Rialto Biosolids Project Assessment_TM_20250718 — Water Subcommittee, July 24, 2025

Memorandum

Jacobs Engineering Group Inc.
250702153223_3e608ccc
1 Biosolids Project Assessment
Date: July 18, 2025 555 South Flower Street
Suite 3200
Los Angeles, CA 90071-2419
United States
T +1.213.228.8255

Project name: Rialto WWTP Solids Handling Project
Project no: D4001100
Company: City of Rialto, California
Prepared by: Ruoren Yu, Ed Fritz, Max Meng, Ted Couch (Jacobs) Document no: 250702153223_3e608ccc

1. Background
The City of Rialto, California, requested Jacobs provide an independent assessment of the biosolids facilities upgrades at the Rialto Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP). The plant solids-handling facilities consist of waste activated sludge (WAS) thickening, anaerobic digestion, digested sludge dewatering, and cake drying beds. The ongoing design-build (DB) project proposed to upgrade the solids-handling facilities with the following major areas:
 (New) Primary sludge screening
 Thickening upgrade
 Dewatering upgrade
 Anaerobic Digester No. 1 and No. 2 cover replacement
 Digester sludge storage tank retrofit
The main focus of this effort is on evaluating options of repairing or replacing in-kind the existing structures, equipment, and ancillary systems, in contrast to the DB project that has been based on upgrading with new technologies in new buildings. An independent cost model analysis is also provided based on the 60% Design of the proposed DB project.

This technical memorandum (TM) summarizes findings from the field investigation, engineering code evaluation, technical and cost information research, and conceptual-level cost estimating.

2. Key Assumptions
The following assumptions were made in the assessment:

1. The proposed primary sludge thickening process has been determined necessary to improve the operation of downstream equipment and processes (AECOM 2022).

2. The existing Evoqua Dystor membrane covers on the primary digesters have been determined to have reached the end of useful life. Replacing the covers in-kind is considered cost effective compared with replacing the membrane covers with other types of digester covers.

3. The new cover and mixing system for the digester sludge storage tank have been determined necessary to retrofit the tank for desired service. A membrane gas-holder cover––same as proposed for the primary digesters––is considered cost effective compared with other types of covers.

Memorandum

Jacobs Engineering Group Inc.
250702153223_3e608ccc
2 4. Considering these three assumptions, this assessment effort focuses on the thickening and dewatering facilities.

5. The capacity requirements for thickening and dewatering units should match the specifications of the DB project.

3. Existing Condition Evaluation
The existing WAS thickening facility consists of two gravity belt thickeners (GBTs) installed in 1990 and 2000, respectively. According to the Technical Memorandum – Rialto Biosolids Study (Biosolids Study, AECOM 2022), both GBTs are required to operate for approximately 9 hours per day, 7 days per week, at a solids loading rate of approximately 930 pounds per hour, achieving an approximate 5.0% thickened WAS concentration. The GBT units are in a common area covered by a canopy structure.

The existing dewatering facility consists of two 2-meter Alfa Laval Ashbrook Winklepress belt filter presses (BFPs). The older BFP 1 has not been functional and has been out of service for many years. The newer BFP 2 was installed in 2000 and currently operates 9 to 10 hours per day and 7 days per week at a solids loading rate of approximately 1,200 pounds per hour. The cake solids concentration is reported to be between 10% and 14% at a feed solids concentration of approximately 2.0%. The BFP units are in two separate areas, each covered by a canopy structure.

The existing facilities were visually observed in the field. The record drawings (2000) for the GBTs and BFP 2 were obtained and reviewed. Drawings for BFP 1 are unavailable. The structural evaluation follows procedures outlined in American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) ASCE 41-23, Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Existing Buildings . Detailed condition evaluation of each facility is described in the following subsections.

3.1 GBT Facility

3.1.1 Process Equipment and Ancillary Systems
The existing thickening facility consists of two GBTs, two thickened sludge pumps, two polymer blending units, and controls for the thickening process. The two GBTs are both Komline-Sanderson model GSC-2x4 Gravabelt Gravity Belt Thickeners. According to the manufacturer, machine number UN-520 (GBT 1) was manufactured in 1989, and machine number UN-865 (GBT 2) was manufactured in 1999. A visual inspection of the units did not reveal any significant signs of wear or corrosion on the units. The age of the equipment and the typical 20-year lifespan of this type of equipment suggest that replacing the GBTs is in order to provide a long-term, reliable thickening solution. Alternatively, these units could be rebuilt or refurbished to provide another few years of service before replacement is required. If these machines are to be rebuilt or refurbished, it is recommended that the manufacturer’s service technician come to the site to conduct a more thorough examination to determine whether it would be prudent to refurbish the GBTs and the estimated costs.

In addition to the GBT units, several pieces of ancillary equipment for the thickening operation were evaluated:
 Two thickened sludge pumps transfer the thickened sludge from the GBT thickened sludge hopper to the digester.

Memorandum

Jacobs Engineering Group Inc.
250702153223_3e608ccc
3  Two washwater booster pumps are used to provide pressurized cleaning water for the belts. These pumps showed visible signs of aging similar to the GBTs. Like the GBTs, these pumps could be refurbished by the manufacturer to provide a few more years of service, but it is recommended they be replaced to provide a long-term, reliable solution.
 Two air compressors, one Ingersoll Rand and one Schulz, provide compressed air for the belt tensioning system. These compressors showed signs of aging and are also recommended to be replaced.
 Two polymer blending systems, one for each thickener, were also visually inspected. These units were manufactured by Fluid Dynamics and are Dynablend model L4-1200-15P units. The units were inoperable and had been bypassed using a chemical metering pump to direct-inject polymer into the sludge feed line. Replacing these polymer blending units is recommended to restore proper polymer activation functionality and to reduce polymer use. While neat polymer can be dosed directly into the sludge feed pipe, there is not enough energy provided to mix the polymer with the feed sludge, greatly reducing the polymer system’s efficiency. In addition, the neat polymer should be properly activated with water in a makeup system to provide a polymer solution before adding it to the sludge feed line and to reduce polymer use.

Figure 1 shows an overview of the existing GBT facility.

Figure 1. Overview of GBT Facility (Facing North)

3.1.2 Structural Components
The assessment follows the procedures outlined in ASCE 41-23, Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Existing Buildings . This report presents an ASCE 41 Tier 1 screening evaluation of the existing steel canopy structures, to assess overall structural condition and potential seismic vulnerability.

3.1.2.1 Steel Canopy Structure

Memorandum

Jacobs Engineering Group Inc.
250702153223_3e608ccc
4 The steel canopy structure was built approximately 25 years ago. Site observation identified localized areas of concern. Rust and corrosion are evident through black staining on the exposed faces of several steel beams and columns, and some connection holes also show signs of rust. Additionally, the existing steel roof panels are damaged, and the crosstie rods appear to have lost tension, potentially compromising their intended structural capacity.

This canopy measures approximately 35 feet (ft) by 45 ft, with a clear height of approximately 14 ft. Its primary structural system consists of six tapered columns and multiple rafters, forming two bays on both the eastern and western sides. While crossties are installed in one of the two bays on each of the eastern and western sides, the southern and northern bays remain open. The roof is framed with I-shape rafters, spaced approximately 4 ft on center and spanning in the north-south direction. Each end of the roof features an approximate 2 ft cantilever and overhang. Numerous in-plane crossties are also present on the roof, connecting the rafters and beams.

3.1.2.2 Foundation
The existing foundation system, as indicated by the record drawings, is a 10-inch-thick uniform concrete slab. This slab features an 18-inch thickened edge, which also serves as support for the perimeter columns. The mat slab was designed with uniform reinforcement consisting of #6 bars at 12 inches O.C. in both the top and bottom layers. This reinforcement scheme generally meets the requirements of current concrete design codes. A visual assessment of the concrete slab surface reveals it to be in generally good condition, with only minor, superficial cracking observed.

3.1.2.3 Platform
The existing platform's structural framing, as detailed in the record drawings, uses 4-inch by 4-inch by 1/4-inch tube sections for typical columns and C8 (channel steel) for beams. The design effectively stiffens the steel framing through the application of both vertical and horizontal diagonal bracings, which serve as the primary lateral resisting system.

