Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Infrastructure Water topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
PUB backs CMAR contract recommendation for Pecan Creek expansion with roughly $92 million cap
Summary
Denton's Public Utilities Board reviewed a construction manager-at-risk (CMAR) contract and GMP package for the Pecan Creek Water Reclamation Plant expansion, heard detailed cost and procurement breakdowns, and voted unanimously to approve the recommendation to proceed with a contract not to exceed about $92 million.
David Brown, the city’s water utilities project manager, told the Denton Public Utilities Board on Feb. 23 that the Pecan Creek Water Reclamation Plant expansion is “a strategic necessity” to support Denton’s continued growth and requested approval of a construction manager-at-risk (CMAR) contract and a Guaranteed Maximum Price (GMP) package.
Brown said the project will replace the roughly 60-year-old plant with a new membrane bioreactor (MBR) facility sized at about 30,000,000 gallons per day and will include upgrades to solids handling, disinfection, a new interceptor, high‑efficiency headworks and a modern operations building. “We are seeking approval for a construction manager at risk construction phase contract and a guaranteed maximum price GMP 1,” Brown said during his presentation.
Staff provided a line‑item breakdown used to calculate the GMP, explaining that the GMP incorporates subcontractor bids, general conditions, bonds, insurance, a CMAR contingency and a negotiated contractor fee. Brown listed package awards and major cost items presented to the board, and characterized the CMAR approach as a delivery method intended to mitigate risk and speed early packages.
Brown gave the board a total cost picture that included a reported cost of work of about $63,025,437, an owner contingency of $3,000,000 and a stated contract amount not to exceed $92,000,003.21. He explained that the CMAR contingency covers unknowns discovered during construction, allowances cover escalation and tariff exposure, and the owner contingency is retained by the city for owner‑directed changes.
Board members asked detailed questions about the difference between the construction fee, general conditions and the CMAR contingency; Brown and staff described the fee as the CMAR’s management/profit, general conditions as on‑site overhead and bonds, and contingency/allowances as funds to handle unforeseen subsurface conditions and escalation.
After discussion the board moved and seconded the recommendation; the motion carried unanimously.
What happens next: staff will return the CMAR/GMP package and supporting materials to the City Manager or council as required for final authorization and to issue a notice to proceed if authorized. The presentation also included schedule estimates (notice to proceed for dirt work targeted for April 1; construction substantially complete in 2031).
