Ed Nylund, QSP, CWSSWI
Senior Construction Observer (Alternate)
EDUCATION
» California State University,
Sacramento - Industrial Waste
Pretreatment Facility Inspection
» Chaffey Community College -
Business Management
» Maintenance Superintendents
Association -
Basic Supervision in PW
» University of Southern
California - Backflow Assembly
Testing
» San Bernardino Valley
College - Water Supply
Engineering
LICENSES & REGISTRATION
» Water Treatment Operator –
Grade 2 | Certificate No. 17150
» Water Distribution Operator –
Grade 3 | Certificate No. 4903
» QSP Certificate No. 26356
» Traffic Signal Senior Field
Technician III Certificate No.
97687
» Traffic Signal Inspector
Certificate No. SI97687
3.A.8.d
Packet Pg. 362 Attachment: MNS CM Proposal and Fee Schedule Grand Well (Award of Contract for Construction Management for the Grand Treatment Plant CITY OF CORONA, LESTER POST DISINFECTION STATION PROJECT | This project involves critical upgrades to the City of Corona’s Lester Water Treatment Plant to enhance operational flexibility and treatment efficiency. The work relocates the chlorine and ammonia injection point onto the 30-inch filter effluent line between Filters 5 and 6, allowing them to operate independently. Improvements include a new open-top cast-in-place concrete vault housing a magnetic flow meter, inline static mixer, and chemical injection points. The project also installs new steel piping, isolation valves, SCADA connections, and associated site restoration. Designed to be completed during the plant’s winter shutdown, the project supports improved disinfection control and long-term system performance.
CITY OF CORONA, DESALTER SURGE ANTICIPATOR IMPROVEMENT PROJECT | The City of Corona’s Desalter Surge Anticipator Improvement Project was designed to enhance the operational safety and efficiency of the city's potable water system by upgrading its surge management infrastructure. The project scope includes structural concrete demolition and repair, pavement restoration, and installation of new mechanical and electrical components to improve surge control at the desalter facility. Key mechanical improvements include the installation of stainless-steel piping systems, rupture disc assemblies for pressure management, and upgraded butterfly valve and actuator assemblies for both the surge relief discharge and permeate dump valve systems. Electrical work involves installation of new NEMA-rated electrical control panels and junction boxes to support real-time monitoring and system automation. All work is to be performed within a 180- calendar-day schedule, with construction activities occurring in a critical operational facility. The upgrades will significantly improve the facility’s ability to manage hydraulic transients, reduce equipment stress, and enhance the overall reliability of water delivery to the community.
CITY OF CORONA, WATER RECLAMATION FACILITY 1 CHEMICAL INJECTION FLASH MIXER AND STATIC MIXER INSTALLATION PROJECT | The City of Corona’s Water Reclamation Facility 1 (WRF1) Chemical Injection Flash Mixer and Static Mixer Installation Project is a key infrastructure upgrade aimed at enhancing the City’s water treatment capabilities and operational efficiency. The project includes the demolition and reconstruction of the existing Flash Mixer used for chemical injection and the installation of a new Static Mixer for influent flow to the Chlorine Contact Basin. The scope encompasses mechanical, structural, electrical, civil site, utility, and process work, including modifications to support chemical dosing, mixing, and flow control. Major improvements involve replacing aging mixer components, integrating new process piping and equipment, constructing reinforced structural elements, and implementing upgraded electrical panels and control systems for automation and monitoring. Inspections are required on an as-needed basis to ensure strict compliance with project plans, technical specifications, and regulatory requirements. This includes oversight of critical items such as subgrade preparation, formwork, mechanical assembly, electrical integration, pressure testing, and verification of process flow functionality.
CITY OF RIVERSIDE, 36” BUTTERFLY VALVE REPLACEMENT | This critical water infrastructure project involved the de-energizing and dewatering of an existing 54-inch domestic water transmission main to facilitate the removal and replacement of key valve components. The scope of work included demolition and removal of a 20-foot section of existing cement mortar–lined and coated (CMLC) steel water main and its corresponding valve assembly.
