PUC commissioners press staff on contractor roles and a consultant study

During commission business on Aug. 14, commissioners pressed staff for answers about program management arrangements on the PUC's large capital projects after receiving conflicting accounts about whether CH2M Hill had been asked to withdraw from the program management (PM) team.

One commissioner said staff had provided contradictory information — including an email suggesting CH2M Hill was asked to withdraw and later denials — and asked for precise answers when staff and the responsible managers are present. "We have received conflicting information on whether CH2M Hill asked to withdraw or Mr. Irons asked them to withdraw," the commissioner said, requesting that the matter be agendized for a fuller response.

The general manager's office told the commission that preliminary answers indicate Tony Irons (program lead) has said he was satisfied with CH2M Hill's work and had not moved toward removing them. Staff also offered to provide a confidential legal memo from the city attorney to clarify the difference between legal constraints and policy intent and to explain whether a firm that serves as program manager may later compete for construction work.

Commissioners reiterated the commission's policy intent that program management firms should not later benefit from a "second bite of the apple" by securing downstream design or construction roles, and asked staff to return with a clear statement of the current position, any contract language at issue, and copies of a recent consultant report prepared by Jack Lemley (hired under a subcontract to Parsons and CH2M Hill) for review. One commissioner asked staff to include the Lemley study and the presentation made to staff by Lemley's associate for commissioners to review before further action.

No formal action was taken at the meeting; the commission instructed staff to agendize the matter for the next meeting, provide requested documentation and, if useful, seek city attorney review.