HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda_GUS_11.11.2016Notice of Meeting for the
Georgetown Utility System Adv isory Board
of the City of Georgetown
Nov ember 11, 2016 at 2:00 PM
at Georgetown Municipal Complex, 300-1 Industrial Av enue, Georgetown TX
The City o f G eo rgeto wn is committed to comp lianc e with the Americans with Dis abilities Ac t (ADA). If yo u
req uire as s is tanc e in participating at a p ublic meeting d ue to a disability, as d efined und er the ADA, reas onab le
as s is tance, ad ap tatio ns , or acc o mmo d ations will b e provid ed up o n req uest. P leas e c o ntact the City Sec retary's
Office, at leas t three (3) days prior to the sc hed uled meeting d ate, at (512) 930-3652 o r City Hall at 113 Eas t 8th
Street fo r add itional info rmation; TTY us ers ro ute through Relay Texas at 711.
Regular Session
(This Regular S es s io n may, at any time, b e rec es s ed to convene an Exec utive S es s io n fo r any p urpose
authorized b y the Op en Meetings Act, Texas Go vernment Co d e 551.)
A Call to Ord er
The Board may, at any time, rec es s the R egular S es s io n to convene in Exec utive S es s io n at the reques t of
the Chair, a Board Memb er, the City Manager, As s is tant City Manager, G eneral Manager of Utilities, City
Co uncil Member, o r legal c o uns el for any p urpos e authorized b y the Op en Meetings Act, Texas
Government C o d e Chapter 551, and are s ubjec t to actio n in the Regular Ses s ion that follows .
B Introduction of Vis itors
Emp lo yee R ec ognitio n
-- Mark Warden, Utility Co nservation Coordinator -- Mike Babin
C Dis cus s ion regard ing the Projec t Progres s Report, timelines includ ing p ro jec ts and Co uncil Actio ns. –
Mic hael Hallmark, P ro ject Manager
D Ind ustry Up d ates
Legislativ e Regular Agenda
E Review and p o s s ib le ac tion to approve the minutes from the regular GUS Bo ard meeting held on Oc to b er
14, 2016. - S heila K. Mitchell, GUS Board Liais o n
F Co nsideration and possible recommendatio n to renew the contrac t fo r lab o r s ervices fo r Electric Sys tem
Overhead C o ns truc tion and Maintenanc e to Tec hline Co nstruc tion, LLC of Aus tin, Texas , in the no t to
exceed amount of $750,000.00. -- Wes ley Wright, P.E., S ystems Engineering Directo r
G Co nsideration and possible recommendatio n to renew the contrac t fo r lab o r s ervices fo r Outside Plant
Fib er Optic Infras tructure Cons tructio n to JC Communic ations of Cedar Park, Texas , in the no t to
exceed amount of $300,000.00. -- Wes ley Wright, P.E., S ystems Engineering Directo r
Page 1 of 77
H Co nsideration and possible recommendatio n to award a c o ntract to C.C. C arlton, LTD of Austin, Texas
for the c ons truc tio n o f the Wes tingho use S o uth Regio nal Was tewater Sys tem Improvements and
Stonehedge Lift S tatio n Mo d ificatio ns in the amo unt o f $2,112,011.00 – Wes ley Wright, P.E., Systems
Engineering Directo r/Mic hael Hallmark, C IP Manager.
I Co nsideration and possible recommendatio n to ap p ro ve Task Order DEI-17-001 with Dunham
Engineering, Inc . o f Co llege Station, Texas , for p ro fes s io nal s ervic es related to the Des ign of a Sun City
2.0 MG (million gallo n) Composite EST (elevated s torage tank) in the amount of $300,000.00 – Wesley
Wright, P.E., Sys tems Engineering Director/Michael Hallmark, CIP Manager.
J Co nsideration and possible recommendatio n to ap p ro ve Task Order DEI-17-002 with Dunham
Engineering, Inc . o f Co llege Station, Texas , for p ro fes s io nal s ervic es related to the Des ign of the Airpo rt
1.5 MG (million gallo n) GST (Gro und Sto rage Tank) Rehab ilitatio n in the amo unt o f $80,000.00 – Wes ley
Wright, P.E., Sys tems Engineering Director/Michael Hallmark, CIP Manager.
K Co nsideration and pos s ible rec o mmendatio n to ap p ro ve a c hange order with Itineris N.A to pro vide
management, sup p o rt, and overs ight o f the transformatio n and conversion tas ks fo r Data Migration in the
amount of $56,000. – Letic ia Zavala, Cus tomer Care Direc tor
L Co nsideration and p o s s ib le rec ommend ation to ap p ro ve a c o ntract with KHA Intelligence Group LLC to
provid e trans fo rmation rule design, develo p ment, and d ata c o nvers io n o f the legac y s ystem data for Data
Migration in the amount of $83,470. -- Letic ia Zavala, Custo mer Care Direc tor
M Co nsideration and possible recommendatio n to ap p ro ve a tas k o rd er with Elec tS o lve Tec hno lo gy
So lutio ns and S ervic e to develo p and c onfigure integrations between the meter data management s ystem
and the new CIS UMAX software in the amo unt o f $75,000. -- Letic ia Zavala, Cus tomer Care Direc tor
Adjournment
CERTIFICATE OF POSTING
I, Shelley No wling, C ity S ecretary fo r the C ity of Geo rgeto wn, Texas , d o hereby c ertify that this Notice of
Meeting was p o s ted at City Hall, 113 E. 8th Street, a p lace read ily acc es s ible to the general p ublic at all times ,
on the ______ d ay o f __________________, 2016, at __________, and remained so p o s ted fo r at leas t 72
c o ntinuo us ho urs p receding the sc heduled time o f s aid meeting.
____________________________________
S helley No wling, City Sec retary
Page 2 of 77
City of Georgetown, Texas
Utility System Advisory Board
November 11, 2016
SUBJECT:
Call to Ord er
The Bo ard may, at any time, recess the Regular Ses s ion to c o nvene in Exec utive Ses s ion at the req uest of
the Chair, a Bo ard Member, the City Manager, As s is tant City Manager, General Manager o f Utilities , City
Counc il Memb er, or legal counsel fo r any purp o s e autho rized by the Op en Meetings Ac t, Texas
Go vernment Code Chap ter 551, and are s ub jec t to ac tion in the Regular Ses s io n that fo llo ws.
ITEM SUMMARY:
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
N/A
SUBMITTED BY:
Page 3 of 77
City of Georgetown, Texas
Utility System Advisory Board
November 11, 2016
SUBJECT:
Disc ussion regarding the P ro ject P ro gress R ep o rt, timelines inc luding p ro jec ts and Counc il Ac tions . –
Michael Hallmark, Projec t Manager
ITEM SUMMARY:
GUS Pro jects :
2016 Mis c ellaneo us Water Sys tem Improvements
Berry C reek Was tewater Intercepto r
Cedar Breaks Elevated S torage Tank (ES T )
County R o ad 255 Waterline Imp ro vements
EARZ 2014-15
EARZ 2015-16
Rabbit Hill Elevated Water Sto rage Tank (EST)
Shell Road Waterline Improvements
Wes tinghous e R egional Lift Station (LS )
Counc il Ac tio ns
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
N/A
SUBMITTED BY:
Michael Hallmark
ATTACHMENTS:
Description Type
GUS Nov Proj Rpts & Council Actions Backup Material
Page 4 of 77
Page 5 of 77
Page 6 of 77
Page 7 of 77
Page 8 of 77
Page 9 of 77
Page 10 of 77
Page 11 of 77
Page 12 of 77
Page 13 of 77
Page 14 of 77
City of Georgetown, Texas
Utility System Advisory Board
November 11, 2016
SUBJECT:
Review and pos s ible actio n to ap p ro ve the minutes fro m the regular GUS Board meeting held o n Octo b er
14, 2016. - Sheila K. Mitc hell, GUS Bo ard Liais on
ITEM SUMMARY:
Bo ard to review, revis e and /or ap p ro ve the minutes fro m the regular GUS Board meeting held o n Octo b er
14, 2016.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
N/A
SUBMITTED BY:
Sheila K. Mitc hell/GUS Bo ard Liais o n
ATTACHMENTS:
Description Type
GUS Oct 14 2016 DRAFT Minutes Backup Material
Page 15 of 77
Minutes of the Meeting of the
Georgetown Utility Systems Advisory Board and the
Governing Body of the City of Georgetown, Texas
October 14, 2016 at 2:00PM
at Georgetown Municipal Complex, 300-1 Industrial Avenue, Georgetown, TX
The City of Georgetown is committed to compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). If
you require assistance in participation at a public meeting due to a disability, as defined under the ADA,
reasonable assistance, adaptations, or accommodations will be provided upon request. Please contact the
City Secretary’s Office, at least three (3) days prior to the scheduled meeting date, at (512) 930-3652 or
City Hall at 113 East 8th Street for additional information: TTY users route through Relay Te xas at 711.
Board Members Present: Mike Cunningham – Vice Chair, Joyce Mapes -- Secretary, Ed Pastor,
John Copelan, Edward Wiley
Board Members Absent: Bill Stump – Chair, Steve Fought
Staff Members Present: Jim Briggs, Wes Wright, Michael Hallmark, Glenn Dishong, Mike
Westbrook, Deborah Knutsen, Cheryl Turney, Jimmy Sikes, Sheila Mitchell, Chris Foster (joined
at 2:10PM), Mike Babin (joined at 2:10PM), Leticia Zavala (joined at 2:10PM)
Others Present: Trae Sutton/KPA
Regular Session
(This Regular Session may, at any time, be recessed to convene an Executive Session for any purpose
authorized by the Open Meetings Act, Texas Government Code 551.)
A. Call to Order – Called to Order by Vice Chair Cunningham at 2:00PM
The Board may, at any time, recess the Regular Session to convene an Executive Session at the
request of the Chair, a Board Member, the City Manager, Assistant City Manager, General Manager
of Utilities, City Council Member, or legal counsel for any purpose authorized by the Open Meetings
Act, Texas Government Code Chapter 551, and are subject to action in the Regular Session that
follows.
B. Introduction of Visitors
Trae Sutton/KPA
Employee Recognition -- none
C. Discussion regarding the Project Progress Report, timelines including projects and Council Actions. –
Michael Hallmark, Project Manager
Hallmark stated reports in packet. Some discussion on raising the bowl at Rabbit Hill Lift Station.
Wright noted a video will be available in the future for board members to view the process. No
further discussion.
D. Industry Updates
Briggs gave update on upcoming legislative session next spring; committees have been working over
the summer. Regional water planning groups met in September; regional plans are wrapping up and
due to legislators prior to session beginning. There are also a number of issues for possible
consideration, impacting cities and municipal-owned utilities that will be coming forward as well as
legislation to allow boards/special districts (such as Chisholm Trail) to vote to dissolve. City will meet
with our government relations consultants and legislative representatives in next couple of weeks to
determine which issues we have concern with. Those items would go to Council for their support
before moving forward for legislation. Possible issues such as: eminent domain, rate impacts for out
of city customers/rate making authority, etc. Discussion on water development boards/funding.
Legislative Regular Agenda
The Board will individually consider and possibly take action on any or all of the following items:
E. Review and possible action to approve the minutes from the Regular GUS Board meeting held on
September 9, 2016. – Sheila K. Mitchell, GUS Board Liaison Page 16 of 77
Pastor thanked staff and Briggs, and all those involved with setting up the tour and lunch at the
September Board Meeting held at the Westside Service Center. Cunningham noticed FTWoods and
Wright for the nice work done on the building. Copelan asked and Briggs stated good feedback has
been received from Council. Copelan asked about fire pipe in back of building, which Briggs noted is
part of new fire code. No further discussion. Motion by Pastor, seconded by Copelan to approve the
minutes from the Regular GUS Board meeting held on September 9, 2016. Approved 5-0-2 (Stump,
Fought absent)
F. Consideration and possible recommendation to renew the contract for labor services for Electric
System Overhead Construction and Maintenance to Bird Electric Enterprises, LLC, of Eastland,
Texas, in the not to exceed amount of $1,100,000.00 . – Wesley Wright, P.E., Systems Engineering
Director
Wright provided information on work to be performed by Bird Electric. This is the second renewal of
the contract. Purchase Orders are issued as work is completed. Bird has been doing this work for the
City for last several years; spent approximately $1,000,000.00 last year. Motion by Pastor, seconded
by Mapes to approve the renewal of the contract for labor services for Electric System Overhead
Construction and Maintenance to Bird Electric Enterprises, LLC, of Eastland, Texas, in the not to
exceed amount of $1,100,000.00. Approved 5-0-2 (Stump, Fought absent)
Briggs stepped out at 2:16PM and returned at 2:19PM
G. Consideration and possible recommendation to renew the contract for the Electric System
Underground Construction and Maintenance with Pedro S.S. Services, Inc., of Austin, Texas, in the
not to exceed amount of $1,000,000.00. – Wesley Wright, P.E., Systems Engineering Director
Wright provided information on work to be performed by Pedro S.S. Services. Pedro has been doing
this work for the City for almost ten years; spent approximately $1,500,000.00 due to some additional
CIP and substation work they performed. This is the second renewal of the contract. Pastor asked and
Wright noted work is monitored by our construction/electric engineering project coordinators.
Motion by Pastor, seconded by Mapes to approve the renewal of the contract for the Electric System
Underground Construction and Maintenance with Pedro S.S. Services, Inc., of Austin, Texas, in the
not to exceed amount of $1,000,000.00. Approved 5-0-2 (Stump, Fought absent)
H. Consideration and possible recommendation to approve the contract for the Edwards Aquifer
Recharge Zone (EARZ) – 2015-2016, Wastewater Rehabilitation to Coyote Construction, LLC, of
Elgin, Texas, for the amount of $699,250.00. – Wesley Wright, P.E., Systems Engineering
Director/Michael Hallmark, CIP Manager
Wright and Hallmark explained the EARZ Wastewater Rehabilitation project work required by
TCEQ for inspection once every five years, over a five year period and then work is performed on
repairs based on findings. This year’s work is primarily in Sun City area so lines are in good shape
and newer infrastructure, which will require less line work than other areas of the system. Coyote
Construction would be a new contractor with city; however, has worked for city as a sub-contractor.
Pastor asked and Wright explained about run-off from parking lots, water quality ponds, etc. both in
the city and ETJ. Motion by Wiley, seconded by Pastor to approve the contract for the Edwards
Aquifer Recharge Zone (EARZ) – 2015-2016, Wastewater Rehabilitation to Coyote Construction, LLC,
of Elgin, Texas, for the amount of $699,250.00. Approved 5-0-2 (Stump, Fought absent)
I. Consideration and possible recommendation to award the Tree Trimming and Vegetation
Management bid (Bid No. 201656) to National Tree Expert Company, Inc., of Burnet, Texas, in the
estimated amount of $280,000.00. – Mike Westbrook, Electric Operations Manager
Westbrook provided information on work to be performed by National Tree ; their last five year
contract expired at end of fiscal year. Work was put back out for bid; two bids received. National Tree
has been doing this work for the City for many years, works great with customers and excellent
response time during emergencies. Some discussion. Westbrook thanked Knutsen for assistance with
bid process and reference checks. Motion by Pastor, seconded by Copelan to award the Tree
Trimming and Vegetation Management bid (Bid No. 201656) to National Tree Expert Company, Inc.,
of Burnet, Texas, in the estimated amount of $280,000.00. Approved 5-0-2 (Stump, Fought absent)
Page 17 of 77
Adjournment
Motion by Copelan, seconded by Wiley to adjourn. Approved 5-0-2 (Stump, Fought absent). Meeting
adjourned at 2:24PM.
