PE Water Project Estimate Presented
Published 4:11 pm Tuesday, February 15, 2011
PRINCE EDWARD – After months of work and study, County supervisors have a final price estimate for a water system.
$24,879,000.
“We are at a point in the project to where enough investigation has been done, enough design has been done, the project has been developed to a point…we are comfortable presenting a final estimate to the board of $24.879 million,” commented Chris Robards of Crowder Construction, at the Board of Supervisor's Thursday evening meeting.
Next up for the County's Board of Supervisors is whether to move forward with the project (or some modification of it) or not. It will, however, be a brief window.
“…How do we get to a point where you can make a decision will happen…in the near term,” Robards detailed.
Specifically, he highlighted that they reached out to the vendors and subcontracting community and shared with them an anticipated timeline for the project and received commitments “across the board…where everyone is gonna hold their pricing through May. With the volatile market that we're dealing with today, that's…the longest commitment we could get from them at this time. So the number presented today…can be held firm through…May.”
Crowder Construction – with Draper Aden engineers – has worked on specifics outlined in an interim agreement with Prince Edward on plans for a public water system tapping into the Sandy River Reservoir.
The County was presented an unsolicited proposal – under the PPEA, or Public Private Education Facilities and Infrastructure Act of 2002, localities may receive unsolicited proposals from private firms – and supervisors previously approved an interim agreement with Crowder Construction Company to take a deeper look into the specifics of a water project.
Representatives from the two firms have met with supervisors in fleshing out a proposal in recent months and have worked on engineering plans, which were developed to a 30 percent level.
The proposed project (though still subject to change) includes the construction of an intake, water treatment facility and service lines extending to serve an area south of Farmville to Hampden-Sydney and east to Crewe. The intake structure is penciled in with an eight million gallons (MGD) per day intake infrastructure capacity and there would be a two MGD facility treatment facility (located about a half mile from the reservoir) that is easily upgraded to four MGD. It was noted that a lot of different treatment processes were considered and a traditional clarifier/filtration system was selected.
Projected estimates have fallen since the initial estimate of $33,773,000 in October of 2008. The presentation estimate in March 2010 projected $29,775,000; and a preliminary estimate in July pegged the cost at $26,918,000. The final estimate is $24,879,000, though there are estimated project indirect costs of $841,900.
“We're gonna work with the board and other entities over the next six weeks, do the financial analysis meetings, meetings with potential partners, meeting with funding agencies, workshops with the board to further…define and develop the scope…provide you with any information that you need to move forward,” Robards said. “…All of that will happen over the next six weeks. At the end of March, if there are any changes in the scope based off of the scope that was presented today, if there's any changes to those scopes we will adjust the price accordingly and present you with a final lump sum proposal at the end of March.”
That, Robards further detailed, would allow a decision to be made at the Board's April meeting, then they would go into a 30-day waiting period to where a contract can be executed in the middle of May.
“Once a decision is made to move forward, contracts are executed and notice to proceed is issued, our team will move directly into finalizing design and procuring…permits from the different agencies and we'll also start our procurement process-writing orders, signing up subcontractors and whatnot-that'll all begin in May,” Robards said. “That…schedule will allow us to put the first shovel in the ground around October of this year and the project will be…complete and ready for operation in the summer of 2013.”
A 16-19 month construction schedule is projected.
Carlos Norris, Senior Vice President for Crowder Construction, thanked the board for “allowing us to work with you over the last year pulling it together to where we're at at this point and also, I'd like to acknowledge that I know these are difficult types of decisions for a board and a community to grasp and to make decisions on and we acknowledge the complexities of all the issues that have to come together and, in some ways, a short presentation doesn't do justice (to) all the work that has to happen to make something like this happen.”
Norris conceded that they won't be able to answer all of the board's questions, offering that some of the things they would have to decide on individually and as a board how to move forward. However, he highlighted that they know that timing is in their favor.
“The stars are lined up because of the industry and the economy that we're all involved in. The pricing on construction-it is a good time right now,” Norris said.
He also highlighted that the interest rate is historically at an all-time low, that there are benefits to jobs and suppliers and work force and such, that there is momentum with the state agencies, the investment assures a safe, reliable, long term water supply solution, that it would prepare them for the next drought, and achieve the County's long term goals.
Farmville District (701) Supervisor Jim Wilck, who was not on the board when the PPEA project was initiated, peppered the proposal with a range of concerns.
Among the issues he raised was that it is his understanding that it will be another ten-plus months before the pilot study is done. Wilck highlighted that he had an email from an individual from the Virginia Department of Health.
“You have done two weeks of study; they want a year of study so to refer to it as being done, I don't think that's quite it,” Wilck stated.
Wilck also asked about the anticipated health permit approval. It was noted that the preliminary engineering report had been re-submitted to the Health Department and is in their hands, that they are planning to give them a week or so to look at it, and ask to schedule a meeting with them.