New construction involved installation of a 20-foot segment of 54-inch CMLC water main, including a new 36-inch butterfly valve assembly, 8-inch bypass line with valve, cathodic protection systems, and a new testing station. Final activities included pipeline and appurtenance pressure testing, chlorination, and disinfection in accordance with applicable AWWA standards. The work was conducted within an active urban corridor and required careful planning to minimize service disruption and maintain system integrity throughout the shutdown and commissioning process.
CITY OF RIVERSIDE, LINCOLN AVENUE TECHITE PIPE REPLACEMENTPROJECT, PHASE I | The project involved constructing approximately 3,400 linear feet of 54-inch cement mortar-lined steel pipe and related appurtenances along Lincoln Avenue in the City of Riverside. This included trenching in the public right-of-way, welding steel pipe, and installing various infrastructure elements. The excavation varied from 4 to 18 feet deep and affected local residential and arterial streets. The scope covered traffic control, including signalized intersections and striping, as well as asphalt paving and concrete work. Daily construction reports were produced using the City’s construction management software.
CITY OF CHINO | LEAD PUBLIC INSPECTOR | As Lead Public Inspector for the City of Chino, Ed Nylund directed the daily activities of the Public Works Inspection team for more than two decades, serving as the primary authority for field oversight, coordination, and technical mentorship. Ed supervised multiple inspectors across a wide range of capital improvement projects and ensured compliance with municipal codes, construction standards, and regulatory requirements.
His leadership responsibilities included assigning daily inspection tasks, providing hands-on training and technical guidance, and reviewing inspection documentation for accuracy and completeness. Ed coordinated inspections for projects involving roadway reconstruction and widening, domestic and recycled waterline installation, sewer and storm drain improvements, traffic signal and fiber optic systems, grading, utility relocations, and park and civic facility upgrades. He acted as the main liaison between contractors, field staff, and City engineers—facilitating clear communication, resolving field issues in real time, and maintaining project momentum. Ed also reviewed shop drawings and submittals, conducted bi-weekly progress meetings, and ensured inspectors upheld rigorous standards of safety, documentation, and compliance. Throughout the project lifecycle, Ed managed final inspections, punch list verification, ADA accessibility reviews, and closeout procedures to guarantee alignment with agency specifications and regulatory expectations. His leadership and technical oversight were instrumental in delivering high-quality, on-time public infrastructure improvements across the City.
3.A.8.d
Packet Pg. 363 Attachment: MNS CM Proposal and Fee Schedule Grand Well (Award of Contract for Construction Management for the Grand Treatment Plant MNS MNS MNS MNS MNS MNS Z&K (Sub)
Joe Pope Patrick
Hanify Aaron Singer Sandra Lee Estella
Wells
Chris
Cooper
Carlos
Gaytan
Geotech.
Inspector
Concrete /
Specialty
Project Fee - T&M Not -to-Exceed $336.00 $277.00 $220.00 $158.00 $152.00 $200.00 $193.20 $163.30 $174.80 Scope of Services
Task 1 - Project Coordination 4 22 120 $ 33,838.00
Task 2 - Document Control 44 260 $ 69,388.00
Task 3 - Materials Testing (Geotechnical & Concrete) 160 80 $ 40,112.00 $ 22,265.00 Task 4 - Meetings 20 235 $ 57,240.00 $ 1,500.00
Task 5 - Schedule Reviews 38 $ 8,360.00
Task 6 - Construction Observation 1200 $ 231,840.00 $ 15,000.00 Task 7 - Site Maintenance & Best Management Practices 8 $ 1,760.00 Task 8 - Reports 77 $ 16,940.00
Task 9 - Project Cost Control & Cert.Payroll (Labor Compliance) 36 205 48 $ 47,606.00 $ 1,500.00 Task 10 - Change Order and Claims Review 32 $ 7,040.00
Task 11 - Start-up Coordination, Observation, and System Doc. 4 60 $ 14,308.00 $ 1,500.00 Task 12 - Notice of Completion 1 3 $ 937.00
Task 13 - Project Close-out 2 20 70 $ 21,612.00
TOTAL ESTIMATED HOURS 6 111 939 205 48 0 1200 160 80
BUDGET $ 2,016.00 $ 30,747.00 $ 206,580.00 $ 32,390.00 $ 7,296.00 $ 0.00 $ 231,840.00 $ 26,128.00 $ 13,984.00 $ 279,029.00 $ 271,952.00 $ 19,500.00 $ 22,265.00 Key Notes (Refer to Proposal Scope for additional Assumptions not referenced here):
$ 1,760.00
$ 49,106.00
$ 7,040.00
$ 15,808.00
$ 937.00
$ 21,612.00
9. Submittals: MNS assumes review of up to seventy-one (71) total submittals, including resubmittals, based on the contractor’s schedule. Our review will be limited to contract conformance only. We assume all technical reviews will be performed by the City or Engineer of Record and are therefore not included in our fee. A 10-working-day turnaround is assumed, excluding City or EOR review time if required.
