Contractors returned bids for Carpinteria Valley Water District’s advanced water purification facility (AWPF) that were roughly 50 percent higher than the district’s engineer estimate, staff told the board during a special meeting. The low bids reported were about $61.75 million (Walsh), $61.08 million (Shimek) and $62.04 million (Hensel Phelps) compared with an engineer’s estimate of $42,000,000.

Chris Malgin, who presented the bid results, said the tight grouping of the three bids — within roughly 2 percent of each other — suggests the market view of the project scope is materially different from the estimate. "We only got three bids back," Malgin said, "and they were much higher than expected." He identified several possible causes: contractor assumptions taken because of the short bid review window, more expansive builder’s‑risk insurance requirements added after the estimate, subsurface unknowns, sequencing constraints to keep existing treatment online, and uncertainty from Buy America/Build America tariff rules.

The board and staff discussed line‑item variability. Malgin noted the building/concrete work and deep soil‑mixing items were notable outliers, and he cited a deep soil mixing subcontract price of about $3.4 million that exceeded the engineer’s forecast. Craig Erickson, a project manager with the design engineer, also said the engineer’s estimate "missed the mark" and acknowledged a significant delta between the estimate and contractor bids.

Staff described next steps: review the low bidder’s open‑book escrow and pricing breakdown, meet with the unsuccessful bidders to understand differences, and identify whether any million‑dollar contingencies or inflated line items can be clarified or reduced. Malgin said Walsh had indicated willingness to provide open‑book details and that further meetings are scheduled.

Funding remains a key constraint. Staff presented a preliminary updated construction total (including contingency and soft costs) rising into the mid‑$70 million range. Title 16 grant reimbursement at roughly 25 percent and a possible state revolving fund (SRF) loan cap — staff cited a maximum SRF loan figure of $50 million — leave a potential funding gap that staff said they are pursuing with the funding agencies.

Board members cautioned against making an immediate award. Directors asked about rebidding versus rejecting all bids, the legal limits on selecting a non‑low bidder, and whether the engineer’s estimate should be reexamined. Staff said it will complete a formal responsiveness and responsibility evaluation before recommending any award and will return with more analysis in coming weeks. The board deferred any award decision and expects additional review of bidder breakout data and funding options.