Laserfiche WebLink
Page 3 of 5 <br />City of Redwood City 1017 Middlefield Road, Redwood City, CA. 94063 Tel: 650-780-7000 www.redwoodcity.org <br />3. Install new pump station piping, valves, fittings, and appurtenances, including connections to the <br />new system and to the existing suction and discharge pipelines <br />4. Replace approximately 1,000 linear feet of 10-inch ductile iron pumping line downstream of the <br />pump station and connect to the existing 12-inch polyvinyl chloride pumping line at Farm Hill <br />Boulevard and McGarvey Avenue <br />5. Replace the electromechanical system, controls and instrumentation, Supervisory Control and <br />Data Acquisition (SCADA) programming and integration, and cabinetry <br />6. Evaluate and upgrade the communication system, as needed <br />7. Install an emergency generator with an automatic transfer switch <br />8. Implement site improvements, including drainage, fencing, and establishment of a fire defensible <br />zone <br />On March 27, 2026, the City issued a Request for Proposals (RFP) for professional engineering services for <br />the Project. Two proposals were received by the closing date on April 17, 2026. Both were ranked in <br />accordance with the evaluation criteria identified in the RFP, including: <br />Ability to perform specific tasks <br />Qualifications of the specific individuals who will work on the project <br />Specific methods or techniques to be used <br />Reasonableness of the schedule to complete each task element <br />Overall cost to complete the tasks <br />The final proposal rankings are summarized in Table 1 below. <br />The proposal submitted by Schaaf & Wheeler Consulting Civil Engineers (Schaaf & Wheeler) was the <br />highest-ranked proposal based on the overall evaluation criteria defined in the RFP. Schaaf & Wheeler <br />provided a clear approach to pump station design, hydraulic analysis, electrical and controls <br />improvements, and construction-phase support. The proposal included a schedule consistent with the <br />City’s desired timeline, a defined Quality Assurance/Quality Control process with independent senior <br />review of deliverables, and a project team with relevant experience on similar water infrastructure <br />projects. The proposed level of effort was also determined to be appropriate for the scope and complexity <br />of the work. <br />The proposal submitted by Water Works Engineers received a lower technical score and did not address <br />several key project objectives. In particular, the proposal placed greater emphasis on site exploration and <br />cathodic protection, but provided less detail regarding hydraulic analysis, pump selection, and pump <br />station design. The proposal also did not identify a Quality Assurance/Quality Control program. The <br />proposed schedule was longer than estimated by City staff based on projects of similar scope. The <br />proposed number of personnel hours allocated appeared low relative to the extent of the work required. <br />Based on these considerations, staff determined that Water Works Engineers’ lower proposed cost did <br />Table 1: Consultant Ranking <br />Firm Rank Proposal Total Cost <br />Schaaf & Wheeler Consulting Civil Engineers 1 $657,095 <br />Water Works Engineers 2 $374,876 <br />7.D. - Page 3 of 22 <br />56