of each section of the Scope of Work. A table of contents, figures,
and tables will be provided. The final version of the WRF Facility Plan Update will be
provided as both a bound hard copy and an electronic searchable PDF with internal
hyperlinks provided for the table of contents, figures and tables items.
2. The final plan address DEQ requirements pertinent to the WRF Facility Plan Update.
IV. PROPOSAL CONTENTS AND FORMAT
Proposals must contain the following information and be organized under the headings below.
A. Proposal Contents
1. Firm Background
2. Project Overview
3. Project Approach
4. Management Approach
5. Staff Qualifications
6. Related Experience on Similar Projects
7. Proposed Schedule
8. Nondiscrimination Affirmation Form (see Attachment A)
i. Failure to provide a signed Nondiscrimination Affirmation is cause to disqualify
the firm from selection.
B. Proposal Format
Respondents shall provide proposals as a single, searchable PDF document file format.
1. RFP responses shall contain a cover letter, not exceeding one page in length, signed
by an officer or principal of the responding prime firm. Digital signatures are
allowed.
2. RFP responses must be contained within 20 total pages or less, including whatever
graphics, charts, tables, figures and text narrative the firm deems necessary and
appropriate. Page size shall be no larger than 8‐l/2 x 11 inches, with margins no
smaller than 0.75 inches, and text information no smaller than 11‐point type.
3. The following pages are exempted from the maximum 20 page limit: Cover Page,
Cover Letter, Table of Contents Page, Divider Pages, and Resumes. Page size for
exempted pages remains limited to 8‐l/2 x 11 inches, with no smaller than 0.75”
margins, and text no smaller than 11‐point type.
4. An exception is granted to the otherwise required 8‐l/2 x 11 inches page size for a
project schedule sheet, which may be provided at a page size of 11 x 17 inches, but
the schedule sheet does apply towards to maximum 20 page limit.
V. RFP DEADLINES & SELECTION TIMELINES
EVENT DATE/TIME
Publication dates of RFP Sunday, April 12, 19, & May 3, 2020
Deadline for RFP questions & clarifications Wednesday, April 29
th at 11:59 p.m. MST
City Response to questions & clarifications By May 6
th, 2020 at 5:00 p.m. MST
Deadline for transmittal of proposals Wednesday, May 13th at 3:00 p.m. MST
Evaluation of proposals May 14
th – May 22nd, 2020
Interviews (if necessary) and Selection Week of May 25, 2020
Contract Negotiation June 1
st – July 1, 2020
Contract Authorization & Notice to Proceed July 13, 2020
The timeline of events following deadline for transmittal of proposals is aspirational and is not
predetermined. The City endeavors to conduct these post‐deadline events diligently in order to
arrive at contract authorization and notice to proceed by the date shown. Failure to reach the
notice to proceed milestone by the date shown imparts no liability on the part of the City.
VI. SUBMITTING THE PROPOSAL
By submitting its proposal the consulting firm makes an incontrovertible and unequivocal
representation that it understands, respects, and agrees to be bound by the terms and processes
described herein that the City will employ in its review, evaluation, selection and contract
negotiations occurring under this RFP procurement action. The proposal shall be submitted as
stated in the notice.
VII. SELECTION PROCEDURE
Procurement of engineering services under this RFP is governed by Sec. 18‐8‐201 MCA et. Seq.
and the specific processes contained within this RFP. Proposals meeting the submittal
requirements and deadline will be distributed to a project selection committee for review and
evaluation. The selection committee will consist of no fewer than three (3) City staff members
whose identities will remain anonymous ahead of the submittal deadline.
Proposals will be distributed to the selection committee where they will be individually evaluated
against the selection criteria below. Upon review, each member will assign an ordered ranking
of the proposals from most‐qualified to least‐qualified. The most‐qualified proposal will be
assigned a ordinal value of one (1), the second most‐qualified an ordinal value of two (2),
continuing in this fashion until the least qualified proposal is found and given an ordinal value
equaling the total count of proposals received. Ordinals assigned to each proposal by each
committee member will then be summed together and sorted from lowest ordinal sum to highest
ordinal sum, producing the selection committee’s initial ranking list from most‐qualified to least‐
qualified. The selection committee will review the initial ranking list and determine at its sole
discretion whether it will conduct interviews with the top ranking firms of its choosing, or it may
determine that it will forego interviews and simply select the most‐qualified firm from the initial
ranking list to enter contract negotiations. Should the selection committee determine it will
conduct interviews, it will select the firm it determines to be most‐qualified upon a combined
evaluation of the firm’s written proposal and interview performance.
The firm determined by the selection committee to be most‐qualified will be deemed the
‘selected firm’ for which the City will enter into contract negotiations. The City may choose
multiple selected firms for contract negotiations if in its discretion it believes that discrete
selected firms are most qualified for particular scope items and that the City will receive superior
service and results than if all scope items are completed by a single selected firm.