__________________________ _____________________________
Mike Cunningham – Vice Chair Joyce Mapes – Secretary
_________________________________
Sheila K. Mitchell, GUS Board Liaison
Page 18 of 77
City of Georgetown, Texas
Utility System Advisory Board
November 11, 2016
SUBJECT:
Cons id eration and p o s s ib le rec o mmendation to renew the c o ntract for labor s ervic es for Elec tric System
Overhead Cons truc tio n and Maintenance to Tec hline Cons tructio n, LLC of Aus tin, Texas, in the not to
exc eed amount o f $750,000.00. -- Wesley Wright, P.E., Sys tems Engineering Direc tor
ITEM SUMMARY:
The b id for Elec tric Sys tem Overhead Co nstruc tio n and Maintenance is a labor o nly c o ntract, to cons truc t
p lanned or antic ip ated CIP, Develo p ment and Maintenance p ro jects in the no t to exc eed amount
o f $750,000.00. The term will begin Octo b er 1, 2016 thro ugh Septemb er 30, 2017. T his is the s econd
renewal.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff rec o mmend s approval of the renewal with Techline Cons tructio n, LLC o f Aus tin, Texas.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
Funds fo r the planned expend itures are availab le in the Elec tric Cap ital Improvement and Operatio ns
Budgets
SUBMITTED BY:
Wes ley Wright, P.E., S ystems Engineering Direc to r
Page 19 of 77
City of Georgetown, Texas
Utility System Advisory Board
November 11, 2016
SUBJECT:
Cons id eration and p o s s ib le rec o mmendation to renew the c o ntract for labor s ervic es for Outs id e Plant
Fiber Op tic Infras truc ture Co nstruc tion to JC C o mmunicatio ns o f Cedar P ark, Texas, in the not to
exc eed amount o f $300,000.00. -- Wesley Wright, P.E., Sys tems Engineering Direc tor
ITEM SUMMARY:
The b id for Outs ide Plant Fiber Op tic Infras truc ture Co nstruc tion is a labor only contrac t, to c o nstruc t
p lanned or antic ip ated CIP, Develo p ment and Maintenance p ro jects in the no t to exc eed amount
o f $300,000.00. The term will begin Dec ember 1, 2016 thro ugh Novemb er 30, 2017. T his is the Sec o nd
renewal.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff rec o mmend s approval of the renewal with JC Communic ations of Cedar Park, Texas .
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
Funds fo r the planned expend itures are availab le in the Elec tric Cap ital Improvement and Operatio ns
Budgets
SUBMITTED BY:
Wes ley Wright, P.E., S ystems Engineering Direc to r
Page 20 of 77
City of Georgetown, Texas
Utility System Advisory Board
November 11, 2016
SUBJECT:
Cons id eration and p o s s ib le rec o mmendation to award a contrac t to C.C. Carlto n, LT D o f Aus tin, Texas
fo r the cons truc tion of the Westinghous e South R egional Wastewater System Imp ro vements and
Sto nehed ge Lift Station Modific ations in the amount of $2,112,011.00 – Wes ley Wright, P.E., Sys tems
Engineering Direc tor/Michael Hallmark, CIP Manager.
ITEM SUMMARY:
The p ro p o s ed p ro ject includ es c o nstruc tion o f a 2 MGD (millio n gallon a day) Was tewater Lift Station,
ap p ro ximately 6000 LF of 12-inc h fo rce main, and all piping nec es s ary to c o nnec t to the existing
wastewater sys tem.
This p ro ject was p ublic ly ad vertis ed on Septemb er 7, 2016 and S ep tember 16, 2016. F ifteen (15)
contrac tors obtained p lans. F ro m these p lan ho ld ers on S ep tember 29, 2016 we receive Nine (9)
competitive b id s . T he lo w q ualified b id d er fo r the p ro ject was C.C. Carlton, LTD with a total bid o f
$2,112,011.00. T hey have completed the Wolf Ranch Lift Station and are currently wo rking o n the Mays
Street ro ad way extens ion. Therefo re, s taff believes C .C. Carlto n, LTD is q ualified to cons truct this
p ro ject.
Staff Recommendation:
CDM Smith and s taff recommend award ing the c o ntract for the c o nstruc tio n o f the Wes tingho use South
Regio nal Was tewater S ystem Improvements and Sto nehed ge Lift Statio n Modific ations for $2,112,011.00.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
Funds fo r this exp enditure are bud geted in the Was tewater Cap ital Fund:
SUBMITTED BY:
Wes ley Wright, P.E., S ystems Engineering Direc to r/Mic hael Hallmark, CIP Manager.
ATTACHMENTS:
Description Type
B&FAW Backup Material
Recommendation letter Backup Material
Page 21 of 77
Project
Number DATE:
PROJECT NAME:3CE 10/13/2016
Division/Department:Director Approval
Prepared By:Michael Hallmark Finance Approval TW10/14/16
TOTAL ANNUAL BUDGET 3,298,900.00
(Current year only)
Actual Cost Agenda Total Spent
Encumbrance Item & Encumbered % Annual
(A) before agenda item (B)(A + B) Budget
Consulting 320,900.00 0.00 320,900.00 10%
Right of Way 2,500.00 0.00 2,500.00 0%
Construction 0.00 2,112,011.00 2,112,011.00 64%
Other Costs 28.00 0.00 28.00 0%
Total Current Year Costs 323,428.00 2,435,439.00
Proposed
GENERAL LEDGER ACCOUNT NUMBER FY 15 Budget
660-9-0581-90-154 320,900.00$ 2,981,000.00
Total Budget 2,981,000.00
TOTAL PROJECT BUDGET 2,981,000.00
(includes all previous yrs)
Prior Years Current Year Total Project % Total
Spent/Encumbered Costs Costs Budget
Consulting 0.00 320,900.00 320,900.00 11%
Right of Way 0.00 2,500.00 2,500.00 0%
Construction 0.00 2,112,011.00 2,112,011.00 71%
Other Costs 0.00 28.00 28.00 0%
Total Project Costs 0.00 2,435,439.00 2,435,439.00
Comments: Project will use budget from the upcoming year (2015).
Water Services
CIP- Budgetary and Financial Analysis Worksheet
Westinghouse Regional LS & FM with
C.C. Carlton
Page 22 of 77
12357-A Riata Trace Parkway
Building 5, Suite 210
Austin, Texas 78727
Tel: (512) 346-1100
Fax: (512) 345-1483
October 10, 2106
Michael Hallmark
City of Georgetown
300-1 Industrial Ave.
Georgetown, TX 78627
RE: Westinghouse South Regional Wastewater System Improvements and Stonehedge Lift Station
Modifications
Recommendation of Award
Dear Mr. Hallmark:
The Westinghouse South Regional Wastewater System Improvements and Stonehedge Lift Station
Modifications project was advertised for public bids on September 7, 2016 and September 14, 2016 in
the Williamson County Sun. Through our office, we provided plans and specifications to fifteen
interested parties, including general contractors, subcontractors, suppliers and plan rooms.
On September 29, 2016 at 2:00 p.m. bids were received at the Georgetown Municipal Complex,
Purchasing Department, at 300-1 Industrial Avenue, Georgetown, Texas 78626 for the construction of
the Westinghouse South Regional Wastewater System Improvements and Stonehedge Lift Station
Modifications project and then opened and publically read aloud. Nine bids were received, and the
names of the bidders and total combined project base bid amount plus the two additive alternative
amounts are summarized below.
1. C.C. Carlton $2,112,011.00
2. Patin Construction $2,197,710.00
3. Santa Clara Construction $2,268,299.00
4. Central Road and Utility $2,341,956.00
5. JKB Construction $2,414,123.10
6. Sky Blue Utilities $2,576,407.15
7. Royal Vista $2,840,675.00
8. Joe Bland Construction $2,890,810.00
9. Prota Construction $3,219,585.00
A bid tabulation of all the bid items is attached. The low bidder on the project based on the base bid
amount plus the two additive alternative amount is C.C. Carlton Industries, LTD (CC Carlton) of
Page 23 of 77
Mr. Michael Hallmark
October 10, 2016
Page 2
Austin, Texas. Also, as reflected on the attached bid tabulation, CC Carlton is also the low bidder
based on the base bid amount only.
The engineer’s estimate for the project was;
Westinghouse Rd S Regional WW System Improvements: $2.8 M
Stonehedge Lift Station Modifications: $245 K
In addition to submitting the bids, each of the bidders submitted a Statement of Bidder’s Experience.
We believe that CC Carlton can successfully complete the Westinghouse South Regional Wastewater
System Improvements and Stonehedge Lift Station Modifications project as designed and specified.
Moreover, CC Carlton is the contractor for the Mays Street improvements project, and for the
Westinghouse Rd S Regional WW System Improvements, the contractor will have to share the
construction easement with the Mays Street Contractor. Therefore, it is beneficial from a
coordination effort that these two projects are completed by the same contractor.
We recommend that the City of Georgetown award the Westinghouse South Regional Wastewater
System Improvements and Stonehedge Lift Station Modifications contract base bid and whichever
combination of additive alternatives that are in the City’s best interest to CC Carlton.
Sincerely,
Ana Karamalegos, P.E., BCEE
Project Manager
CDM Smith Inc.
TBPE Firm Registration No. F-3043
cc: Allen Woelke, PE, CDM Smith
Ken Taylor, City of Georgetown
Attachments Enclosed
Page 24 of 77
City of Georgetown
Westinghouse S Regional WWSystem Imp and Stonehedge LS Modifications
Project No. 3CE/3CD
BID TABULATION
September 29, 2016
Bidders
Joe Bland
Construction
JKB Construction Patin Construction,
LLC Prota
Acknowledged all Addenda X X X X
Provide Bid Security (5%)X X X X
Provide Information from 00400 X X X X
Westinghouse S Reg. Total Base Bid 2,376,430.00$ 2,142,615.40$ 1,809,400.00$ 2,690,345.00$
Stonehedge LS Total Base Bid 251,210.00$ 113,490.00$ 176,660.00$ 195,655.00$
Total Combined Project Base Bid 2,627,640.00$ 2,256,105.40$ 1,986,060.00$ 2,886,000.00$
Additive Alternative No.1 Total Bid 181,510.00$ 116,947.50$ 137,150.00$ 201,865.00$
Additive Alternative No.2 Total Bid 81,660.00$ 41,070.20$ 74,500.00$ 131,720.00$
Base Bid + Add Alt. 1 & 2 2,890,810.00$ 2,414,123.10$ 2,197,710.00$ 3,219,585.00$
Bidders Royal Vista, Inc.
Santa Clara
Construction, LTD CC Carlton Sky Blue Utilities
Central Road and
Utilities
Acknowledged all Addenda X X X X X
Provide Bid Security (5%)X X X X X
Provide Information from 00400 X X X X X
Westinghouse S Reg. Total Base Bid 2,344,625.00$ 1,969,564.00$ 1,831,876.00$ 2,047,103.38$ 1,959,220.00$
Stonehedge LS Total Base Bid 256,100.00$ 142,550.00$ 139,235.00$ 349,819.02$ 194,941.00$
Total Combined Project Base Bid 2,600,725.00$ 2,112,114.00$ 1,971,111.00$ 2,396,922.40$ 2,154,161.00$
Additive Alternative No.1 Total Bid 154,400.00$ 108,560.00$ 99,700.00$ 123,568.35$ 121,945.00$
Additive Alternative No.2 Total Bid 85,550.00$ 47,625.00$ 41,200.00$ 55,916.40$ 65,850.00$
Base Bid + Add Alt. 1 & 2 2,840,675.00$ 2,268,299.00$ 2,112,011.00$ 2,576,407.15$ 2,341,956.00$
Note:
1. All amounts in blue, bond italic font are corrected values. In accordance with Section 00100 Article 14, the bid form math was checked and amounts have been updated accordingly.
Page 25 of 77
City of Georgetown
Westinghouse S Regional WWSystem Imp and Stonehedge LS Modifications
Project No. 3CE/3CD
BID TABULATION
Approved Bidders
Acknowledged all Addenda
Provide Bid Security (5%)
Provide Information from 00400
Bid Item
WESTINGHOUSE SOUTH REGIONAL WW SYSTEM IMP
BASE BID AMOUNT
Estimated
Quantity Unit Price Amount Unit Price Amount Unit Price Amount Unit Price Amount Unit Price Amount Unit Price Amount Unit Price Amount Unit Price Amount Unit Price Amount
1
Furnish and install all necessary labor,materials,equipment and
incidentals to complete in place improvements to the
Westinghouse South Regional Wastewater System Improvements,
as detailed and specified; and not included in other base bid items.
1 $ 1,530,000.00 1,530,000.00$ $ 1,314,000.00 1,314,000.00$ $ 1,044,000.00 1,044,000.00$ $ 1,512,000.00 1,512,000.00$ $ 1,400,000.00 1,400,000.00$ $ 1,150,000.00 1,150,000.00$ $ 1,240,200.00 1,240,200.00$ $ 1,467,678.86 1,467,678.86$ $ 1,294,000.00 1,294,000.00$
2 Bonding,Insurance,and Mobilization Related Expenses not to
exceed 5% of Total Bid.1 $ 74,000.00 74,000.00$ $ 70,000.00 70,000.00$ $ 90,000.00 90,000.00$ $ 134,000.00 134,000.00$ $ 100,000.00 100,000.00$ $ 98,000.00 98,000.00$ $ 60,000.00 60,000.00$ $ 57,000.00 57,000.00$ $ 91,000.00 91,000.00$
3
Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP)and SWPPP
Implementation,including installing the stabilized construction
entrances,silt fence,and other required temporary sedimentation
and erosion control best management practices as required by the
SWPPP plan, complete in place as detailed and specified.
1 $ 25,000.00 25,000.00$ $ 17,000.00 17,000.00$ $ 1,500.00 1,500.00$ $ 35,000.00 35,000.00$ $ 25,000.00 25,000.00$ $ 19,500.00 19,500.00$ $ 17,000.00 17,000.00$ $ 4,560.00 4,560.00$ $ 5,100.00 5,100.00$
4 Traffic Control Plan and Implementation,complete in place as
detailed and specified.1 $ 7,000.00 7,000.00$ $ 17,200.00 17,200.00$ $ 2,000.00 2,000.00$ $ 1,750.00 1,750.00$ $ 30,000.00 30,000.00$ $ 2,300.00 2,300.00$ $ 11,000.00 11,000.00$ $ 1,710.00 1,710.00$ $ 10,500.00 10,500.00$
5 Site and Right-of-Way Preparation, including clearing, grubbing, and
tree protection, complete in place as detailed and specified.11.6 $ 2,000.00 23,200.00$ $ 4,700.00 54,520.00$ $ 4,500.00 52,200.00$ $ 2,000.00 23,200.00$ $ 5,000.00 58,000.00$ $ 2,015.00 23,374.00$ $ 1,500.00 17,400.00$ $ 570.00 6,612.00$ $ 2,100.00 24,360.00$
6
Furnish and Install Temporary Improvements to provide temporary
access gate(s)and fencing to keep the property secure and cattle
onsite.
1 $ 2,000.00 2,000.00$ $ 58,000.00 58,000.00$ $ 4,000.00 4,000.00$ $ 3,750.00 3,750.00$ $ 20,000.00 20,000.00$ $ 3,450.00 3,450.00$ $ 4,000.00 4,000.00$ $ 4,560.00 4,560.00$ $ 3,500.00 3,500.00$
7 Furnish and Install Access Gates and Security Fence at Lift Station,
complete in place as detailed and specified.1 $ 4,000.00 4,000.00$ $ 14,900.00 14,900.00$ $ 20,000.00 20,000.00$ $ 17,000.00 17,000.00$ $ 20,000.00 20,000.00$ $ 17,500.00 17,500.00$ $ 10,500.00 10,500.00$ $ 18,240.00 18,240.00$ $ 15,000.00 15,000.00$
8
Install 15-ft wide temporary access road from Mays Rd.to the
proposed lift station site,complete in place as detailed and
specified.
1,960 $ 16.00 31,360.00$ $ 15.60 30,576.00$ $ 35.00 68,600.00$ $ 45.00 88,200.00$ $ 40.00 78,400.00$ $ 37.00 72,520.00$ $ 26.00 50,960.00$ $ 20.52 40,219.20$ $ 30.00 58,800.00$
9
Trench Safety Plan and Implementation,as required for all pipe
trenches deeper than 5 feet,complete in place as detailed and
specified.
5,900 $ 1.00 5,900.00$ $ 1.00 5,900.00$ $ 2.00 11,800.00$ $ 1.00 5,900.00$ $ 2.00 11,800.00$ $ 1.35 7,965.00$ $ 1.00 5,900.00$ $ 1.14 6,726.00$ $ 1.10 6,490.00$
10 Excavation Safety Plan and Implementation complete in place as
detailed and specified.1 $ 800.00 800.00$ $ 1,110.00 1,110.00$ $ 2,500.00 2,500.00$ $ 6,000.00 6,000.00$ $ 4,000.00 4,000.00$ $ 500.00 500.00$ $ 1,000.00 1,000.00$ $ 3,420.00 3,420.00$ $ 3,000.00 3,000.00$
11
Furnish and Install 8-inch PVC SDR 26 Pipe (Open Trench
Construction),including excavation,dewatering,bedding,backfill,
and trench surface restoration,complete in place as detailed and
specified.
