Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the WISP Rebaseline topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
SFPUC approves WISP rebaselining; staff to send Notice of Change to state and seek Board re‑appropriations
Summary
The commission approved updates to the Water System Improvement Program baseline after staff reported schedule, scope and cost changes, including project-specific scope shifts and a program-level cost adjustment of about $125 million and a 1.5-month delay for final projects.
The San Francisco Public Utilities Commission on April 22 voted to approve project‑level scope, schedule and budget revisions to the Water System Improvement Program (WISP) and directed staff to file a Notice of Change with the state in compliance with California water‑code requirements.
Jeet Bajwa, manager of the project management bureau, presented a bottom‑up rebaselining that reviewed construction estimates, pending change orders, soft costs and risks. He said five major projects account for the majority of scope changes, with Calaveras Dam among the highest‑impact items. Bajwa told commissioners the program as a whole faces a net cost increase of about $125 million and that the last project in the program is likely to be delayed by approximately 1.5 months. He attributed many variances to updated construction scopes, site conditions and other technical findings discovered during detailed review.
Bajwa said program staff evaluated savings elsewhere — citing completed projects such as Snow Valley Water Treatment Plant and parts of the San Joaquin pipeline — and reallocated contingencies where feasible. He noted that some projects returned contingency dollars while others, including the New Irvington Tunnel and regional groundwater storage and recovery work, required additional funding.
During public comment Michael Hurley (Water Resources Manager, Bosco) read a statement on behalf of Nicole Santculo focused on the rebaselining effort; he reiterated an earlier concern that rebaselining had occurred only a year after the last baseline. Commissioners asked for additional follow‑up on the Alameda Creek recapture project's sizing, the project's water‑rights implications and several technical clarifications; staff committed to provide targeted answers at a future meeting.
The motion to approve the project‑level scope, budget and schedule changes and to authorize the General Manager to seek Board of Supervisors approval for re‑appropriation of existing funds passed with the ayes recorded on the record.
