Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Contract Oversight topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission discusses GPA repair project manager, contract review and timeline for PUC response
Summary
Commissioners discussed a repair project for Guam Power Authority-related work, naming ABM (DDA) as project manager and citing a repair 'in excess of 1,500,000' and a later transcribed total of '1,800,000,000.0'; the commission reviewed contract review protocol and noted a 30‑day PUC review period. The transcript does not record a formal approval or vote.
The Guam Public Utilities Commission on Sept. 26 considered a presentation about a repair contract that a presenter said would be managed by ABM (DDA).
The presenter stated ABM (DDA) would serve as project manager for repairs "in excess of 1,500,000.0" and said the contract "is not your normal case" due to intergovernmental service arrangements. The presenter later referenced a total contract figure transcribed as "1,800,000,000.0." The transcript contains inconsistent numeric formatting, and the presenter did not provide documentation in the excerpt to reconcile those figures.
The presenter explained that costs incurred by Guam Power Authority (GPA) for personnel and equipment would be submitted under the contract and described the contract review protocol. "GPA files its notice. The PUC has 30 days to, project its credit desires," the presenter said, describing the commission's review window and the need for intergovernmental coordination.
The presenter also tied the contract discussion to operational reliability, saying a generation plant produces about "20 megawatts" but is "not fully operational," which framed the urgency for repairs and intergovernmental arrangements. The transcript does not show a motion, vote, or final approval of the contract; no effective date or final tally is recorded in the excerpt.
What happens next: the transcript does not include a formal action; the commission's 30‑day review timeline referenced in the presentation suggests staff filings and further PUC action may follow.
