2006 03 15 BAWA Minutes•
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING
OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS
OF THE BAYTOWN AREA WATER AUTHORITY
Maki 15, 2006
The Board of Directors of the Baytown Area Water Authority, Harris County, Texas, met in regular
session on Wednesday, March 15, 2006 in the Conference Room, 7425 Thompson Road, Baytown, Texas,
with the following in attendance:
Robert L. Gillette, President
Dan Mundinger, Vice President
Knox Beavers, Board Member
Dan Conejo, Board Member.
Board Member Peter Buenz was absent.
The meeting opened at 8:00 a.m. with a quorum present, and the following business was conducted:
Considerapproud ofthe minutes fir the meeting held on fanuaiy 18 2006.
Vice President Mundinger moved that the minutes be approved. Board Member Conejo seconded the
motion. The vote follows:
Ayes: Board Members Beavers, Mundinger and Conejo.
President Gillette.
Nays: None.
The motion carried.
Receize updated. Baytown z4rea [ terfluthoniyInu'stmentPolicy.
The BAWA Board received the updated Baytown Area Water Authority Investment Policy. With no
additional discussion needed the Board moved to the next item on the agenda.
Consider Proposed Resolution No. 06031)1Z awarding a construction contractforthe BAltfl30"
Dater Transmission Line Project.
City Manager Jackson explained the massive project, its benefits to the Board and then introduced Mr.
Paul Wallick with Pate Engineers. Mr. Wallick continued Mr. Jackson's explanation of the project. He
walked the Board through the entire project, including the base bid on PVC, the alternate bids and their
components and materials, tabulation of the bids and Pate Engineers' recommendation. He utilized the
following outline to assist him with the explanation:
1. The project
a. Purpose - A second feed to the City in response to BAWA's Vulnerability Assessment.
b. Route: Thompson & Wallisville - 30"; N. Main - 16"; Garth Road - 12".
c. Garth Road 12" (3000' to Seeberg)- hold design.
- Possibility of Developer design (MUD 213 north of Wallisville).
2. Base bid - PVC - Why?
Page 2 of 3
•
Minutes of the Regular Meeting - March 15, 2006
a. Durability.
b. City can maintain.
c. Currently use pipe manufacturer for repairs to concrete pipe.
3. Alt, bids - CONC, Ductile Iron & Steel.
a. All very good products.
b. Included alternates for price competition.
4. Tabulation of bids.
a. Base Bid plus 3 alternatives presented.
b. Contractors did not have to bid all 4 - only 1 bid required. Therefore, no bid for
certain alternatives by some of the bidders.
5. Engineer's Recommendation
a. Base Bid - PVC.
1. Did not recommend Reytec due to lack of experience in this type of project. Not
reflective of Reytec's ability in other areas.
2. Recommend BRH Garver - second low bidder.
3. Low bid + $9,068,000; Second = $9,440,000.
b. ALT # 1 - Conc. Pipe -Huff & Mitchell - $8,780,000.
The board engaged in lengthy conversation on this issue and posed numerous questions to Mr. Wallick,
which he addressed in detail. Mr. Wallick continued by explaining to the Board that this particular size of
pipe, used in this capacity, was new to the Houston area and that the installation was significantly different
in regards to preparation and shoring from smaller diameter pipe. While Reytec is a fine company for
other type projects, it is his job to protect the interests of the City of Baytown and for this particular
project, Reytec is not his recommendation. Permitting a company to gain experience on a project of this
magnitude was not in his review nor was it his recommendation. The Board continued in conversation
and directing questions to Mr. Wallick, which he addressed accordingly.
Mr. Rusty Pena, Vice President of Reytec addressed the Board and thanked them for the opportunity to
meet with them. Mr. Pena gave a brief history on Reytec and the company's growth. He explained that
they have brought in experts in various areas that have enabled them to grow and will assist them with this
project. Mr. Pena stated that Reytec was initially a paving contractor, but is also considered an
underground contractor. He brought their attention to the 16" line they had just finished for the City of
Houston and although they have not laid 30" pipe, they have brought in the expertise to make this happen.
In closing, Mr. Pena reiterated that Reytec was qualified and bid the best price to do this project.
The Board introduced Mr. Mike Garver with BRH Garver. He reviewed the usage of PVC on this project
and stated as others had the difference in the installation depth, the shoring, the preparation and the
measures that must be taken to protect the road. He informed the board that they had an appropriate bid
for this job and were qualified.
Mr. Mike Secheleski, a representative from the low steel company bid, NW Pipe, briefly addressed the
Board. He stated that steel is a proven product and wants to understand why it was not being considered.
He informed the Board that he had prepared a steel verses PVC comparison. Mr. Fred Pack from the City
of Baytown Public Works Department added that while steel was a proven product it had a much shorter
life and PVC was the pipe of the future.
Page 3 of 3
Minutes of the Regular Meeting - March 15, 2006
Mr. Mitchell with Huff and Mitchell addressed the Board stating that the Board should first decide the
material and secondly chose a company that is qualified to do the job. He too voiced his concern over the
difference in laying smaller verses larger pipe and cautioned the Board about the expertise needed for
larger diameter pipe.
City Manager Jackson explained that the Resolution has been presented with blanks so the Board could
decide which Company they would award with the contract. They first needed to decide pipe type. With
limited discussion Board Member Dan Conejo made a motion to use PVC pipe and to award the contract
to the lowest bidder, Reytec. Board member Beavers seconded the motion. The vote follows:
Ayes: Board Members Beavers, Mundinger and Conejo.
Nays: President Gillett
The motion carried.
BAWA's recommendation will be presented to City Council on March 23, 2006.
Manager's report.
No Manager's report was presented.
Adjourn
As there was no further business to be transacted a meeting adjourned/tit 8:37 a.m.
Lorri Coody, Assist: t Secretary
•