Contract negotiations will proceed after selection and will take into account the estimated value
of services to be rendered, as well as the scope, complexity and professional nature thereof, in
order to arrive at a contract that the City determines to be fair and reasonable. If the City is
unable to negotiate a satisfactory contract with the consultant initially selected at a price the City
determines to be fair and reasonable, negotiations with that consultant will be formally
terminated and the City will select another consultant in accordance with Sec. 18‐8‐204 MCA and
continue until an agreement is reached or the procurement process is terminated.
VIII. SELECTION CRITERIA
Proposals will be evaluated on the criteria listed below. These are minimum criteria listed in Sec.
18‐8‐204 MCA as well as an additional criterion capturing the consultant’s specific project
approach and understanding. These criteria are not assigned point values for relative weighting
in the evaluation and ranking process. Instead, selection committee members will review and
evaluate the proposal as a whole to assign proposal rankings from most‐ to least‐qualified.
The consultant’s specific project approach and understanding;
Qualifications of professional personnel to be assigned to the project;
Capability to meet project time and budget requirements;
Location of the consulting firm;
Present and projected workloads;
Related experience on similar projects;
Recent and current work for the City.
IX. CITY RESERVATION OF RIGHTS / LIABILITY WAIVER
A. All proposals submitted in response to this RFP become the property of the City and are
considered public records and, as such, may be subject to public review.
B. The City reserves the right to accept or reject any and all proposals; to add or delete
preliminary scope items and/or quantities; to amend the RFP; to waive any minor
irregularities, informalities, or failure to conform to the RFP; to extend the deadline for
submitting questions or proposals; to postpone contract authorization and notice to
proceed for any length of time it determines necessary; to award one or more contracts,
by item or task, or groups of items or tasks, if so provided in the RFP and if multiple
awards or phases are determined by the City to be in the public interest; and to reject,
without liability therefore, any and all proposals upon finding that doing so is in the public
interest.
C. The City reserves the right to reject the proposal of any person/firm who previously failed
to perform properly to the satisfaction of the City, or complete on time agreements of
similar nature, or to reject the proposal of any person/firm who is not in a position to
perform such an agreement satisfactorily as determined by the City.
D. The City reserves the right to determine the most‐qualified consultant and negotiate a
final scope of service and cost, negotiate a contract with another consultant if an
agreement cannot be reached with the first selected consultant, or reject all proposals.
E. This RFP does not commit the City to award a contract. The City assumes no liability or
responsibility for costs incurred by firms in responding to this request for proposals or
engaging in the selection process, prior to the issuance of a contract. The consultant, by
submitting a response to this RFP, waives all right to protest or seek any legal remedies
whatsoever regarding any aspect of this RFP.
F. The City reserves the right to cancel, in part or in its entirety, this RFP including, but not
limited to: selection procedures, submittal date, and submittal requirements. If the City
cancels or revises this RFP, all consultants who submitted proposals will be notified using
email.
G. Projects under any contract are subject to the availability of funds.
X. ATTACHMENTS
The attachments below are incorporated in this RFP:
Attachment A: Non‐Discrimination Affirmation Form
XI. OTHER RESOURCES
The following documents are available upon request. Due to large file sizes the documents are
available as a secure download link on the bzncloud.bozeman.net. To request a download link
email bheaston@bozeman.net.
WRF Record Drawings
WRF Influent Data (2015 to 2020)
MPDES Permit No. MT0022608 & Permit Fact Sheet
2016 Pretreatment Program Technically Based Local Limits Report
2015 Wastewater Facilities Plan
2007 Wastewater Facilities Plan
Below are documents, information or data that may be germane to the preliminary scope of work
contained in this RFP and are publicly available on the internet, or housed by other government
agencies, so they are not being provided by the City with this RFP.
WRF effluent discharge monitoring data (EPA, MT DEQ)
East Gallatin River water quality data (EPA, USGS, MT DEQ)
East Gallatin River streamflow data (USGS)
Lower Gallatin TMDL
Montana DEQ Water Quality Statutes, Rules, Circulars, Guidance, and Scientific Studies
Federal Clean Water Act and Implementing Regulations and Guidance
END OF RFP EXCEPT FOR ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A
NONDISCRIMINATION AFFIRMATION
____________________________________(name of entity submitting) hereby affirms it will not
discriminate on the basis of race, color, religion, creed, sex, age, marital status, national origin,
or because of actual or perceived sexual orientation, gender identity or disability and
acknowledges and understands the eventual contract will contain a provision prohibiting
discrimination as described above and this prohibition on discrimination shall apply to the hiring
and treatments or proposer’s employees and to all subcontracts.
______________________________________
Name and title of person authorized to sign on behalf of submitter