640 $ 37.00 23,680.00$ $ 46.00 29,440.00$ $ 80.00 51,200.00$ $ 160.00 102,400.00$ $ 55.00 35,200.00$ $ 60.00 38,400.00$ $ 31.00 19,840.00$ $ 61.03 39,059.20$ $ 29.00 18,560.00$
12
Furnish and Install 12-inch PVC SDR 26 Pipe (Open Trench
Construction),including excavation,dewatering,bedding,backfill,
and trench surface restoration,complete in place as detailed and
specified.
150 $ 54.00 8,100.00$ $ 47.00 7,050.00$ $ 150.00 22,500.00$ $ 250.00 37,500.00$ $ 60.00 9,000.00$ $ 72.00 10,800.00$ $ 68.00 10,200.00$ $ 65.69 9,853.50$ $ 38.50 5,775.00$
13
Furnish and Install 12-inch PVC C900, DR 18 or Epoxy Coated Ductile
Iron Pipe (Open Trench Construction),including excavation,
dewatering,bedding,backfill,and trench surface restoration,
complete in place as detailed and specified.
5,000 $ 63.00 315,000.00$ $ 56.00 280,000.00$ $ 50.00 250,000.00$ $ 90.00 450,000.00$ $ 60.00 300,000.00$ $ 75.00 375,000.00$ $ 38.00 190,000.00$ $ 46.76 233,800.00$ $ 44.60 223,000.00$
14
Furnish and Install 12-inch PVC C900, DR 18 or Epoxy Coated Ductile
Iron Pipe with concrete encasement,including excavation,
dewatering,bedding,backfill,and trench surface restoration,
complete in place as detailed and specified.
40 $ 580.00 23,200.00$ $ 138.00 5,520.00$ $ 100.00 4,000.00$ $ 250.00 10,000.00$ $ 90.00 3,600.00$ $ 100.00 4,000.00$ $ 120.00 4,800.00$ $ 45.89 1,835.60$ $ 60.00 2,400.00$
15
Furnish and Install 12-inch PVC C900, DR 18 or Epoxy Coated Ductile
Iron Pipe with cap concrete,including excavation,dewatering,
bedding,backfill,and trench surface restoration,complete in place
as detailed and specified.
70 $ 120.00 8,400.00$ $ 91.00 6,370.00$ $ 100.00 7,000.00$ $ 115.00 8,050.00$ $ 90.00 6,300.00$ $ 82.00 5,740.00$ $ 90.00 6,300.00$ $ 72.11 5,047.70$ $ 50.00 3,500.00$
16
Furnish and Install 12-inch PVC C900,DR-18 Pipe or Epoxy Coated
Ductile Iron Pipe in casing,complete in place as detailed and
specified.
160 $ 80.00 12,800.00$ $ 74.00 11,840.00$ $ 500.00 80,000.00$ $ 80.00 12,800.00$ $ 105.00 16,800.00$ $ 64.00 10,240.00$ $ 15.00 2,400.00$ $ 51.29 8,206.40$ $ 49.00 7,840.00$
17 Furnish and Install 24-inch Steel Casing Pipe (Boring and Jacking
Construction), complete in place as detailed and specified.115 $ 650.00 74,750.00$ $ 515.00 59,225.00$ $ 35.00 4,025.00$ $ 475.00 54,625.00$ $ 475.00 54,625.00$ $ 400.00 46,000.00$ $ 480.00 55,200.00$ $ 285.00 32,775.00$ $ 513.00 58,995.00$
18 Furnish and Install 24-inch Steel Casing Pipe (Open Trench
Construction), complete in place as detailed and specified.45 $ 330.00 14,850.00$ $ 112.00 5,040.00$ $ 250.00 11,250.00$ $ 225.00 10,125.00$ $ 150.00 6,750.00$ $ 75.00 3,375.00$ $ 60.00 2,700.00$ $ 204.90 9,220.50$ $ 170.00 7,650.00$
19 Furnish and Install 4-Foot Diameter Drop Manhole,complete in
place as detailed and specified.1 $ 10,000.00 10,000.00$ $ 8,730.00 8,730.00$ $ 6,500.00 6,500.00$ $ 14,000.00 14,000.00$ $ 6,700.00 6,700.00$ $ 7,550.00 7,550.00$ $ 7,500.00 7,500.00$ $ 7,762.32 7,762.32$ $ 6,500.00 6,500.00$
20
Furnish and Install 5-Foot Diameter Manhole,Combination
Air/Vacuum Valve,and associated appurtenances as shown in
Detail F on Sheet CZ-5, complete in place as detailed and specified.
4 $ 8,000.00 32,000.00$ $ 13,700.00 54,800.00$ $ 7,000.00 28,000.00$ $ 14,000.00 56,000.00$ $ 8,500.00 34,000.00$ $ 6,750.00 27,000.00$ $ 8,400.00 33,600.00$ $ 12,410.27 49,641.08$ $ 10,400.00 41,600.00$
21 Furnish and Install 4-Foot Diameter Manhole,complete in place as
detailed and specified.1 $ 5,000.00 5,000.00$ $ 6,600.00 6,600.00$ $ 6,000.00 6,000.00$ $ 10,000.00 10,000.00$ $ 5,700.00 5,700.00$ $ 5,650.00 5,650.00$ $ 9,100.00 9,100.00$ $ 5,261.02 5,261.02$ $ 4,800.00 4,800.00$
22 Connect to existing manhole by coring and reshape invert,
complete in place as detailed and specified.1 $ 7,000.00 7,000.00$ $ 4,300.00 4,300.00$ $ 5,000.00 5,000.00$ $ 13,000.00 13,000.00$ $ 1,950.00 1,950.00$ $ 1,500.00 1,500.00$ $ 2,000.00 2,000.00$ $ 3,420.00 3,420.00$ $ 2,100.00 2,100.00$
23
Connection to 12-inch WW pipeline system by Others (or provide a
cap if WW pipeline is not installed),complete in place as detailed
and specified.
2 $ 6,000.00 12,000.00$ $ 960.00 1,920.00$ $ 1,200.00 2,400.00$ $ 2,500.00 5,000.00$ $ 1,500.00 3,000.00$ $ 500.00 1,000.00$ $ 2,000.00 4,000.00$ $ 1,368.00 2,736.00$ $ 1,800.00 3,600.00$
24 Connection to 8-inch WW pipeline system by Others at the
manhole stub, complete in place as detailed and specified.1 $ 5,000.00 5,000.00$ $ 914.00 914.00$ $ 1,200.00 1,200.00$ $ 2,250.00 2,250.00$ $ 900.00 900.00$ $ 500.00 500.00$ $ 2,000.00 2,000.00$ $ 1,368.00 1,368.00$ $ 1,470.00 1,470.00$
25 Cut and cap existing 8-inch WW pipeline,complete in place as
detailed and specified.3 $ 2,000.00 6,000.00$ $ 880.00 2,640.00$ $ 500.00 1,500.00$ $ 2,250.00 6,750.00$ $ 750.00 2,250.00$ $ 500.00 1,500.00$ $ 1,500.00 4,500.00$ $ 627.00 1,881.00$ $ 2,500.00 7,500.00$
26 Cleaning of 8-inch PVC SDR 26 pipeline and associated manholes,
complete in place as detailed and specified.1 $ 4,000.00 4,000.00$ $ 710.00 710.00$ $ 800.00 800.00$ $ 3,250.00 3,250.00$ $ 3,000.00 3,000.00$ $ 640.00 640.00$ $ 1,000.00 1,000.00$ $ 570.00 570.00$ $ 1,300.00 1,300.00$
27 Testing of 8-inch PVC SDR 26 pipeline,complete in place as detailed
and specified.1 $ 100.00 100.00$ $ 710.00 710.00$ $ 800.00 800.00$ $ 2,750.00 2,750.00$ $ 1,500.00 1,500.00$ $ 640.00 640.00$ $ 1,000.00 1,000.00$ $ 912.00 912.00$ $ 2,000.00 2,000.00$
28 Cleaning of 12-inch PVC SDR 26 pipeline and associated manholes,
complete in place as detailed and specified.1 $ 3,000.00 3,000.00$ $ 170.00 170.00$ $ 800.00 800.00$ $ 800.00 800.00$ $ 4,000.00 4,000.00$ $ 150.00 150.00$ $ 500.00 500.00$ $ 570.00 570.00$ $ 500.00 500.00$
September 29, 2016
WESTINGHOUSE SOUTH REGIONAL WW SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS BASE BID AMOUNT (BASE BID ITEM Nos. 1 - 35)
CC Carlton
X
X
X X
Joe Bland Construction JKB Construction
X
X
X X
Patin Construction, LLC
X
X
X
X
X
Prota
X
X
X
Skyblue Utilities, Inc.
X
X
X
Royal Vista, Inc.
X
X
X
Santa Clara Construction, LTD
X
X
Central Road and Utility, Ltd. Dba CRU, Ltd.
X
X
X
Page 26 of 77
City of Georgetown
Westinghouse S Regional WWSystem Imp and Stonehedge LS Modifications
Project No. 3CE/3CD
BID TABULATION
Approved Bidders
September 29, 2016
CC CarltonJoe Bland Construction JKB Construction Patin Construction, LLC Prota Skyblue Utilities, Inc.Royal Vista, Inc.Santa Clara Construction, LTD Central Road and Utility, Ltd. Dba CRU, Ltd.
29 Testing of 12-inch PVC SDR 26 pipeline,complete in place as
detailed and specified.1 $ 200.00 200.00$ $ 170.00 170.00$ $ 800.00 800.00$ $ 1,250.00 1,250.00$ $ 2,000.00 2,000.00$ $ 150.00 150.00$ $ 500.00 500.00$ $ 1,596.00 1,596.00$ $ 1,000.00 1,000.00$
30 Cleaning of 12-inch PVC C900,DR-18 (or DI)pipeline,complete in
place as detailed and specified.1 $ 8,000.00 8,000.00$ $ 5,860.00 5,860.00$ $ 2,500.00 2,500.00$ $ 13,000.00 13,000.00$ $ 15,000.00 15,000.00$ $ 500.00 500.00$ $ 5,600.00 5,600.00$ $ 1,140.00 1,140.00$ $ 5,300.00 5,300.00$
31 Testing of 12-inch PVC C900,DR-18 (or DI)pipeline,complete in
place as detailed and specified.1 $ 11,000.00 11,000.00$ $ 5,860.00 5,860.00$ $ 2,500.00 2,500.00$ $ 9,000.00 9,000.00$ $ 10,000.00 10,000.00$ $ 1,500.00 1,500.00$ $ 1.00 1.00$ $ 3,990.00 3,990.00$ $ 6,500.00 6,500.00$
32 Testing of new manholes,complete in place as detailed and
specified.2 $ 2,000.00 4,000.00$ $ 550.00 1,100.00$ $ 850.00 1,700.00$ $ 600.00 1,200.00$ $ 700.00 1,400.00$ $ 250.00 500.00$ $ 750.00 1,500.00$ $ 399.00 798.00$ $ 550.00 1,100.00$
33 Testing of retrofitted manholes,complete in place as detailed and
specified.1 $ 2,000.00 2,000.00$ $ 850.00 850.00$ $ 5,000.00 5,000.00$ $ 1,200.00 1,200.00$ $ 1,000.00 1,000.00$ $ 125.00 125.00$ $ 1,000.00 1,000.00$ $ 399.00 399.00$ $ 1,600.00 1,600.00$
34 Furnish and Install Access Road at Lift Station,complete in place as
detailed and specified.335 $ 14.00 4,690.00$ $ 16.00 5,360.00$ $ 35.00 11,725.00$ $ 45.00 15,075.00$ $ 50.00 16,750.00$ $ 37.00 12,395.00$ $ 45.00 15,075.00$ $ 20.52 6,874.20$ $ 48.00 16,080.00$
35 Provide Re-vegetation, complete in place as detailed and specified.11.2 $ 7,000.00 78,400.00$ $ 4,842.00 54,230.40$ $ 500.00 5,600.00$ $ 2,100.00 23,520.00$ $ 5,000.00 56,000.00$ $ 1,750.00 19,600.00$ $ 3,000.00 33,600.00$ $ 684.00 7,660.80$ $ 1,500.00 16,800.00$
Total - Base Bid (Item Nos. 1-35)--2,376,430.00$ -2,142,615.40$ -1,809,400.00$ -2,690,345.00$ -2,344,625.00$ -1,969,564.00$ -1,831,876.00$ -2,047,103.38$ -1,959,220.00$
Bid Item
STONHEDGE LIFT STATION MODIFICATIONS
BASE BID AMOUNT
Estimated
Quantity Unit Price Amount Unit Price Amount Unit Price Amount Unit Price Amount Unit Price Amount Unit Price Amount Unit Price Amount Unit Price Amount Unit Price Amount
36
Furnish and install all necessary labor,materials,equipment and
incidentals necessary to complete in place improvements to the
Stonehedge Lift Station,as detailed and specified;and not included
in other base bid items.
1 $ 233,000.00 233,000.00$ $ 99,900.00 99,900.00$ $ 165,000.00 165,000.00$ $ 178,445.00 178,445.00$ $ 230,000.00 230,000.00$ $ 130,000.00 130,000.00$ $ 125,000.00 125,000.00$ $ 318,925.02 318,925.02$ $ 175,000.00 175,000.00$
37 Bonding,Insurance,and Mobilization Related Expenses not to
exceed 5% of Total Bid.1 $ 12,000.00 12,000.00$ $ 7,100.00 7,100.00$ $ 8,750.00 8,750.00$ $ 10,000.00 10,000.00$ $ 10,000.00 10,000.00$ $ 7,000.00 7,000.00$ $ 6,500.00 6,500.00$ $ 11,400.00 11,400.00$ $ 9,500.00 9,500.00$
38
Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP)and SWPPP
Implementation,including installing the stabilized construction
entrances,silt fence,and other required temporary sedimentation
and erosion control best management practices as required by the
SWPPP plan, complete in place as detailed and specified.
1 $ 5,000.00 5,000.00$ $ 1,380.00 1,380.00$ $ 1,200.00 1,200.00$ $ 4,000.00 4,000.00$ $ 6,000.00 6,000.00$ $ 3,850.00 3,850.00$ $ 3,000.00 3,000.00$ $ 11,400.00 11,400.00$ $ 4,800.00 4,800.00$
39 Traffic Control Plan and Implementation,complete in place as
detailed and specified.1 $ 1,000.00 1,000.00$ $ 4,900.00 4,900.00$ $ 1,500.00 1,500.00$ $ 3,000.00 3,000.00$ $ 8,000.00 8,000.00$ $ 650.00 650.00$ $ 4,000.00 4,000.00$ $ 5,700.00 5,700.00$ $ 5,200.00 5,200.00$
40
Trench Safety Plan and Implementation,as required for all pipe
trenches deeper than 5 feet,complete in place as detailed and
specified.
210 $ 1.00 210.00$ $ 1.00 210.00$ $ 1.00 210.00$ $ 1.00 210.00$ $ 10.00 2,100.00$ $ 5.00 1,050.00$ $ 3.50 735.00$ $ 11.40 2,394.00$ $ 2.10 441.00$
Total - Base Bid (Item Nos. 36-40)--251,210.00$ -113,490.00$ -176,660.00$ -195,655.00$ -256,100.00$ -142,550.00$ -139,235.00$ -349,819.02$ -194,941.00$
Total - Base Bid (Item Nos. 1-40)--2,627,640.00$ -2,256,105.40$ -1,986,060.00$ -2,886,000.00$ -2,600,725.00$ -2,112,114.00$ -1,971,111.00$ -2,396,922.40$ -2,154,161.00$
Bid Item ADDITIVE ALTERNATE No. 1: ACM DIVERSION LINE
Estimated
Quantity Unit Price Amount Unit Price Amount Unit Price Amount Unit Price Amount Unit Price Amount Unit Price Amount Unit Price Amount Unit Price Amount Unit Price Amount
1 Bonding,Insurance,and Mobilization Related Expenses not to
exceed 5% of Total Bid.1 $ 8,000.00 8,000.00$ $ 5,500.00 5,500.00$ $ 6,500.00 6,500.00$ $ 9,000.00 9,000.00$ $ 7,000.00 7,000.00$ $ 5,500.00 5,500.00$ $ 4,900.00 4,900.00$ $ 11,400.00 11,400.00$ $ 10,000.00 10,000.00$
2
Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP)and SWPPP
Implementation,including installing the stabilized construction
entrances,silt fence,and other required temporary sedimentation
and erosion control best management practices as required by the
SWPPP plan, complete in place as detailed and specified.