Record drawings indicate the existing platform was designed to accommodate foot traffic. Without changes to the load criteria (designed for foot traffic only), the existing platform structure appears adequate for its intended use.

3.1.2.4 Equipment Support
The existing equipment is supported by short, circular, concrete pedestals, with a total of four pedestals under each piece of equipment. According to the record drawings, each concrete pedestal is approximately 18 inches in diameter, with well-detailed concrete ties and vertical reinforcing. The potential for reusing these pedestals should be determined based on the new equipment layout. If the new equipment supporting leg locations can match the existing concrete pedestals, and the operational weight is similar to the existing equipment, these pedestals are likely to be reusable.

3.1.2.5 Seismic Evaluation
A preliminary evaluation of the canopy structure’s lateral load resisting system reveals concerns related to the absence of dedicated lateral bracing members in the east-west direction and questionable crossties on the eastern and western sides. To verify its compliance with the current Building Code, a more detailed ASCE 41 Tier 2 evaluation is needed to assess the adequacy of the lateral load resisting system, which is, however, beyond the scope of this assessment.

Memorandum

Jacobs Engineering Group Inc.
250702153223_3e608ccc
5 Because the proposed project is not anticipated to modify or affect the existing canopy structure, for estimating purposes, no improvements are assumed for the canopy structure.

3.2 BFP 1 Facility

3.2.1 Process Equipment and Ancillary Systems
Dewatering Facility 1 consists of one BFP, three washwater booster pumps, two filtrate pumps in a wet well, and controls for the BFP. The BFP is manufactured by Alfa Laval Ashbrook Simon-Hartley and is a size 3 model KP85 Klampress. This unit was not in operation and had not been operated for several years.

Visual inspection revealed significant evidence of corrosion on the structural frame of the press as well as some of the mechanical components. It is recommended this unit be replaced because of its age and disrepair.

The three washwater booster pumps feed washwater to the operable BFP (refer to BFP 2 Facility). The pressurized washwater is used to clean the equipment belts. These pumps were indicated to be operable, and only one was running at the time of inspection. Two of these pumps are manufactured by ITT Inc. and are model 600 centrifugal type 2000 pumps. The third booster pump is manufactured by G&L Pumps and is a model 4STK1 centrifugal type pump. These washwater pumps are old and could be refurbished to provide service for a few more years, but it is recommended these units be replaced to provide a long- term, reliable solution without high maintenance cost.

The BFP filtrate wet well is north of BFP 1 and receives filtrate flows from both BFPs. Two submersible solids-handling pumps service the wet well and pumping filtrate to the filtrate storage tank. Both pumps were operable at the time of inspection, but a detailed inspection was not performed. Operations reported no issues with this filtrate pump station, so no improvements are recommended at this time.

Figure 2 shows an overview of the existing BFP 1 facility.

Memorandum

Jacobs Engineering Group Inc.
250702153223_3e608ccc
6 Figure 2 Overview of BFP 1 Facility (Facing Southeast)

3.2.2 Structural Components

3.2.2.1 Steel Canopy Structure
The canopy structure measures approximately 25 ft by 40 ft, with a clear height of approximately 17 ft.

The primary structural system consists of ten 6-inch by 6-inch Hollow Structural Section (HSS) steel columns arranged in a 5 by 2 grid pattern. Each column supports a wide flange beam that runs continuously over the column tops and cantilevers out on each end. The columns were designed as cantilever columns to resist lateral loads without additional bracing. The roof system consists of steel decking spanning in the north-south direction. There is no vertical bracing between columns or in-plane crossties on the roof of this steel canopy.

The exposed steel surfaces of the structure, including columns and beams, generally exhibit good condition with no apparent rust. The steel members appear to be galvanized, providing an additional layer of protection. While some areas show signs of paint deterioration, the underlying steel remains unaffected by rust. This suggests that the galvanization is effectively protecting the steel even where the paint has worn away.

3.2.2.2 Foundation

Memorandum

Jacobs Engineering Group Inc.
250702153223_3e608ccc
7 The columns appear to be embedded into individual concrete footings, approximately 20 inches square.

These footings have a joint with an adjacent concrete slab. Cracks were observed on this concrete slab, particularly near the access ramp. However, no major cracks were noted directly on top of the column footings themselves.

A concern was identified on the south side of the foundation where the subgrade fill beneath the concrete slab has become exposed. This exposure could lead to localized bearing loss of the subgrade, potentially causing the concrete slab to become suspended in that area. Such a condition might induce cracking and settlement in the slab due to unsupported spans. To restore the finish grade to its designed elevation and ensure proper bearing, engineered backfill will likely be required in this area.

3.2.2.3 Platform
Based on site observations, the existing stairs and platform appear to have been designed to accommodate pedestrian traffic exclusively. Provided the design of load criteria, specifically the limitation to foot traffic, remains unchanged, the current structure is considered adequate for its specified purpose.

3.2.2.4 Equipment Support
The existing equipment is supported by six short, square concrete pedestals. The reusability of these pedestals will depend entirely on the new equipment layout and operational weight. If the new equipment support points align with the existing pedestals and its operational weight is comparable to the original equipment, these pedestals are likely suitable for reuse.

3.2.2.5 Seismic Evaluation
A Tier 1 screening of the existing structure, conducted per ASCE 41, identified several potential seismic deficiencies:
 Inadequate Roof Diaphragm Components: In the north-south direction, the roof diaphragm lacks sufficient chord and drag strut members at the beam-column joints on the top level. This deficiency may impair the diaphragm’s ability to transfer lateral loads efficiently to the vertical lateral force- resisting system.
 Potential Joint Connection Weakness: The lack of detailed documentation on moment frame joints raises concerns about their ability to resist seismic forces, potentially leading to localized failures under lateral loading.
 Unverified Column Capacity: Incomplete data on column strengths hinders accurate evaluation of the structure’s ability to support combined gravity and lateral loads, increasing uncertainty in its seismic performance.

Due to these deficiencies and the lack of comprehensive as-built documentation, a Tier 2 deficiency-based evaluation, as outlined in ASCE 41, is recommended. This evaluation should include detailed structural analysis and, if necessary, non-destructive testing to accurately assess the strength and stiffness of critical components, verify the adequacy of the roof diaphragm, and confirm the structure’s capacity to resist prescribed seismic force.

Memorandum

Jacobs Engineering Group Inc.
250702153223_3e608ccc
8 3.3 BFP 2 Facility

3.3.1 Process Equipment and Ancillary Systems
Dewatering Facility 2 consists of one BFP, a polymer activation tank, and controls for the press. The BFP is manufactured by Alfa Laval Ashbrook Simon-Hartley and is a model WP888 Winklepress. This unit was visually inspected and revealed significant evidence of corrosion on the structural components of the press. In addition, evidence of corrosion was seen on mechanical components such as roller bearings.

Rehabilitation of the equipment is not recommended, based on the visual inspection. It is recommended this unit be replaced because of the age and condition of the equipment and the significant evidence of corrosion.

The existing polymer activation system consists of a batch makedown tank with a mixer. The top of the tank is covered by grating to facilitate the mixer’s removal. Following the makedown tank, a post-dilution system adds water to the neat polymer before injection into the feed sludge pipe. This style of polymer activation system is commonly used for dry polymers but not for the emulsion polymer currently being used onsite. It is recommended to replace the polymer activation system with a liquid emulsion polymer blending unit to facilitate better polymer activation and reduce polymer use.

Cake from the BFP falls onto a belt conveyor and is transported to a truck-loading station. The belt conveyor was visually inspected and showed some evidence of wear and corrosion. The belt conveyor could be refurbished as needed based on field inspection by the manufacturer to expand its useful life. For estimating purposes, however, the cost for the belt conveyor services is not included. The truck-loading station consists of a small hopper with a gate to control discharge to the truck below. Operators did not indicate any current issues or challenges with the truck-loading station. It is recommended that the truck- loading station remain in place for future use.

Figure 3 shows an overview of the existing BFP 2 Facility.

