[Editor's Note: This four-hour meeting will be covered in multiple articles.]

By Mary Alice Murphy

The New Mexico Central Arizona Project Entity members and attendees addressed a long agenda and received a lot of information at the regular meeting held May 2, 2017 at the Grant County Administration Center.

In the absence of Chairwoman Darr Shannon, Vice Chairman Vance Lee, representing Hidalgo County, led the meeting.

As is customary, public input came first. Allyson Siwik, Gila Conservation Coalition executive director, spoke first. "The April meeting should be a wake-up call for you. You are still searching for a feasible project. You have 2 -+ years to get through the NEPA (National Environmental Policy Act) process, along with the draft EIS (environmental impact statement), public input and the final EIS. We need a schedule. If you have crossed the line that makes it too late for a project, please do not fritter away the dollars when they could be best spent on local water projects."

She continued that AECOM, the engineering firm working on 30 percent design for NEPA, has no credibility, due to its illegal contribution to Gov. Martinez's campaign when the contract for the job was pending.

"AECOM led you down the path promoting the Gila Gage site," Siwik said. "More than $200,000 has gone to your counsel, Pete Domenici, Jr. He has spent a lot of time in Phoenix, but we've heard no report on why."

Claudia Duerinck, Gila Valley resident, read a statement from retired engineer, Norm Gaume, former Interstate Stream Commission director.

She read that Gaume asked her to read the comments because he was unable to attend the meeting, but wished them to be part of the meeting record.

"Your agenda indicates you continue to consider having AECOM do yet more basic feasibility work" which he considers a bad idea, she read, "because AECOM violated New Mexico procurement code and second, was responsible for the aquifer storage and retrieval alternative, which turned out to be "impossible and infeasible."

He said despite written warnings that site access for retrieval and storage was problematic, AECOM recommended the options in Phase I.

Gaume's letter said the group proposes additional technical feasibility work by the "tainted AECOM, despite negative public comments. ... How can NM CAP Entity Board members rely on AECOM results?"

"And even worse, the agenda indicates the group will considering obtaining quotations for engineering services to evaluate the Freeport-McMoRan Gila River water system," his letter stated, "even though the ISC has already paid AECOM to do that."

Gaume also alleges the board met with ISC staff in "two illegally closed public meetings to develop the contract scope of work with AECOM."

"Why doesn't the NM CAP Entity insist that AECOM fulfill its Phase I scope of work to evaluate the FMI Gila River water system without additional payment?" Gaume asked in his letter. He also said quotations for engineering services are not in accordance with state procurement code, and that they should be procured on qualifications followed by negotiations with the selected engineer of a scope of work and associated fee.

Duerinck made a personal comment, suggesting that Freeport-McMoRan come to the board to show they are amenable to this project.

Martha Cooper of The Nature Conservancy read the letter the organization sent to the board about why they are not on board with a project at the organization's property near the Gila Gage.

She read that the request was inconsistent with the Natural Lands Act and with The Nature Conservancy purpose. "The top priority for The Nature Conservancy is to protect Gila River ecology. We will work with agricultural users to find solutions to benefit agriculture and the ecology."

Aaron Sera, board member representing Deming, which is the NM CAP Entity's second fiscal agent, said Gaume's letter was wrong, in that it is Deming that will issue the request for additional engineering services, and will abide by procurement code for municipalities.

The first item of old business discussed and considered a previous motion for a request for proposal for 30 percent design. "We had no motion to rescind it," NM CAP Entity Executive Director Anthony Gutierrez said. "The RFP was not specific enough for 30 percent design."

Domenici said it would be best to reconsider the prior motion and rescind it in order to go further with other action.

Howard Hutchinson, representing the San Francisco Soil and Water Conservation District, said he had made the previous motion, which came out of a discussion by the board. "Before rescinding it, some issues need to be resolved."

Gutierrez said his understanding is that the work for the 30 percent design would continue with AECOM. "To start over from scratch might be disadvantageous for the 2019 deadline."

"We received assurances that the AECOM work to date would not be lost," Hutchinson said.

"We will lose several months work because the RFP, once we approve it, will have to go to the ISC, and then to the DFA (Department of Finance and Administration) for approval," Gutierrez said. "We would have to then develop the scope of work and get them approved."

Sera agreed. "The RFP process is very time-consuming and we don't have the staff available to do it."

