CVEN 4434 F00 p. 1
REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL:
WASTEWATER TREATMENT, SAN MIGUEL DE HORCASITAS, MEXICO
I. Overview
To date the community of San Miguel de Horcasitas has limited sewerage and no wastewater treatment. The community requires a reliable wastewater treatment system, and beneficial reuse of the treated water would be optimal.
II. Background
The municipality is located in the center of the state of Sonora, its head is the population of San Miguel de Horcasitas. The total population according to the census in the year 2000 is 5,626. Agriculture is the primary local economic activity. The 5 most important communities of the Municipality have home-supplied drinking water to 98% of the homes, representing 4,350 inhabitants. There is a sewer system only in the municipal head and partly in the locality of Pesqueira, serving 40% of the population. The 5 most important communities in the Municipality have electric power supply serving 90% of the population. Only some dispersed dwellings do not have electricity.
III. Proposed Scope of Work
A. Summarize Current Status
a. Current local environment: Community size, water uses, hydrology and geology, etc.
b. Amount and quantity of wastewater generated
c. Current wastewater treatment
B. Evaluate Future Needs
a. Changes in wastewater quantity and quality, based primarily on population
b. Effluent limits to discharge treated wastewater
c. Public economic burden
C. Develop Alternatives to Meet Future Needs (through 2026)
a. Evaluate treatment processes to produce desired (and regulatory required) treated wastewater quality. A minimum of 3 alternatives should be compared in detail. These can include centralized and decentralized approaches.
- include sewer pipe cost, sizing, design as needed
b. Evaluate various options to minimize undesirable by-products from the wastewater treatment, including secondary treatment for biosolids, odor, etc. as needed
c. Compare processes on the basis of criteria including (but not limited to): sustainability, cost (capital and operating), effluent quality, beneficial uses, reliability, and public acceptance.
D. Consultant Recommendations
Recommend one best set of processes to treat the wastewater. Summarize why this plan is optimal.
E. Preliminary Design of Selected Alternative
a. Produce drawings showing the layout of proposed facilities.
b. Run detailed sizing calculations and produce preliminary plan and profile views of the processes.
c. Sizing necessary pipes and pumps, including hydraulic calculation.
d. Propose a construction staging schedule.
e. Produce a refined cost estimate (including capital and operation/maintenance)
f. Describe requirements for monitoring performance of the facility, and routine maintenance
F. Public and Client Meetings
Describe when and how the local community will be involved in the decision process.
G. Written Reports
The alternative evaluation will be submitted to the client for review on Nov. 2. A revised alternative evaluation (addressing comments from the Client) will be submitted with the preliminary design on Dec. 14.
H. Project Management
Appropriate project management should be provided throughout the study and should consist of the following items, as a minimum:
o complete work within budget limits and on schedule
o provide appropriate quality control of the work
o coordinate input from local personnel
IV. Schedule
Draft alternative evaluation report – Nov. 2
Presentation: alternative evaluation and preliminary design – Dec. 7-14
Final alternative evaluation incorporating client comments and preliminary design report – Dec. 14
V. Scope of Work
The consultant shall provide a written interpretation of the scope of work, emphasizing aspects of the work requiring specific attention. Recommended revisions or additions to the scope of work and schedule based on Respondent's experience should be presented. Descriptions of specific tasks presented in the proposed scope of work above should be expanded or modified to address any special considerations or approaches.
In addition, the Respondent should provide a draft table of contents for the written reports anticipated to be developed as part of the scope of work.
The following factors will be considered in the selection of a consultant for this study and preliminary design:
o quality of proposal in response to the Scope of Work presented above
o overall firm experience
o quality of staff assigned to the project: experience with similar studies, design experience with similar projects, breakdown of staff time assigned to project
o resources of firm
o local versus out of state personnel assigned to study
o references
o cost
Presentation of the scope of work and workplan should be directed to Angela Bielefeldt on Sept. 21, 2006. Provide a hard copy of the visual aids.