Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Water Master Plan topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board approves $733,136 professional services agreement with Black & Beach for water master plan update
Summary
The Board of Public Utilities voted to approve a professional services agreement with Black & Beach to update the city's water master plan, authorizing a contract not to exceed $733,136 after staff argued the firm's more-detailed scope justified the higher price; the motion passed 5–1.
The Board of Public Utilities voted to approve a professional services agreement (PSA) with Black & Beach to update the City of Santa Rosa’s water master plan, authorizing an amount not to exceed $733,136.
Candace Michael, acting supervising engineer for the asset management team, told the board that the update will refresh the distribution hydraulic model, recommend permanent locations for AMI meters, evaluate system deficiencies and emergency wells, perform risk and redundancy analysis, and produce a prioritized water distribution capital improvement plan. The scope is organized into tasks 100–700, with ongoing annual hydraulic model updates and deliverables intended to support CIP prioritization and operational resilience.
Michael said Black & Beach — the firm that completed the prior update — submitted a more detailed scope and engaged the city’s asset management and operations staff in refining the approach. The Black & Beach cost proposal was approximately $733,136; the other proposer’s estimate was under $400,000 but staff determined that proposal lacked sufficient detail to meet the city’s needs. Michael said the recommended contract will deliver a model, a risk dashboard for prioritization and annual modeling support until the next update.
Board member Dit questioned why the higher-cost consultant was chosen instead of the lower-cost proposer. "If someone comes in with a lower bid and could perform just as well, they should be taken," Dit said, asking whether staff had given the lower-cost proposer an opportunity to improve its scope. Director Burke and staff replied that procurement was by request for proposals (qualifications-based) rather than price bid, and that staff must evaluate whether proposals meet the stated scope; staff said engaging with one proposer to improve their proposal after submission would create an unfair advantage.
Vice Chair Anoni moved approval of the PSA and Board member Wright seconded. The roll-call vote recorded five affirmative votes and one no (Board member Dit), and the motion passed.
The contract amount, scope details and the staff rationale for selection are recorded in the meeting materials and staff presentation.
