Wastewater committee to offer One‑Stop grant support contract to Weston & Sampson, with Par as backup

At a May 6 meeting, the Town of Southborough Wastewater Committee voted unanimously to offer a contract to Weston & Sampson to provide support services for the town’s One‑Stop grant application, contingent on the firm confirming it can meet the committee’s deadline; if Weston & Sampson cannot meet the deadline, the committee instructed staff to offer the work to Par.

The decision came after committee members reviewed four proposals — from Par, Weston & Sampson, Lombardo, and Dana & Howard — and discussed price, prior experience, and capacity. Al Hamilton, a member of the Wastewater Committee, moved the offer to Weston & Sampson “subject to confirming that they can start next week. And if not, then we go to Par.” Bill Condiff seconded the motion; the committee then voted in favor.

Why it matters: the consultant chosen will prepare the short, focused deliverables needed to apply for funding through the One‑Stop process. Committee members said selecting a firm that can deliver on the tight timeline and that has experience securing similar grants is important to the town’s chance of winning funds.

Discussion highlights - Members said Weston & Sampson has substantial bench strength and experience with comparable projects and funding sources, including references in the submission to Mass Works and “community 1‑stop for growth” and EOED experience. Several members said that strength made Weston & Sampson a leading candidate. - Par was described as the in‑house consultant currently used by the department; members cited Par’s existing working relationship with the town as a reason to consider it as the second choice. - Members raised concerns about Lombardo’s submittal: Lombardo’s packet, according to the discussion, omitted a fee amount and appeared to limit its scope to technical components of the grant application rather than the full narrative and writing support the committee expects. Dana & Howard’s proposal was described as lighter in content and having a higher fee. - The committee considered procurement rules and whether this short phase required a formal qualifications‑based selection. Committee members reviewed an “IG procurement chart” that differentiates procedures for small estimated design fees (less than $30,000) and small construction costs (less than $300,000). Mark, identified in the meeting as the town’s chief procurement officer, advised that for this step there is no formal procurement process that requires a low‑bid award and that the committee may base the selection on qualifications, price, or both.

Timeline, budget and next steps - Committee members said the chosen firm must complete the work in time to meet the grant submission schedule; the motion specified awarding to Weston & Sampson if they can meet the deadline and, if not, awarding to Par. Members discussed having the chosen firm attend the committee’s next meeting (tentatively Monday the 12th) and confirmed staff would follow up to formalize the agreement. - Bill Condiff said he would contact Weston & Sampson and the other submitting firms to confirm availability and begin the agreement process and that procurement staff believed funds could be identified to pay for this short phase.

Clarifications and limits - Lombardo’s packet reportedly did not list a fee and described a scope limited to technical components; the committee asked staff to clarify whether narrative and writing support were included before any award. - The committee referenced procurement guidance for small‑value design work; members explicitly noted that later phases (planning, design, construction) would require separate procurement steps.

Ending: The committee’s motion instructs staff to contact Weston & Sampson and confirm they can meet the required schedule; if they cannot, staff will offer the work to Par. Staff will return with a formal agreement and an update at the committee’s next meeting.