At its July 15 meeting, the San Juan Water Conservancy District (SJWCD) Board of Directors voted to move forward with a request for proposals (RFP) for a reservoir manager for the organization’s reservoir project at Running Iron Ranch.
SJWCD board president Candace Jones opened the discussion on the RFP by explaining that the RFP was partially informed by a job description for a district manager from the Rio Blanco Water Conservancy District.
Jones explained that she and SJWCD board member Charles Riehm worked on the RFP draft being presented to the board.
Jones then discussed the schedule for the RFP process, indicating that Riehm came to the conclusion that the process might be “cumbersome” and proposed removing steps relating to a bidder’s preliminary response to the RFP since it was poorly defined.
According to the RFP, expressions of interest in the RFP would need to be submitted by July 26, with a bidders conference to occur on July 31.
Site visits to the Running Iron Ranch with bidders would occur between Aug. 5 and. 8, with final responses to the RFP by bidders due Aug. 16, the document indicates.
Jones explained that this timeline would allow the board to potentially take action, including selecting a bidder or interviewing candidates, at its Aug. 19 meeting.
Following this meeting, the RFP indicates, a second bidders conference could potentially occur, with the contract being awarded by Aug. 29.
She added that both she and Riehm feel that having a bidders conference as part of the process is important as any firm bidding on the project would likely want additional information that could inform the pricing of their bid.
SJWCD board member Randy Cooper asked if the board has identified what bidders it wants to send the RFP to.
SJWCD board member Joe Tedder explained that he had spoken with Harris Engineering and Davis Engineering, both of whom had expressed potential interest in the RFP.
Jones noted that she spoke with Riehm about submitting the RFP to Ehat Consulting, who previously worked for the SJWCD on reservoir planning.
She pointed out that Rick Ehat might not bid for the position on his own, but that the RFP allows for collaboration between multiple firms.
Jones stated that she also reached out to Wilson Water Group for recommendations on firms that might be interested in the RFP and that the firm indicated they might have some recommendations, although Jones had not received them yet.
Board member Rod Proffitt proposed that the board could ask Russell Engineering in Durango, although he expressed uncertainty about the status of the company.
SJWCD attorney Jeff Kane commented that the SJWCD could also reach out to SGM and Wright Water Engineering, which both have local offices.
The group then moved to discussing the contents of the RFP, with Proffitt noting that the RFP has an “ambitious timeline.”
Jones commented that there would be work that would need to be completed to release the RFP by July 19, but that Riehm would be available during the week and “things get done under deadline.”
She stated that Riehm feels having an expression of interest as a step in the bidding process is important, as is having this expression include “some of the basic qualifications” of the firm expressing interest.
She added that the board could examine these qualifications while the firms are completing their proposals.
Jones stated that she and Riehm both feel that the July bidders conference is important as it would allow potential bidders to ask questions and potentially learn from the questions asked by other firms at the conference.
She asked Kane if the documents on the reservoir project previously assembled by Ehat contained any confidential information.
Kane stated that he did not believe so, but would have to examine them again to make sure.
Jones stated that, if the documents do not contain confidential information, they should be made available as part of the bid information since Ehat and Harris Engineering would both have access to this information already.
“In the interest of fairness, we would want the other firms to have that information, as well,” Jones said.
The RFP indicates under its core services section that the SJWCD seeks to hire a project manager to advance the reservoir project with planning, geotechnical studies and preliminary design.
It indicates that the manager should help the SJWCD identify and position itself to obtain necessary permits, identify and devise land acquisition strategies if necessary, identify infrastructure requirements for the site, recommend “strategies and timelines” for scheduling infrastructure “relative to other project requirements,” and assist the SJWCD in competing for funding resources.
The RFP states that the manager contract will be for one year and be subject to extension.
It states that proposals should be focused on tasks to be undertaken in this year, including a timeline for when tasks should be completed.
It adds that the proposal should demonstrate how these tasks will be relevant to longer-term work on the reservoir.
The proposals should also include a proposed timeline and budget for the work recommended, the RFP states.
In addition to these elements, the RFP indicates that the project manager will also be responsible for keeping the board informed of their work, managing expenses, assisting the board with procurement and grant funding related to the project, and supporting the board in public and regulatory outreach.
Jones explained that a description of the reservoir project would need to be added to the beginning of the report and that the core services that the manager would provide originated from SJWCD board discussions following Ehat’s 2023 report.
Cooper noted that the elements described in the RFP are very “general” and asked if the board expects bidders to be more specific in their bids.
He added that he is concerned about who would define what constitutes these elements, such as the necessary permits for the project.
Jones commented that the “chicken and egg” problem of whether the board should tell a manager what to look at or whether the manager would help guide the board’s actions has been a longstanding issue.
“I think it was written with that in mind, which was, ‘You guys are the experts; tell us where we should be putting the first dollar in,’” Jones said.
Cooper commented that was how he interpreted the RFP, but that he wanted to confirm.
Jones asked the board if it is comfortable with this approach.
Tedder commented that other water conservancy districts have hired consultants to help guide their reservoir construction work and decisions, adding that he felt the SJWCD was not “asking any of these firms to do anything they’re not already familiar with.”
He added that this intention could be clarified more in the bidders’ conference if this intent is unclear.
Tedder stated that, to address Cooper’s concern, the board could add a “lead-in paragraph” describing what it is looking for in a manager.
“Not to be so specific as bulleted items, but really what we’re looking for, we’ve been calling it kind of our general manager that’s gonna take us from where we are today to well-positioned to construct a reservoir and, so, we’re looking for not only the design help, the engineering help, the help selling this to the authorities, selling it to our public, but also to … getting the money,” Tedder said. “I walked away from this thinking, ‘Guys, you’re asking for a project manager,’ but no we’re not, we’re asking more for someone to be the general manager of the project. … I walked away from this wondering who’s running the show. Is there going to be someone this project manager reports to that runs the show? And the answer is no because we want this guy to make all decisions, basically. I mean, he comes to the board, but he or she is the leader. I’m not sure I walked away from this document thinking that.”
Cooper commented that he is pleased that geotechnical studies are included in the core services.
Jones noted that the project manager would be a contractor and thus would not be vested with the decision-making authority that could be given to an employee.
She added that this would mean that issues would have to be brought to the board and the board would have to make decisions on them, particularly since the SJWCD does not have employees.
Cooper commented that he likes the RFP and appreciates its aggressive schedule.
Jones then asked for a motion to approve the release of the RFP to the firms identified with addition of the introductory paragraph that Tedder requested and the other comments made by board members.
She added that she, Riehm and other board members could help complete these changes and distribute the RFP.
SJWCD board member Rob Hagberg moved to proceed in the manner Jones described. Cooper seconded.
Proffitt suggested that he would prefer a motion to authorize Jones and any others she selects to move the RFP forward while keeping it “substantially” in its current form.
Hagberg amended his motion to match Proffitt’s suggestion, which then passed unanimously.
josh@pagosasun.com