Memorandum

Jacobs Engineering Group Inc.
250702153223_3e608ccc
9 Figure 3. Overview of BFP 2 Facility (Facing East)

3.3.2 Structural Components

3.3.2.1 Steel Canopy Structure
The canopy structure measures approximately 20 ft by 40 ft, with a clear height of approximately 16 ft. Its primary structural system consists of four tapered columns, one at each corner, supporting rafters. Lateral bracing is provided by crossties (diagonal steel rods) connecting the frame top and bottom, observed only on the short bay at the facility's southern side. The other three bays remain open, lacking similar bracing.

The roof features I-shape rafters spanning in the east-west direction, spaced at approximately 4 ft on center. Each end of the roof includes a few feet of cantilever and overhang. A couple of in-plane crossties are installed on the roof to connect the rafters and beams, likely contributing to roof diaphragm action.

Widespread severe corrosion observed on the steel columns and beams. Visible rusting is present on the surfaces of these members, and the bolts, nuts, and base plates also show signs of corrosion, indicating potential section loss and compromised connections.

3.3.2.2 Foundation
Based on record drawings, each steel column is supported by a 6.5 ft x 6.5 ft x 3 ft deep footing. These footings appear to incorporate well-defined reinforcing, including #4 ties at the anchor bolts and #8 vertical dowels, designed to ensure adequate anchor capacity for the columns. The typical concrete slab is approximately 6 inches thick, reinforced with #4 bars at 10 inches on center. However, to comprehensively evaluate the adequacy of these foundations to resist current design seismic loads, a more detailed Tier 2 evaluation per ASCE 41 is recommended.

Memorandum

Jacobs Engineering Group Inc.
250702153223_3e608ccc
10 3.3.2.3 Platform
Record drawings indicate the existing platform was designed to accommodate foot traffic. Without changes to the load criteria (designed for foot traffic only), the existing platform structure appears adequate for its intended use.

3.3.2.4 Equipment Support
The existing equipment is supported by four short, circular concrete pedestals per unit. The reusability of these pedestals is contingent upon the new equipment's layout and operational weight. If the new equipment support points align with the existing pedestals and its operational weight is comparable to the original equipment, these pedestals are likely suitable for reuse.

3.3.2.5 Seismic Evaluation
A Tier 1 screening of the existing structure, conducted per ASCE 41 checklists, identified several critical seismic deficiencies:
 Inadequate and Asymmetrical Bracing: Diagonal rods, intended for lateral bracing, are present only in the short bay on the southern side of the facility. This asymmetrical configuration likely compromises the lateral bracing system's ability to ensure structural stability and resist lateral loads effectively across the entire structure.
 Weak Diagonal Rod Connections: The connections of the diagonal rods are insufficient, potentially undermining force transfer. Specifically, the rod ends at the base are anchored to the column web rather than the base plate, reducing their effectiveness in transferring lateral forces.  Severe Corrosion of Structural Members: Significant corrosion was observed on steel columns and beams, posing a critical risk to their capacity to resist both gravity and lateral loads, thereby compromising overall structural integrity.
 Incomplete Lateral Load Path: Although the roof system includes crossties that may contribute to diaphragm action, the lateral load path from the roof to the foundation appears incomplete, likely insufficient to meet seismic demands.

The preliminary evaluation suggests the existing canopy structures may be rehabilitated to meet the current Building Code requirements following a more detailed structural analysis and engineering effort.

For estimating purposes, allowances are used to account for the engineering and construction costs to rehabilitate both canopy structures at the BFP facilities.

4. Solids Technology Evaluation
The evaluation of options to replace existing thickening and dewatering systems in-kind is presented in this section. As discussed in the previous section, Jacobs recommends replacing the existing process equipment because of the equipment age and risks associated with reliability and longevity of rebuilt equipment.

Thickening Equipment
Replacement in-kind of the thickening equipment would include two 2-meter GBTs, two thickened sludge pumps, two polymer makeup units, and controls for the thickening process. Each GBT unit will be sized to process a nominal capacity of 200 to 250 gallons per minute of WAS. Komline-Sanderson is the

Memorandum

Jacobs Engineering Group Inc.
250702153223_3e608ccc
11 manufacturer of the existing thickeners and would be considered for a direct replacement. This approach would minimize changes to the thickening facility because the equipment footings and piping connections would match what already exists at the thickening facility. Although some of the existing platforms may need to be disassembled to facilitate installation, using the same size and manufacturer of the GBTs would also allow the continued use of existing platforms.

The existing thickened sludge pumps are recommended to be replaced by progressive cavity (PC) pumps.

PC pumps are commonly used to pump thickened solids because of the non-Newtonian nature and thickness of the thickened solids. The existing washwater booster pumps are recommended to be replaced with new centrifugal pumps of a similar design and footprint. The polymer makeup units are recommended to be replaced by either VeloDyne or Clean 1 One liquid polymer emulsion blending units.

These two polymer equipment manufacturers have similar footprint and piping to the existing fluid dynamics units onsite currently. The two existing air compressors are recommended to be replaced by similar air compressors with an airflow capacity of 35 cfm, a receiver capacity of 120 gallons and a maximum pressure of 175 pounds per square inch.

Dewatering Equipment
Replacement in-kind of the dewatering equipment would include two 2-meter BFPs, two polymer makeup units, and controls for the dewatering process. Each BFP unit would be sized to process approximately 150 to 200 gallons per minute of digested sludge. Alfa Laval Ashbrook Simon-Hartley is the manufacturer of the existing equipment and would be considered for a direct replacement. This approach would minimize changes to the existing dewatering facilities because the equipment footings and process connections would match the existing facilities. While some of the existing platforms may need to be disassembled to facilitate installation, using the same size BFPs would also allow for the continued use of existing platforms.

The existing polymer makeup system would be replaced by liquid emulsion makeup units manufactured by either VeloDyne or Clean Water 1. These units are designed for use with emulsion polymers and would provide more efficient polymer activation. These makeup units would also not require post-dilution of the polymer before it is added to the feed sludge piping.

The existing three washwater pumps are recommended to be replaced by two centrifugal pumps, one dedicated to each BFP unit. Because the BFPs will be operated as duty and standby, a third washwater pump as a shared standby unit is unnecessary.

According to Operations, better dust control is desired in the dewatering area. Metal wall panels are recommended on the southern and eastern side of each facility. To minimize the impact to existing structures, columns for new wall panels are assumed to be supported on individual concrete piles outside existing slab areas. Figure 4 shows the assumed wall panel layouts (marked up in red) used in this assessment.

Memorandum

Jacobs Engineering Group Inc.
250702153223_3e608ccc
12 Figure 4. New Wall Panels at Dewatering Facilities

The impact on operating costs was analyzed related to replacing existing BFPs with centrifuges for dewatering (as proposed in the DB project). It is generally reported in the industry that centrifuges can achieve 1-2% higher cake solids than belt filter presses. This is not true for all sludges and site-specific testing is required to confirm the actual cake solids improvement, if any. This analysis was performed with the following assumptions:
 A centrifuge can produce 2% higher cake solids than a BFP for the Rialto sludge;  Solids production was based on one dewatering unit in operation for 10 hours/day, 7 days/week;  The potential that cakes get wet again (e.g., by rains) on drying beds is not considered;  The hauling cost of dewatered cake away from the site is $300/wet ton;  The electricity cost onsite is $0.18/kWh;
 Electricity and hauling costs are the significantly different costs associated with dewatering operation.

The results showed that centrifuges would provide operational savings of approximately $500,000 per year. In conjunction with capital costs for each option, this number could be used to determine the difference in net present values of the BFP and centrifuge replacements or calculate the payback period if the centrifuge option costs more in capital.

