AGENDA REGULAR MEETING OF THE MONTEREY PENINSULA REGIONAL WATER AUTHORITY TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE

2:00 p.m. Monday June 18, 2012 Monterey Council Chambers 580 Pacific Street Monterey, CA
1. Call to order 2. Roll Call 3. Public Comment 4. Reports from TAC members 5. Review JPA meeting of 6/14 and act as needed 6. Review of RFP for Consultant services if needed 7. Review/modify risk grid as needed and approve 8. Review 6/6 CPUC pre-hearing conference 9. Review JPA Board decision on Peoples' withdrawal 10. 11. Select/consider new TAC Chair/resignation Adjournment All Reichmuth Subcommittee (Stoldt, Nariji, Riley) Riley Riley Reichmuth Reichmuth

In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), the City of Seaside does not discriminate against persons with disabilities and is an accessible facility. Any person with a disability who requires a modification or accommodation to be able to participate in this meeting is asked to contact the office of the City Clerk at mhernandez@ci.seaside.ca.us or 899-6707, no fewer than two business days prior to the meeting to allow for reasonable arrangements. The City of Seaside Council Chambers is equipped with a portable microphone for anyone unable to come to the podium. Assisted listening devices are also available upon request. Agenda related writings or documents provided to the MPRWA Technical Advisory Committee are available for public inspection during the meeting or may be requested from the office of the City Clerk. This agenda is posted in compliance with California Government Code Section 54954.2(a) or Section 54956.

Monterey Peninsula Regional Water Authority

Request for Proposals Comparison of Cost Estimates for the Desalination Projects and Evaluation of Schedule and Alternative Financing Options

Proposals are due by 5:00pm (PST) on July 6, 2012

Table of Contents

SOLICITATION DETAILS SECTION ....................................................................................................... 3 1.0 INTENT .................................................................................................................................................. 3 2.0 BACKGROUND .................................................................................................................................... 3 3.0 CALENDAR OF EVENTS .................................................................................................................... 4 4.0 POINTS OF CONTACT......................................................................................................................... 4 5.0 SCOPE OF WORK................................................................................................................................. 5 6.0 CONTRACT TERM ............................................................................................................................... 6 7.0 PROPOSAL/QUALIFICATIONS PACKAGE REQUIREMENTS ...................................................... 6 8.0 SUBMITTAL INSTRUCTIONS & CONDITIONS .............................................................................. 9 9.0 SELECTION CRITERIA ..................................................................................................................... 10 10.0 CONTRACT AWARDS..................................................................................................................... 10 11. 0 SEQUENTIAL CONTRACT NEGOTIATION ................................................................................ 11 12.0 AGREEMENT TO TERMS AND CONDITIONS ............................................................................ 11 13.0 RIGHTS TO PERTINENT MATERIALS ......................................................................................... 11 SIGNATURE PAGE .................................................................................................................................. 12

Page 2 of 13

SOLICITATION DETAILS SECTION

1.0 INTENT 1.1 The Monterey Peninsula Regional Water Authority, hereinafter referred to as Authority or MPRWA, is soliciting proposals from qualified organizations, hereinafter referred to as CONTRACTOR, to prepare comparison of cost estimates for the three desalination projects and prepare alternative evaluation of financing option, hereinafter referred to as Project. 1.2 This solicitation is intended for a single, exclusive AGREEMENT.

