Excerpts from the  Request for Proposal (RFP) Documents, follow:

(Highlighting added)

“WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITIES
FOR
MUNSTER HAMLET – GOULBOURN TOWNSHIP
REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF OTTAWA-CARLETON
____________________________________________________

REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL DOCUMENTS
___________________________________________________________________

Prepared by Conestoga-Rovers & Associates
June 2, 1998”

Excerpts:

“OBJECTIVES OF PROPOSAL SUBMISSIONS”

2.1 “The objectives of requesting proposals for the Munster Hamlet Wastewater Treatment Facility is to determine if applicable wastewater technologies and implementation programs are available that can provide environmental and financial benefits for treatment in Munster Hamlet”…

 

  1. …”Proposers are to meet or exceed all of the requirements and objectives of these Proposal Documents.” …
  2. …”independent engineering study to determine best available wastewater treatment solution for Munster Hamlet.”
  3. “Proposals for Design-Build Deliver of a Wastewater Treatment Facility for Munster Hamlet will be considered by CORPORATION since it could provide alternative technologies that have not been studied or evaluated. It is further anticipated that proposals for wastewater treatment would offer treatment, environmental, and cost advantages to the CORPORATION.”

 

“ATTACHMENTS”

6.1C-7 “The Proposer must demonstrate the achievability of the effluent quality objectives by providing existing operational data derived from a full scale and/or pilot scale installations performing under comparable climatic conditions.”

 

“DESIGN REQUIREMENTS”

2.1.C.” Wastewater Discharge Alternatives: Design wastewater treatment facilities to discharge treated effluent to the following discharge alternatives.

  1. Land application (i.e., Spray Irrigation or equal).
  2. Subsurface disposal to groundwater system (i.e., tile bed or equal).
  3. Water course discharge (i.e., Jock River).”
  1. “Treated Effluent Compliance Objectives:
    Treated effluent from the wastewater treatment facility must meet
    or exceed water quality compliance objectives listed below    .”

                                        “EFFLUENT COMPLIANCE OBJECTIVES

 

Parameter

 

Land Application

 

 Disposal Option
    Sub-Surface

 

Jock River

 

 BOD5 (mg /L)

25

--

25

 TSS (mg /L)

25

--

25

 TP (mg /L

--

--

0.03

 Total Nitrogen (mg /L)

--

3.0

--

 Nitrates (mg /L)

--

2.5

--

 Organic Nitrogen (mg /L)

--

0.15

--

 Un-ionized Ammonia (mg /L)

--

--

0.3

 Dissolved Organic Carbons (mg /L)

--

5.0

--

 pH

6.5 to 8.5

6.5 to 8.5

6.5 to 8.5

 E. Coli

--

--

<100 / 100 ml”

 

(End of Excerpts from RFP)
 (Highlighting added)

Notes and Comments:

In the table above for “Effluent Compliance Objectives” (above), it is clear that there is no provision, whatsoever,  for a pipeline in the RFP, since:

a.)   Pipelines do not ‘treat’ wastewater,

b.)   Therefore the stated “effluent compliance objectives” (above), can not be achieved by a pipeline, when the raw sewage parameters, (influent parameters), average:

  “BOD5: 165 mg /L; BOD5 Loading: 95 kg /d; TSS: 170 mg/L; Suspended Solids (SS) Loading 98 kg/d; TKN: 45 mg/L; TKN Loading: 26 kg /d; Ammonia-Nitrogen: 25 mg/L; Ammonia Nitrogen (NH3-N) Loading: 14 kg /d; Total Phosphorus: 7 mg /L; Total Phosphorus Loading: 4 kg /d”.

c.)  The Proposed destination, 'Secondary' Treatment Plant ( "ROPEC", in Gloucester) is  incapable of treating wastewater to the tertiary water quality of the "effluent compliance objectives" (see above chart) ---as required by the RFP. Secondary Treatment effluent contains about 30x more Total Phosphorus, and about 10X more E. Coli, ---than allowed by the Request for Proposals.

      This fact, alone, would render the pipeline option: "NON-COMPLIANT".

 

References throughout the RFP to: “DESIGN/BUILDER”. This represents a fixed cost proposal: a guaranteed price.

 

The pipeline proposals were submitted without designs and without fixed costs. Final costs for the pipeline, were to be determined “at the design stage”.  This means that: instead of being “DESIGN-BUILD”, the pipeline option had the favoured status of being on an open- ended “COST-PLUS” basis. This fact, alone, also renders the pipeline option: "NON-COMPLIANT".

The possible reason for this appears to be due to the fact that Current engineering estimates from Totten Simmes Hubicki placed the pipeline costs at about 500% higher than the on-site treatment proposals.

See Links to other issues related to the RFP:

Taggart Construction Request for Delay of the RFP submission Date.

RMOC Solicitation of Taggart Construction's pipeline Bid

HOME | CLOSE WINDOW