Sweetwater Authority committee rejects Bonita Valley control building bids, directs rebid

The Sweetwater Authority Engineering and Operations Committee voted unanimously Jan. 13 to reject all bids for the Bonita Valley Reservoir control building roof replacement and directed staff to repackage and rebid the project.

The vote came after staff reported the lowest bid of $295,840 from J and H Construction Inc., a total substantially higher than the project budget of $150,000 and the engineering estimate. Staff had recommended awarding the contract but outlined reasons why bids exceeded the estimate, including uncertain hidden damage under the roof and rising material costs.

The Bonita Valley Reservoir control building sits adjacent to the authority’s 18 million‑gallon underground Bonita Valley Reservoir and houses equipment such as water‑quality analyzers and control panels that staff said must remain secured indoors. Staff described the building as roughly 2,000 square feet and said the bid assumed up to 50% of the roof decking and substructure could be damaged and require replacement.

"The lowest bid is for, $295,000," Adrian, a staff member presenting the item, told the committee. He said bidders face uncertainty because crews cannot fully assess hidden rot or termite damage until the roof is removed, and that some clay roof tiles shown in photos are now difficult to source. Staff also said lumber prices and other material costs have increased since the engineers prepared the estimate.

Staff reviewed comparable public roofing projects and found bids frequently came in 47%–126% higher than earlier estimates. Staff proposed two funding transfers to bridge the gap: $93,773 from the completed San Miguel pipeline construction project and $64,067 from the Street Improvement Fund. If those transfers were approved, staff said the project would have an available balance of $308,440, which would cover the bid and an already‑approved $12,600 for construction management through an on‑call consultant.

Directors raised concerns about cost and procurement strategy. Director Martinez said the $295,000 figure was "way over the top" compared with local private‑sector experience and urged repackaging with options and outreach to local contractors. "I would like to move, that we, send this project back to the drawing board, that we looked at other roof options, that we reject all bids, and that we . . . repackage, rethink, and rebid," Martinez said. Director Cox asked about the project’s risk ranking and the timing of the engineer’s estimate, noting the project first appeared in the strategic plan in 2018 and that market conditions shifted after the estimate was prepared.

Staff noted seven firms attended the pre‑bid meeting but only two submitted proposals. Committee members asked staff to attempt to learn why more firms did not submit bids and to explore whether splitting the scope or providing alternate material options would increase bidder participation or lower price.

After discussion, the committee approved a motion to reject all bids and direct staff to repackage and rebid the project, with the committee asking staff to monitor market conditions and return with a revised procurement plan (committee roll call: Director Castaneda — yes; Director Cox — aye; Director Martinez — yes). The motion passed unanimously.

Staff told the committee they would monitor market prices (lumber and other inputs), consider repackaging the work to allow alternate roofing materials and separate painting/metalwork scopes, and report back on timing — committee members suggested bringing the item back in spring (April–May) for reconsideration.

Funding and next steps will be returned to the board as required if staff requests transfers from existing project balances or the Street Improvement Fund.