Kim Abeyta-Martinez, representing the ISC as a non-voting member of the board, said if the group issues the RFP, it is not guaranteed that the successor would accept the work already done. "It has taken months to put together this scope of work. Anthony would need help creating another scope of work. It took us nine months to get this one done. We are looking at three to four months at a minimum. If he has to hire help, another couple of months, then the deliverables won't come before December or January."

Sera said the entity has the 30 percent contract with AECOM through the ISC. "My recommendation is that we not do another 30 percent design contract."

Hutchinson questioned AECOM's status with the alleged contribution. "Will that have an impact on their scope of work?"

Gutierrez said he could not answer that, as it was up to the state. "AECOM continues to work on the process. There is no question they can provide the information. The engineer has made it a priority to make sure our questions get answered."

Domenici said he had not received any firm information on AECOM.

ISC attorney Dominique Work, who attended on the phone, said she had no information on the status of the investigation.

Abeyta-Martinez said the issue is still under review, but "we are still working with AECOM."

Hutchinson said no one knows if AECOM would go forward. If the allegations are proven true and AECOM is removed and "we do not have a fallback, we are left without any ability to move forward. I think the board deserves an answer."

Lee asked what the board should do at this point. Abeyta-Martinez said AECOM and the ISC are still working together. "If the contract needs to be terminated, the NM CAP Entity would have warning."

Domenici said statutory procurement code allows two remedies. "I don't think it will go directly to termination." He asked that the situation be resolved. "It's hanging over our heads."

Work said she agreed that there are two remediesGÇörescinding the contract and the other is ratification. "It would be the obligation of AECOM to take part in any transition." She said the executive director, "if he wishes," could make a written comment to the ISC about resolving the issue."

Hutchinson moved to table indefinitely a separate additional 30 percent design. It was approved. "I echo the public comment that this issue seriously calls into question the credibility of the ISC. I concur that the executive director should communicate with the ISC."

Lee asked Gutierrez to draft a letter.

Continuing under old business, the next item addresses an RFP for general engineering and project administration services for the entity.

"This is directly in response to discussions at the last meeting," Gutierrez said. "The Board and myself could use some help. We do want a consulting engineer to make sure the path moving forward is the correct one." He read a list of duties that "may" be requested.

He said the contract would be good for four years and there would be interviews to choose the right one. Gutierrez said if it were approved, it would be a minimum of 10 days before the deadline for the request for qualifications could be posted and then a committee review.

Sera said the process would include dates and it could be advertised 13-20 days. "We need approval, which will allow us to put in the rest of the content."

Abeyta-Martinez asked if they would be on-call engineers. "There may be multiple contractors. The work order would have to come back to the CAP Entity for approval?" To which Gutierrez answered: "Yes" and "Yes."

Wendel Hann, who represents the Gila Farm Irrigation Ditch, said he liked the look of the scope, which would allow the engineer to advise or work with the 30 percent design engineers.

Gutierrez said the engineer(s) would work with the CAP Entity and "we could get an opinion on what AECOM has done. The engineer would be a consultant and could work on other projects that were not necessarily the 30 percent design."

Allen Campbell, representing the Gila Hotsprings Irrigation Ditch, asked what the timeline was. "Say we're discovering a problem. How soon can we get someone?"

Gutierrez said the request for qualifications would allow Deming to issue a work order, and could issue a notice to proceed.

"Is there enough information for the engineer to make an adequate bid?" Hutchinson asked.

"It's not for bids," Gutierrez said. "It is for assessing qualifications. We could potentially hire three engineers and could ask them to do specific tasks."

Sera said the task orders would have to come before the CAP Entity. "If we need something quick, we would have to call a special meeting. We might be able to get back to you by the July meeting for approval. It's time-consuming. Government is designed to be slow."

Campbell said it was a good solution to go with specialists and individuals.

"This is just a request for qualifications," Gutierrez emphasized.

"How do you get a competitive rate?" Hann asked.

"We as a municipality know fee schedules," Sera said. "We could ask for fee schedules but not score them on it."

Abeyta-Martinez said if the entity has three or four contractors, "you could go to each and have competition."

Sera said if it's only one firm, "we would ask for the fee schedule. If it's multiple individuals, we wouldn't need the fee schedule and could negotiate later."

"If AECOM cannot do further work, can this take us further with the 30 percent design?" Hann asked.

Abetya-Martinez said the engineer could help draft a scope of work, but whoever proposes the scope of work cannot then do the 30 percent, because it would be a conflict of interest.

Hutchinson made a motion to issue the request for qualifications. It was approved.

The next article in the series will begin with the revised scope of work for AECOM.