1 $ 5,000.00 5,000.00$ $ 1,650.00 1,650.00$ $ 850.00 850.00$ $ 1,500.00 1,500.00$ $ 4,000.00 4,000.00$ $ 500.00 500.00$ $ 1,500.00 1,500.00$ $ 7,980.00 7,980.00$ $ 3,500.00 3,500.00$
3 Traffic Control Plan and Implementation,complete in place as
detailed and specified.1 $ 3,000.00 3,000.00$ $ 4,900.00 4,900.00$ $ 2,500.00 2,500.00$ $ 1,500.00 1,500.00$ $ 8,000.00 8,000.00$ $ 450.00 450.00$ $ 3,000.00 3,000.00$ $ 3,990.00 3,990.00$ $ 5,000.00 5,000.00$
4 Site and Right-of-Way Preparation,complete in place as detailed
and specified.0.05 $ 94,000.00 4,700.00$ $ 4,700.00 235.00$ $ 5,000.00 250.00$ $ 2,000.00 100.00$ $ 40,000.00 2,000.00$ $ 5,500.00 275.00$ $ 50,000.00 2,500.00$ $ 2,280.00 114.00$ $ 10,000.00 500.00$
5
Furnish and Install Temporary Improvements to provide temporary
access gate(s)and fencing to keep the property secure and cattle
onsite.
1 $ 2,000.00 2,000.00$ $ 5,600.00 5,600.00$ $ 1,500.00 1,500.00$ $ 2,500.00 2,500.00$ $ 6,000.00 6,000.00$ $ 1,650.00 1,650.00$ $ 1,500.00 1,500.00$ $ 3,420.00 3,420.00$ $ 1,500.00 1,500.00$
6
Trench Safety Plan and Implementation,as required for all pipe
trenches deeper than 5 feet,complete in place as detailed and
specified.
360 $ 1.00 360.00$ $ 1.00 360.00$ $ 5.00 1,800.00$ $ 4.00 1,440.00$ $ 10.00 3,600.00$ $ 1.00 360.00$ $ 2.00 720.00$ $ 1.14 410.40$ $ 2.00 720.00$
7 Excavation Safety Plan and Implementation complete in place as
detailed and specified.1 $ 800.00 800.00$ $ 1,110.00 1,110.00$ $ 1,500.00 1,500.00$ $ 1,000.00 1,000.00$ $ 1,000.00 1,000.00$ $ 250.00 250.00$ $ 750.00 750.00$ $ 1,140.00 1,140.00$ $ 2,500.00 2,500.00$
8
Furnish and Install 8-inch PVC SDR 26 Pipe (Open Trench
Construction),including excavation,dewatering,bedding,backfill,
and trench surface restoration,complete in place as detailed and
specified.
360 $ 40.00 14,400.00$ $ 48.00 17,280.00$ $ 80.00 28,800.00$ $ 225.00 81,000.00$ $ 55.00 19,800.00$ $ 72.00 25,920.00$ $ 28.00 10,080.00$ $ 76.56 27,561.60$ $ 45.00 16,200.00$
9 Furnish and Install 8-inch PVC SDR 26 Pipe in casing,complete in
place as detailed and specified.145 $ 60.00 8,700.00$ $ 41.00 5,945.00$ $ 200.00 29,000.00$ $ 70.00 10,150.00$ $ 70.00 10,150.00$ $ 60.00 8,700.00$ $ 20.00 2,900.00$ $ 91.75 13,303.75$ $ 20.00 2,900.00$
10 Furnish and Install 18-inch Steel Casing Pipe (Boring and Jacking
Construction), complete in place as detailed and specified.145 $ 670.00 97,150.00$ $ 394.00 57,130.00$ $ 300.00 43,500.00$ $ 375.00 54,375.00$ $ 450.00 65,250.00$ $ 350.00 50,750.00$ $ 350.00 50,750.00$ $ 257.08 37,276.60$ $ 325.00 47,125.00$
11 Furnish and Install 4-Foot Diameter Manhole,complete in place as
detailed and specified.2 $ 5,000.00 10,000.00$ $ 5,200.00 10,400.00$ $ 6,000.00 12,000.00$ $ 11,500.00 23,000.00$ $ 6,500.00 13,000.00$ $ 5,350.00 10,700.00$ $ 5,300.00 10,600.00$ $ 4,382.00 8,764.00$ $ 8,500.00 17,000.00$
12 Connect to existing manhole by coring and reshape invert,
complete in place as detailed and specified.1 $ 8,000.00 8,000.00$ $ 2,610.00 2,610.00$ $ 5,000.00 5,000.00$ $ 6,000.00 6,000.00$ $ 1,950.00 1,950.00$ $ 1,500.00 1,500.00$ $ 2,000.00 2,000.00$ $ 3,990.00 3,990.00$ $ 3,500.00 3,500.00$
13
Connection to 8-inch WW pipeline system by Others at the
manhole stub (or provide a cap if WW pipeline by Others is not
installed), complete in place as detailed and specified.
1 $ 5,000.00 5,000.00$ $ 950.00 950.00$ $ 850.00 850.00$ $ 2,500.00 2,500.00$ $ 1,250.00 1,250.00$ $ 500.00 500.00$ $ 2,000.00 2,000.00$ $ 1,368.00 1,368.00$ $ 5,000.00 5,000.00$
14 Cleaning of 8-inch PVC SDR 26 pipeline and associated manholes,
complete in place as detailed and specified.1 $ 3,000.00 3,000.00$ $ 550.00 550.00$ $ 500.00 500.00$ $ 2,750.00 2,750.00$ $ 4,500.00 4,500.00$ $ 150.00 150.00$ $ 1,500.00 1,500.00$ $ 798.00 798.00$ $ 1,000.00 1,000.00$
15 Testing of 8-inch PVC SDR 26 pipeline,complete in place as detailed
and specified.1 $ 500.00 500.00$ $ 550.00 550.00$ $ 500.00 500.00$ $ 2,500.00 2,500.00$ $ 2,500.00 2,500.00$ $ 505.00 505.00$ $ 1,500.00 1,500.00$ $ 570.00 570.00$ $ 1,000.00 1,000.00$
16 Testing of new manholes,complete in place as detailed and
specified.2 $ 2,000.00 4,000.00$ $ 550.00 1,100.00$ $ 500.00 1,000.00$ $ 600.00 1,200.00$ $ 700.00 1,400.00$ $ 250.00 500.00$ $ 750.00 1,500.00$ $ 456.00 912.00$ $ 1,000.00 2,000.00$
17 Testing of retrofitted manholes,complete in place as detailed and
specified.1 $ 2,000.00 2,000.00$ $ 835.00 835.00$ $ 850.00 850.00$ $ 1,250.00 1,250.00$ $ 1,000.00 1,000.00$ $ 125.00 125.00$ $ 1,500.00 1,500.00$ $ 456.00 456.00$ $ 2,000.00 2,000.00$
18 Provide Re-vegetation, complete in place as detailed and specified.0.05 $ 98,000.00 4,900.00$ $ 4,850.00 242.50$ $ 5,000.00 250.00$ $ 2,000.00 100.00$ $ 40,000.00 2,000.00$ $ 4,500.00 225.00$ $ 10,000.00 500.00$ $ 2,280.00 114.00$ $ 10,000.00 500.00$
Total - Additive Bid (Item Nos. 1-18)--181,510.00$ -116,947.50$ -137,150.00$ -201,865.00$ -154,400.00$ -108,560.00$ -99,700.00$ -123,568.35$ -121,945.00$
STONEHEDGE LIFT STATION MODIFICATIONS BASE BID AMOUNT (BASE BID ITEM Nos. 36 - 40)
TOTAL PROJECT WESTINGHOUSE SOUTH REGIONAL WW SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS & STONEHEDGE LIFT STATION MODIFICATIONS BASE BID AMOUNT (BASE BID ITEM Nos. 1- 43)
ADDITIVE ALTERNATE No. 1: ACM DIVERSION LINE
Refer to Westinghouse South Regional Wastewater System Improvements Drawing Sheet CP-1.
Page 27 of 77
City of Georgetown
Westinghouse S Regional WWSystem Imp and Stonehedge LS Modifications
Project No. 3CE/3CD
BID TABULATION
Approved Bidders
September 29, 2016
CC CarltonJoe Bland Construction JKB Construction Patin Construction, LLC Prota Skyblue Utilities, Inc.Royal Vista, Inc.Santa Clara Construction, LTD Central Road and Utility, Ltd. Dba CRU, Ltd.
Bid Item
ADDITIVE ALTERNATE No. 2: WESTINGHOUSE POINTE
APARTMENTS DIVERSION LINE
Estimated
Quantity Unit Price Amount Unit Price Amount Unit Price Amount Unit Price Amount Unit Price Amount Unit Price Amount Unit Price Amount Unit Price Amount Unit Price Amount
1 Bonding,Insurance,and Mobilization Related Expenses not to
exceed 5% of Total Bid.1 $ 4,000.00 4,000.00$ $ 2,200.00 2,200.00$ $ 5,000.00 5,000.00$ $ 6,500.00 6,500.00$ $ 4,000.00 4,000.00$ $ 3,150.00 3,150.00$ $ 2,200.00 2,200.00$ $ 5,700.00 5,700.00$ $ 7,500.00 7,500.00$
2
Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP)and SWPPP
Implementation,including installing the stabilized construction
entrances,silt fence,and other required temporary sedimentation
and erosion control best management practices as required by the
SWPPP plan, complete in place as detailed and specified.
1 $ 21,000.00 21,000.00$ $ 830.00 830.00$ $ 850.00 850.00$ $ 1,500.00 1,500.00$ $ 4,000.00 4,000.00$ $ 500.00 500.00$ $ 1,500.00 1,500.00$ $ 3,420.00 3,420.00$ $ 3,500.00 3,500.00$
3 Traffic Control Plan and Implementation,complete in place as
detailed and specified.1 $ 3,000.00 3,000.00$ $ 4,900.00 4,900.00$ $ 2,500.00 2,500.00$ $ 1,950.00 1,950.00$ $ 4,000.00 4,000.00$ $ 450.00 450.00$ $ 2,000.00 2,000.00$ $ 1,140.00 1,140.00$ $ 5,000.00 5,000.00$
4 Site and Right-of-Way Preparation,complete in place as detailed
and specified.0.13 $ 36,000.00 4,680.00$ $ 4,700.00 611.00$ $ 5,000.00 650.00$ $ 2,000.00 260.00$ $ 40,000.00 5,200.00$ $ 5,500.00 715.00$ $ 20,000.00 2,600.00$ $ 2,280.00 296.40$ $ 10,000.00 1,300.00$
5
Furnish and Install Temporary Improvements to provide temporary
access gate(s)and fencing to keep the property secure and cattle
onsite.
1 $ 2,000.00 2,000.00$ $ 2,800.00 2,800.00$ $ 1,500.00 1,500.00$ $ 2,500.00 2,500.00$ $ 8,000.00 8,000.00$ $ 1,150.00 1,150.00$ $ 1,500.00 1,500.00$ $ 2,280.00 2,280.00$ $ 5,000.00 5,000.00$
6
Trench Safety Plan and Implementation,as required for all pipe
trenches deeper than 5 feet,complete in place as detailed and
specified.
250 $ 1.00 250.00$ $ 1.00 250.00$ $ 10.00 2,500.00$ $ 5.00 1,250.00$ $ 10.00 2,500.00$ $ 1.00 250.00$ $ 1.00 250.00$ $ 5.70 1,425.00$ $ 3.00 750.00$
7
Furnish and Install 8-inch PVC SDR 26 Pipe (Open Trench
Construction),including excavation,dewatering,bedding,backfill,
and trench surface restoration,complete in place as detailed and
specified.
250 $ 40.00 10,000.00$ $ 48.00 12,000.00$ $ 160.00 40,000.00$ $ 270.00 67,500.00$ $ 55.00 13,750.00$ $ 110.00 27,500.00$ $ 30.00 7,500.00$ $ 93.66 23,415.00$ $ 50.00 12,500.00$
8 Connect to existing manhole by coring and reshape invert,
complete in place as detailed and specified.1 $ 8,000.00 8,000.00$ $ 4,250.00 4,250.00$ $ 5,000.00 5,000.00$ $ 13,500.00 13,500.00$ $ 1,950.00 1,950.00$ $ 1,500.00 1,500.00$ $ 2,000.00 2,000.00$ $ 3,420.00 3,420.00$ $ 3,500.00 3,500.00$
9 Connect to proposed manhole (Additive Alternative No.1,ACM MH
No. 1), complete in place as detailed and specified.1 $ 4,000.00 4,000.00$ $ 2,600.00 2,600.00$ $ 4,000.00 4,000.00$ $ 7,500.00 7,500.00$ $ 1,950.00 1,950.00$ $ 800.00 800.00$ $ 2,000.00 2,000.00$ $ 4,332.00 4,332.00$ $ 4,000.00 4,000.00$
10 Cut and cap existing 12-inch WW pipeline,complete in place as
detailed and specified.1 $ 2,000.00 2,000.00$ $ 1,000.00 1,000.00$ $ 1,000.00 1,000.00$ $ 2,500.00 2,500.00$ $ 1,500.00 1,500.00$ $ 500.00 500.00$ $ 4,000.00 4,000.00$ $ 684.00 684.00$ $ 1,500.00 1,500.00$
11 Cleaning of 8-inch PVC SDR 26 pipeline and associated manholes,
complete in place as detailed and specified.1 $ 3,000.00 3,000.00$ $ 270.00 270.00$ $ 500.00 500.00$ $ 1,500.00 1,500.00$ $ 4,500.00 4,500.00$ $ 250.00 250.00$ $ 500.00 500.00$ $ 570.00 570.00$ $ 1,000.00 1,000.00$
12 Testing of 8-inch PVC SDR 26 pipeline,complete in place as detailed
and specified.1 $ 400.00 400.00$ $ 270.00 270.00$ $ 500.00 500.00$ $ 2,250.00 2,250.00$ $ 2,500.00 2,500.00$ $ 350.00 350.00$ $ 500.00 500.00$ $ 45.60 45.60$ $ 1,000.00 1,000.00$
13 Testing of retrofitted manholes,complete in place as detailed and
specified.1 $ 2,000.00 2,000.00$ $ 840.00 840.00$ $ 850.00 850.00$ $ 2,250.00 2,250.00$ $ 1,000.00 1,000.00$ $ 125.00 125.00$ $ 1,000.00 1,000.00$ $ 4,560.00 4,560.00$ $ 2,000.00 2,000.00$
14 Demolish and repair existing headwall and concrete apron,
complete in place as detailed and specified.1 $ 8,000.00 8,000.00$ $ 4,900.00 4,900.00$ $ 5,000.00 5,000.00$ $ 13,000.00 13,000.00$ $ 19,500.00 19,500.00$ $ 5,750.00 5,750.00$ $ 7,500.00 7,500.00$ $ 1,482.00 1,482.00$ $ 6,500.00 6,500.00$
15 Repair existing driveway,complete in place as detailed and
specified.1 $ 4,000.00 4,000.00$ $ 2,720.00 2,720.00$ $ 4,000.00 4,000.00$ $ 7,500.00 7,500.00$ $ 6,000.00 6,000.00$ $ 4,050.00 4,050.00$ $ 5,500.00 5,500.00$ $ 2,850.00 2,850.00$ $ 9,500.00 9,500.00$
16 Provide Re-vegetation, complete in place as detailed and specified.0.13 $ 41,000.00 5,330.00$ $ 4,840.00 629.20$ $ 5,000.00 650.00$ $ 2,000.00 260.00$ $ 40,000.00 5,200.00$ $ 4,500.00 585.00$ $ 5,000.00 650.00$ $ 2,280.00 296.40$ $ 10,000.00 1,300.00$
Total - Additive Bid (Item Nos. 1-16)--81,660.00$ -41,070.20$ -74,500.00$ -131,720.00$ -85,550.00$ -47,625.00$ -41,200.00$ -55,916.40$ -65,850.00$
Notes:
1. All amounts highlighted are corrected values. In accordance with Section 00100 Article 14, the bid form math was checked and amounts have been updated accordingly.
