CPUC caps expenditure for Tank 102 project at $1.6M
The Commonwealth Public Utilities Commission approved last week a $1.602-million contract for the reconstruction and rehabilitation of Tank 102.
The Commonwealth Utilities Corp. asked the commission to approve the contract on Aug. 8, 2014. On Sept. 2, 2014, Georgetown Consulting Group recommended that the commission authorize a $1.602-million ceiling for the project plus 25 percent.
CPUC chair Joseph Guerrero said the expenditure for the project “cannot exceed” the ceiling unless first approved by CPUC.
GPPC Inc. was initially contracted for the completion of the Tank 102 project for $579,770. On May 30, 2014, the U.S Environmental Protection Agency disapproved GPPC’s contract due to poor workmanship, primarily welding.
On June 3, 2014, CUC asked EPA’s permission to hire the Tano Group, Inc. as contractor for the project. EPA gave a conditional approval to CUC and Tano on June 6 and on June 25, EPA approved Tano and M&M Tanks, a subsidiary of Tano, to install the new Tank 102.
According to CUC executive director Alan Fletcher, the contract given to Tano was initially for $1,101,434. Fletcher then notified CPUC on Aug. 5, that an additional amount is needed.
“We will need an additional amount of $500,00 to pay for construction management and quality assurance contractors, plus funding a small contingency,” Fletcher told CPUC.
The project was capped at approximately $1.6 million.
“We recommend that the project should be defined herein as the installation of Tank 102, inclusive of all attendant activities and cost necessary for the completion of the construction of Tank 102, and not just the Tano contract which CUC states that approval is being sought,” Georgetown told the commission.
CUC is bankrolling $800,000 of the project with grants providing another $300,000.
what happens to GPPC? still thriving with CUC projects!
you can not cap ignorance, you can only take them out.
Isn’t there any bond posted by these companies. If so it would be up to the bonding company to deal with a replacement. An actual qualified company.
Between GPPC and Tano, Tano is only a little bit better. They have also had much problems on some contracts work quality and performance.
The way this is going it would have been much cheaper to have a reputable Guam Company to have done the work OR to have taken over the contract.
Managment is bad and the majority of employees at GPPC are the ones that have been dropped from various other companies and not renewed due to poor performance.
The workers then end up at GPPC actually as “manpower” to be sent out to various jobs. No work no pay and also are not paid correctly and not on time.
I am going to bookmark this article (among several others) so I can refer back to it in the future when our rates go up and the CNMI government has to shut off all the streetlights to pay for this project.