Memorandum

Jacobs Engineering Group Inc.
250702153223_3e608ccc
13 5. Project Summary and Opinion of Probable Construction Cost
Following the evaluations described in this TM, the project scope for the thickening and dewatering facilities is summarized as follows:
 Replace existing two GBT units with new 2-meter GBT units  Replace existing two thickened WAS pumps with new progressive cavity pumps  Replace existing two GBT washwater pumps with new end-suction centrifugal pumps  Replace existing two air compressors with new compressor assemblies  Replace existing two thickening polymer makeup units with two new polymer makeup units  Replace existing exposed process piping, including valves, in the thickening area  Construct new containment for thickening polymer feed area  Replace existing two BFP units with new 2-meter BFP units  Replace existing three BFP washwater pumps with two new end-suction centrifugal pumps  Replace existing dewatering polymer makeup unit with two new polymer makeup units  Construct new wall panels, 10 ft high, on eastern and southern sides of the dewatering facilities  Repair and rehabilitate two existing canopy structures over the dewatering facilities  Replace existing exposed process piping, including valves, in the dewatering areas The following list states the assumptions used to develop the conceptual-level opinion of probable construction cost (OPCC).
 Direct costs are estimated based on the recommended project with Jacobs’ estimating model.  Indirect costs and other project costs are marked up using the same structure and rates as used in the Biosolids Study (AECOM 2022), including:
- 25% for General Conditions, including mobilization and demobilization, and Prime Contractor overhead and profit (OH&P)
- 30% for design and engineering services during construction (ESDC) - Escalation of 5% per year to the midpoint of construction, August 2026. - 40% for project contingency
 The existing equipment platforms and supporting pedestals are assumed not to require modifications to fit the new GBT and BFP units.
 No changes are assumed to be required in existing motor control centers servicing the facilities.  No odor control facilities are to be added to the thickening or dewatering facilities.  Permitting cost is not included.
 Owner’s costs, such as project management and special inspections, are not included.

Memorandum

Jacobs Engineering Group Inc.
250702153223_3e608ccc
14 In accordance with the recommended project as described above, Class 5 OPCC was performed by Jacobs resulting in a total of approximately $13.2 million and is summarized in Table 1. Details of the OPCC are included in Attachment A.

Table 1. OPCC for the Thickening and Dewatering Repairing and Replacing In-Kind Project Description Amount Totals
Thickening Process Upgrade
Material, labor, equipment, and subcontractor $ 1,394,000 Taxes $ 78,000
Subcontractor OH&P $ 368,000
Subtotal – direct cost $ 1,800,000
25% GC, Prime Contractor OH&P $ 460,000
30% Final Design & ESDC $ 690,000
5% Escalation $ 150,000
40% Contingency $ 1,256,000
Grand Total – Thickening Process Upgrade $ 4,400,000
Dewatering Process Upgrade
Material, labor, equipment, and subcontractor $ 2,795,000 Taxes $ 167,000
Subcontractor OH&P $ 708,000
Subtotal – direct cost $ 3,670,000
25% GC, Prime Contractor OH&P $ 918,000
30% Final Design & ESDC $ 1,376,000
5% Escalation $ 298,000
40% Contingency $ 2,505,000
Grand Total – Dewatering Process Upgrade $ 8,770,000
Subtotal Costs 1 $ 13,200,000

1. For AACE International Class 5 estimate, the accuracy range is -50% to +100%.

Memorandum

Jacobs Engineering Group Inc.
250702153223_3e608ccc
15 6. Cost Model Analysis of Design-Build Project
As described in the Background , Jacobs developed a cost model for the ongoing Solids Handling DB Project, as defined in the 60% Submittal for City of Rialto Wastewater Treatment Plant Solids Handling DB Project (AECOM/Lyles JV 2024). The following assumptions were made in Jacobs’ cost model:
 Project scope and quantities are taken from Rialto Solids Handling – 60_Plan Set_26Sept24 (AECOM/Lyles JV 2024).
 Equipment, subcontractor, and design costs are taken from Rialto Biosolids – GMP@60_Design1 (AECOM/Lyles, JV 2024).
 Contingency and overhead and profit percentages are taken from Rialto Biosolids – GMP@60_Design1 (AECOM/Lyles, JV 2024).
 Exclusions and clarifications are taken from Rialto Biosolids – GMP@60_Design1 (AECOM/Lyles, JV 2024).
 Costs assume an 18-month construction duration, with Notice to Proceed in June 2026.  AECOM/Lyles JV deliverables were not reviewed for technical accuracy or quality.

A summary of the cost model results is provided in Attachment B. The total cost from the model is approximately $29.9 million.

7. Conclusions
A comparison was made among the repairing and replacing in-kind project OPCC being evaluated, the 60% cost model results for the DB Project, and the GMP proposed by the Concessionaire team. The comparison is summarized in Table 2.

Memorandum

Jacobs Engineering Group Inc.
250702153223_3e608ccc
16 Table 2. Comparison of Project Costs
Description Jacobs Estimate of Costs from this TM Concessionaire Proposed Costs
R&R Project DB Project DB Project
Total incurring to bring
Project to completion
$ 13,200,000 [a] +
$ 13,890,000 [b] =
$ 27,090,000
$ 29,860,000 [c] $ 36,063,185 [d]
Owner Construction
Management [e]
$ 1,730,250 $ 1,730,250 Included in GMP above
Subtotal $ 28,820,250 $ 31,590,250 $ 36,063,185
Total authorized to date [f] $ 2,006,034 $ 2,006,034 $ 2,006,034 Project Total [g] $ 30,800,000 $ 33,600,000 $ 38,070,000 R&R = repairing and replacing in -kind
[a] From OPCC Cost Estimate in Table 1.
[b] Repairing and replacing in-kind project assumes the same scope for primary sludge screening, anaerobic digesters upgrade, and digester sludge storage tank retrofit as proposed in the DB Project. Full project costs for these facilities were estimated from the Jacobs 60% cost model estimate, by scaling the total project cost in proportion to the direct cost for those facilities.
[c] Details provided in Attachment B.
[d] Proposed GMP number from Concessionaire as of July 10, 2025, including approximately $4.4 million in concession/Veolia related fees, as shown in Attachment C. [e] Estimated based on Concessionaire proposed CPM cost for the DB Project (dated July 10, 2025). [f] Authorized costs to date include Biosolids Study (AECOM 2022) and development of the 60% design package. [g] All totals were rounded to $10,000.

Key conclusions from this TM include:
 The repairing and replacing in-kind option is anticipated to have a capital saving of approximately $2.8 million compared to the proposed DB Project, based on Jacobs’ cost model on the 60% design.  To maximize the cost benefit of the advanced dewatered biosolids, it is best practice to prevent potential rainwater from accumulating in the cake by storing it in a covered area prior to hauling and disposal offsite. The covering could be greenhouse-type, to maximize solar radiation and evaporation.

8. References
AECOM. 2022. Rialto Biosolids Study Technical Memorandum.

AECOM/Lyles Joint Venture (JV). 2024. City of Rialto Wastewater Treatment Plant Solids Handling DB Project.

Attachment A
Class 5 Opinion of Probable
Construction Cost
Rialto WWTP Biosolids
Schematic Estimate
Rev. 3
Project name Rialto WWTP Biosolids Estimate
Estimator KS
Labor rate table L 25 Union 2025
Equipment rate table E_EqRates_2025_100%
Job size 1 LS
Project Municipal
Project Number D4001100
Estimate Class 1-5 5
Project Manager Ted Couch
QC Reviewer Augustus Tweneboa-Kodua
Rev No. / Date R3/07-17-2025
Report format Sorted by 'Facility/Work Pkg'
'Work Pkg' summary
Allocate addons
Paginate
Factor table California-San Bernardino
Alternates (none)
Railto WWTP Biosolids Estimate Rev3 07-17-2025 7/17/2025 10:16

Page 1 ends

SUMMARY REPORT
Project Name: Rialto WWTP Biosolids Estimate Estimator: KS Project Number: D4001100 Rev/Date: R3/07-17-2025
Estimate Class: 5
Facility Work Pkg Description Takeoff Quantity Grand Total Price Grand Total with Markups
01 Thickening Process Area

02.0 Existing Conditions 9.00 EA 18,510.19 /EA 166,592

26.0 Electrical Work 10.00 EA 54,343.08 /EA 543,431

40.0 Process Pipe 163.00 LF 604.02 /LF 98,454

40.9 Instrumentation & Controls 27.00 EA 18,162.64 /EA 490,391

44.0 Pollution and Waste Control Equipment 9.00 EA 266,668.62 /EA 2,400,018 01 Thickening Process Area 1.00 LS 3,698,885.96 /LS 3,698,886 02 Dewatering Process Area