“We feel like we've addressed their comments adequately. We don't agree with a hundred percent of their comments,” cited Draper Aden's Fred Pribble. “We don't agree with giving two more pilot studies and we have justification for not giving those pilot studies and that may be an area, we feel, of negotiations. We have background data with approved technology in use across the state of Virginia and many places and we plan on submitting that data to them to show them that we do not need to do those additional pilot studies. We looked at the water quality under its worst case scenario and the turnover during the cold weather and we feel like that's adequate.”
Wilck responded that, in discussions with the Health Department individual and his boss “they said they're gonna hold firm to the 12 months on the pilot study. They have indicated that you would like to short-cut that, but they will hold firm to the 12 months as far as that goes.”
Pribble noted that they will “certainly have that discussion when we meet.”
Wilck cited that the concern is that the reservoir has different properties perhaps at different times of the year.
One potential issue in the summer is algae, which Pribble said he felt “pretty comfortable” about addressing the algae.
“This is my concern about doing the pilot study,” Pribble said. “We don't want to spend the County's money if it doesn't need to be spent. If you do a pilot study in the summer and you have a…time or a summer that there is no algae or there's not significant algae, you basically wasted your money. They're gonna make you provide provisions for treating the water if there is an algae plume whether you find algae or not. We have proposed to them up front that we're providing that as part of the treatment process. So we're, in my opinion, circumventing the need for that pilot study by providing provisions within the facility to treat the water under those conditions, which they would make you do any way.”
Wilck and Crowder/Draper Aden staff sparred over other issues, including the preliminary engineering report, services outlined in the contract and billing of specific items.
“The majority of the things in the interim agreement have been completed,” Pribble said. “We have not completed the funding, obviously, because we're at a point in the project over the next six weeks to put those packages together. (A) financial model has been completed. The final numbers have not been incorporated…”
If they decide not to move forward with it, Wilck confirmed, they are still entitled to all of the drawings, paperwork, engineering reports and so forth.
“You talk about competitive pricing and I think the competitive pricing you've been talking about is strictly yours getting vendors and so forth,” Wilck said. “I'm interested in the competitive pricing we can get in a bid situation and if we're restricted to 30 days or 45 days like last time and we're not gonna get any bids…But we have all of these reports that you agreed to provide us in the interim contract that we can go out and talk to other people.”
Wilck also suggested, “For us to act just on a final lump sum price with you without going out and checking the market, we're not doing our job. I'm sure the taxpayers sitting out there would kick us all out if we voted to just go with you without going out and getting competitive bids from other contractors.”
Still, it was highlighted, the design package has been done to a 30 percent level and is not at a stage that they can send out for competitive pricing. It would need 100 percent of the design document and get VDH approval.
It was also cited that the pricing (of the proposal) is based on competitive pricing and there was a willingness to sit down and go over specific details.
Norris cited that they will fulfill their contract and hand it over to them. “and if you choose and the board chooses to take that and go out and go a different direction, you have the right to do that, without a question.”
According to County Administrator Wade Bartlett, the original contract was for about $1,979,000 and one change-order reduced the amount by $44,000 – meaning $1,934,675. He reported that as of that day, they had made 12 payments totaling approximately $1,500,000.
“We have $436,000 and some odd (dollars) that we have not paid and we will not pay until this process is complete,” he cited.
Still, Bartlett said after the meeting, he is comfortable that with the PPEA process they are where they need to be at this point.
There will be a settling period, Bartlett detailed in the meeting, when they reach the conclusion of the contract and they'll go in depth on what should and should not be paid.
Wilck would later argue that they want a rock bottom price, “not one with all sorts of contingencies that something pops up and it costs another half million (and) you say…'Well, we put enough in there to cover that.' That's not a good deal for the taxpayers.”
Still, Hampden District Supervisor Charles McKay cited that they will have work sessions where – the way he understands it – they can “ask all these questions and get the answers. And we're not (going to) make a decision until we get all the answers and they get all the permits.”
The public would be invited, he also cited.
Board Chairman William “Buckie” Fore, unable to attend the meeting due to a reported death in the family, had prepared a written statement that was read by Bartlett.
In the statement, read at the beginning of the meeting, Fore noted that it is the first in a series of meetings that the board will have with Crowder Construction and Draper Aden Associates.
“The public will have ample opportunity at later dates to ask questions and to have those questions answered,” Fore included in his statement. “The public will also have ample opportunity to give the board of supervisors input on the proposed project. I can assure the public that you will be given plenty of notice for when those opportunities are scheduled.”
It was noted that representatives from Nottoway County and the towns of Crewe and Burkeville were in attendance as well as members of Farmville's Town Council and Town Manager Gerald Spates.
The copy of the presentation is available on the County's website. The presentation included background on the Reservoir, water flow information on the Appomattox River (which serves the Town of Farmville), population growth of Prince Edward and projected average daily demands of the County and the Town as well as for Crewe and Burkeville and other sources of potential demand, and possible service areas. Presentation information also chronicles the timeline of PPEA proposal and the County's interim agreement with Crowder. (The presentation is listed under the Board of Supervisors Agendas and Meeting Minutes posted on the website under the February 10, 2011 work session agenda under the minutes section.)
Funding is expected to be discussed in coming meetings.
