Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-26-2000 Meeting (2) I WATERSHED ASSESSMENT- SOURCE WATER ASSESSMENT PLANSTUDYSUBCO~TTEE COMMITTEE ROOM - July 26, 2000 3:00 P.M. PRESENT: U. Bridges, Chairman, R. Colclough, M. Hicks, members. ABSENT: R. Oliver, Administrator. 1. Review Watershed Assessment RFQ's. Mr. Colclough: I've read the presentations and they all are good. Overall, who could provide is CH2NIHILL they are a good company with a lot of experience. There is experience in the others that I like that very few provide and water companies are going into the communities taking into consideration what the community needs are and I like that because I am community oriented. Anyone of these companies could do the job. CH2MHill can do both of them. We have one from Arcadis, Parsons and B&E Jackson. I think all of them are good. Parsons is the one talking about going into the community. Mr. Hicks: My first selection also is CH2MHil1. As Commissioner Colclough just pointed out. CH2MHill, Parsons and Arcadis submitted for both projects, Source Water Assessment and Watershed Assessment. I Mr. Bridges: Is that important that we get the same person for both projects? I'm hearing that it is. That whoever is doing one side of it needs to do the other side as well. I Mr. Hicks: In my own opinion, it's not as important here as it would be say in some other places where if our drinking water intake were in the lower part of the county then the area of the source water assessment would encompass the area of the watershed assessment. But since it's not, the area for the watershed assessment is north of the county, generally and the area for the watershed assessment is within Augusta-Richmond County itself. There have been comments though, that you would have the same teams involved with both plans. So consequently, if you've got the same teams, then their time could be used more efficiently and there could be an economy of scale by awarding it to both. You might not have the same benefit as you would as if they were overlapping. But CH2MHill and Arcadis prior to even sending out the RFQ's made the comment that there could be an economy if you awarded it to just one firm. So there would be that advantage. There is also an economy in so far as our folk just working with one supplier of that service. But we could work with two if it were decided to go with two. I don't look on that as important say CH2MHill or Arcadis. But on both of them CH2MHill was tops as far as I could see. They have more experience than either one. My next one after was Arcadis, then Parsons so far as those that submitted two. Now Khafra submitted on the watershed assessment and B&E submitted on the source water assessment. Of these two the only one that we asked for a separate sealed price was on the watershed assessment. That's because it was more easily defined, they know exactly what they have to do. For the source water assessment area we have other entities that are located within our area and some are in South Carolina. we can't do anything about those. But the ones in Georgia are the ones that we are being asked to also do a source water assessment plan for their raw water indicator. The State has funds for this project, if you all would like to know exactly how much funds are available I can let you know. The figure of $100,000 has been published. When we get into the Source Water Assessment Plan that's one where we will have to select a provider and then negotiate a fee based on all of the implementation that will have to take place in coordination with all of these other entities. My preference is to work with just one entity to do both jobs. I Mr. Bridges: Do you think your people could work with either CH2MHill, Arcadis or Parsons? Mr. Hicks: Yes. We particularly already worked with CH2MHill and with Arcadis. We have not had the association with Parsons that we have with those two. These are very important, that is the conduct and timelessness of these plans because both of them are essential to us getting our raw water intake permit, our increase in raw water. So these are very important on that basis and if you look at the time frames, most all of them have roughly the same time schedule within a month or two of each other. i;~~ Mr. Bridges: I too think that CH2MHill far surpasses a..."1Y of the others. But, that's why I put down other business, my concern is the perception the public will have if we give this to CH2MHill for the Watershed Assessment and Source Water Study and then turn around and desire them to be the program manager over the bonding as well. To me whoever the program manager is over the bonding is much more important than the Watershed Assessment. My thinking would be, what I would like to see us do is, I don't know what would be the best avenue to discuss this, maybe we need Randy's input on it, but not necessarily to