2.0 BACKGROUND 2.1 The State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) has ordered California American Water to find a replacement for approximately 70 percent of its water supply by December 2016. Failure to meet this deadline could have harmful consequences for the community. The total replacement supply needed is the difference between customer demand and California American (Cal-Am) Waters legal rights on the Carmel River and within its adjudicated rights in the Seaside basin. New water supply must be able to meet a customer demand of 15,250 acre feet per year (afy). The current supply deficit required to be replaced at this time is approximately 9,000 afy. A three-pronged approach to replace the water supply is contemplated: (1) desalination, (2) groundwater replenishment, and (3) aquifer storage and recovery (ASR). California Americans proposed desalination project is a variation of the North Marina Project, which the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) reviewed and analyzed in an earlier application, and incorporates the Cal-Am-only facilities previously approved by the CPUC. It will consist of slant intake wells, brackish water pipelines, the desalination plant, product water pipelines, brine disposal facilities, and related appurtenant facilities. There are also two other proposed desalination facilities, not proposed by Cal-Am, which seek recognition as potential alternatives to the Cal-Am desalination project. They are the Peoples Moss Landing Desal Project and the DeepWater Desal Project, both of which are open water intake projects located at Moss Landing. It is those three desalination projects alternatives that is to be the focus of the Scope of Services herein (see Scope of Services.) The Contractor will be retained to provide an independent, unbiased, thirdparty cost assessment of the three proposed desalination projects, as well as an evaluation of schedule and financing. The other two project elements are assumed to be the same for any of the three desalination alternatives, and will not require analysis by the Contractor. The Groundwater Replenishment Project will create a drought-proof underground reservoir that can be used as a source of supply by taking the effluent from the regional wastewater treatment plant, filtering it through a new advanced water treatment plant, and injecting the highly treated product water into the Seaside Basin Aquifer, where it would be diluted and stored. California American Water has entered into a Memorandum of Understanding with the MRWPCA and MPWMD to collaborate on developing the Groundwater Replenishment Project. The ASR project consists of the established joint ASR program between California American Water and MPWMD. The ASR system is currently comprised of three injection and extraction wells and one injection and extraction well that will be constructed in 2012 and 2013. Depending on the availability of
Page 3 of 13

excess Carmel River water based on in-stream flow requirements, permit requirements, and water rights, California American Water may divert excess Carmel River water as available during the wet winter months, and treat and deliver the water for storage in the Seaside Groundwater Basin ASR for use during the summer. Assuming required permitting times, design, and the potential for litigation, there is some question whether each of the three competing desalination projects can be constructed by the SWRCBs 2016 deadline. Therefore, we would like the Contractor to evaluate the schedules for each project.

3.0 CALENDAR OF EVENTS 3.1 Issue RFP 3.2 Deadline for Written Questions to MPRWA 3.3 Proposal Submittal Deadline 3.4 Proposal TAC Review 3.5 MPRWA Board Consideration 3.6 Estimated Notification of Selection June 15, 2012 June 25, 2012 3:00pm July 6, 2012 5:00pm July 16, 2012 July 26, 2012 July 27, 2012

4.0 POINTS OF CONTACT 4.1 Questions and correspondence regarding this solicitation shall be directed to: Primary Contact: Monterey Peninsula Regional Water Authority c/o Thomas Frutchey City Manager, City of Pacific Grove City Hall 300 Forest Avenue Pacific Grove, CA 93950 Thomas Frutchey tfrutchey@ci.pg.ca.us 4.2 All questions regarding this solicitation shall be submitted in writing (E-mail or FAX is acceptable). The questions will be researched and the answers will be communicated to all known interested CONTRACTORS after the deadline for receipt of questions. 4.3 The deadline for submitting written questions regarding this solicitation is indicated in the CALENDAR OF EVENTS Section 3.0 herein. Questions submitted after the deadline will not be answered. 4.4 Only answers to questions communicated by formal written addenda will be binding.

Page 4 of 13

5.0 SCOPE OF SERVICES Each of the proponents of the three desalination projects was asked by the Authority to respond to a specific set of questions, including cost-related inquiries. Each proponents response is included as an attachment to this solicitation. The responses have supporting documentation in various stages of development. Respondents will need to address the variations in data quality. For example, project proponents were asked to examine two plant sizes: 9,000 acre-feet or 5,400 acre-feet however, the proponents did not each provide such data. Responding Contractors may also review information from a proponents website or contact the project proponent directly. Proponent information is as follows: California American Water Company Richard Svindland DeepWater Desal, LLC Brent Constantz Peoples Moss Landing Desal George Schroeder www.watersupplyproject.org Richard.Svindland@amwater.com www.deepwaterdesal.com brent@dwdesal.com