2. CRU only provided the 'total amounts', thus the 'unit amounts' were back-calculated accordingly.
ADDITIVE ALTERNATE No. 2: WESTINGHOUSE POINTE APARTMENTS DIVERSION LINE
Refer to Westinghouse South Regional Wastewater System Improvements Drawing Sheet CP-1
Page 28 of 77
City of Georgetown, Texas
Utility System Advisory Board
November 11, 2016
SUBJECT:
Cons id eration and p o s s ib le rec o mmendation to approve Tas k Ord er DEI-17-001 with Dunham
Engineering, Inc . of College S tatio n, Texas, fo r profes sional services related to the Design o f a Sun City
2.0 MG (millio n gallon) Co mp o s ite EST (elevated s to rage tank) in the amount o f $300,000.00 – Wes ley
Wright, P.E., S ys tems Engineering Direc tor/Mic hael Hallmark, CIP Manager.
ITEM SUMMARY:
This Task Ord er is Professional Engineering S ervic es to prepare p lans and s pec ificatio ns fo r the
cons tructio n of a new 2 MG (million gallo n) EST (elevated sto rage tank) to replac e the existing 0.4 MG
ES T. Services will als o inc lude s ite s urvey, geo tec hnical s urvey, s tructural s ervic e, bid p hase, and
s p ecialized co ns truc tion ins p ectio n s ervic es .
The existing Sun City 0.4 MG EST has lo ng lived it us eful c ap acity to the 1015 pres s ure plane loc ated in
Sun City. The improvements includ e: a new 2 MG c o mp o s ite ES T, piping, as s o c iated elec tric al
eq uipment, and d emo lition of the exis ting 0.4 EST.
A rend ering o f the p ro p o s ed EST is attac hed for referenc e.
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff rec o mmend s executing Task Order DEI-17-001 for p ro fes s io nal s ervic es relating to the S un City ES T
with Dunham Engineering, Inc . o f Co llege Statio n, Texas, in the amo unt o f $300,000.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
Funds fo r this exp enditure are bud geted in the Water CIP. S ee attac hed CIP Bud getary & Financ ial
Analysis Sheet.
SUBMITTED BY:
– Wesley Wright, P.E., Sys tems Engineering Direc tor/Michael Hallmark, CIP Manager.
ATTACHMENTS:
Description Type
B&FAW Backup Material
DEI Tas k Order Backup Material
Page 29 of 77
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
YTD
Spent/Enc Agenda Item
Engineering 238,550
Right of Way 60,000
Construction 1,159,755
Other Costs
testing/inspection
Current Budget
Available
Budget
BUDGET
BALANCE Variance
TOTAL 1,500,000 298,550 1,201,450 1,159,755 41,695 2.78%
General Ledger Account Number
COMMENTS: Testing costs are expected to be 25,000 and will be funded from BUDGET BALANCE
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
YTD
Spent/Enc Agenda Item
Engineering 238,550
Right of Way 60,000
Construction 1,220,000
Other Costs
testing/inspection
Current Budget
Available
Budget
BUDGET
BALANCE Variance
TOTAL 1,500,000 298,550 1,201,450 1,220,000 (18,550) -1.24%
General Ledger Account Number
COMMENTS: Testing costs are expected to be 25,000 and will be funded from BUDGET BALANCE
Example Project
Project 2 Example
Page 30 of 77
DATE:
PROJECT NAME:2CP 10/20/2016
Sun City EST
Division/Department:GUS / Water Director Approval
Prepared By:Michael Hallmark Finance Approval TW 10/25/2016
TOTAL ANNUAL BUDGET 3,050,000.00
(Current year only)
Actual Cost Agenda Total Spent
Encumbrance Item & Encumbered % Annual
(A) before agenda item (B)(A + B) Budget
Consulting 300,000.00 300,000.00 10%
Right of Way 0.00 0%
Construction 0.00 0%
Other Costs 0.00 0%
Total Current Year Costs 0.00 300,000.00
Approved
GENERAL LEDGER ACCOUNT NUMBER CY Budget
660-9-0580-90-097 3,050,000.00
Total Budget 3,050,000.00
TOTAL PROJECT BUDGET 3,050,000.00
(includes all previous yrs)
Prior Years Current Year Total Project % Total
Spent/Encumbered Costs Costs Budget
Consulting 300,000.00 300,000.00 10%
Right of Way 0.00 0.00 0%
Construction 0.00 0.00 0%
Other Costs 0.00 0.00 0%
Total Project Costs 0.00 300,000.00 300,000.00
Comments:
Task Order DEI-17-001
CIP- Budgetary and Financial Analysis Worksheet
Page 31 of 77
Page 32 of 77
Page 33 of 77
Page 34 of 77
Page 35 of 77
City of Georgetown, Texas
Utility System Advisory Board
November 11, 2016
SUBJECT:
Cons id eration and p o s s ib le rec o mmendation to approve Tas k Ord er DEI-17-002 with Dunham
Engineering, Inc . of College S tatio n, Texas, fo r profes sional services related to the Design o f the Airp o rt
1.5 MG (millio n gallon) GS T (Ground Sto rage Tank) Rehabilitation in the amount of $80,000.00 – Wes ley
Wright, P.E., S ys tems Engineering Direc tor/Mic hael Hallmark, CIP Manager.
ITEM SUMMARY:
This Task Ord er is Professional Engineering S ervic es to prepare p lans and s pec ificatio ns fo r the
cons tructio n to rehab ilitate the 1.5 MG (millio n gallon) GS T (Ground Sto rage Tank) and overs ite o f
cons tructio n.
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff rec o mmend s executing Task Order DEI-17-002 for p ro fes s io nal s ervic es relating to the Airport GST
Rehab ilitatio n with Dunham Engineering, Inc . of College S tatio n, Texas, in the amount of $80,000.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
Funds fo r this exp enditure are bud geted in the Water CIP. S ee attac hed CIP Bud getary & Financ ial
Analysis Sheet.
SUBMITTED BY:
Wes ley Wright, P.E., S ystems Engineering Direc to r/Mic hael Hallmark, CIP Manager.
ATTACHMENTS:
Description Type
B&FAW Cover Memo
Tas k Order Cover Memo
Page 36 of 77
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
YTD
Spent/Enc Agenda Item
Engineering 238,550
Right of Way 60,000
Construction 1,159,755
Other Costs
testing/inspection
Current Budget
Available
Budget
BUDGET
BALANCE Variance
TOTAL 1,500,000 298,550 1,201,450 1,159,755 41,695 2.78%
General Ledger Account Number
COMMENTS: Testing costs are expected to be 25,000 and will be funded from BUDGET BALANCE
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
YTD
Spent/Enc Agenda Item
Engineering 238,550
Right of Way 60,000
Construction 1,220,000
Other Costs
testing/inspection
Current Budget
Available
Budget
BUDGET
BALANCE Variance
TOTAL 1,500,000 298,550 1,201,450 1,220,000 (18,550) -1.24%
General Ledger Account Number
COMMENTS: Testing costs are expected to be 25,000 and will be funded from BUDGET BALANCE
Example Project
Project 2 Example
Page 37 of 77
DATE:
PROJECT NAME:2CQ 10/20/2016
Airport GST Rehab.
Division/Department:GUS / Water Director Approval
Prepared By:Michael Hallmark Finance Approval TW 10/25/16
TOTAL ANNUAL BUDGET 480,000.00
(Current year only)
Actual Cost Agenda Total Spent
Encumbrance Item & Encumbered % Annual
(A) before agenda item (B)(A + B) Budget
Consulting 80,000.00 80,000.00 17%
Right of Way 0.00 0%
Construction 0.00 0%
Other Costs 0.00 0%
Total Current Year Costs 0.00 80,000.00
Approved
GENERAL LEDGER ACCOUNT NUMBER CY Budget
660-9-0580-90-071 480,000.00
Total Budget 480,000.00
TOTAL PROJECT BUDGET 480,000.00
(includes all previous yrs)
Prior Years Current Year Total Project % Total
Spent/Encumbered Costs Costs Budget
Consulting 80,000.00 80,000.00 17%
Right of Way 0.00 0.00 0%
Construction 0.00 0.00 0%
Other Costs 0.00 0.00 0%
Total Project Costs 0.00 80,000.00 80,000.00
Comments:
Task Order DEI-17-002
CIP- Budgetary and Financial Analysis Worksheet
Page 38 of 77
Page 39 of 77
Page 40 of 77
Page 41 of 77
Page 42 of 77
City of Georgetown, Texas
Utility System Advisory Board
November 11, 2016
SUBJECT:
Cons id eration and pos s ible rec ommend ation to ap p ro ve a c hange o rd er with Itineris N.A to provide
management, s up p o rt, and overs ight o f the transformatio n and c o nvers io n tasks for Data Migratio n in the
amo unt o f $56,000. – Leticia Zavala, Cus tomer C are Directo r
ITEM SUMMARY:
The Data Migratio n P lan fo llo ws the traditio nal ET L (Extrac tion – Trans formatio n – Load) p ro cess and is a
critical part of the CIS p ro ject. It c o nsists o f extrac ting data fro m the legac y (Inc o d e) s ystem, converting
that d ata to a fo rmat that c o mplies with the UMAX d ata mo d el, and lo ad ing the c onverted d ata into
UMAX. (See attac hed doc uments fo r diagram)
A Data Migration Impac t As s es s ment was c ond uc ted d uring the first phas e o f the p ro ject to determine the
effo rt needed to c o mp lete the transformation and mapping tasks for the Data Migration P lan. The
as s es s ment pro vided a Res p o nsibility As s es s ment Matrix that identified the tas ks and assigned
res p o nsibilities s o that a cost estimate could b e develo p ed . While this change o rd er includ es the
management o f the d ata conversion deliverables it d o es no t inc lude the ac tual c onvers ion of the data.
There is ano ther as s o ciated agenda item fo r the trans formatio n rule d es ign, develo p ment, and conversion
o f the Inc o d e d ata into the UMAX d ata model.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff rec o mmend s approval of this c hange order to ensure the p ro ject stays on track and all conversion
related d eliverab les are met without an imp ac t to the overall projec t timeline. T he lack of s p ecialized in
hous e technic al expertis e necessitates the vend o r as s ume respons ib ility for the management, s upport, and
o versight of the d ata conversion deliverab les .
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
The co s t was unkno wn in May 2016 when the s o ftware contrac t with Itineris N.A. was approved . The
Projec t Contingenc y amo unt o f $500,000 inc lud es an internal c o s t es timate fo r Data Migratio n. The general
led ger ac count #610-9-0580-91-105 will b e used to fund the $56,000 and is part o f the overall p ro jec t
b udget.
Project Components Budget
S o ftware & Integration Services $2,500,557
IT & Infrastruc ture 400,000
Co nsulting Services 672,180
Contingency**500,000
To tal Projec t Budget:$4,072,737
SUBMITTED BY:
Leticia Zavala, C us to mer Care Directo r (skm)
ATTACHMENTS:
Description Type
Covers heet with Diagram Backup Material
Page 43 of 77
Data Migration Change Order Backup Material
Data Migration RACI Backup Material
Page 44 of 77
Georgetown Utility System Advisory Board
Meeting Date: November 11, 2016 Item No.
SUBJECT
Consideration and possible recommendation to approve a change order with Itineris N.A to provide
management, support, and oversight of the transformation and conversion tasks for Data Migration in the
amount of $56,000.
ITEM SUMMARY
The Data Migration Plan follows the traditional ETL (Extraction – Transformation – Load) process and is a
critical part of the CIS projec t. It consists of extracting data from the legacy (Incode) system, converting that
data to a format that complies with the
UMAX data model, and loading the
converted data into UMAX.
A Data Migration Impact Assessment was
conducted during the first phase of the
project to determine the effort needed to
complete the transformation and mapping
tasks for the Data Migration Plan. The
assessment provided a Responsibility
Assessment Matrix that identified the tasks
and assigned responsibilities so that a cost
estimate could be developed. While this
change order includes the management of
the data conversion deliverables it does not
include the actual conversion of the data. There is another associated agenda item for the transformation rule
design, development, and conversion of the Incode data into the UMAX data model.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of this change order to ensure the project stays on track and all conversion related
deliverables are met without an impact to the overall proj ect timeline. The lack of specialized in house technical
expertise necessitates the vendor assume responsibility for the management, support, and oversight of the data
conversion deliverables.
FINANCIAL IMPACT
The cost was unknown in May 2016 when the software contract with Itineris N.A. was approved. The Project
Contingency amount of $500,000 includes an internal cost estimate for Data Migration. The general ledger
account #610-9-0580-91-105 will be used to fund the $56,000 and is part of the overall project budget.
Project Components Budget
Software & Integration Services $2,500,557
IT & Infrastructure 400,000
Consulting Services 672,180
Contingency** 500,000
Total Project Budget: $4,072,737
ATTACHMENTS
Itineris Data Migration Change Order
Data Migration RACI
Leticia Zavala Customer Care Director
Page 45 of 77
11.11.16 Itineris Change OrderCO - Transformation 1 | P a g e
Change Order
Change Order 003: Data Migration Impact Assessment
Client: City of Georgetown
Project: Georgetown CIS UMAX Implementation - Project Genesis
Itineris Project Manager: K. Jeanine Stone Date Delivered: 10/31/2016Revision to
9/20/2016 v04
Georgetown Project
Manager: Cindy Pospisil Analysis Phase End Date: 8/25/2016
Background Information:
GUS requested that Itineris provide a Data Migration Impact Assessment to evaluate the effort required for
Itineris to complete the Transform tasks for Data Migration. Sections from related documents are included for
complete reference of Transformation tasks. These documents include:
Data Migration Plan & Strategy
Data Migration Scope & Acceptance Criteria
Description of Work:
Management Summary:
The Georgetown CIS UMAX Implementation - Project Genesis project entails the transition from the
Georgetown Utility Systems legacy billing system to the use of a standard ERP solution for the North
American utility market: UMAX.
The data migration is considered to be a crucial aspect of the project, and follows the traditional ETL
(Extraction – Transformation – Load) process. It consists of a controlled extraction of data from the legacy
system, a transformation of those data to a format that complies with the UMAX data model, and a load of
the transformed data into UMAX.
Definitions / Acronyms
ETL Extraction – Transformation – Load
Data Entity A logical grouping of data (e.g. customer, account, meter, consumption, etc.)
IMAC Itineris Migration Administration Cockpit (UMAX migration framework for the load
activities)
IST Integrated System Testing
No. Assumptions
1 Only data that is necessary for the correct processing of the in-scope UMAX functionalities is
migrated. If the data has no value in UMAX, it is by default out of scope.
2 GUS requires 24 months (2 years) of historical data will be migrated to UMAX.
3 Data scope for data migration is frozen at the end of the analysis phase.
Page 46 of 77
11.11.16 Itineris Change OrderCO - Transformation 2 | P a g e
No. Assumptions
4 All data cleansing activities are performed by GUS or their designate. No data cleansing or data
enrichment will be performed by Itineris.
5 GUS has the necessary knowledge and expertise available for the source data quality assessment,
both from a technical and a business perspective.
6 Every data entity has one ‘master’, i.e. one source system (and owner) that is leading in providing the
correct data.
7 GUS Legacy System (Incode) and ESRI will be the sole sources of the data migration.
8 All extracted data must be available in a normalized database.
9 All data migration test runs will be performed on a fresh (i.e. max 1 week old) backup of the source
environments.
10 The Georgetown Utility Systems Database is synced with the legacy CIS on a nightly basis. This
accounts for 95% of Legacy tables (the Transaction Bill Tables are not included).
11 Georgetown Utility Systems populates the Transaction Bill tables overnight on the weekend, due to
the large size of the transaction bill file. (6GB)
12 No data manipulations are performed on the legacy CIS data when transferred to the Intermediary
database.