8. Allocation of Funding: MNS understands that the entire contract is a not-to-exceed agreement. We acknowledge that the project may conclude before the full budget is utilized; however, no work will continue once the authorized funding is fully expended. Additionally, we understand that funds may be reallocated between tasks, including subconsultant budgets and direct costs, at MNS’s discretion to best support the successful delivery of the project.
10.RFIs: We assume no more than twenty (20) total RFIs shall be submitted by the contractor. MNS assumes no technical review to be necessary and that review will be solely in conformance with the contract requirements or EOR/City issued changes - thus no deviations, substitutions, or ”or-equals” will be reviewed. Time for review is assumed to be five (5) workings days and does not include City or EOR review time should it be necessary $ 592,746.00
$ 246,840.00
2749
1. General Durations and Start: Total Duration based on a 18 month (August 2025, to January 2027) construction period from CM Consultant notice-to-proceed - Anticipated to be provided on August 5th, 2025. Labor Compliance will require efforts within February 2027 for close out.
2. Overtime and Night work: Cost estimate assumes no overtime (OT) or night work. Any OT would be x1.5 or that required by governing laws, and such OT will be at the availability of the staff requested. Requests for night work will be subject to the availability of personnel, will require no less than (5) Working day Notice, and will be charged at premium time of no less than 1.5x the standard rate and that required by law. Some efforts may require the assessment of a rate of 2x the standard rate as required by Law.
5. Procore: Procore Licensing cost detailed within the optional services, includes training that the City is welcome to join virtually. It is understood that the Contractor also possesses a License that could be shared to the City and CM Consultant.
18. Preconstruction Meeting: MNS Assumes (1) such 1-hr Virtual Recorded Meeting attended by the Construction Manager, Technical Support, Labor Compliance Officer. $ 16,940.00
17. Internal Kick-off Meeting: MNS Assumes (1) such 1-hr Virtual Recorded Meeting attended by the Construction Manager and Technical Support
7. Construction Observation: MNS will provide half-time observation (up to 4 hours per day, portal-to-portal) from Pacific Hydrotechs Mobilization (November 7, 2025) through Project Closeout (January 21, 2027), covering 300 working days. Site visits canceled with less than one working day's notice or concluded without inspection will be billed at a 4-hour minimum. Repeated cancellations or extended periods of inactivity may result in staff reallocation.
SubConst.
Field/ODCs
(Includes 15%
O&P)
SubConst.
Labor
Extension
(Includes
15% O&P) TOTAL COST
MNS
Field/ODCs
Construction Management Services
Construction of Grand Treatment Plant and Equipping of the Grand Well
City of San Jacinto
Project Team & Rate
MNS
Labor
Estimated Hours Extension
Landmark (Sub)
$ 33,838.00
$ 69,388.00
$ 62,377.00
$ 58,740.00
$ 8,360.00
4. Overhead and Profit: Sub-consultant, ODC, and Software services (I.E. Procore) mark-up is 15%.
3. DIR Prevailing Wage Rate: Construction Observer/Geotechnical/ Specialty Inspector's rate is subject to adjustment if DIR Prevailing Wage rates are updated.
