ITEM:		ACTION ITEMS
17.	CONSIDER EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS TO PREPARE REVISED VERSION OF JUNE 26, 2006 REPORT BY BOOKMAN-EDMONSTON/GEI CONSULTANTS, “SEAWATER DESALINATION PROJECTS EVALUATION” INCLUDING SEAWATER CONVERSION VESSEL ALTERNATIVE
Meeting Date:			February 12, 2007	Budgeted:	Yes, provided 2006-07 Mid-Year Budget Adjustment is approved
From:			David A. Berger,	Program/	Contingency
			General Manager	Line Item No.:	Acct. 8900
Prepared By:			Andrew Bell	Cost Estimate:	$30,000
General Counsel Approval: N/A
Committee Recommendation: The Administrative Committee reviewed this item on February 12, 2007 and recommended approval.
CEQA Compliance: N/A

SUMMARY: The Board will consider amending an existing contract with Bookman-Edmonston/GEI Consultants (B-E/GEI) for additional services to revise their June 26, 2006 report evaluating three seawater desalination project alternatives. The not-to-exceed cost in the contract with B-E/GEI would be increased by $27,200 from $55,000 to $82,700. The report revisions would be in response to questions and comments on the report by the Board and public at the June 29, 2006 Workshop and subsequent comments submitted by project sponsors California American Water (Cal-Am) and Pajaro/Sunny Mesa Community Services District. In addition, at the October 16, 2006 meeting, the Board asked staff to include the scope and costs of adding an analysis of a seawater conversion vessel project, the offshore seawater desalination concept proposed by the Water Standard Company and PBS&J, to the B-E/GEI report update. The scope and costs for the additional work are presented in Exhibit 17-A. A summary of comments by the Board, the public, and project proponents, including copies of written comments received after the workshop, was provided to the Board in a memorandum from the District Engineer dated September 12, 2006 (Exhibit 17-B).

RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Board authorize the General Manager to amend the existing contract with B-E/GEI to revise the June 26, 2006 report titled “Seawater Desalination Projects Evaluation” in accordance with the scope of work presented in Exhibit 17-A at a cost not to exceed $30,000, which includes a $2,800 contingency amount.

BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION: In 2004 and 2005, all information for the MPWMD comparative matrix of water supply alternatives was submitted by the project sponsors with no independent analysis by MPWMD to assess the completeness or accuracy of the information. At its February 23, 2006 meeting, the District Board authorized a contract with B-E/GEI to perform an independent review of the three desalination projects then included in the matrix. The projects are as follows:

1. Coastal Water Project, sponsored by Cal-Am.

2. North Monterey County Desalination Project, sponsored by the Pajaro/Sunny Mesa Community Services District.

3. 7.5 million-gallon-per-day project in Sand City, most recently evaluated by MPWMD in 2004.

At the June 29, 2006 Board Special Workshop, B-E/GEI presented their June 26, 2006 report titled “Seawater Desalination Projects Evaluation.” Copies of the full report are available at the District office, and presentation materials are provided at the following website location:

http://www.mpwmd.dst.ca.us/asd/board/boardpacket/2006/20060629/0629agenda.htm.

At the June 2006 workshop, B-E/GEI representatives responded to a number of questions and comments by the Board and public. At the end of the workshop, the Board asked for the cost for additional work by B-E/GEI to revise the final report by including responses to comments and questions during the workshop.

At its July 17, 2006 meeting, the Board was advised that $15,000 would be needed to respond to comments and revise the report. At that meeting, the Board determined that additional funds should not be expended to revise the report at that time, and to defer action on amending the B-E/GEI contract until after the September 25, 2006 Board Strategic Planning Workshop. District staff was directed to solicit written comments from Cal-Am and Pajaro/Sunny Mesa Community Services representatives and to prepare a summary of oral and written comments. A summary of comments by the Board, the public, and project proponents, including copies of written comments received was provided to the Board under separate cover in a memorandum from the District Engineer dated September 12, 2006. These materials have been provided to B-E/GEI.

At the October 16, 2006 Board meeting, the Board decided to defer action on amending the B-E/GEI contract until a scope and cost for adding the seawater conversion vessel concept could be developed. A representative of the project sponsors, Skip Griffin of PBS&J, an engineering consulting firm, met with B-E/GEI representatives and provided representative information on the seawater conversion vessel project. B-E/GEI reviewed the information provided by Mr. Griffin and determined that a total of $27,200 would be required to update the June 2006 report to address comments and questions posed in June 2006 and to add the seawater conversion vessel project. The scope of work and a breakdown of costs for these tasks is provided in Exhibit 17-A.

Staff believes it is important to revise and update the report so that it provides as complete an evaluation as possible of information currently available for the District and the public. Comments and questions regarding the report, particularly by Cal-Am and Pajaro/Sunny Mesa representatives, have resulted in the report being viewed as inaccurate and incomplete. In addition, the Board expressed a desire to include the seawater conversion vessel concept as an additional seawater desalination project in the report. By spending an additional $27,200, the District will protect the $53,700 investment already made in reviewing and evaluating the original three projects. An updated report will also be useful to members of the public and the Community Advisory Committee in being able to better understand these major water supply project proposals.

IMPACT TO STAFF/RESOURCES: On February 23, 2006 the Board authorized an expenditure of up to $60,000, including a contingency of $5,000, to contract with B-E/GEI to prepare a comparison of desalination costs and timelines. A contract for an amount not-to-exceed $55,000 was executed with B-E/GEI, and approximately $53,700 was expended to complete the original report. Based on the information provided in Exhibit 17-A, the estimated cost of the additional work to revise the report is $27,200. No funds to revise the report were included in the Fiscal Year 2006-2007 Budget adopted at the June 22, 2006 Board meeting. However, in the proposed Mid-Year 2006-2007 Budget Adjustment (Item 15 in this packet), $30,000 is added for completion of this report. The difference between the estimated cost ($27,200) and the proposed amendment ($30,000) is $2,800, a contingency of approximately 10%, in order to address unanticipated necessary work on the part of the consultant. District Engineer Andrew Bell is the staff person responsible for administering the contract.

EXHIBITS

17-A Work Effort Estimate and Cost Estimate, Bookman-Edmonston/GEI Consultants

17-B September 12, 2006 memorandum from District Engineer Andrew M. Bell to Board of Directors, “Summary of Comments on June 26, 2006 report by Bookman-Edmonston/GEI Consultants, ‘Seawater Desalination Projects Evaluation’”

U:\staff\word\committees\Admin\2007\20070212\06\item6.doc