Proposal:
Execute Contract for Air Quality Modeling Evaluation of an Ozone Control Strategy Focusing on Air Conditioning-Bound Catalysts for Ozone Scrubbing
Synopsis:
Control strategies targeting high ozone receptor areas have been proposed as alternatives to more stringent Basin-wide emission controls. One promising strategy is the use of air conditioning-bound catalysts for ozone scrubbing. Based on results of a competitive solicitation, ICF Kaiser Consulting Group, Systems Applications International, Inc. has been selected to conduct air quality modeling to evaluate the feasibility of this strategy. Total project cost is $49,457.
Committee:
Technology, November 15, 1996, Recommended for Approval
Recommended Action:
Authorize the Chairman to execute a contract with ICF Kaiser Consulting Group, Systems Applications International, Inc. in an amount not to exceed $49,457, to be funded from the Advanced Technology Fund.
James M. Lents, Ph.D.
Executive Officer
Background
Ozone concentrations in the South Coast Air Basin have decreased significantly over the past twenty years. Peak ozone concentrations have dropped from 45 pphm in 1979 to 26 pphm in 1995. During this period, the number of Stage I ozone episode days has gone down from 120 to 14. However, the Basin still experiences the worst ozone air quality in the nation. As air quality continues to improve in the Basin, high ozone concentrations occur less frequently and in limited, localized areas. Similarly, exposure to high ozone concentrations occur over smaller areas. These trends may make it more cost-effective to plan and implement local concentration reduction strategies in well-characterized high ozone exposure receptor areas rather than implementing more stringent region-wide emission control programs for stationary and mobile sources.
One ozone control strategy which has been proposed is the use of air conditioning-bound catalysts for ozone scrubbing. Engelhard Corporation has developed the PremAir catalyst, which is capable of removing ozone directly from ambient air. With PremAir, a catalytic powder is coated onto a surface, such as a heat exchanger, that comes into contact with large volumes of ambient air. During testing on vehicle radiators in summer 1995, 80 percent scrubbing of ozone was achieved with no catalyst deterioration over 10,000 miles. Similar conversion efficiencies and deterioration rates have been observed with stationary air conditioning (AC) units.
The draft 1997 AQMP includes control measure MSC-03, "Promotion of Catalyst-Surface Coating Technology Programs," which seeks to encourage the incorporation of catalyst-surface coating technologies in residential and commercial air conditioning units as an ozone control strategy.
Proposal
The implementation of air conditioning-bound catalysts for ozone scrubbing could result in cost-effective ozone concentration reductions. However, the magnitude of control cannot be estimated without a rigorous modeling assessment to evaluate feasibility. In this project, air quality modeling and evaluation will be conducted to determine the ozone concentration reduction, equivalent emission reduction potential, and cost-effectiveness of the ozone scrubbing catalyst. A sensitivity or uncertainty analysis will also be conducted in conjunction with the air quality modeling effort.
In support of this effort, a working group has been established consisting of modeling experts from the AQMD, other government agencies, research entities, and private industry. The working group will provide input to the modeling effort and will assist with project oversight. If the modeling results are promising, this project could serve as the basis for a scaled-up demonstration of several ozone control strategies in a local area with relatively high ozone concentrations. Ultimately, consistent with draft 1997 AQMP control measure MSC-03, these preliminary studies could serve as the basis for an AQMD program to promote the use of catalyst-surface coating technologies in residential and commercial air conditioning units.
On September 3, 1996, RFP #9697-10 was released. It was listed in the following publications:
Los Angeles Times, Orange County Register, San Bernardino Sun, Riverside Press Enterprise, La Opinion, Korea Central Daily, Rafu Shimpo, Philippine News, L.A. Sentinel, Eastern Group Publication, Inland Valley Daily Bulletin (SB area), Inland Empire Hispanic News, Precinct Reporter, El Chicano, The Black Voice News, La Voz, The Excelsior, Chinese News, M/W/DVBE Source.
The RFP was also posted on the AQMD’s Internet web site. Two proposals were received by the October 3, 1996 closing date: one from Environ International Corporation (Environ) and one from ICF Kaiser Consulting Group, Systems Applications International, Inc. (SAI). They were reviewed and evaluated according to established AQMD guidelines by a panel comprised of AQMD staff and members of the above-described working group. The eight-member panel consisted of seven males and one female, six Caucasians and two Asians.
A summary of the panel’s scoring is included as Attachment A. On the basis of technical criteria alone, the panel’s averaged scores favored SAI (87.75) over Environ (79.50), with six of the eight panelists awarding higher scores to SAI. When the criteria of "cost and other factors" were accounted for, Environ’s total score was higher than SAI’s (74.75 versus 71.88), solely on the basis of Environ’s lower bid cost ($44,739 versus $49,457).
Even though Environ received a higher overall rating, AQMD staff recommends that SAI receive a contract award for this project. Section VI. D. of the RFP specifies that "the Governing Board may award the contract to a proposer other than the proposer receiving the highest rating in the event the Governing Board determines that another proposer from among those technically qualified would provide the best value to District considering cost and technical factors. The determination shall be based solely on the Evaluation Criteria contained in the RFP, on evidence provided in the proposal and on any other evidence provided during the bid review process. Evidence provided during the bid review process is limited to clarification by the proposer of information presented in his/her proposal."
Staff believes that the proposal from SAI would provide the best value to the AQMD because: (1) it addresses ozone changes based on microscale effects in an innovative way; the technical approach proposed by Environ is not particularly innovative and could be performed in-house by AQMD staff, and there is some concern whether Environ’s approach would properly capture the microscale effects of air conditioning-bound catalysts; (2) the evaluation panel rated SAI higher than Environ on the technical portions of the proposal; and (3) the cost difference between the two proposals is less than 10 percent. Staff believes that selection of SAI over Environ is justified.
Resource Impacts
Sufficient funds for this project are available in the Advanced Technology Fund.
Attachment
A - Summary of Evaluation of Two Proposals Received in Response to RFP #9697-10
Attachment A
Summary of Evaluation of
Two Proposals Received in Response to RFP #9697-10
Two proposals were received in response to this RFP from the following:
Step 1 - Technical Criteria (70 points minimum, 100 points maximum)
|
Proposer | ||
|
Environ |
SAI | |
|
Panel Average |
79.50 |
87.75 |
|
Carry-over (50% of points > 70) |
4.75 |
8.88 |
Step 2 - Cost and Other Factors (85 points maximum)
|
Criteria |
Proposer | |
|
Environ |
SAI | |
|
Cost (Maximum = 70) |
70 ($44,739) |
63 ($49,457) |
|
Certified MBE/WBE/DVBE (Maximum = 10) |
0 |
0 |
|
Local Business Enterprise (Maximum = 5) |
0 |
0 |
|
Total |
70 |
63 |
Total Score (100 points maximum)
|
Criteria |
Proposer | |
|
Environ |
SAI | |
|
Step 1 Carry-over Points (Maximum = 15) |
4.75 |
8.88 |
|
Step 2 Points (Maximum = 85) |
70 |
63 |
|
Total |
74.75 |
71.88 |