Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Procurement Project Management topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Public raises questions about Stantec subcontracts and authority brings Blue Mountain on to advise on design and environmental issues
Summary
Callers and PAC members urged clarity about Stantec’s role as a Provost & Pritchard subcontractor and asked why Blue Mountain Development was engaged; staff explained Stantec was part of PNP’s proposal and that Blue Mountain will provide independent review and coordination with outside agencies.
Several members of the public raised questions about subcontracting and project costs on the AVEC design and environmental work, asking why Stantec was brought into Provost & Pritchard’s team and why Blue Mountain Development was recently engaged.
Caller Mike Fennott asked whether Provost & Pritchard had subcontracted to Stantec without the board’s knowledge and said cost overruns appeared to have reached 50% on parts of the contract. He also asked why Stantec—known to be involved in statewide work—had been engaged and whether the arrangement complied with contract terms. Fennott told the board he had contacted the authority’s office and had been told staff were not aware that Stantec was involved.
General Manager Carol and staff responded. Steve (Water Resources Manager Steve Johnson and Jeff Helsley from staff) explained Stantec was included in Provost & Pritchard’s original proposal and contract as part of a large multi-firm team and that Stantec “is primarily on the design project handling the pump stations” and had a smaller role on environmental scoping and outreach. The board’s legal or staff representatives said it is common for prime consultants to include subconsultants where specialized expertise is required.
Staff said Blue Mountain Development and consultant Omar were brought in to provide outside review and expertise—particularly on environmental interactions with agencies such as the Bureau of Land Management, Southern California Edison and the Corps of Engineers—and to provide an independent look at cost, schedule and permitting. Staff emphasized Blue Mountain is not a replacement for Provost & Pritchard but an additional review resource in a two-phased approach: near-term review of environmental and permitting issues and future coordination (not yet under scope) with the Corps on pipeline matters.
Public speakers also provided cost detail. PAC member Judy Decker told the board that, based on an estimate she obtained from Stetson engineers via staff contact Bianca, Provost & Pritchard through BLM-related work and Stetson had invoiced “over $700,000” to satisfy BLM requirements to date. Decker said that sum was charged before any construction activity had occurred.
Callers urged transparency on outlays and insisted on a full accounting of subcontractor roles, invoicing, and whether prime consultants had the necessary in-house expertise to deliver the contracted scope.
Staff said they would continue to assemble financial details and schedule updates; the board acknowledged public concern about cost overruns and asked staff and the consultant team to provide further detail in future reports.
