|
ADMINISTRATIVE
COMMITTEE |
||||
|
|
||||
|
3. |
CONSIDER SUPPLEMENTAL
APPROPRIATION AND AUTHORIZATION TO CONTRACT WITH _(engineering firm)__ TO PREPARE COMPARISON OF
DESALINATION PROJECT COSTS AND TIMELINES |
|||
|
|
||||
|
Meeting
Date: |
January 26, 2006 |
Budgeted: |
N/A |
|
|
|
||||
|
From: |
David A.
Berger, |
Program/ |
N/A |
|
|
|
General
Manager |
Line Item No.: |
||
|
|
||||
|
Prepared
By: |
Andrew
Bell |
Cost Estimate: |
$30,000-50,000 |
|
|
|
||||
General Counsel Approval: N/A |
||||
Committee Recommendation: The Administrative Committee reviewed this item on January 13, 2006 and recommended ____________. |
||||
|
CEQA Compliance: N/A |
||||
SUMMARY: District staff submitted a Request for
Proposals for evaluation of various aspects of three proposed seawater
desalination projects to five engineering consulting firms in December
2005. The projects to be evaluated are the Coastal Water
Project proposed by California American Water, the Monterey Bay Regional
Desalination Project proposed by the Pajaro/Sunny Mesa Community Services
District, and the 7.5 million-gallon-per-day project in Sand City most recently
evaluated by MPWMD in 2003 and early 2004.
Exhibit 3-A is the Request
for Proposals (RFP), including the proposed Scope of Work and the schedule for
performing the evaluation and presenting the results at a public workshop of
the Board. Exhibit 3-B is the list of consulting
firms that were sent the RFP. Proposals
were received from __#__ firms. A
staff committee reviewed the proposals and determined that the superior
proposal was submitted by __
( engineering firm)__. This
firm’s proposal includes a not-to-exceed cost of $______.
Note to Administrative
Committee: The proposals are due from
the consultants on January 10. Staff
will review the proposals and advise the Administrative Committee of the firm
submitting the superior proposal and its cost at the January 13 Committee
meeting.
RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Board defer this item to the February 23, 2006 Board meeting so that it may be considered in the context of the mid-year MPWMD budget adjustment.
BACKGROUND: As part of the MPWMD 2005-2006 Strategic Plan
adopted by the Board at its October 18, 2005 meeting, the Board directed staff
to hold a series of public workshops dealing with several aspects of water
supply augmentation. One of the
workshops is titled “Water Projects Cost and Timeline Analysis.” The purpose of this workshop is to present
independent, expert financial/technical evaluation information on the major
potential water supply projects being proposed for the
Because the comparison of desalination project costs and timelines was not anticipated at the time the Fiscal Year 2005-2006 budget was adopted, no funds are included in the budget that could support this work, other than in a limited contingency amount. Staff plans to bring a proposed mid-year budget adjustment to the Board at their February 23, 2006 meeting. At that time, the Board will have the opportunity to view this work in the context of all currently anticipated District expenditures and revenues for Fiscal Year 2005-2006.
3-A Request for Proposals for 2006 Monterey Peninsula Seawater Desalination Projects Evaluation
3-B List of Recipients of Request for Proposals
3-C Summary of proposal by ( engineering firm ) – Exhibit 3-C will be handed out at the January 13, 2006 Administrative Committee meeting.
U:\staff\word\committees\Admin\2006\20060113\03\item3.doc