916-568-4296

831-632-0616

www.thepeoplesmosslandingdesal.com ddgeo@sbcglobal.net 831-601-4878

The Contractor will be retained to provide an independent, unbiased, third-party assessment of the three proposed desalination projects. The selected contractor will provide a report and attend at least one presentation to the MPRWA board. There are six specific items as to project scope, as described below. 5.1 Initial Scoping and Constraints Analysis In order to reduce overall cost and scope of work, the Contractor is asked to first evaluate each project at a high level and ascertain if there are any key constraints that would render a project unlikely to be implemented by January 1, 2017. The criteria shall be determined by the Contractor, but might include technical feasibility, reliability, permitting, litigation risk, environmental factors, regulatory, schedule, or cost. 5.2 Comparison of Cost Estimates for the Three Desalination Projects For projects that were not eliminated under 5.1 above, Contractor shall review the following as presented by the project proponents: Capital costs Operating costs Unit costs (especially $ per acre foot) Energy consumption/efficiency/cost Quality of cost estimate (conceptual, preliminary, bid, etc.) Age of cost estimate

Compare the proposed projects based on total capital cost, annual operating plus capital cost, and annual unit cost based on water delivered to the Peninsula. The Contractor will identify differences in each proponents cost methodology and attempt to normalize or adjust for differences in order to provide more directly comparable results. The goal is an apples-toapples comparison. It is desired to have cost comparisons for projects of two sizes: (a) one that
Page 5 of 13

delivers 5,500 acre-feet per year to the Peninsula, and (b) one that delivers 9,000 acre-feet per year. In the analysis, identify key differences in each proponents methodology and attempt to adjust therefor across all projects in order to compare on a common basis. Attention should be paid to use of contingencies, implementation costs, adjustments for high- or low-end of cost range, and so on. If a projects costs are based on a portion of a larger project, please identify the risks associated with a larger project and the potential impact on cost if built as a stand-alone facility. Discuss the primary drivers for differences in cost between the projects. Identify assumptions or conclusions of any proponent that are questionable or inconsistent with other proponents; inconsistent assumptions should be adjusted where possible and cost figures modified accordingly. 5.3 Identify and Isolate Project Differences Contractors are asked to identify major differences in project features that are not the core desalination components that is, if all desalination facilities are assumed to all be the same for each of the projects, what are the key differences between the projects in the areas of intake, pretreatment, outfall, and transmission pipeline? Have the proponents used consistent cost assumptions on things like pipe, right-of-way, and other items? Can the projects be compared on the non-desalination aspects? 5.3 Evaluation of Schedule Please review each projects timeline and provide an opinion as to the reasonableness of each. 5.4 Evaluation of Financing Options Examine each proponents financing assumptions and comment where applicable. Are there assumptions or conclusions in the proponents materials with which you disagree? Why? How would cost estimates for each project be affected? 5.5 Workshop/Presentation In addition to a written report, the Contractor is expected to present its findings to the MPRWA at a meeting to be scheduled.

6.0 CONTRACT TERM 6.1 The term of the AGREEMENT will be for a period ending August 31, 2012. 6.2 The AGREEMENT shall contain a clause that provides that the Authority reserves the right to cancel this AGREEMENT, or any extension of this AGREEMENT, without cause, with a thirty day (30) written notice, or immediately with cause.

