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. 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.