Sewer Authority Midcoast delays approval of Highway 1 force‑main contract after members push for peer review amid rising costs

Sewer Authority Midcoast staff on July 13 asked the board to accept a guaranteed maximum price (GMP) of $13,228,000 from McGuire & Hester for construction of the State Highway 1 sewer force main, but directors deferred a decision and directed staff to distribute the 65% design, itemized costs and the draft contract to member agencies for peer review.

Rochelle Lather, project engineer, presented the design‑build team’s 60%/65% design and a line‑by‑line analysis of the contractor’s price. She said the project uses a mix of open‑trench and trenchless methods, includes five horizontal directional drills under creeks and environmentally sensitive areas, and requires bypass vaults and temporary measures to maintain service during construction. Lather recommended the board accept the contractor’s GMP and approve signature on a $13,228,000 construction contract “contingent on obtaining a time extension from ERF to 06/30/2028,” and said the grand total with recommended contingencies and mitigation comes to about $16.6 million.

The board’s discussion focused on three fault lines: permitting and Caltrans conditions, the contract’s exclusions and risk allocation, and whether the agency should commission an independent peer review before committing ratepayer funds. Directors pressed staff for details about a Caltrans requirement to backfill abandoned pipe with controlled low‑strength material (CLSM) across the alignment — a specification staff said adds excavation, disposal and CLSM cost and could add roughly $1.5 million to the project — and asked whether the 65% design was sufficient to set a GMP.

Some members argued speed matters because material and labor prices are rising: Lather showed the cost of pipe and other items had increased sharply since 2024 and said some line items were up to hundreds of thousands of dollars higher than earlier estimates. Others said that given the size of the expenditure and numerous exclusions in the contractor’s proposal, the board should allow member‑agency general managers and counsel to review the plans and for agencies to run independent peer reviews before approving a contract.

Agency staff told directors the project budget currently includes about $3.5 million for this fiscal year but that funds set aside earlier have been used for other projects and a midyear budget adjustment will likely be required to cover the balance. The board also discussed requesting from ERF a time extension of the consent‑decree deadline (the contractor and staff recommended June 30, 2028) so work can avoid wet‑season El Niño conditions.

Rather than vote, the board voted to circulate the 65% plans, the itemized contractor cost spreadsheet and the draft contract to member agencies and their counsel. Member agencies were asked to return peer‑review comments and counsel notes by Aug. 5 so the board can consider the item at a special meeting scheduled for Aug. 10; staff also will arrange a follow‑up meeting with the project engineer and McGuire & Hester so agency managers can ask detailed questions.

What’s next: The board did not authorize execution of the construction contract on July 13. Staff will (1) send plans, itemized pricing and the contract to member agencies and counsel; (2) collect peer‑review feedback by Aug. 5; and (3) return the item to the board on Aug. 10 for possible action.

Direct quotes: “We recommend requesting a time extension from ERF to June 30, 2028,” Rochelle Lather said. Director Paul said, “I’ve never seen Caltrans provide anything in a timely fashion,” to emphasize skepticism about the August permit timeline.

Background: The existing force main has been in service for more than 40 years, has had multiple spills and is subject to a consent decree from ERF that required replacement by 06/30/2027 absent an approved extension; staff earlier completed geophysical surveys and potholing and reported no bedrock at a critical HDD location.

Funding and scope: Lather presented a contractor GMP of $13,228,000, an owner‑recommended contingency of roughly $1.3 million, and other mitigation and support costs that bring an estimated project total (option 2) to about $16.6 million. Staff characterized the permit and Caltrans backfill requirements as major drivers of that increase.