The Riviera Beach Utility Special District was told Thursday that it should expect an initial guaranteed maximum price (GMP) for the new water treatment plant to include a price but not be the final contract amount while negotiations continue.

Nigel Grace, representing Brown and Caldwell, told the board the joint venture working on the project is compiling bids for the water treatment component and expects to submit a draft GMP for the city to review after bid evaluations conclude. Grace said some bidders asked to extend the bid window and that the JV extended bid openings through Oct. 20.

Board members and staff said the draft GMP will include a price, but that price may change during a negotiation period. Joshua Neiman, director of the Riviera Beach Utility Special District, and Grace both explained the GMP submittal will start a back-and-forth negotiation process that could take several cycles and that, given the project’s complexity, negotiations could take about three months.

Why it matters: the initial GMP number will indicate the likely cost to construct the core treatment portion of the project but will not be the final contract price until negotiations conclude. Several board members emphasized that residents expecting a fixed price at upcoming meetings should be prepared instead for progressive updates on negotiation status and price movement.

Board members pressed the JV representative on alternatives to negotiation, including whether the city should “take the exit ramp” and rebid the work under a design‑bid‑build model. Grace and Haskell project staff said converting the procurement approach would require completion of design documents, reconfiguration of front‑end documents, additional engineering work to pivot to the new delivery model and would likely delay progress. The JV and city staff said the project is close to receiving the initial GMP and that converting procurement now could lengthen the schedule because design changes and new advertisements would be needed.

Several board members, including Vice Chair Miller Anderson, urged pursuing competitive bidding to increase market competition and potentially reduce cost. Miller Anderson said rebidding could be done with addenda to finish outstanding design items and that competition “is the foundation of getting a good price.” Other members said they understood the timeline and negotiation realities and asked staff to return with analysis if rebidding is pursued.

City and JV staff described the two main categories of cost to evaluate: direct costs (subcontracted construction work that is competitively bid) and indirect costs (project management, site logistics, bonds and insurance). Grace said independent cost estimates have aligned closely with the JV’s direct‑cost estimates and that the primary negotiation focus is the indirect cost components.

Board members asked when operating costs for the new plant will be available. Staff said an operating‑cost estimate prepared earlier in the year had been shared with the city’s financial team and that the JV was updating that estimate; Joshua Neiman agreed to provide the prior (about seven‑month‑old) estimate to the board so members can compare it with the updated figure once available.

Several staff and JV speakers said membrane pilot testing and other design refinements remain part of design completion; the JV said it expects to deliver documents for city review sometime in November, at which point negotiation steps will proceed. The board directed staff to provide updated operational cost estimates for the proposed facility and a comparative cost analysis of other municipalities’ recent plants.

Board members and staff did not take a formal vote on procurement strategy during the meeting; discussion concluded with staff offering to return with additional information on costs and schedule.

The district’s owner’s representative and project team will present the draft GMP and a status update at a future meeting once negotiations commence and more bid results are finalized.