13 The (meta-) datamodel of the source system(s) does not change during the project.
14 GUS will be responsible for the Extraction.
15 Itineris will be responsible for the Load into UMAX.
16
GUS has a data migration lead who is the single point of contact for matters concerning the data
migration. Itineris has a data migration lead who is the single point of contact for matters
concerning the data migration.
17 GUS and Itineris are responsible for a timely delivery of the necessary extraction files and
transformation files/load tables for each migration run.
18 GUS has the necessary knowledge and expertise available for the transformation design and
development, both from a technical and a business perspective.
19 Formal business decisions required for the data migration will be made within 5 business days.
20 GUS and Itineris provide answers to outstanding questions within 5 business days.
21 GUS is responsible for a timely delivery of the necessary access to the system and the necessary
capacity (environments, storage requirements) to support the supplier.
22 The technical setup of the intermediary environment will be done by Georgetown Utility Systems.
23 System maintenance windows will be planned in a way that does not hinder the planned data
migration test runs.
24 Data migration activities will be executed on a dedicated server.
25 The Itineris users will be able to establish a direct connection to these servers from a remote
location.
26 Itineris will have local admin rights on both the AOS and DB migration servers.
Page 47 of 77
11.11.16 Itineris Change OrderCO - Transformation 3 | P a g e
No. Assumptions
27 Itineris will not be dependent on any external party to make intermediary backups or execute
restores of the DM environments.
28 This infrastructure will be made available by GUS for the start of the first migration run, and until
post-go-live.
29 The last 2 migration test runs will be performed on the production environment (or an environment
of the same technical specifications).
30 There will be a code freeze on the UMAX target from the start of the last migration test run until go-
live (excluding bug fixes).
31 When performing comparisons between source and target data, the UMAX data have to be
compared to the same source system backup(s) that have been used to start the migration run.
32 Test users that perform the comparisons between source and target data have the necessary access
to the source system backup(s) that have been used to start the migration run
33 The Integration System Tests and User Acceptance Tests will be performed on migrated data.
34 Planning and budget estimates are based on the availability of the necessary resources and
infrastructure to have all necessary DTAP streets until post-go-live.
35 Parameterization is not in scope of the data migration.
36 Cutover and go-live activities are not described in this document.
37 The data migration will be finalized (full scope and all attributes mapped) by the start of the
Integration & System Testing.
38 This document does not take into account any unplanned activities nor possible ‘idle time’ that is a
consequence of GUS or Itineris not meeting exit- or entry-criteria for which it is responsible.
Solution Detail:
Transform Proposed Solution
This section describes a proposed solution on how to successfully transform data from the Legacy System
(INCODE) to UMAX. Based on Itineris best practices and experience with previous data migrations, the
proposed solution outlined below, if followed, has been proven to provide high quality data migrations.
1.1.1. Stages
The transformation typically consists of 2 steps: the step from Intermediary Source to Staging, and the step
from Staging to Transformed. Each step has its own goals, and characteristics.
Step 1: Intermediary Source --> Staging:
In this step, a first filtering of data is performed: all data that are OUT of the scope of the data migration are
left behind in Intermediary Source.
Examples of these are:
Non-Billed Meter readings
Historic bills older than 24 months
Premises that have never been linked to an occupant in Incode
Etc.
Page 48 of 77
11.11.16 Itineris Change OrderCO - Transformation 4 | P a g e
Transform Proposed Solution
It is important that the Staging environment contains the full IN-SCOPE dataset, and nothing else. So all data
that arrives in the Staging environment, is also to be expected in the Target environment for go-live.
In this stage, the data still complies with the source datamodel.
Step 2: Staging --> Transformed:
In this step, the following actions are performed:
Mapping of source values to target values (possibly based on configuration)
Transformation of source datamodel to target datamodel (UMAX)
The technical setup of the intermediary environment will be done by Georgetown Utility Systems. Itineris can
provide assistance here, but that assistance is not considered to be in the Itineris scope.
Once the data is published in the Transformed environment, it is ready to be loaded to UMAX.
1.1.2. UMAX Loadsheets
Itineris will provide detailed loadsheets for each in-scope data entity, so that there is no extensive knowledge
needed of the UMAX data model to be able to design and develop the transformation rules.
The format of these loadsheets is an excel spreadsheet, where all attributes for that data entity are listed and
documented: functional attribute name, technical attribute name, data type, length, validations, extra
information, etc.
Itineris will support, manage and direct the GUS contractor with interpreting the loadsheets and all related
transformation tasks. The combination of the documentation of the loadsheets and the delivered support
should provide the GUS contractor with the necessary knowledge transfer, and familiarize them with the
UMAX datamodel.
Itineris will load the transformed data into UMAX.
Itineris will perform the load, and provide Georgetown Utility Systems with a load report afterwards, where
the following aspects of the load are reported back to Georgetown Utility Systems:
Exception % per data entity (= per loadsheet)
Exception details (which transactions were rejected and why)
Lead times per data entity (= per loadsheet)
It is then up to Georgetown Utility Systems/Itineris to analyze exceptions, and make the necessary
adjustments to their extraction/ transformation scripts.
Page 49 of 77
11.11.16 Itineris Change OrderCO - Transformation 5 | P a g e
Transform Proposed Solution
1.2. Quantity of Migrated Data
1.2.1. Traceability
It is important that the data migration team keeps track of the number of transactions that flow through the
ETL process (Source – Staging – Transformed – Target) – and even more importantly, the number of
transactions that are left behind.
As discussed earlier (see Section 1.1.1), filtering will take place in some stages of the data migration because
some categories of data that are part of the source database are out of scope of the data migration.
Examples of these are:
Non-Billed Meter readings
Historic data (that older than 24 months)
Premises that have never been linked to an occupant in the Legacy System
Etc.
However, it is important that the number of transactions that are filtered out, are documented as well: the
general philosophy should be that all data that is left behind in some stage of the data migration process
(either Source, Staging or Transformed) should be accounted for, i.e., a clear reason has to be given (and
documented) why this data is left behind.
Page 50 of 77
11.11.16 Itineris Change OrderCO - Transformation 6 | P a g e
Transform Proposed Solution
This quantity check will typically be performed for each data migration test run (and for go-live as well), and is
shared responsibility GUS-Itineris:
Per loadsheet, the number of transactions in each stage (Intermediary Source, Staging, Transformed,
Target (UMAX)) is noted.
o GUS is responsible for the counts in the Intermediary Source.
o The party responsible for the transformation will be responsible for the counts in Staging and
Transformed.
o Itineris will validate the counts for the Transformed Stage, and is responsible for the count in
the Target stage.
These counts will be brought together, and an explanation will be given for any differences between
different stages (out of scope, still to be cleansed, transformation exception, load exception, etc.).
Example:
This document will focus on one level, i.e. the number of transactions for each data entity. A drilldown to a
deeper level of understanding will also be needed (e.g. drilldown the number of customers to distinguish
between residential customers and commercial customers, etc.), this will be discussed in the next section.
Page 51 of 77
11.11.16 Itineris Change OrderCO - Transformation 7 | P a g e
1.2.2. Migration Dashboard
It is important to detail the Migration Dashboard in this Assessment as the party responsible for Transform
activities will be required to design control counts for Transform tasks.
1.2.2.1. What is it?
The migration dashboard is a quantity instrument that is generated after each migration test run (and go-
live). It is made up of a list of predefined control counts, for which the comparison is made between source
and target environment, and whose visual representation allows for a quick overview of the quality/quantity
of the data migration run.
Quantity instrument: it is an instrument that can be used to provide the accepters of the data
migration with a deep insight into the completeness of the migration.
Predefined control counts: Itineris and GUS will agree on a limited but representative set of control
counts for which they want to see a comparison between source and target.
Comparison: the control counts are executed on both source (Intermediary Source) and target
environment (UMAX). The difference between the two counts is displayed as well.
Visual representation: the layout of the dashboard has to allow for a quick identification of concern
areas: control counts that fall outside of a predefined range are highlighted.
The additional insight gained through the dashboard compared to the traceability report, is that the
functional control counts that are defined here are meant to give a deeper insight and drilldown, and only
take into account the in scope entities and attributes.
For example, in the previous section, we would count the number of customer transactions in the customer
loadsheet. This does provide some insight, but you might want to dig deeper to distinguish between:
Commercial and residential customers
Customers with a payment that is past due
Etc.
Note: the migration dashboard is not meant to contain comprehensive BI reports. The control counts that are
used here should be kept relatively simple. Complex reports fall outside of the scope of the data migration.
1.2.2.2. Responsibilities Itineris- Georgetown Utility Systems
Since the control counts are performed on both source and target, both Itineris and GUS have a
responsibility:
GUS responsibility:
o Review the list of control counts that is proposed by Itineris (+ potentially make requests for
additional control counts) to land on a baseline.
o Provide Itineris with all counters from the source database after each migration run (and go-
live).
Itineris responsibility:
Page 52 of 77
11.11.16 Itineris Change OrderCO - Transformation 8 | P a g e
Transform Proposed Solution
o Present an initial proposition of control counts to GUS based on previous experience and best
practice
o Agree on a baseline (of control counts) after review by GUS
o Design the dashboard
o Build the dashboard
o Provide counters from the target database after each migration run (and go-live)
o Consolidate source and target counters after each migration run (and go-live)
It is crucial that the agreed list of control counts is supported by the accepters of the data migration, as the
dashboard will typically be used as an important tool for the acceptance. Only when the accepters feel that
the list of agreed control counts is representative for the complete dataset, will they feel confident in taking
an informed decision.
To reach the support of the accepters, they have to be involved in the composition and review of the set of
control counts.
1.3. Data Entities
In this section, an overview is given of the data entities (+specifications) that will be in scope of the data
migration.
Some entities or specifications that have been discussed in the migration workshops are explicitly mentioned
in the out of scope section. Any other entities that are not mentioned in the table, or that are not in the “in
scope” column, are considered out of scope.
Data Entity In Scope Out of Scope Assumptions
Customer
Account
All Active
All Inactive with end
date within last 24
months
Final
Emergency Contacts (notes
are out of scope for
migration)
No accounts in
disconnect status will be
migrated, i.e. none will
exist at Go-Live.
Party
The current financially
responsible party for
every in scope customer
account
Owner/Tenant (Data not
reliable)
Other parties:
roommate, spouse etc.
(Data not reliable and
incomplete)
Consolidation of
financially responsible
party will be performed
by GUS during data
cleansing activities prior
to transformation.
Premises
All premises in the
ServiceAddress table,
including COGEAMID
from ESRI
Living Units (data NOT
reliable)
Premises that have
NEVER been linked to an
occupant
Every premises is
migrated as a single
premises (no grouped
premises).
Page 53 of 77
11.11.16 Itineris Change OrderCO - Transformation 9 | P a g e
Data Entity In Scope Out of Scope Assumptions
Landlords All unique landlords
Service
All records in the
Occupant table with
no end date
(=active)
All records in the
Occupant table with
start date <= 24
months
Meters
All installed meters
(=meters in the
Meter table)
All Meters in
Inventory
Any information from
Infor
Meter test results
All open meter
exchanges/installations/
removals are completed
prior to the go live
freeze.
Geographical
Coordinates
Geo coo for each in
scope service Point
(=service or
installed meter, tbd)
Geo coo for each in
scope premises
Geographical coordinates on
any other entities
ESRI is added as direct
source for extraction so
that the COGEAMID and
geographical
coordinates of the
premises are available in
the intermediary
database
Registers All registers on an in
scope meter
Modules
All current modules
installed on an in scope
meter
Historic modules on meters
Street Light All currently installed
street lights History
Migrated as
separate assets
without serial
number
Serial numbers are
inserted manually
after go live
Page 54 of 77
11.11.16 Itineris Change OrderCO - Transformation 10 | P a g e
Data Entity In Scope Out of Scope Assumptions
Cart All currently installed
carts History
Dumpster All currently installed
dumpsters History
Locking Device All currently installed
locking devices History
Backflow Device
Currently installed
backflow devices
(including date of last
successful test result)
History Backflow Device
Test results
Other assets
Due to not tracked in legacy:
Compactor
AC unit
Water heater
Pressure reducing valve
Irrigation controller
Meter control panel
Load management
device
Current & potential
transformers
Drainage Pond Current ponds History
Well Current wells History
Solar Panel Current solar panels History
Other appliances
Due to not tracked in legacy:
Swimming pool
Hydrant private
Wind Turbine
Cattle through
Septic
Service Orders Service Orders in Incode
for the last year
Call Center tickets (Infor)
Service/Work Orders in
Infor
All other service orders
in Incode
Historic service
orders are migrated
as Cases
All open service
orders are
completed prior to
the go live freeze
Contracts
One commercial
agreement per in
scope premises
One or more
delivery agreements
per in scope
Rates (rate structure and
prices are configured in
UMAX)
Contracts are
migrated based on a
template with
product.
Complex structures
(if any) will be
migrated manually.
Page 55 of 77
11.11.16 Itineris Change OrderCO - Transformation 11 | P a g e
Data Entity In Scope Out of Scope Assumptions
premises
(Contracts do not exist
in Legacy -to be created
during transformation)
All ongoing move
in/outs are
completed prior to
the go live freeze
Invoice
Structures
One invoice structure
per in scope premises
(Invoice structures do
not exist in Legacy –to
be created during
transformation)
Certificates &
fixed quantities
Current/last known
situation for each In
Scope Customer
History (Not available)
Meter Readings
For each in scope
service that has
been billed in
legacy: all billed
meter readings for
the last 24 months
For each in scope
service that
has not yet been
billed in legacy:
initial meter reading
Meter Reading requests
Consumptions calculated
in Legacy system
Not billed meter
readings
Historic meter readings
are migrated for
consultation purposes
only
Period Quantity Period Quantities for all
In Scope meter readings
DAC
Most recent DAC for
every in scope
contract
Most recent DAC for
every installed
register
Historic DACs
Bill
For each in scope
customer, all bills of the
past two years
Budget Billing
Non posted bills
All Bills are
processed and
posted prior to the
go live freeze
Bills are migrated as
bill header +
document reference
Migrated bills are
for consultation
only; no automatic
Page 56 of 77
11.11.16 Itineris Change OrderCO - Transformation 12 | P a g e
Data Entity In Scope Out of Scope Assumptions
adjustment or
cancellation is
supported.
Customer
Transactions
For each in scope
customer account:
Amount due on the
last legacy bill
All non-settled
payments, credits,
others received
after the last legacy
bill
Unposted transactions
Settled transactions
All bills and transactions
are processed and
posted prior to the go
live freeze
General Ledger
For all in scope
customer transactions,
at least one ledger
transaction (possibly
split per fund for the
amount due)
All other general ledger
transactions
Cases
Service Orders as
discussed in topic
'Service Orders'
TBD: which
comment codes
need to be a Case
Call Center tickets
ALL CommentCodes NOT
in Contract or Customer
or Premises
Notes
ONLY cases related
to in scope entities
can be migrated
GUS will archive the
existing notes that
can be searchable
by customer
number or address
in Incode
Deposits
TBD: all deposits that
have not been paid
back.
ALL paid deposits
Deposits are in scope
until decision is reached
Inspections
Start date of every
vacant premises at go
live
Historical vacancy dates
Inspection records (not
available in Incode)
Turn off/on
reason codes None
Complete all
ongoing/scheduled
turn offs/ons 2
weeks prior to go
live freeze
Reconnections on
migrated turn offs
will be handled as
move ins (to be
UMAX process)
Page 57 of 77
11.11.16 Itineris Change OrderCO - Transformation 13 | P a g e
Data Entity In Scope Out of Scope Assumptions
Direct Debit File
TBD: Decision recurring
payments and credit
cards
Possible manual
migration or import of
journal lines
Payment Plan Active Payment plans Deposits in legacy
Historical payment plans
Complete as many
open payment plans
as possible prior to
the go live freeze
Manual Migration
because customer
specific
Dubious
TBD; pending decision
on how to migrate bad
debt accounts
Collection Letter
TBD; Depends on
decision whether or not
to wave current
penalties
Other files
Commission
commitment
Bankruptcy
Dispute
Depreciation
Lien
Refund
NSF
Disconnection
Document
References
For each migrated bill,
when available
All other document
references
Unique identifier to
identify specific
bills/account is
provided by GUS
Path to the physical
location or URL will
be migrated (TBD)
Note that the entire scope has not yet been completely defined, but it is expected that the above entities
(excluding the scoping specifications) are 90% accurate.