make a different contract with CH2MHill but extend the existing one to cover this future bond that we just passed so that they would be program manager which would really put them overseeing these projects, the Watershed Assessment anyway because it would be funded out of that and let one of these other firms have it. I too would like to see the same one do both sides. Let Parsons or Arcadis have it. And proceed on with negotiating CH2:MHill as far as what they can do as program manager for the bond issue. I recognize they are the most qualified here, they have done them and completed them and have been successful with it more so than anybody else. Does that sound reasonable to you Richard? I Mr. Colclough: That sounds fine to me. NIT. Hicks: That would be my preference and I share your thoughts. Having been it as long as I have I think you would raise some eyebrows if you were to give both of these and the Program Manager to CH2MHill. Mr. Bridges: Is the bond for three years? Mr. Hicks: I would rather see CH2MHill have the bond program management, I would prefer to keep on working with them. Now, we would negotiate a new contract, not a new contract but terms of an extension of this contract with them. It would not necessarily be a new contract. If you remember they were selected on the basis of RFQ's, interviews we narrowed it down, we selected CH2MHill then negotiated a price from them for certain work. Now, I wouldn't want to have them do more work of the work this time than we had them do before. In I I so far as CH2MHill then as the program manager would have oversight over whoever is doing the Watershed Assessment and if depending on the cost of the Source Water Assessment whether or not money would have to come out of the bond issue over it also. In so far as the other whether it be Arcadis or Parsons or whomever we could work with them. If you wanted to give it to the same firm and I think it would be a benefit to that, it is not necessarily essential but it would be a benefit. Mr. Colclough: I think CH2MHill would be a good program manager and do an excellent job, those guys have a lot of experience. Mr. Bridges: Should this committee recommend that to the Engineering Services Committee that we talk to CH2MHill about negotiating a contract to continue as Program Manager with the bond? Mr. Hicks: I would like to see that. They're already into doing so work of that type. Mr. Colclough: I would like to see these fellows do some community background in Parsons. . Mr. Bridges: Then the criteria that you are emphasizing is the community interest. Mr. Colclough: The input from the community of what they see their needs are. I Mr. Bridges: Max, from a professional standpoint who would be better, Arcadis or Parsons? Mr. Hicks: My own preference, and us talking having worked with Arcadis, I know how it could work however, there has been, and Arcadis is a good company, when you look at the national rankings and the latest engineering records, both Arcadis and Parsons are in the top international. They have the hoists to do the work and the manpower and the expertise and the personnel to do the work. Having worked with Arcadis, I would lean toward them. However, I don't know if that's entirely fair. There has been a move on the Commission to say let's have some new people come in and do some work for us also. Parsons has not done any work for us, so it's kind of an unknown to me. Other than the fact that they are highly rated, nationally and internationally they've done a lot of work. Mr. Colclough: What would be the difference in working with another company whose in the top fifty? Mr. Hicks: None. That's why I said I think we could work with Parsons just as well as we could work with .A.rcadis we would have to gain the knowledge of their personnel. Mr. Bridges: I think I'm really more concerned about who will be the program manager. I Mr. Colclough: We don't have a problem with the program manager, I think we know who will be the best company for that is. Mr. Hicks: It's ok by me. I Mr. Bridges: If Richard has strong feelings for Parsons that suits me. Mr. Bridges: I think we really have two motions to make. One is to approach CH2MHill about renegotiating their contract for Program Manager for the bond issue. Mr. Colclough: So move to recommend a contract negotiation extension for CH2MHill as Program Manager for the Bond Issue. Mr. Hicks: Second. Motion carried unanimously. Mr. Bridges: The other motion would be the selection of Parsons to do the Source Water Assessment and the countywide Watershed Assessment. Mr. Colclough: So move. Mr. Hicks: Second. Motion carried unanimously. I With no further business to discuss, the meeting was adjourned. Lena J. Bonner Clerk of Commission I AGENDA of WATERSHED ASSESSMENT STUDY SUBCOMMITTEE 3:00 P.M. I. Review Watershed Assessment RFQ's. II. Other business. COMMITTEE ROOM JULY 26. 2000