6. Landmark Geotechnical and Specialty Inspection: Specialty inspections beyond Geotechnical Observation and Testing, and Concrete/Rebar Observation, Collection, and Testing are not included per the clarifications detailed within the RFP. However, Landmark is fully fit to provide such specialty inspections as desired by the City. Scope included within our scope and fee include: (1) Rough grading observation and testing, (2) Compaction testing of trenches, C&G, subgrade and basegrade, driveway approaches and sidewalk, (3) Concrete inspection, including onsite inspection of the reinforcement, and collection and testing of concrete cylinders, (4) Three Maximum Density/Optimum Moisture tests will be performed, (5) twenty-five concrete cylinders are assumed to be collected and tested. Price reflects 20 Half-time, and 10 Full-time Site visits by a Soil Technician, and 10 Full-time ICC Concrete Inspections. Visits to site are subject to a 2hr surcharge for the respective staff assigned. 2hr minimum will be charged for all field work and thereafter in 4hrs increments. No night work is assumed. Requests for night work will be subject to the availability of personnel, require no less than (5) Working day Notice, and will be charged at premium time of no less than 1.5x the standard rate and that required by law.
11. Progress Payments: We assume no more than (18) Complete Progress Payment Packages (Progress Payment Estimate, All Unconditional and conditional Waivers) submissions and subsequent reviews with no resubmissions from the contractor.
12. Contractor Verficiation: It is assumed that the City has conducted and filed the Contractor Verifications at the time of project award (pre-construction phase). If the City wishes for MNS to conduct and file the Contractor Verification files, MNS can perform this service for additional fee.
13. Public Request: If the City receives a Request for Public Information, it is assumed that the City will prepare the response. If the City wishes for MNS to prepare the response, MNS can perform this service for additional fee.
14. Change Orders: MNS assumes coordination and review of up to four (4) contractor-provided potential change orders, and issuance of up to two (2) contract change orders upon City authorization, with no requested revisions.
15. Close Out Report: One Project Close-out report will be provided to the city in electronic format via Procore.
16. Weekly Progress Meetings: MNS assumes up to 75 one-hour virtual progress meetings. These meetings will be recorded and attended by the Construction Manager. Technical support staff is assumed to participate in no more than 16 of these meetings. Additionally, MNS assumes up to 4 one-hour onsite meetings, to be held during the Observer’s scheduled half-time shift. The Observer will attend meetings the first week of Mobilization.
3.A.8.d
Packet Pg. 364 Attachment: MNS CM Proposal and Fee Schedule Grand Well (Award of Contract for Construction Management for the Grand Treatment Plant MNS MNS MNS MNS MNS MNS Z&K (Sub)*
Joe Pope Patrick
Hanify Aaron Singer Sandra Lee Estrella Wells
Chris
Cooper
Carlos
Gaytan
Geotech.
Inspector
Concrete /
Specialty
Project Optional Fee - T&M Not -to-Exceed $336.00 $277.00 $220.00 $158.00 $152.00 $200.00 $193.20 $163.30 $174.80 Scope of Services
Task 2 - Document Control - Procore Licensing $ 34,120.50 Task 6 - Construction Observation - Tank Coating (Shop) 48 $ 9,600.00 Task 6 - Construction Observation - Tank Coating (Field) 248 $ 49,600.00 $ 15,000.00 Task 6 - Construction Observation - Fulltime Observation (Add'l Hrs) 904 $ 174,652.80 $ 26,197.92 TOTAL ESTIMATED HOURS 0 0 0 0 0 296 904 0 0
OPTIONAL BUDGET (Does not include Scope Fee) $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 59,200.00 $ 174,652.80 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 233,852.80 $ 26,197.92 $ 15,000.00 $ 34,120.50 $ 200,850.72
SubConst.
Labor
Extension
(Includes
15% O&P)
MNS
Field/ODCs
$ 64,600.00
$ 9,600.00
SubConst.
Field/ODCs
(Includes 15%
O&P) TOTAL COST
Project Team & Rate
MNS
Labor
Extension
1200
$ 309,171.22
Optional Value Added Services (NOT INCLUDED WITHIN FEE TOTAL ) Construction Management Services
Construction of Grand Treatment Plant
and Equipping of the Grand Well
City of San Jacinto
Landmark (Sub)*
Estimated Hours
$ 34,120.50
3.A.8.d
Packet Pg. 365 Attachment: MNS CM Proposal and Fee Schedule Grand Well (Award of Contract for Construction Management for the Grand Treatment Plant Construction Management for Grand Treatment Plant and Well Equipping Proposal Evaluation Matrix and Justification
1. Understanding of the Project
• Civiltec (3): Demonstrated deep familiarity with the City's Grand Treatment Plant through prior involvement in design and similar projects (e.g., Bath Well, Plant 30, Wadsworth). Their technical narrative clearly identifies site-specific challenges and presents a tailored methodology for mitigation.
