Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Wastewater Procurement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council selects construction-manager-at-risk for wastewater plant and faces questions on cost and local preference
Summary
Council voted to select and move to negotiate with a construction manager at risk for the wastewater treatment plant phase 1 project; staff warned the next step is negotiation, and the Siouxland Chamber raised concerns about scoring weight and local firms' low scores on local-preference criteria.
Sioux City council members authorized staff to proceed toward negotiation with the selected construction-manager-at-risk (CMAR) for phase 1 of the wastewater treatment plant facility improvements, while members and speakers urged attention to cost and local participation.
Tom Pingel, utilities director, explained the RFP process and why staff recommended the selected firm as the top-ranked proposer. He said the selection committee included six staff members and two design-advisory members, and that staff recommended adding three additional days to the RFP timeline to capture all components of the solicitation before final negotiations.
Chris McGowan of the Siouxland Chamber of Commerce told the council he was “very concerned about the cost of this project” and criticized the scoring matrix, saying locally owned and operated organizations scored substantially lower on the local-preference criterion. McGowan said locally owned firms scored two out of ten on that metric while others received higher marks, arguing the city should pay more attention to project cost and local participation when awarding major public works.
Pingel and staff answered questions about fees and negotiations. Pingel said the purpose of the selection step is to enter preconstruction and service negotiations; if negotiations fail the city can move to the next-ranked firm. A councilmember asked whether the higher fee presented by one firm reflected a different fee structure rather than a higher total project cost; staff replied that the bids’ total calculations were within roughly 10% of one another and that negotiations would address the phase-service fee and other line-item differences.
Council approved the motion to amend the selection schedule and move to negotiated contract talks. Staff said they will return with negotiated terms and recommended contract language for council approval.
Next steps: staff will proceed with negotiations, pursue fee reductions through negotiation where possible, and return a recommended final contract to council for a formal vote.