7.0 PROPOSAL/QUALIFICATIONS PACKAGE REQUIREMENTS 7.1 CONTENT AND LAYOUT:

Page 6 of 13

7.1.1 CONTRACTOR should provide the information as requested and as applicable to the proposed goods and services. The proposal or qualifications package shall be organized as per the table below; headings and section numbering utilized in the proposal or qualification package shall be the same as those identified in the table. Proposals or qualifications packages shall include at a minimum, but not limited to, the following information in the format indicated: Requirements: Cover Letter: All proposals must be accompanied by a cover letter not exceeding two pages and should provide organization information and Contact information as follows: Contact Info: The name, address, telephone number, and fax number of CONTRACTORs primary contact person during the solicitation process through to potential contract award. Organization Info: Description of the type of organization (e.g. corporation, partnership, including joint venture teams and subcontractors) and how many years its been in existence. Signed Signature Page and Signed Addenda (if any addenda were released for this solicitation) Proposal packages submitted without this page will be deemed non-responsive. All signatures must be manual and in BLUE ink. All prices and notations must be typed or written in BLUE ink. Errors may be crossed out and corrections printed in ink or typed adjacent, and must be initialed in BLUE ink by the person signing the proposal. Table of Contents include a table of contents in the Proposal. Section 2, Pre-Qualifications/Licensing Requirements: CONTRACTOR must acknowledge in writing that it meets all of the prequalifications and licensing requirements to perform the Scope of Services as outlined within this RFP. CONTRACTOR shall possess and maintain all permits, licenses, and professional credentials necessary to provide services as specified under this RFP. Section 3, Project Experience & References: Experience & References: The CONTRACTOR shall provide concise, less than 1-page descriptions of at least 3 comparable projects, either in progress now or completed within the last five (5) years, for which your organization provided similar services. These descriptions should describe and demonstrate your organizations experience. Key Staff Persons: CONTRACTOR shall identify key staff and include their qualifications and experience proposed for the service identified herein. List members of your staff who worked on the projects described and their roles. Include the following information for each project listed:

Project name, location, size and date completed Project owners name. Also list the contact information (name, phone number and email address if possible) as the Authority may conduct reference checks using this information. Description of services performed by your organization
Page 7 of 13

Section 4, Litigation History (if any): Provide specific information on your organizations (or that of all organizations included in the project team) litigation history in the last five (5) years, termination for default, litigation by or against your organization, and judgments entered for or against your organization. If there is no litigation history in the past five (5) years, please so state. Section 5, Technical Aspects: CONTRACTOR shall provide a written and signed statement in this section which confirms that their proposal is inclusive of all elements necessary to complete the economic analysis requested in the SCOPE OF SERVICES by August 31, 2012. Section 6, Pricing: The proposal shall include a budget, work schedule, and timeline to complete the tasks and project deliverables to meet the Authoritys needs as indicated in this RFP. Please explain potential savings, if any, that may result from the elimination of one or more of the projects through the constraints analysis described in the Scope of Services section 5.1. CONTRACTOR shall price the cost of the analysis based on the project deliverables outlined in this RFP. CONTRACTOR shall provide a written and signed statement confirming their proposal is inclusive of all elements necessary to complete all goals, tasks, and project deliverables by August 31, 2012. Section 7, Exceptions: Submit any and all exceptions to this solicitation on separate pages, and clearly identify the top of each page with EXCEPTION TO MONTEREY PENINSULA REGIONAL WATER AUTHORITY SOLICITATION FOR COMPARISON OF COST ESTIMATES FOR DESALINATION PROJECT AND EVALUATION OF SCHEDULE AND ALTERNATIVE FINANCING OPTIONS. Each Exception shall reference the page number and section number, as appropriate. CONTRACTOR should note that the submittal of an Exception does not obligate the Authority to revise the terms of the RFP or AGREEMENT.

7.2 ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS: To be considered responsive, submitted proposals or qualifications packages shall adhere to the following: 7.2.1 Seven (7) sets of the proposal package (one original proposal marked Original plus six (6) copies) shall be submitted in response to this solicitation. Each copy shall include a cover indicating the company name submitting, and reference to RFP for Comparison of Cost Estimates for Desalination Projects and Evaluation of Alternative Financing Options. In addition, submit one (1) electronic version of the entire proposal package on a CD or DVD. USB memory sticks are NOT acceptable. Acceptable file formats include PDF, Word, and Excel. Additional copies may be requested by the Authority at its discretion. 7.2.2 Proposals packages shall be prepared on 8-1/2 x 11 paper, preferably duplex printed. Fold out charts, tables, spreadsheets, brochures, pamphlets, and other pertinent information or work product examples may be included as Appendices.