02.0 Existing Conditions 8.00 EA 16,509.26 /EA 132,074

03.0 Concrete Work 1.00 LS 88,950.64 /LS 88,951

05.0 Metals 1.00 LS 850,999.74 /LS 851,000

07.0 Thermal and Moisture Protection 1.00 SF 730,828.45 /SF 730,828

26.0 Electrical Work 5.00 EA 59,517.88 /EA 297,589

31.0 Earthwork 1.00 LS 176,768.49 /LS 176,768

40.0 Process Pipe 202.00 LF 868.57 /LF 175,451

40.9 Instrumentation & Controls 13.00 EA 13,006.48 /EA 169,084

43.0 Process Gas and Liquid Handling Equipment 2.00 EA 1,899,630.44 /EA 3,799,261

44.0 Pollution and Waste Control Equipment 6.00 EA 162,432.18 /EA 974,593 02 Dewatering Process Area 1.00 LS 7,395,599.73 /LS 7,395,600 Estimate Totals
Description Rate Amount Totals
Labor 2,399,692
Material 8,204,506
Subcontract 287,125
Equipment 203,163
Other
Subtotal OH&P 11,094,486 11,094,486
Final Design & Engineering Services During Construction 30.000 % 2,066,012 Total Construction Cost 13,160,498
Railto WWTP Biosolids Estimate Rev3 07-17-2025 7/17/2025 10:16

Page 2 ends

DETAIL REPORT
Project Name: Rialto WWTP Biosolids Estimate Estimator: KS Project Number: D4001100 Revision/Date: R3/07-17-2025
Estimate Class: 5
Facility Work Pkg Trade Pkg Unit Price Description Takeoff Quantity Labor Amount Material Amount Sub Amount Equip Amount Other Amount Total Cost/Unit Total Amount Grand Total Price Grand Total Amount
01 Thickening Process Area

02.0 Existing Conditions

02.00 Existing Conditions / Demolition

02.01.05.00 Process Equipment Demolition
Demolish Polymer Blending Unit 1.00 EA 2,500 - - - - 2,499.97 /EA 2,500 6,457.96 /EA 6,458 Demolish Existing Gravity Thickners 2.00 EA 36,000 - - - - 17,999.99 /EA 36,000 46,497.88 /EA 92,996 Demolish Misc Pipes 1.00 ls 3,590 0 - - - 3,590.00 /ls 3,590 9,273.75 /ls 9,274 Demolish Misc Electrical 1.00 ls 3,000 - - - 3,000.01 /ls 3,000 7,749.68 /ls 7,750 Demolish Existing Pumps 6.00 EA 14,400 2,400.01 /EA 14,400 6,199.74 /EA 37,198 Haul and Dispose Demolished Items 1.00 ls 5,000 5,000.02 /ls 5,000 12,916.15 /ls 12,916

02.01.05.00 Process Equipment Demolition 9.00 EA 64,490 7,165.56 /EA 64,490 18,510.19 /EA 166,592

02.00 Existing Conditions / Demolition 9.00 EA 64,490 7,165.56 /EA 64,490 18,510.19 /EA 166,592

02.0 Existing Conditions 9.00 EA 64,490 7,165.56 /EA 64,490 18,510.19 /EA 166,592

26.0 Electrical Work

26.15 Process Electrical

26.00.99.00 Electrical, Other
Electrical Conduit & Wire 640.00 lf 15,159 10,441 - - - 40.00 /lf 25,600 106.59 /lf 68,220 VFD 25 HP NEMA-1 4.00 EA 24,100 15,900 - - - 10,000.00 /EA 40,000 26,640.24 /EA 106,561 MCC's 6.00 EA 90,000 - - - 15,000.00 /EA 90,000 39,498.26 /EA 236,990 Misc. Electrical Allowance 1.00 ls 50,000 - - - 50,000.01 /ls 50,000 131,660.86 /ls 131,661

26.00.99.00 Electrical, Other 10.00 EA 179,259 26,341 20,560.00 /EA 205,600 54,343.08 /EA 543,431

26.15 Process Electrical 10.00 EA 179,259 26,341 20,560.00 /EA 205,600 54,343.08 /EA 543,431

26.0 Electrical Work 10.00 EA 179,259 26,341 20,560.00 /EA 205,600 54,343.08 /EA 543,431

40.0 Process Pipe

40.10 Exposed Process Pipe

40.00.99.01 Process Pipe, Other
4" DI pipe 10.00 LF 642 358 - - - 100.00 /LF 1,000 261.08 /LF 2,611 4" DI, bellows 4.00 ea 762 2,638 - - - 850.01 /ea 3,400 2,246.87 /ea 8,987 6" DI pipe 41.00 LF 3,352 2,183 - - - 135.00 /LF 5,535 352.86 /LF 14,467 6" DI, bellows 2.00 ea 525 1,675 - - - 1,100.02 /ea 2,200 2,906.47 /ea 5,813

1.5" black steel pipe, sched 40 112.00 LF 4,675 2,605 - - - 65.00 /LF 7,280 169.71 /LF 19,008

1.5" DI Elbows 23.00 ea 7,955 95 - - - 350.00 /ea 8,050 904.45 /ea 20,802

40.00.99.01 Process Pipe, Other 163.00 LF 17,911 9,554 168.50 /LF 27,465 439.81 /LF 71,688

40.20.20.01 Other Valves
Install check valve, threaded, 1 1/2" 6.00 ea 1,616 - - - - 269.25 /ea 1,616 695.53 /ea 4,173 Install check valve, Flgd, DIP, 4" 4.00 ea 2,154 - - - - 538.50 /ea 2,154 1,391.06 /ea 5,564 FURNISH Check valve, bronze, threaded, 150#, lever oper., 1 1/2" 6.00 EA - 3,000 - - - 500.00 /EA 3,000 1,330.36 /EA 7,982 FURNISH Check valve, iron body, cushioned, Flgd, 150#, 4" 4.00 EA - 3,400 - - - 850.00 /EA 3,400 2,261.61 /EA 9,046

40.20.20.01 Other Valves 10.00 EA 3,770 6,400 1,016.95 /EA 10,170 2,676.60 /EA 26,766

40.10 Exposed Process Pipe 163.00 LF 21,680 15,954 230.89 /LF 37,634 604.02 /LF 98,454

40.0 Process Pipe 163.00 LF 21,680 15,954 230.89 /LF 37,634 604.02 /LF 98,454

40.9 Instrumentation & Controls

40.90 Instrumentation & Controls

40.90.06.01 I&C, Programming
Local panel 2.00 EA 7,368 24,332 - - - 15,850.00 /EA 31,700 42,679.33 /EA 85,359 Transmitters Level 2.00 EA 1,091 1,909 - - - 1,499.99 /EA 3,000 4,023.77 /EA 8,048 Combined Washwater Flowmeter 1.00 EA 545 955 - - - 1,500.01 /EA 1,500 4,023.82 /EA 4,024 Analog, I/O 6.00 EA 5,850 - - - 975.00 /EA 5,850 2,567.39 /EA 15,404 Digital, I/O 10.00 EA 11,000 - - - 1,100.00 /EA 11,000 2,896.55 /EA 28,965 PLC Cabinet 1.00 EA 15,000 - - - 15,000.03 /EA 15,000 39,498.33 /EA 39,498 PI - Pressure Indicator 5.00 EA 180 3,570 - - - 750.00 /EA 3,750 2,030.25 /EA 10,151 I&C Conduit & Wire 800.00 lf 9,651 26,349 - - - 45.00 /lf 36,000 121.05 /lf 96,838 Allow for Misc Items 1.00 ls 15,480 59,520 - - - 74,999.99 /ls 75,000 202,104.04 /ls 202,104