The open topics are to be discussed and clarified as soon as possible (by mid Design phase).
The fact that a data entity is ‘in scope’ does not necessarily mean that the import will be automated (through
a loadsheet or a sql script or an AX script). The ‘migration method’ (automated vs manually) will be
determined based on the number of transactions and/or the complexity. For instance, when the number of
transactions is small and complex, it may be more beneficial to import the transactions manually (e.g.
payment arrangements).
Page 58 of 77
11.11.16 Itineris Change OrderCO - Transformation 14 | P a g e
1.4. Source Systems
It is assumed that the Georgetown Utility Legacy System (Incode) and ESRI are the main (and only) sources of
the data migration.
All other sources are either indirect sources for the migration are out-of-scope.
Estimate Formulas
Itineris has compiled an estimating process to evaluate the tasks and efforts to perform Transform tasks.
This estimating* includes:
Functional Effort – Itineris Functional Consultant additional task effort to work w/Technical
Transform Consultant
Transform Effort – tasks to be performed by Technical Transform Consultant
Staffing – percentage of monthly required staffing of Functional Consultant, Technical Consultant
(Load) and Technical Consultant (Transform).
Complexity – each entity was analyzed and assigned a complexity level of 1-10
Estimates - Transform tasks were estimated based on the complexity of the entities and the required
development, workshop attendance, testing, rework, dashboard & traceability report counts &
execution required.
*Estimations are based on a total of 8 data migration iterations including Go-Live.
Transformation Tasks are estimated in man days and include:
Transformation Development
Initial development
Two different formats of load tables: line and
block structure
0 .00
Rework (as a result of migration runs and
testing) 0.00
Dashboard + Traceability Development of all counts for intermediary
environments 0.00
Error analysis (technical comparison and
discussion with counts of extract and load) 0.00
Technical support
- General support/assistance for migration
related technical tasks. i.e. set up of
intermediate tables, infrastructure, etc.
-Support for ITI and GUS leads in work sessions
and DM meetings
0.00
Migration runs Execution transform 0.00
Reports (traceability, dashboard) 0.00
Dry run (Mock Go-Live) Execution transform 0.00
Additional activities during dry run (roadmap
meetings, infrastructure meetings, etc.) 0.00
Reports (traceability, dashboard) 0.00
Go-Live Execution transform 0.00
Reports (traceability, dashboard) 0.00
Page 59 of 77
11.11.16 Itineris Change OrderCO - Transformation 15 | P a g e
Sub-Total 0.00
Itineris Functional
Itineris Technical
Support of Transformation
64 man days to support transformation
(mapping design): This is a task done by the
Itineris migration lead and the customer
migration lead together, in both scenarios
(transform responsibility by Itineris or by
customer)
46 man days transformation support for the
GUS contractor including:
Transformation guidance throughout
the process to support transformation
plan.
Support Transformation rule design
Data migration status meetings and
follow-up, if direction is needed.
Escalation and resolution to complete
plan
Technical support and guidance of how
to set up particular data load tables from
legacy system (e.g. for block structure
load sheets)
Support to deliver data migration
reports to ensure data is not lost and
migration has migrated correctly.
General support and assistance as
needed to successfully complete the
data migration.
5 days load count support
5 days technical support
56.00
Total
Kent’s estimated effort per completion of a Staffing Effort matrix totals 122.75 man days.
It is assumed that Kent will remain a sub-contractor for GUS and not under the employ of Itineris.
Staffing Efforts per Data Migration Consultant were estimated per month based on Itineris historical efforts
and are as follows:
Page 60 of 77
11.11.16 Itineris Change OrderCO - Transformation 16 | P a g e
A RACI.xls has been provided as part of this Change Order for review and approval by GUS of Data Migration
responsibilities.
The Transform efforts being primarily completed by a GUS contractor but managed and directed by Itineris
for the transformation delivery. The following deliverables’ responsible party should be revised as follows:
Del. 38 – Transformation Rules Design Responsible: Itineris/GUS
Del. 51 – Transformation Rules Development Responsible: Itineris/GUS
Del. 71 – Converted Data/Audit Trail Responsible: Itineris / GUS
Del. 73 – Trial Data Migration Responsible: Itineris / GUS
Del. 79 – Migration Final Load Responsible: Itineris / GUS
Project Impact
Impact Description
Budget
46 man days of Itineris Transformation Support
5 man days load count report support
5 man days of technical support
56 Total man days @ project rate of $1,000 per MD
= $56,000.
This is a fixed price for the services provided and will
not exceed $56,000
Travel and lodging expenses, if needed will be billed
monthly as the work is performed and due 30 days
from the date of invoice. Costs are in addition to the
initially agreed upon travel budget.
Resource(s) TBD
Payments $ 56,000
To be billed on a Time & Material basis monthly and
will not exceed $56,000.
Due upon receipt of DMIA
Schedule
The 1st Migration run at the end of the design stage
in still on track with this change control so the
overall delivery schedule will not be impacted.
Risk
Any delay in the activities laid out in this change
control to achieve the 1st migration run at the end of
the design phase may result in a delay to the delivery
of the overall project.
Page 61 of 77
11.11.16 Itineris Change OrderCO - Transformation 17 | P a g e
Approvals
Item # City of Georgetown Itineris Itineris
Name Byron King K. Jeanine Stone
Role VP Professional Services Project Manager
Signature
Date
Customer signature serves as an acceptance of the budget amount listed above as it relates to the description of
work contained in this Change Order. Your signature also indicates you have reviewed and agree to the scope of
work as detailed in any accompanying enclosures or attachments.
Page 62 of 77
R:Responsible - owns/completes the tasks
A:
C:
I:Informed - notified of decisions/results
Project Project Genesis - Georgetown UMAX CIS Implementation
Updated 10/19/2016
Kent Hudson
Task DESCRIPTION
Aloysious
Sheil
Load
Consultant
Transform
Consultant
James Foutz
Business Process
& Data
Christina Richison
Testing
Data Migration - Analysis Phase
May - August 2016
1 Data Migration Plan & Strategy (D: 17-I)R/A I C/I A C/I
2 Data (Quality) Assessment (D: 18-G)C/I I I R/A C/I
3 High Level Entity Mapping (D:19-I)R/A I C/I A C/I
4 Data Migration Workshops (D:20-I)R/A I C/I R C/I
5 Extraction and Extraction Design (D: 21-G)C/I I C/I R/A C/I
6 Data Migration Scope and Acceptance Criteria (D: 22-G)C/I I C/I R/A C/I
Data Migration - Design Phase
September - December 2016
7 Entity Mapping - (D: 37-I)R/A C/I C/I A C/I
8 Transformation Rules Design D: 38-I)R/A C/I R A C/I
9 Iteration Scope and & Acceptance Criteria (D: 39-G)C/I I C/I R/A C/I
10 Data Cleansing (D: 40-G)C/I I C/I R/A C/I
11 Set Up Intermediary Environments C/I I R R/A I
12 Intermediate DM Runs (mini runs for all master data
entities)R/A R/A R/A R/A C/I
13 Iteration 1 - schedule to be developed in Design Phase R/A R/A R R/A C/I
Data Migration - Development Phase
December 2015 - May 2017
14 Transformation Rules Development (D: 51-I)R/A C/I R A C/I
15 Data Cleansing - GUS C/I I C/I R/A C/I
16 Data Migration Scripts (D: 52-I)R/A R/A C/I A C/I
17 Data Migration Dashboard (D:53-I/G)R/A C/I R R/A C/I
18 Visual Comparisons on Migrated Data C/I I I R/A A
19 Load Reports R/A R/A I I I
20 Traceability Report R/A R/A R R/A C/I
21 Error Analysis and Fixes R/A R/A R R/A C/I
22 Intermediate Runs (ad hoc Test Runs between Iterations)
D: 54-I/G)R/A R/A R/A R/A C/I
23 Iteration 2 - schedule to be developed in Design Phase R/A R/A R/A R/A C/I
24 Iteration 3 - schedule to be developed in Design Phase R/A R/A R/A R/A C/I
25 Iteration 4 - schedule to be developed in Design Phase R/A R/A R/A R/A C/I
Data Migration - Deployment Phase
May 2017 - November 2017
26 Converted Data/Audit Trail (D:71 - I)R/A R/A R A C/I
27 Data Cleansing - GUS C/I I C/I R/A C/I
28 Intermediate Runs (ad hoc in between official runs and
before Mock Go-Live)R/A R/A R/A R/A C/I
29 Iteration 5 R/A R/A R/A R/A C/I
30 Iteration 6 - Trial Data Migration (D: 73-I)R/A R/A R/A R/A C/I
Data Migration - Operations Phase
December 2017
31 Mock Go-Live - Iteration 7 R/A R/A R/A R/A C/I
32 Migration Final Load - Iteration 8 (D: 79-I)R/A R/A R/A R/A C/I
GeorgetownItineris
Data Migration RACI
Accountable - Approver, to whom R is
responsible
Consulted - communicated with
regarding decisions and tasks
Page 63 of 77
City of Georgetown, Texas
Utility System Advisory Board
November 11, 2016
SUBJECT:
Cons id eration and p o s s ib le recommend ation to ap p ro ve a c o ntract with KHA Intelligence Group LLC to
p ro vide transformatio n rule design, d evelopment, and d ata c o nvers io n of the legac y s ys tem d ata for Data
Migratio n in the amo unt o f $83,470. -- Letic ia Zavala, Cus tomer Care Direc to r
ITEM SUMMARY:
The Data Migratio n P lan fo llo ws the traditio nal ET L (Extrac tion – Trans formatio n – Load) p ro cess and is a
critical part of the CIS p ro ject. It c o nsists o f extrac ting data fro m the legac y (Inc o d e) s ystem, converting
that d ata to a fo rmat that c o mplies with the UMAX d ata mo d el, and lo ad ing the c onverted d ata into
UMAX. (See attac hed doc uments fo r diagram)
A Data Migratio n Imp act Assessment was cond uc ted d uring the first phas e of the projec t to determine the
effo rt needed to c omplete the trans fo rmation and mapping tas ks fo r the Data Migration P lan. The
as s es s ment p ro vid ed a Res pons ib ility As s es s ment Matrix that id entified the d eliverables and as s igned
res p o nsibilities fo r the migratio n o f the d ata.
Kent Hud s o n, owner o f KHA Intelligence Gro up LLC, is o ne o f the original develo p ers of the Inc ode
s ystem and as a res ult, has exp ert kno wledge o f the s ys tem, es pec ially as it relates to d atabas e struc tures .
Mr. Hud s o n was retained through a s ole s o urc e arrangement earlier in the CIS projec t to provid e data
extractio n services from the Inc ode s ys tem. This item will s ecure ad d itional hours to perform the
trans fo rmation rule design, d evelopment, and data c onvers ion o f the legacy s ystem d ata into a format that
complies with the UMAX d ata mo d el.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff rec o mmend s approval of this c o ntract to ens ure the p ro ject stays o n trac k and all conversion related
d eliverables are met without an imp act to the overall projec t timeline. The lac k o f s pec ialized in ho use
tec hnical expertis e nec es s itates c o ntracting with a 3rd p arty.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
The c o s t was unknown in May 2016 when the s o ftware contrac t was approved . T he P ro ject Contingenc y
amo unt of $500,000 inc ludes an internal c o s t estimate fo r Data Migratio n Servic es . T he general ledger
acc o unt #610-9-0580-91-105 will be used to fund the $83,470 and is p art of the overall projec t b udget.
Project Components Budget
S o ftware & Integration Services $2,500,557
IT & Infrastruc ture 400,000
Co nsulting Services 672,180
Contingency **500,000
To tal Projec t Budget:$4,072,737
SUBMITTED BY:
Leticia Zavala, C us to mer Care Directo r (skm)
ATTACHMENTS:
Description Type
Covers heet with Diagram Backup Material
Page 64 of 77
KHA Contract Backup Material
Page 65 of 77
Georgetown Utility System Advisory Board
Meeting Date: November 11, 2016 Item No.
SUBJECT
Consideration and possible recommendation to approve a contract with KHA Intelligence Group LLC to provide
transformation rule design, development, and data conversion of the legacy system data for Data Migration in
the amount of $83,470.
ITEM SUMMARY
The Data Migration Plan follows the traditional ETL (Extraction – Transformation – Load) process and is a
critical part of the CIS project. It consists of extracting data from the legacy (Incode) system, converting that
data to a format that complies with the UMAX data model, and loading the converted data into UMAX.
A Data Migration Impact Assessment was conducted during the first phase of the project to determine the effort
needed to complete the transformation and
mapping tasks for the Data Migration Plan.
The assessment provided a Responsibility
Assessment Matrix that identified the
deliverables and assigned responsibilities for
the migration of the data.
Kent Hudson, owner of KHA Intelligence Group
LLC, is one of the original developers of the
Incode system and as a result, has expert
knowledge of the system, especially as it
relates to database structures. Mr. Hudson
was retained through a sole source
arrangement earlier in the CIS project to
provide data extraction services from the
Incode system. This item will secure additional hours to perform the transformation rule design, development,
and data conversion of the legacy system data into a format that complies with the UMAX data model.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of this contract to ensure the project stays on track and all conversion related
deliverables are met without an impact to the overall project timeline. The lack of specialized in house technical
expertise necessitates contracting with a 3 rd party.
FINANCIAL IMPACT
The cost was unknown in May 2016 when the software contract was approved. The Project Contingency
amount of $500,000 includes an internal cost estimate for Data Migration Services. The general ledger account
#610-9-0580-91-105 will be used to fund the $83,470 and is part of the overall project budget.
Project Components Budget
Software & Integration Services $2,500,557
IT & Infrastructure 400,000
Consulting Services 672,180
Contingency ** 500,000
Total Project Budget: $4,072,737
ATTACHMENTS
Contract
Leticia Zavala Customer Care Director
Page 66 of 77
1 of 5
CONSULTATION AGREEMENT WITH THE CITY OF GEORGETOWN
This Consultation Agreement (the “Agreement”) is entered into and made effective on the
______ day of ___________, _________ by and between kha Intelligence Group (“Consultant”)
and the City of Georgetown, Texas (“City”).
1. Scope of Services. Consultant agrees to provide such services as are further described in
Exhibit A, which is attached and incorporated herein.
2. City Terms Prevail. In the event there is a conflict between a term in Exhibit A and a term
in this agreement, the terms of this agreement shall prevail.
3. Total Compensation. The total compensation paid by the City to the Consultant, including
expenses, under this agreement shall not exceed $83,470.
4. Term. The term of this agreement shall be in effect until the services have been completed
by Consultant, but in no event shall the term extend beyond 02/01/2018.
5. Amendments. Any changes to the terms of this agreement will not be effective unless in
writing and signed by both parties.
6. Insurance. Consultant shall maintain insurance coverage appropriate for the fulfillment of
this Agreement. In the event the Consultant, its employees, agents or subcontractors enter
premises occupied by or under the control of the City, the Consultant agrees to maintain
public liability and property damage insurance in reasonable limits covering the obligations
set forth in this Agreement, and will maintain Workers’ Compensation coverage (either by
insurance or if qualified pursuant to law, through a self-insurance program) covering all
employees performing on premises occupied by or under control of the City. Upon request,
Consultant shall provide a copy of its insurance policies to the City.
7. INDEMNITY. THE CONSULTANT SHALL DEFEND, INDEMNIFY AND HOLD
HARMLESS THE CITY, ITS OFFICERS, AGENTS, SERVANTS AND
EMPLOYEES FROM AND AGAINST ANY AND ALL SUITS, ACTIONS, LEGAL
PROCEEDINGS, CAUSES OF ACTION, CLAIMS, DEMANDS, DAMAGES,
JUDGMENTS, LOSSES, LIENS, COSTS, EXPENSES, ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND
ANY AND ALL OTHER COSTS, FEES AND/OR CLAIMS OF ANY KIND OR
DESCRIPTION ARISING OUT OF, IN CONNECTION WITH OR RESULTING
FROM THE AGREEMENT OR SERVICES PROVIDED UNDER THE
AGREEMENT OR FROM ITS NEGLIGENCE OR WILLFUL ACT WHETHER
SUCH ACT BE BY THE CONSULTANT OR ITS DESIGNEE. THE CITY, AS A
GOVERNMENTAL ENTITY IN THE STATE OF TEXAS, SHALL NOT
INDEMNIFY THE CONSULTANT.