Page 8 of 13

7.2.3 Reproductions of the seals for Monterey Peninsula Regional Water Authority shall not be used in any documents submitted in response to this solicitation. 7.2.4 CONTRACTOR shall not use white-out or a similar correction product to make late changes to their proposal or qualifications package but may instead line out and initial in BLUE ink any item which no longer is applicable or accurate. 7.2.5 To validate your proposal package, submit the SIGNATURE PAGE (contained herein) with your proposal. Proposal packages submitted without that page will be deemed non-responsive. Proposal signature must be manual, in BLUE ink, and included with the original copy of the proposal. Photocopies of the Signature Page may be inserted into the remaining proposal copies. All prices and notations must be typed or written in BLUE ink in the original proposal copy as well. Errors may be crossed out and corrections printed in BLUE ink or typed adjacent, and must be initialed in BLUE ink by the person signing the proposal. 7.3 CONFIDENTIAL OR PROPRIETARY CONTENT: Any page of the proposal package that is deemed by CONTRACTOR to be a trade secret by the CONTRACTOR shall be clearly marked CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION or PROPRIETARY INFORMATION at the top of the page. 8.0 SUBMITTAL INSTRUCTIONS & CONDITIONS 8.1 Submittal Identification Requirements: ALL SUBMITTALS MAILED OR DELIVERED CONTAINING PROPOSAL PACKAGES MUST BE SEALED AND BEAR ON THE OUTSIDE, PROMINENTLY DISPLAYED IN THE LOWER LEFT CORNER: THE SOLICITATION TITLE and CONTRACTORS COMPANY NAME. 8.2 Mailing Address: Proposal packages shall be mailed or delivered to the Authority at the mailing address indicated on the Signature Page of this solicitation. 8.3 Due Date: Proposal packages must be received by the Authority ON OR BEFORE the time and date specified, at the location and to the person specified on the Signature Page of this solicitation. It is the sole responsibility of the CONTRACTOR to ensure that the proposal package is received at or before the specified time. Postmarks and facsimiles are not acceptable. Proposals received after the deadline shall be rejected and returned unopened. 8.4 Shipping Costs: Unless stated otherwise, the F.O.B. for receivables shall be destination. Charges for transportation, containers, packaging and other related shipping costs shall be borne by the shipper. 8.5 Acceptance: Proposals are subject to acceptance at any time within 90 days after opening. The Authority reserves the right to reject any and all proposal packages, or part of any proposal package, to postpone the scheduled deadline date(s), to make an award in its own best interest, and to waive any informalities or technicalities that do not significantly affect or alter the substance of an otherwise responsible proposal package and that would not affect a CONTRACTORS ability to perform the work adequately as specified. 8.6 Ownership: All submittals in response to this solicitation become the property of the Authority. If a CONTRACTOR does not wish to submit a Proposal package but wishes to acknowledge the receipt of the request, the reply envelope shall be marked No Bid.

Page 9 of 13

8.7 Compliance: Proposal packages that do not follow the format, content and submittal requirements as described herein, or fail to provide the required documentation, may receive lower evaluation scores or be deemed non-responsive. 8.8 CAL-OSHA: The items proposed shall conform to all applicable requirements of the California Occupational Safety and Health Administration Act of 1973 (CAL-OSHA). 9.0 SELECTION CRITERIA 9.1 The selection of CONTRACTOR and subsequent contract award will be based on the criteria contained in this Solicitation, as demonstrated in the submitted proposal. CONTRACTOR should submit information sufficient for the Authority to easily evaluate proposals with respect to the selection criteria. The absence of required information may cause the Proposal to be deemed non-responsive and may be cause for rejection. 9.2 The selection criteria include, but are not limited to, the following: Qualifications and experience; Understanding of project goals; Proposed methodology to fulfill the intent of this RFP; Ability and capacity to fulfill the intent of this RFP; Reasonable budget, work schedule, and timeline. 9.3 AGREEMENT award may not be based on cost alone. 10.0 CONTRACT AWARDS 10.1 Multiple Award(s): The Authority has the option to award a portion or portions of this contract to multiple successful CONTRACTOR at the sole discretion of and benefit to the Authority. 10.2 Board of Directors: The award(s) made from this solicitation is subject to approval by the Monterey Peninsula Regional Water Authority. 10.3 Interview: The Authority reserves the right to interview selected CONTRACTOR before a contract is awarded. The costs of attending any interview are the CONTRACTORS responsibility. 10.4 Incurred Costs: Authority is not liable for any cost incurred by CONTRACTOR in response to this solicitation. 10.5 Notification: Unsuccessful CONTRACTORS who have submitted a Proposal or Qualifications Package will be notified of the final decision as soon as it has been determined. 10.6 In Authoritys Best Interest: The award(s) resulting from this solicitation will be made to the CONTRACTOR that submit(s) a response that, in the sole opinion of the Authority, best serves the overall interest of the Authority. 10.7 No Guaranteed Value: Authority does not guarantee a minimum or maximum dollar value for any AGREEMENT or AGREEMENTS resulting from this solicitation. 10.8 Contract retentions: 10% of the contract price will be retained until completion of all projects.