40.90.06.01 I&C, Programming 27.00 EA 66,165 116,635 6,770.37 /EA 182,800 18,162.64 /EA 490,391

40.90 Instrumentation & Controls 27.00 EA 66,165 116,635 6,770.37 /EA 182,800 18,162.64 /EA 490,391

40.9 Instrumentation & Controls 27.00 EA 66,165 116,635 6,770.37 /EA 182,800 18,162.64 /EA 490,391

44.0 Pollution and Waste Control Equipment

44.40 Process Equipment - Pumps

44.05.49.02 Submersible Pump: 21hp-50hp
Thickened sludge pumps (progressive cavity), 25 Hp 2.00 EA - 80,000 - - - 40,000.00 /EA 80,000 106,428.66 /EA 212,857 Set base elbow / pump assembly, 21 - 50 hp 2.00 ea 9,084 100 - - - 4,592.24 /ea 9,184 11,866.63 /ea 23,733 Washwater Pump, 3hp 2.00 EA 6,056 30,000 - - - 18,028.16 /EA 36,056 47,733.14 /EA 95,466 Polymer Feed Pumps 2.00 EA 3,028 19,000 0 0 0 11,014.08 /EA 22,028 29,188.01 /EA 58,376 Railto WWTP Biosolids Estimate Rev3 07-17-2025 7/17/2025 10:14

Page 1 ends

44.05.49.02 Submersible Pump: 21hp-50hp 6.00 EA 18,169 129,100 24,544.83 /EA 147,269 65,072.15 /EA 390,433

44.40 Process Equipment - Pumps 6.00 EA 18,169 129,100 24,544.83 /EA 147,269 65,072.15 /EA 390,433

44.48 Process Equipment - Thickeners

44.05.71.00 Gravity Belt Thickener
FURNISH Gravity Belt Thickner, 2 Meter, 200-250 gpm 2.00 EA - 670,000 - - - 335,000.00 /EA 670,000 891,340.07 /EA 1,782,680 Install Gravity Belt Thickner 2.00 ea 33,310 - - - - 16,654.88 /ea 33,310 43,023.17 /ea 86,046

44.05.71.00 Gravity Belt Thickener 2.00 EA 33,310 670,000 351,654.88 /EA 703,310 934,363.23 /EA 1,868,726

44.48 Process Equipment - Thickeners 2.00 EA 33,310 670,000 351,654.88 /EA 703,310 934,363.23 /EA 1,868,726

44.69 Process Equipment - Mixers

44.05.75.00 Liquid Chemical Feed Equipment
FURNISH Polymer Blending 10 gph polymer feed, 1,200 gph dilution water 1.00 EA - 50,000 - - - 50,000.00 /EA 50,000 133,035.82 /EA 133,036 Install Polymer Blending Unit, Skid 1.00 ea 3,028 - - - - 3,028.16 /ea 3,028 7,822.39 /ea 7,822

44.05.75.00 Liquid Chemical Feed Equipment 1.00 EA 3,028 50,000 53,028.16 /EA 53,028 140,858.21 /EA 140,858

44.69 Process Equipment - Mixers 1.00 EA 3,028 50,000 53,028.16 /EA 53,028 140,858.21 /EA 140,858

44.0 Pollution and Waste Control Equipment 9.00 EA 54,507 849,100 100,400.76 /EA 903,607 266,668.62 /EA 2,400,018 01 Thickening Process Area 1.00 LS 386,102 1,008,030 1,394,131.49 /LS 1,394,131 3,698,885.96 /LS 3,698,886 02 Dewatering Process Area

02.0 Existing Conditions

02.00 Existing Conditions / Demolition

02.01.05.00 Process Equipment Demolition
Demolish Polymer Blending Unit 2.00 EA 9,000 - - - - 4,500.00 /EA 9,000 11,624.47 /EA 23,249 Demolish Belt Filter Press 2.00 EA 17,000 - - - - 8,500.01 /EA 17,000 21,957.35 /EA 43,915 Demolish Misc Pipes 1.00 ls 5,385 - - - 5,385.00 /ls 5,385 13,910.62 /ls 13,911 Demolish Misc Electrical 1.00 ls 5,143 0 - - - 5,142.72 /ls 5,143 13,284.77 /ls 13,285 Demolish Existing Pumps 4.00 EA 9,600 0 0 0 0 2,400.01 /EA 9,600 6,199.73 /EA 24,799 Haul and Dispose Demolished Items 1.00 ls 5,000 5,000.02 /ls 5,000 12,916.14 /ls 12,916

02.01.05.00 Process Equipment Demolition 8.00 EA 51,128 6,390.97 /EA 51,128 16,509.26 /EA 132,074

02.00 Existing Conditions / Demolition 8.00 EA 51,128 6,390.97 /EA 51,128 16,509.26 /EA 132,074

02.0 Existing Conditions 8.00 EA 51,128 6,390.97 /EA 51,128 16,509.26 /EA 132,074

03.0 Concrete Work

03.15 Cast-In-Place Concrete, Grade Beams

03.10.03.18 Cast-In-Place Concrete, Grade Beams
Grade Beams, 18"x18" 17.00 CY 19,530 13,970 - 499 - 2,000.00 /CY 34,000 5,232.39 /CY 88,951

03.10.03.18 Cast-In-Place Concrete, Grade Beams 17.00 CY 19,530 13,970 499 2,000.00 /CY 34,000 5,232.39 /CY 88,951

03.15 Cast-In-Place Concrete, Grade Beams 17.00 CY 19,530 13,970 499 2,000.00 /CY 34,000 5,232.39 /CY 88,951

03.0 Concrete Work 1.00 LS 19,530 13,970 499 33,999.95 /LS 34,000 88,950.64 /LS 88,951

05.0 Metals

05.00 Metals

05.10.01.00 Metals, Structural Steel
Misc. Repairs to Existing Steel Member 2,944.00 sf 22,399 65,921 - - - 30.00 /sf 88,320 79.23 /sf 233,258 Add Steel to Existing Members for Reinforcement 1.00 ls 3,683 29,503 - 16,814 - 50,000.08 /ls 50,000 132,750.57 /ls 132,751 Structural Analysis of Existing Canopies and Fence Wall 120.00 mh 24,000 0 - 0 - 200.00 /mh 24,000 516.64 /mh 61,997 Steel Support Framing for Metal Panels (Assume 8lb/sf) 9.00 TN 20,612 81,298 - 33,091 - 15,000.00 /TN 135,000 39,733.25 /TN 357,599

05.10.01.00 Metals, Structural Steel 9.00 TN 70,694 176,721 49,904 33,035.56 /TN 297,320 87,289.50 /TN 785,605

05.00 Metals 1.00 LS 70,694 176,721 49,904 297,320.01 /LS 297,320 785,605.49 /LS 785,605

05.50 Metal Fabrications

05.50.05.00 Metal Stairs and Platforms
Misc. Repairs to Stairs and Platforms 1.00 ls 14,498 10,502 - - - 24,999.97 /ls 25,000 65,394.25 /ls 65,394

05.50.05.00 Metal Stairs and Platforms 0.00 14,498 10,502 /SF 25,000 /SF 65,394

05.50 Metal Fabrications 1.00 LS 14,498 10,502 24,999.97 /LS 25,000 65,394.25 /LS 65,394

05.0 Metals 1.00 LS 85,192 187,223 49,904 322,319.98 /LS 322,320 850,999.74 /LS 851,000

07.0 Thermal and Moisture Protection

07.00 Thermal & Moisture Protection

07.60.02.00 Thermal & Moisture Protection, Metal Roofing New Steel Canopy Roof 2,944.00 sf 64,401 82,799 - - - 50.00 /sf 147,200 131.34 /sf 386,667 Remove Existing Roof 2,944.00 sf 22,080 0 - - - 7.50 /sf 22,080 19.37 /sf 57,037

07.60.02.00 Thermal & Moisture Protection, Metal Roofing 0.00 86,481 82,799 /SF 169,280 /SF 443,704

07.70.11.00 Thermal & Moisture Protection, Siding, Soffits & Fascias Steel Metal Panel Enclosure 1,710.00 sf - - 111,150 - - 65.00 /sf 111,150 167.91 /sf 287,125

07.70.11.00 Thermal & Moisture Protection, Siding, Soffits & Fascias 0.00 111,150 /SF 111,150 /SF 287,125

07.00 Thermal & Moisture Protection 0.00 86,481 82,799 111,150 /SF 280,430 /SF 730,828

07.0 Thermal and Moisture Protection 1.00 SF 86,481 82,799 111,150 280,430.02 /SF 280,430 730,828.45 /SF 730,828

26.0 Electrical Work
Railto WWTP Biosolids Estimate Rev3 07-17-2025 7/17/2025 10:14

Page 2 ends

26.15 Process Electrical

26.00.99.00 Electrical, Other
Electrical Conduit & Wire 445.00 lf 10,540 7,260 - - - 40.00 /lf 17,800 106.59 /lf 47,434 MCC's 5.00 EA 75,000 0 - - - 14,999.99 /EA 75,000 39,498.23 /EA 197,491 Misc. Electrical Allowance 1.00 ls 20,000 0 - - - 20,000.04 /ls 20,000 52,664.44 /ls 52,664

