RE: Treasury: Flint Assessment
- From
- David Guastella
- To
- Brom Stibitz
Good morning Brom,
We were contacted by the Treasurer last Thursday and met with him on Friday. He also asked that we draft a summary
recommendation for his use. It is was sent to him yesterday and is attached to this email along with his response
below. Our recommendations are for Flint to continue with DWSD’s services in lieu of being supplied by KWA.
Although your memorandum took into account alternative proposals by KWA, it did not consider DWSD’s new proposals
made through the Treasury last month to build a second parallel line to the existing Flint WTP. These proposals are less
costly than the most optimistic KWA proposal and the cost information was provided to the Treasurer on Friday as well.
Note that the a second parallel line removes the need for Flint to operate its treatment plant and significantly reduces
their operating costs. The additional reasons for our recommendations are also summarized in the attached
recommendations.
It is also worth noting that it is good engineering practice to be conservative in estimates when a majority ofthe design
has not been completed. We believe this to be prudent; especially when considering the financial capabilities and
responsibilities of the end user (Flint). When a design is nearly complete, then it is acceptable to use the engineering
estimate as there are specific quantities and materials of construction to cost out.
This point is brought to your attention to outline our approach. For the intake estimate, which was 90% complete at the
time of our analysis, was used “as provided” in our cost comparison. We would hope that this cost is close to the
contractors bid in February. However, this should not be consider a telltale for the rest of the project as the remaining
costly components are only designed at a very preliminary level.
Please contact me should you need further clarification or have any questions.
Thank you,
Dave
-----Original Message-----