• HOCH (2): Shows general understanding and strong commitment to City interests, but lacks the same depth of specific project familiarity compared to Civiltec. less reference to direct design or prior involvement with potable water treatment plants. • MNS (1): While the proposal acknowledges core components, it offers a broader, more generalized scope. The “project keys” and approach are practical but lack the level of site-specific insight.
2. Experience with Similar Projects
• Civiltec (3): Strongest portfolio in equipping wells and constructing treatment facilities for iron and manganese removal. Many of the exact components needed for this project have been performed recently by their team, including for San Jacinto itself. • HOCH (2): HOCH Consulting demonstrated solid construction management experience in water and wastewater treatment projects. However, they did not provide three recent potable water treatment plant projects completed within the last five years, which suggests a lack of the specific recent experience most desired for this scope. • MNS (1): They cite extensive experience, but many projects were performed under different firms before transition to MNS. Also, their relevant CM work lacks the clear connection to projects with both well equipping and specialty treatment system integration like Civiltec’s or HOCH’s.
Firm
Understanding
of Project
Experience
with Similar
Projects
Schedule and
Management
Tools
Key Personnel Fee Proposal Subtotal Score
Civiltec 3 3 3 3 3 15
HOCH 2 2 3 2 1 10
MNS 1 1 3 1 2 8
3.A.8.e
Packet Pg. 366 Attachment: Construction Management for Grand Treatment Plant and Well Equipping Proposal Evaluation Matrix and Justification (Award of
3. Schedule and Management Tools
• Civiltec (3): Demonstrated strong scheduling capabilities supported by the use of tools such as Procore, Bluebeam, and Microsoft Project. Their experience managing the Bath Well project—also involving complex treatment system components—shows their ability to coordinate construction timelines, address conflicts early, and maintain project momentum through proactive scheduling practices.
• HOCH (3): Highlighted experienced personnel, including Sol Sheikh and Adam Hoch, who have managed schedule-critical projects such as Pure Water Oceanside. While fewer specific scheduling tools were named, their proposal clearly emphasizes responsive field coordination, regular progress tracking, and integration with the City’s needs to ensure timelines are maintained.
• MNS (3): Presented a detailed draft schedule and outlined the use of critical path method (CPM) analysis and schedule coordination strategies. Their approach, supported by experienced staff and proven project delivery on water infrastructure projects, reflects a strong capacity to manage sequencing, maintain progress, and adapt schedules as needed throughout construction.
4. Key Personnel
• Civiltec (3): Deep bench with relevant technical backgrounds including PE-licensed engineers (Hawes, Byrum, Liu), and former public works director Dan Keesey as observer. Their prior roles on very similar projects provide strong continuity. • HOCH (2): Strong leadership team with Sol Sheikh and Adam Hoch both highly qualified. However, less depth in number of individuals proposed, and fewer with direct iron/manganese treatment oversight experience.
• MNS (1): Several capable individuals, but less overall experience in direct construction management roles. Some team members, including key contributors like Aaron Singer and Pat Hanify, worked on relevant projects at other firms. Using a sub-contractor as primary observer is not ideal.
5. Fee Proposal
• Civiltec (3): $648,494 - Offers the lowest cost, strong value for a team with detailed knowledge of the project and extensive past CM work.
• MNS (2): $666,946 - Middle-cost proposal, not the most tailored but reasonably competitive. Total cost plus the necessary costs for tank coating (Optional value added) • HOCH (1): $910,736 - Highest cost, and while quality is good, the proposal does not clearly justify the added expense over the other two.
3.A.8.e
Packet Pg. 367 Attachment: Construction Management for Grand Treatment Plant and Well Equipping Proposal Evaluation Matrix and Justification (Award of
3.A.8.e
Packet Pg. 368 Attachment: Construction Management for Grand Treatment Plant and Well Equipping Proposal Evaluation Matrix and Justification (Award of