Page 10 of 13

11. 0 SEQUENTIAL CONTRACT NEGOTIATION Authority will pursue contract negotiations with the CONTRACTOR who submit(s) the best Proposal or is deemed the most qualified in the sole opinion of Authority, and which is in accordance with the criteria as described within this solicitation. If the contract negotiations are unsuccessful, in the opinion of either Authority or CONTRACTOR, Authority may pursue contract negotiations with the entity that submitted a Proposal which Authority deems to be the next best qualified to provide the services, or Authority may issue a new solicitation or take any other action which it deems to be in its best interest.

12.0 AGREEMENT TO TERMS AND CONDITIONS CONTRACTOR selected through the solicitation process will be expected to execute a formal AGREEMENT with Authority for the provision of the requested service. The AGREEMENT shall be written by Authority in a standard format approved by Authority Counsel. Submission of a signed bid/proposal and the SIGNATURE PAGE will be interpreted to mean CONTRACTOR HAS AGREED TO ALL THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS set forth in the pages of this solicitation. Authority may but is not required to consider including language from the CONTRACTORS proposed AGREEMENT, and any such submission shall be included in the EXCEPTIONS section of CONTRACTORS proposal. 13.0 RIGHTS TO PERTINENT MATERIALS All responses, inquiries, and correspondence related to this solicitation and all reports, charts, displays, schedules, exhibits, and other documentation produced by the CONTRACTOR that are submitted as part of the submittal will become the property of the Authority when received by the Authority and may be considered public information under applicable law. Any proprietary information in the submittal must be identified as such and marked CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION or PROPRIETARY INFORMATION. The Authority will not disclose proprietary information to the public, unless required by law; however, the Authority cannot guarantee that such information will be held confidential.

Page 11 of 13

SIGNATURE PAGE ISSUE DATE: ___________ RFP: Comparison of Cost Estimates for Desalination Projects and Evaluation of Schedule and Alternative Financing Options MAILING ADDRESS: Monterey Peninsula Regional Water Authority c/o Thomas Frutchey, City Manager City of Pacific Grove City Hall 300 Forest Avenue Pacific Grove, CA 93950

PROPOSALS ARE DUE TO THE AUTHORITY IN THE CITY OF PACIFIC GROVES OFFICES BY 5:00 P.M., LOCAL TIME, ON: July 6, 2012

QUESTIONS ABOUT THIS RFP SHOULD BE DIRECTED TO Thomas Frutchey tfrutchey@ci.pg.ca.us