26.00.99.00 Electrical, Other 5.00 EA 105,540 7,260 22,560.00 /EA 112,800 59,517.88 /EA 297,589

26.15 Process Electrical 5.00 EA 105,540 7,260 22,560.00 /EA 112,800 59,517.88 /EA 297,589

26.0 Electrical Work 5.00 EA 105,540 7,260 22,560.00 /EA 112,800 59,517.88 /EA 297,589

31.0 Earthwork

31.17 Piling and Caissons

31.17.02.00 Earthworks, Caissons
Piles, mobilization & Demob 1.00 ls 20,490 - - 24,510 - 45,000.04 /ls 45,000 118,144.38 /ls 118,144 Predrilled Concrete piles, 18" diameter, 340.00 VLF 2,290 18,367 - 1,443 - 65.00 /VLF 22,100 172.42 /VLF 58,624

31.17.02.00 Earthworks, Caissons 340.00 VLF 22,780 18,367 25,953 197.35 /VLF 67,100 519.91 /VLF 176,768

31.17 Piling and Caissons 340.00 VLF 22,780 18,367 25,953 197.35 /VLF 67,100 519.91 /VLF 176,768

31.0 Earthwork 1.00 LS 22,780 18,367 25,953 67,099.96 /LS 67,100 176,768.49 /LS 176,768

40.0 Process Pipe

40.10 Exposed Process Pipe

40.00.99.01 Process Pipe, Other
3" DI pipe 102.00 LF 6,223 3,467 - - - 95.00 /LF 9,690 248.04 /LF 25,300 3" DI, bellows 23.00 ea 4,123 14,277 - - - 800.00 /ea 18,400 2,114.68 /ea 48,638 6" DI pipe 100.00 LF 8,175 5,325 - - - 135.00 /LF 13,500 352.86 /LF 35,286 6" DI, bellows 12.00 ea 3,152 10,048 - - - 1,100.00 /ea 13,200 2,906.42 /ea 34,877

40.00.99.01 Process Pipe, Other 202.00 LF 21,673 33,117 271.24 /LF 54,790 713.37 /LF 144,101

40.20.20.01 Other Valves
Install check valve, Flgd, DIP, 3" 8.00 ea 2,872 - - - - 359.00 /ea 2,872 927.37 /ea 7,419 Install check valve, Flgd, DIP, 6" 2.00 ea 1,436 - - - - 718.00 /ea 1,436 1,854.76 /ea 3,710 FURNISH Check valve, iron body, cushioned, Flgd, 150#, 3" 8.00 EA - 5,600 - - - 700.00 /EA 5,600 1,862.50 /EA 14,900 FURNISH Check valve, iron body, cushioned, Flgd, 150#, 6" 2.00 EA - 2,000 - - - 1,000.00 /EA 2,000 2,660.71 /EA 5,321

40.20.20.01 Other Valves 10.00 EA 4,308 7,600 1,190.80 /EA 11,908 3,134.99 /EA 31,350

40.10 Exposed Process Pipe 202.00 LF 25,981 40,717 330.19 /LF 66,698 868.57 /LF 175,451

40.0 Process Pipe 202.00 LF 25,981 40,717 330.19 /LF 66,698 868.57 /LF 175,451

40.9 Instrumentation & Controls

40.90 Instrumentation & Controls

40.90.06.01 I&C, Programming
Feed Sludge Flowmeters 2.00 EA 1,091 1,909 - - - 1,500.00 /EA 3,000 4,023.79 /EA 8,048 Combined Washwater Flowmeter 1.00 EA 545 955 - - - 1,500.02 /EA 1,500 4,023.87 /EA 4,024 Analog, I/O 6.00 EA 5,850 0 - - - 975.00 /EA 5,850 2,567.39 /EA 15,404 Digital, I/O 2.00 EA 2,200 0 - - - 1,099.99 /EA 2,200 2,896.50 /EA 5,793 PLC Cabinet 1.00 EA 15,000 0 - - - 15,000.03 /EA 15,000 39,498.34 /EA 39,498 Washwater Pump Discharge Pressure Indicator 1.00 EA 36 714 - - - 750.00 /EA 750 2,030.25 /EA 2,030 I&C Conduit & Wire 445.00 lf 5,369 14,656 - - - 45.00 /lf 20,025 121.05 /lf 53,866 Allow for Misc Items 1.00 ls 3,096 11,904 - - - 15,000.00 /ls 15,000 40,420.81 /ls 40,421

40.90.06.01 I&C, Programming 13.00 EA 33,187 30,138 4,871.16 /EA 63,325 13,006.48 /EA 169,084

40.90 Instrumentation & Controls 13.00 EA 33,187 30,138 4,871.16 /EA 63,325 13,006.48 /EA 169,084

40.9 Instrumentation & Controls 13.00 EA 33,187 30,138 4,871.16 /EA 63,325 13,006.48 /EA 169,084

43.0 Process Gas and Liquid Handling Equipment

43.05 Process Equipment - Dewatering

43.05.16.02 Belt Filter Press
FURNISH Belt Filter Press 2-meter, 150-200 gpm 2.00 EA - 1,350,000 - - - 675,000.00 /EA 1,350,000 1,795,983.73 /EA 3,591,967 Install Belt Filter Press 2.00 ea 80,246 - - - - 40,123.12 /ea 80,246 103,646.71 /ea 207,293

43.05.16.02 Belt Filter Press 2.00 EA 80,246 1,350,000 715,123.12 /EA 1,430,246 1,899,630.44 /EA 3,799,261

43.05 Process Equipment - Dewatering 2.00 EA 80,246 1,350,000 715,123.12 /EA 1,430,246 1,899,630.44 /EA 3,799,261

43.0 Process Gas and Liquid Handling Equipment 2.00 EA 80,246 1,350,000 715,123.12 /EA 1,430,246 1,899,630.44 /EA 3,799,261

44.0 Pollution and Waste Control Equipment

44.40 Process Equipment - Pumps

44.05.49.02 Submersible Pump: 21hp-50hp
Washwater Pump, 90 gpm @ 138 ft head 2.00 EA 7,324 22,676 - - - 15,000.00 /EA 30,000 39,626.93 /EA 79,254 Polymer Feed Pumps 2.00 EA 3,028 19,000 0 0 0 11,014.08 /EA 22,028 29,188.01 /EA 58,376

44.05.49.02 Submersible Pump: 21hp-50hp 4.00 EA 10,353 41,676 13,007.04 /EA 52,028 34,407.47 /EA 137,630

44.40 Process Equipment - Pumps 4.00 EA 10,353 41,676 13,007.04 /EA 52,028 34,407.47 /EA 137,630

44.69 Process Equipment - Mixers

44.05.75.00 Liquid Chemical Feed Equipment
FURNISH Polymer Blending Unit 60 gph polymer feed, 12,000 gph dilution water 2.00 EA - 300,000 - - - 150,000.00 /EA 300,000 399,107.49 /EA 798,215 Railto WWTP Biosolids Estimate Rev3 07-17-2025 7/17/2025 10:14

Page 3 ends

44.05.75.00 Liquid Chemical Feed Equipment
Install Polymer Blending Unit, Skid 2.00 ea 15,000 - - - - 7,500.00 /ea 15,000 19,374.12 /ea 38,748

