Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Procurement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
SFPUC awards San Joaquin construction‑management contract to PMA after HDR protest
Summary
The commission approved a six‑year, $28 million construction‑management contract for CS‑9 17 to PMA Consultants after staff found HDR’s proposal contained material inconsistencies in required bid schedules; HDR protested staff’s zero multiplier score and argued clerical error, but the commission voted to award to PMA.
The San Francisco Public Utilities Commission on Nov. 12 voted to award CS‑9 17 — a six‑year, $28 million construction management agreement for the San Joaquin region — to PMA Consultants after staff concluded HDR’s proposal contained numerous and material inconsistencies in the required schedule‑of‑hours and contract‑multiplier documents.
Julie Labonte, WESIP director, described the evaluation process for professional services competitions: written proposal, oral interview and a contract multiplier schedule that is scored by staff after interviews. Labonte said HDR scored higher on written proposal and oral interview phases, but staff found mismatches between the hours shown in the schedule-of‑estimated‑hours and the contract‑multiplier schedule for HDR’s submittal, and therefore assigned HDR a zero for the multiplier phase. Labonte told the commission the inconsistencies were “too numerous, substantial, and material” to correct without jeopardizing fairness to the other proposer.
HDR’s senior vice president Bob Ellis presented the company’s protest in public comment, saying HDR had guaranteed a 1.99 multiplier and arguing the errors were clerical and should not have led to a zero multiplier score. "We were unfairly penalized 15 points for the contract multiplier," Ellis said, adding the panel ranks HDR highest on qualifications and interview.
Ivy Fine, the PUC contracts manager, told commissioners staff had convened city attorneys and subject‑matter staff, met with HDR and concluded the irregularities were major rather than clerical; staff offered HDR the option to proceed to oral interview and HDR chose to continue.
After hearing arguments, President Kane moved to accept PMA; the motion was seconded and carried by voice vote. The commission noted the award to PMA preserves procurement fairness and allows the project to proceed; commissioners also encouraged HDR to bid on future opportunities.
No suspension or judicial finding of wrongdoing was alleged against any firm; staff and the city attorney had earlier advised that Parsons’ prior involvement in some development work raised a potential conflict for a different item, but that was separate from the CS‑9 17 selection. The award moves forward subject to standard contracting and procurement requirements and any administrative oversight the Board of Supervisors may require.