CONTRACTOR MUST INCLUDE THE FOLLOWING IN EACH PROPOSAL: 1 original plus 6 copies = total of 7 copies plus one CD or DVD (no USB sticks) ALL REQUIRED CONTENT AS DEFINED PER SECTION 7.1 HEREIN This Signature Page must be included with your submittal in order to validate your proposal. Proposals submitted without this page will be deemed non-responsive. CHECK HERE IF YOU HAVE ANY EXCEPTIONS TO THIS SOLICITATION. CONTRACTOR MUST COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING TO VALIDATE PROPOSAL I hereby agree to furnish the articles and/or services stipulated in my proposal at the price quoted, subject to the instructions and conditions in the Request for Proposal package. I further attest that I am an official officer representing my organization and authorized with signatory authority to present this proposal package. Company Name: ___________________________________________ Date ________________ Signature: __________________________ Printed Name:_______________________________ Street Address:_________________________________________________________________ City: ___________________ State: ______ Zip: ______________
Page 12 of 13

Phone: (

) ______________ Fax: (

) ______________ Email: ________________________

Page 13 of 13

 Larger Consulting Engineers Black & Veatch 5875 Arnold Road Suite 200 Dublin, CA 94568 925-556-2200

PotentialConsultantsforDesalinationCostReview

Brown & Caldwell 201 North Civic Drive, Suite 115 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 925-937-9010 Carollo Engineers 2700 Ygnacio Valley Road, Suite 300 Walnut Creek, CA 94598 925-932-1710 Jon Toyoda CDMSmith 100 Pringle Avenue Suite 300 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 USA 925-933-2900 John Ryan CH2MHill 1737 North 1st Street Suite 300 San Jose, CA 95112-4524 408-436-4936 Bill Rettberg GEI Consultants 180 Grand Avenue Suite 1410 Oakland, CA 94612-3017 510-350-2900 GHD 417 Montgomery Street San Francisco CA 94104 415-283-4970

Kennedy/Jenks Consultants 1000 Broadway, Suite 415 Oakland, CA 94607 510-663-3960 MWH 2121 N. California Blvd, Suite 600 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 925-627-4500 URS Corp 600 Montgomery Street, 26th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111-2728 415-774-2700

Smaller Consulting Ken Ortega BASE Water Resources Consulting & Management, LLC 230 W. Seventh Street Suite E Oxnard, CA 93030 805-240-1000 Jim Geselbracht Water Works Engineers 5767 Broadway, Suite 201 Oakland, CA 94618 510-428-9590

RISK GRID UPDATE, WITH COMMENTS

From TAC meeting on June 4, 2012

As of June 7, 2012

SUMMARY of qualitative TAC judgments of relative risk on separate issues. The items have not been determined to be equal, therefore totaling the columns is meaningless.

PART II
A. TECHNICAL 1. Source water: rights 2. Pre-treatment, water quality 3. Discharge

Cal Am

Deep Peoples Comments Water

Surface Salinas River Basin has unique issues.. open ocean- Surface intake has changing regulations --2 ---? Insufficient data

Slant 100 ft wells --- open 1 ocean---3 ---? ---3

---3

---2

---2

CalAm has access to existing outfall. DW needs new outfall. Peoples needs new permit & retrofitting Slant well technology for water has not been proven in CA. Ocean intake is proven. Traditional (Peop) vs variation on traditional (DW) vs new application(CA)

4. Proven technology 5. Permits for technology

---1

---3

---3

---3

---2

---1

B. SCHEDULE 1. EIR, full or less partial--- full---1 2 2. Permits; difficulty ---2 ---2 full---1 ---2 CA will seek supplemental or subsequent EIR, whereas other 2 will need full EIR No project has an easier track.

3. Litigation risks, ---1 potential 4. Site control, easements

---2

---2

CA has experienced litigation over some SV issues, which may be repeated. Peop owns site.

None, partial---2 yes---3 unknown ---2

5. Date to deliver 56 55 44 months, months, months, Jan 2016 Jan 2017 Dec 2016 New 6. CPUC ---3 ---1 ---1

Not rated since the consultant will review this, along with costs. CPUC process has authority to approve.

Process COMMUNITY CONCERNS 1. Public ownership 2. Governance structure No---1 Yes---3 Yes---3

Other two are outside CPUC process with no ready-made process

CA has decided to own, with no public partner. Peop is in active negotiations for public partner for governance.

none---1 Wants JPA---2

Wants city, agency or JPA---3