8. Release by Consultant. The Consultant releases, relinquishes and discharges the City, its
elected officials, officers, directors, agents, employees, representatives and volunteers from
all claims, demands, and causes of action of every kind and character, including the cost of
defense, for any injury to or death of any person (whether employees of either party or other
Page 67 of 77
2 of 5
third parties) and any loss or damage to any property that is caused by or alleged to be caused
by, arising out of, or in connection with the work it performed under this Agreement. This
release shall apply regardless of whether the claims, demands and/or causes of action are
covered in whole or in part by insurance.
9. Dispute Resolution. If either the Consultant or the City has a claim or dispute, the parties
shall first attempt to resolve the matter through this dispute resolution process. The disputing
party shall notify the other party in writing as soon as practicable after discovering the claim,
dispute or breach. The notice shall state the nature of the dispute and list the party’s specific
reasons for such dispute. Within ten (10) business days of receipt of the notice, both parties
shall make a good faith effort, in person or through generally accepted means, to resolve any
claim, dispute, breach or other matter in question that may arise out of, or in connection with,
this Agreement. If the parties fail to resolve the dispute within sixty (60) days of the date of
receipt of the notice of the dispute, then the parties may submit the matter to non -binding
mediation upon written consent of authorized representatives of both parties. If the parties
cannot resolve the dispute through mediation, then either party shall have the right to
exercise any and all remedies available under law regarding the dispute.
10. Payment Terms. All payments will be processed in accordance with Texas Prompt Payment
Act, Texas Government Code, Subtitle F, Chapter 2251. The City will pay Consultant within
thirty days after of receipt of a correct invoice for services. The Consultant may charge a late
fee (fee shall not be greater than that permitted under the Texas Prompt Payment Act) for
payments not made in accordance with this prompt payment policy; however, the policy does
not apply to payments made by the City in the event: (a) there is a bona fide dispute between
the City and Consultant concerning the goods, supplies, materials, equipment delivered, or
the services performed, that causes the payment to be late; (b) the terms of a federal
agreement, grant, regulation or statute prevents the City from making a timely payment with
Federal funds; (c) there is a bona fide dispute between the Consultant and a subcontractor
and its suppliers concerning goods, supplies, material or equipment delivered, or the services
performed, which caused the payment to be late; or (d) the invoice is not mailed to the City
in accordance with Agreement.
11. Termination for Convenience. The City shall have the right to terminate this Agreement, in
whole or in part, without cause any time upon thirty (30) calendar days’ prior written notice.
Upon receipt of a notice of termination, the Consultant shall promptly cease all further work
pursuant to the Agreement, with such exceptions, if any, specified in the notice of
termination. The City shall pay the Consultant, to the extent of funds appropriated or
otherwise legally available for such purposes, for all services performed and obligations
incurred prior to the date of termination.
12. Termination for Cause. In addition to the termination rights described above, either party
may terminate this Agreement effective upon written notice to the other if the other breaches
any of the terms and conditions of this Agreement and fails to cure that breach within thirty
(30) days after receiving written notice of the breach. In the event of an incurable breach, the
non-breaching party may terminate this Agreement effective immediately upon written notice
to the breaching party.
Page 68 of 77
3 of 5
13. Notices. Any notice or communication permitted or required by this Agreement shall be
deemed effective when personally delivered or deposited, postage prepaid, in the first class
mail of the United States properly, or sent via electronic means, addressed to the appropriate
party at the address set forth below:
Notice to the Consultant:
Kha Intelligence Group___
ATTN: Kent Hudson_____
PO Box 591____________
McKinney, TX 75070____
______________________
Notice to the City:
City of Georgetown
ATTN: City Manager
P.O. Box 409
Georgetown, Texas 78627
________________@georgetown.org
With a copy to:
City of Georgetown
ATTN: City Attorney
P.O. Box 409
Georgetown, Texas 78627
________________@georgetown.org
14. Independent Contractor. The Agreement shall not be construed as creating an
employer/employee relationship, a partnership or joint venture. The Consultant’s services
shall be those of an independent contractor. The Consultant agrees and understands that the
Agreement does not grant any rights or privileges established for employees of the City.
Consultant shall not be within protection or coverage of the City’s Worker Compensation
insurance, Health Insurance, Liability Insurance or any other insurance that the City, from
time to time, may have in force.
15. Force Majeure. The City and the Consultant will exert all efforts to perform the tasks set
forth herein within the proposed schedules. However, neither the City nor the Consultant
shall be held responsible for inability to perform under this Agreement if such inability is a
direct result of a force substantially beyond its control, including but not limited to the
following: strikes, riots, civil disturbances, fire, insurrection, war, embargoes, failures of
carriers, acts of God, or the public enemy.
16. No Waiver. The waiver by either party of a breach or violation of any provision of this
Agreement shall not operate as or be construed to be a waiver of any subsequent breach
hereof.
Page 69 of 77
4 of 5
17. Nondiscrimination. The Consultant, with regard to the work performed by it after award and
prior to completion of this Agreement, shall not discriminate on the basis of race, color, sex,
or national origin in the selection and retention of Sub-consultants, including procurements
of materials and leases of equipment. The Consultant shall not participate either directly or
indirectly in the discrimination prohibited by any federal, state or local law.
18. Confidential Information. Each party agrees not to use, disclose, sell, license, publish,
reproduce or otherwise make available the Confidential Information of the other party except
and only to the extent necessary to perform under this Agreement or as required by the Texas
Public Information Act or other applicable law. Confidential Information shall be designated
and marked as such at the time of disclosure. Each party agrees to secure and protect the
other party’s Confidential Information in a manner consistent with the maintenance of the
other party’s confidential and proprietary rights in the information and to take appropriate
action by instruction or agreement with its employees, consultants, or other agents who are
permitted access to the other party’s Confidential Information to satisfy its obligations under
this Section. The provisions of this paragraph shall survive the term of the Agreement.
19. Severability. This Agreement is severable and if any one or more parts of it are found to be
invalid, such invalidity shall not affect the remainder of this Agreement if it can be given
effect without the invalid parts.
20. Governing Law and Venue. This Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the State of
Texas. Venue shall be located in Williamson County, Texas.
21. Successors and Assigns. This Agreement shall bind and inure to the benefit of the parties
hereto and any subsequent successors and assigns. The Consultant shall not subcontract or
assign responsibility for performance of any portion of this Agreement without the prior
written consent of the City.
22. Third Party Beneficiaries. Nothing contained in this Agreement shall create a contractual
relationship with or a cause of action in favor of a third party against either the City or the
Consultant.
23. Entire Agreement. This Agreement, with all exhibits, includes the entire agreement of the
City and the Consultant and supersedes all prior and contemporaneous agreements between
the parties, whether oral or written, relating to the subject of this agreement.
Page 70 of 77
5 of 5
THE CITY OF GEORGETOWN KHA INTELLIGENCE GROUP
______________________________ ________________________________
________________, _____________ Kent Hudson, Owner
Date Signed: ___________________ Date Signed:_______________
11/3/2016
Page 71 of 77
Exhibit A - Scope of Work
Overview: Assist Georgetown Utility Systems (GUS) with Data Migration Plan
incorporating transformation rule design, development and data conversion of the Incode
legacy system data to the Itineris UMAX model.
Deliverables:
1. Set up Intermediary server environments
2. Design data conversion rules
3. Oversees the extraction and conversion of the legacy system data during the
Data Migration Iterations (8)
a. Iteration schedule to be developed with coordination from Itineris &
GUS
4. Develop data conversion rules and assist with documentation
5. Create data migration dashboard
6. Create traceability Report
7. Assist with error analysis & fixes
8. Provide audit trail for converted data
Work Performed: Majority of the work will be performed remotely in collaboration with
the GUS and Itineris data migration project team.
Contract Pricing: Travel is included in the contract pricing of $83,470. This contract is
for 122.75 work days at a rate of $680 per work days.
Network Access: City of Georgetown will grant the necessary server and IT UMAX
infrastructure access as needed for Data Migration tasks.
Page 72 of 77
City of Georgetown, Texas
Utility System Advisory Board
November 11, 2016
SUBJECT:
Cons id eration and p o s s ib le rec o mmendation to approve a task order with Elec tSolve Technology
Solutions and Service to d evelop and configure integratio ns b etween the meter d ata management sys tem
and the new C IS UMAX s o ftware in the amount of $75,000. -- Leticia Zavala, C us to mer Care Directo r
ITEM SUMMARY:
This tas k o rd er is fo r the develo p ment and configuration of a new Web Service Interfac e for the integratio n
b etween the exis ting meter data management (MDM) s o ftware (Elec tSolve/uCentra) and the new Itineris
CIS sys tem (UMAX). (S ee attac hed d o cuments fo r diagram)
The existing uCentra MDM s oftware p ro vides a c o mmo n infrastruc ture fo r rec eiving meter read s from the
current AMR/AMI s ys tems , proc es s ing the read s to p ro d uc e billing quantity d ata, sto ring and managing
d ata, and providing o ther applic ations ac cess to meter data.
The Itineris UMAX software is the s ys tem o f rec o rd for c us tomers and b illing rec o rd s . It requires meter
read s in o rd er to p ro vide acc urate billings to the c us to mers . The integratio ns inc lud ed in this tas k o rder
b etween UMAX and uCentra enables the follo wing d ata exc hanges.
Exchange ac tive cus tomer information
Exchange ac tive meter informatio n
Exchange b illing his tory
Provide s ingle s ign o n fo r web portal
Exchange meters read
Exchange ad -hoc remote reques ts
Exchange s ervic e order meter read s
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff rec o mmend s approval of this c o ntract to d evelop and configure neces s ary integratio ns within the
existing uCentra MDM in order to p ro vide the nec es s ary d ata exc hanges with the CIS UMAX sys tem.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
The tas k o rd er includ es time and materials p ric ing at a rate of $125/ho ur whic h eq uates to 600 hours of
work. T his c o s t was includ ed in the IT & infras tructure amount of the o verall projec t b udget. The general
led ger acc o unt #610-9-0580-91-105 will be us ed to fund the $75,000.
Project Components Budget
S o ftware & Integration Services $2,500,557
IT & Infras tructure **400,000
Co nsulting Services 672,180
Co ntingenc y 500,000
To tal Projec t Budget:$4,072,737
SUBMITTED BY:
Leticia Zavala, C us to mer Care Directo r (skm)
ATTACHMENTS:
Description Type
Page 73 of 77
Covers heet with Diagram Backup Material
ElectSolve Tas k Order Backup Material
Page 74 of 77
Georgetown Utility System Advisory Board
Meeting Date: November 11, 2016 Item No.
SUBJECT
Consideration and possible recommendation to approve a task order with ElectSolve Technology Solutions and
Service to develop and configure integrations between the meter data management system and the new CIS
UMAX software in the amount of $75,000. -- Leticia Zavala, Customer Care Director
ITEM SUMMARY
This task order is for the development and configuration of a new Web Service Interface for the integration
between the existing meter data management (MDM) software (ElectSolve/uCentra) and the new Itineris CIS
system (UMAX).
The existing uCentra MDM
software provides a common
infrastructure for receiving meter
reads from the current AMR/AMI
systems, processing the reads to
produce billing quantity data,
storing and managing data, and
providing other applications
access to meter data.
The Itineris UMAX software is the
system of record for customers
and billing records. It requires
meter reads in order to provide
accurate billings to the
customers. The integrations
included in this task order between UMAX and uCentra enables the following data exchanges .
Exchange active customer information
Exchange active meter information
Exchange billing history
Exchange meters read
Exchange ad-hoc remote requests
Exchange service order meter reads
Provide single sign on for web portal
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of this contract to develop and configure necessary integrations within the existing
uCentra MDM in order to provide the necessary data exchanges with the CIS UMAX system .
FINANCIAL IMPACT
The task order includes time and materials pricing at a rate of $125/hour which equates to 600 hours of work.
This cost was included in the IT & inf rastructure amount of the overall project budget. The general ledger
account #610-9-0580-91-105 will be used to fund the $75,000.
Project Components Budget
Software & Integration Services $2,500,557
IT & Infrastructure ** 400,000
Consulting Services 672,180
Contingency 500,000
Total Project Budget: $4,072,737
ATTACHMENTS
Task Order
Leticia Zavala Customer Care Director
Page 75 of 77
TASK ORDER
City of Georgetown (COG)
uCentra Upgrade and CIS Conversion/Web Services Interface
DATE: 7/29/16
TASK ORDER #: 1010
1.0 Background. City of Georgetown is requesting the development and configuration of a new Web Services
Interface for the integration between the ElectSolve uCentra ODM/MDM and the new Itineris UMAX Solutions CIS
that will be installed at the City of Georgetown.
2.0 Deliverales and Scope of Work.
2.1 MDM uCentra Upgrade and CIS Interface Conversion from Incode to uMAX
2.1.1 Billing process review, evaluation and change evaluation.
2.1.2 Production planning, testing and rollout.
2.1.3 Installation of latest uCentra MDM version release.
2.1.4 Interface and Integration of uMax to the uCe ntra MDM.
2.1.5 Installation of Multispeak Interfaces and other needed interfaces to synchronize and
update the uCentra system from uMax; Data synchronization includes at a minimum:
Meters, Customers, Accounts, Locations, Rates and all other required CIS fields. uCentra
supports both Multispeak versions 3 and 4.16. File based methods and other web services
will be used as required for fields not supported by Multispeak methods.
2.1.6 Billing determinant data exchange integration utilizing Webservice methods and file
exchange methods as required by uMax.
2.1.7 Billing module re-configuration and testing.
2.1.8 Data conversion of existing Incode data stored in uCentra to support any conversions of
key fields from Incode to uMAX
2.1.9 Parallel testing, all cycles.
2.1.10 Project Management Services; reporting, issues tracking, schedule management, meeting
coordination.
3.0 Place of Performance. The Contractor shall perform tasks under this contract in accordance with Contract
Exhibit A.
4.0 Travel. Travel shall be reimbursed in accordance with Contract Exhibit A.
5.0 Customer Property and Office Space. COG will provide the contractor with office space in accordance with
Contract Exhibit A. Computer, printer, facsimile service, reproduction capability, Internet access and administrative
support for the project as required, while working on the Task Order. Telephone service for official use and local
calls only will be provided to the contractor; all other calls shall be made at the contractor’s expense. The contractor
shall not use COG furnished material or equipment to work on projects other than those directed by this task order.
COG furnished equipment provided to the contractor will be returned to COG in good working order.
6.0 Hazards Information. There is no requirement for the contractor to handle any hazardous material.
7.0 Security. Employees selected by the contractor for this task order must be able to pass all security requirements
and back-ground checks.
Page 76 of 77
8.0 Identification of Contractor Employee(s).
8.1 At the request of COG , the contractor shall provide each employee an identification (ID) badge on contract
start or employment start date. The ID badge shall be made of nonmetallic material, easily readable and include
employee’s name, Contractor’s name, functional area of assignment and color photograph.
8.2 Display of ID Badges: At the request of COG, Contractor personnel shall wear the ID badge at all times
when performing work under this contract to include attending off -site meetings while representing COG. Unless
otherwise specified in the contract, each Contractor employee shall wear the ID badg e in a conspicuous place on the
front of exterior clothing and above the waist except when safety or health reasons prohibit such placement.
8.3 Answering Telephones: Contractor personnel shall identify themselves as Contractor employees when
answering COG telephones.
9.0 Technical Point of Contact (TPOC):
Name: Erika Valentine
Address: P.O.Box 661 Shreveport, La. 71162
Phone # 877-221-2055/2077
Fax # 318-861-7700
Email Address: evalentine@electsolve.com
10.0 Payment: The vendor shall bill COG on a monthly basis.
11.0 Price: Time and Materials at COG preferred rate of $125.00 per hour plus expenses (if applicable).
ElectSolve recommends a budget of $75,000.
Bill to:
Attn: of Leticia Zavala PO #____________
SIGNED THIS ____ day of _______, 2016
CITY OF GEORGETOWN ELECTSOLVE TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS
AND SERVICES, INC.
By: ______________________________________ By: ___________________________________
Name: ___________ ________________________ Name: Mark Ponder
Title: ___________________________________ Title: President/CEO
Page 77 of 77