44.05.75.00 Liquid Chemical Feed Equipment 2.00 EA 15,000 300,000 157,499.99 /EA 315,000 418,481.61 /EA 836,963

44.69 Process Equipment - Mixers 2.00 EA 15,000 300,000 157,499.99 /EA 315,000 418,481.61 /EA 836,963

44.0 Pollution and Waste Control Equipment 6.00 EA 25,353 341,676 61,171.36 /EA 367,028 162,432.18 /EA 974,593 02 Dewatering Process Area 1.00 LS 535,418 2,072,150 111,150 76,357 2,795,074.97 /LS 2,795,075 7,395,599.73 /LS 7,395,600 Estimate Totals
Description Rate Amount Totals
Labor 921,520
Material 3,080,180
Subcontract 111,150
Equipment 76,357
Other
Subtotal Raw Costs 4,189,207 4,189,207
Material Sales & Use Tax 7.750 % 238,714
Construction Equip Tax 7.750 % 5,918
Total Taxes 244,632 4,433,839
Existing Conditions I,OH&P 25.000 % 28,904
Concrete Work I,OH&P 25.000 % 8,500
Masonry Work I,OH&P 25.000 %
Metals Work I,OH&P 25.000 % 80,580
Architectural (Div 6-12)I,OH&P 25.000 % 70,108
Special Construction I,OH&P 25.000 %
Conveying Equipment I,OH&P 25.000 %
Mechanical Work I,OH&P 25.000 %
Electrical Work I,OH&P 30.000 % 95,520
Site/Civil I,OH&P 25.000 % 16,775
Buried Piping I,OH&P 25.000 %
Tank Construction I,OH&P 25.000 %
Process Piping I,OH&P 25.000 % 26,083
Instruments & Controls I,OH&P 30.000 % 73,838
Material Handling I,OH&P 25.000 %
Process Equipment I,OH&P 25.000 % 675,220
Subtotal Subcontractor I,OH&P 1,075,528 5,509,367
General Conditions/Prime Contractor OH&P 25.000 % 1,377,341 Subtotal OH&P 1,377,341 6,886,708
Final Design & Engineering Services During Construction 30.000 % 2,066,012 Subtotal Final Design & Engineering Services 2,066,012 8,952,720 Escalation 5.000 % 447,636
Subtotal Escalation 447,636 9,400,356
Contingency 40.000 % 3,760,142
Subtotal Contingency 3,760,142 13,160,498
Total Construction Cost 13,160,498
Railto WWTP Biosolids Estimate Rev3 07-17-2025 7/17/2025 10:14

Page 4 ends

Attachment B
Cost Model Results

DESCRIPTION DESCRIPTION DESCRIPTION MANHOURS
Project Name Solids Handling DB Direct Labor Manhours 20,943 Owner Name City of Rialto Support Labor Manhours 688
Owner Contact Stephen Dopudja Staff Manhours 8,489
Owner Contact Telephone No. Subcontractor Manhours
Owners Engineer
Owners Construction Manager
Project Location Rialto, CA
Bidding Entity TOTALS 30,120
Estimator
Estimate Number DESCRIPTION COST
Bid Date Direct Labor $1,372,599
Award Date Support Labor $36,340
Mobilization Date Staff $885,665
Mechanical Completion Date General Conditions $112,364
Substantial Completion Date Construction Equipment $498,904 Final Acceptance Date Subcontractors $13,191,553
Demobilization Date Other $9,470
Hours Worked per Day Estimated 8.00 Materials & Equipment Procurement $7,349,447 Days per Week Estimated 5.00 Labor Escalation $68,794
Weeks per Month Estimated 4.33 Material Escalation $367,472 Hours per Week Estimated 40.00 Performance & Payment Bond $118,275 Hours per Month Estimated 173.33 Insurance $295,566
OT Hours per Week 0.00 Sales Taxes $598,061
DT Hours per Week 0.00 Use Taxes $0
Completion Time in Months 18 Contingency $1,194,630
Overhead (G&A) $1,254,362
Profit $2,508,724
TOTALS $29,862,228

DESCRIPTION YES / NO DESCRIPTION YES / NO
Union Labor Liquidated Damages
Davis Bacon P&P Bond
Prevailing Wage Letter of Credit
Project Labor Agreement Builders Risk
Owner Furnished Equipment Builders Risk Deducatable
Firm Lump Sum Professional Liability
Time and Material Longshoreman Insurance
Target Price Sales Tax
Other Contract Methodology Use Tax
EPC Contract Other Tax
Bid Build Contract Performance Guarantees
Unusual Risks Noise Guarantees
Wage Escalation Required Other Guarantees
Materials Escalatioin Required
Sales Taxes Required
Use Taxes Required Builders Risk Deductable Value $0.00 Other Taxes Required Letter of Credit Percentage 0.00%
Per Diem Required Sales Tax Percentage 7.75%
Travel Costs Required Use Tax Percentage 0.00%
Relocation Costs Required. Other Taxes $0.00
Liquidated Damages Value $0.00

ESTIMATE SUMMARY SHEET

GENERAL PROJECT INFORMATION

PROJECT FACTS

MANHOUR INFORMATION

COST INFORMATION

BONDS-INSURANCE-TAXES
7/3/2025
ARB, INC. SUMMARY OF COST PRICE
DETAIL
TAB ID

DIRECT CRAFT MAN
HOURS

SUPPORT LABOR

MAN HOURS STAFF MANHOURSSUBCONTRACT
MANHOURS DIRECT LABOR $ MATERIAL $ CONSTRUCTION
EQUIPMENT $ SUBCONTRACT $ OTHER $ GC'S $ SUPPORT LABOR $ STAFF $ TOTAL COST ESTIMATE DESCRIPTION 20,943 688 8,489 0 $1,372,599 $7,349,447 $498,904 $13,191,553 $9,470 $112,364 $36,340 $885,665 $23,456,342 1 SITEWORK 1,340 44 543 0 $87,704 $36,499 $31,912 $154,416 $0 $7,187 $2,324 $56,651 $376,694 2 SITE PIPING 784 26 318 0 $51,318 $300,500 $18,673 $19,057 $0 $4,205 $1,360 $33,148 $428,262 3 PRIMARY SLUDGE SCREENING 1,767 58 716 0 $115,599 $1,042,341 $42,092 $172,205 $0 $9,480 $3,066 $74,722 $1,459,506 4 THICKENING PROCESS AREA 3,653 120 1,481 0 $239,142 $1,873,701 $87,014 $183,354 $161 $19,597 $6,338 $154,469 $2,563,777 5 DEWATERING PROCESS AREA 7,362 242 2,984 0 $483,525 $1,875,123 $175,376 $1,384,207 $8,707 $39,499 $12,774 $311,332 $4,290,543 6 ANAEROBIC DIGESTER NO. 1 & NO. 2 UPGRADE 1,477 49 599 0 $96,686 $974,132 $35,180 $0 $0 $7,923 $2,563 $62,453 $1,178,937 7 RETREFIT EXISTING DIGESTER SLUDGE STORAGE TANK4,561 150 1,849 0 $298,624 $1,247,150 $108,657 $1,462,572 $602 $24,472 $7,915 $192,890 $3,342,882 8 ELECTRICAL & INSTRUMENTATION 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $5,514,167 $0 $0 $0 $0 $5,514,167 9 DESIGN COST 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $4,301,575 $0 $0 $0 $0 $4,301,575

SUMMARY SHEET
7/3/2025 Page 1 of 1 Cost

Attachment C
Rialto Solids Upgrades Project Cost
Calculations (Veolia)

RIALTO SOLIDS UPGRADES PROJECT COST CALCULATIONS:

Category Category Cost
% of Fixed
Project Cost Explanation
Direct Project Cost Contractor Guaranteed Maximum Price $31,614,908 93.74% This is the GMP Price from AECOM Direct Project Cost Construction Insurance (1.2%) $379,379 1.12% be incurred by Veolia. This is part of Direct Veolia CPM Labor Veolia CPM Labor $1,730,250 5.13% with the CPM team to deliver the O&M Compliance, Risk Costs O&M Risk+Labor+Compliance (2.5%) $790,373 2.34% Included in Markup Veolia Corp. Overhead Veolia Corp. Overhead $926,400 2.75% Included in Markup Veolia Profit Veolia Profit $621,875 1.84% Included in Markup $36,063,185
Market Value
Veolia Project Management Cost $2,109,629 6.26% 4% to 8% O&M Risk+Labor+Compliance (2.5%) $790,373 2.34% ?
Veolia Corp. Overhead $926,400 2.75%
Veolia Profit $621,875 1.84%
$4,448,277 13.19%

Water SubcommitteeJuly 24, 2025

Water Subcommittee
July 24, 2025