Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Project Management Contracts topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Public questions and board responses focus on Stantec subcontract, Provost & Pritchard work and Blue Mountain involvement
Summary
Public commenters and board members questioned why Stantec was engaged as a subcontractor to Provost & Pritchard on design and environmental work; staff explained Stantec was included in PNP's proposal and that Blue Mountain Development was added for outside review and expertise, not to replace the prime consultant.
Public commenters raised concerns about the project team and rising costs for environmental and design work on the Authority’s consolidation/pipeline project, asking why Stantec had been subcontracted and why Blue Mountain Development was brought on board.
Caller Mike Sennott asked why Stantec was involved and whether Provost & Pritchard had subcontracted to Stantec without the board’s knowledge; he expressed concerns about cost overruns and questioned whether the prime consultant had performed work in-house. Staff responded that Provost & Pritchard (PNP) included Stantec in its proposal and contract and that Stantec’s role includes pump-station design and some environmental scoping and outreach tasks. Steve (Water Resources Manager) said Stantec was part of PNP’s proposed team and had been retained “a long, long time ago.” Jeff Helsley (RGS/PNP support) confirmed Stantec’s role was included in PNP’s contract and that Stantec focuses on pump station design and hydraulic interfaces with AVEC.
Staff explained Blue Mountain Development (Omar/Blue Mountain) was added in a two-phased role to provide independent review and subject-matter expertise, particularly on environmental coordination with outside agencies (BLM, Edison, AVEC) and later on pipeline coordination; staff said Blue Mountain was not intended to replace Provost & Pritchard. Public commenter Judy Decker said she had obtained a breakdown showing Provost & Pritchard–through Stetson engineers and BLM work—had spent “over $700,000” so far on BLM-related requirements and expressed concern that BLM requirements may continue to add cost before construction begins.
Staff acknowledged substantial environmental and permitting work and said some costs are associated with meeting Bureau of Land Management requirements; they also noted ongoing work to quantify incurred costs associated with those requirements. Board members and staff said the Authority had been frustrated by environmental permitting complexity and cost growth and that outside expertise (Blue Mountain) was sought to provide additional review and to help move design and permitting forward.
No formal action was taken at that moment specific to the consultant team; staff said they would provide schedule updates and additional documentation on subcontracting and costs and that Blue Mountain would kick off a more formal review and coordination meeting the following Monday.
