20080416Decision Memo.pdf

y
,e e I.
DECISION MEMORADUM
TO:COMMISSIONER REDFORD
COMMISSIONER SMITH
COMMISSIONER KEMPTON
COMMISSION SECRETARY
LEGAL
WORKING FILE
FROM:CURTIS THADEN
DATE:APRIL 11, 2008
RE:FORMAL COMPLAINT OF MCKAY CONSTRUCTION SEEKING
REVERSAL OF UNITED WATER IDAHO, INC. DECISION TO NOT
ADD ADDITIONAL CONTRCTORS TO APPROVED CONTRACTOR
LIST.
On Februar 19,2008, the Commission received a "Formal" Complaint (Attachment A)
from Mr. Mike McKay on behalf of McKay Constrction agai United Water Idaho Inc. (UWI).
Mr. McKay objects to the decision ofUWI to not add new contractors to its Approved Contrctor
List for 2008. Mr. McKay was unatisfied with the outcome of the informal procedures to resolve
his complait and has filed ths "Formal" Complaint as a result. Mr. McKay requests that the
Commssion require UWI to evaluate McKay Constrction's Application and reinstate McKay's
status as an approved contractor on the Approved Contrctor List. (McKay Constrction was
previously on UWI's Approved Contractor List).
BACKGROUND
McKay Constction has over 30 years experience working on UW projects building water
reservoirs as well as water transmission lines. McKay Constrction was placed on the UWI list of
approved contractors (residential development) in 1997 afer meeting all the necessar
requirements. In 200S, McKay Constrction failed to ca the required $S milion minimum
insurance requirement. Because of the building boom in 200S, McKay Constrction wa working
on many projects outside ofUWI's area of impact. Because of ths, Mr. McKay decided to drop
the $S millon coverage that UWI required for approved contractors. Mr. McKay noted that the
cost of coverage for UWI was above the $2 millon stadard requirement for the constrction
DECISION MEMORANDUM 1 APRIL 11, 2008
e Te ~
industr. As a result, UWI removed McKay Constrction from the Approved Contractor List in
October 200S.
In June of2007, Mr. Steve Snead, Project Maner for McKay Consction, contated
UWI to re-estblish the company as an approved contrtor. Mr. Snead was told that McKay
Constrction would have to go though the approval process again by submittg a pre-
qualification package. In December of 2007, Mr. Snead submitted the required paperwork to UWI.
In Janua 2008 Mr. Snea was notified by phone that UWI was not going to add any new
contractors to the Approved Contrtor List in 2008.
In response to McKay Constrction's informal complait, UWI sent a wrtten response
(Attchment B) to the Commission.
In sumar, UWI maintans that.because of the cost associated with administering new
contractors, the length of trning, the recent decrease in constrction, and the lack of projected
projects in 2008, it is not going to add new contractors to the Approved Contractor List in 2008.
Mr. McKay filed a "formal" complaint on Febru 19,2008. Mr. McKay provides reasons
why he believes McKay Constrtion meets UWI's qualification requirements and should be
reinstated to the Approved Contrctor List.
Mr. McKãy states tht McKay Constrction previously met the requirements to be on the
Approved Contractor List. He also states that McKay Constrction has worked on previous UWI
projects and is fully experienced with UW specifications for instalation. Furhermore, McKay
Constrction states that they have projects lined up with a few developers but are at a disadvantage
because they have to subcontract the water project to another contractor on the Approved
Contractor List.
Staf notes that in Order No. 26898, Case No. UWI-W-96-4, the Commission approved a
Stipulation and Settlement Agreement that put into place a process allowing developers to choose
from a list of approved contractors to install facilties within residential subdivisions. The
Agreement allows contractors to install water mains and services if they meet certain requirements.
UW was ordered to implement a system of procedures to monitor the Labor in Lieu of Cash
program to ensure that the program does not result in an increase in costs to UWI and its
customers. Neither the Stipulation nor Order places a limit on the number of contractors who ca
paricipate in the program. Likewise, there are no limits specified in UW's tariff. UWI decided
earlier ths year to not add more contractors to the curent list consisting of 10 contractors. Prior to
DECISION MEMORANDUM 2 APRIL 11, 2008
-,e e,
ths Order, UWI facilities were exclusively instaled by one contractor; UW did not allow other
contractors to paricipate.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
McKay Constction was not satisfied with the outcome of the Informal Complaint.
Consequently, Mr. McKay filed a "Formal" Complaint. See Rules 23, 25 and 54, IDAPA
31.01.01.023, .024 and .054.
Staff recommends that the Commission issue a Sumons to UWI directing the United
Water Idaho to fie a response to the Complaint.
COMMISSION DECISION
Does the Commission wish to accept Mr. McKay's "Formal" Complaint? Does the
Commission want to issue a Summons or proceed under Modified Procedure?~1t
Curis Thaden
i:udmemosIecision Memo #rev_7 McKay Constrction.doc
DECISION MEMORANDUM 3 APRIL 11, 2008
t.e e l''~ (..... .~.... IV"....i' t
2!JOB FEB /9 Ai
'",. P,t 2: 40
U II '¡~H'~T!Lir¡ÊS~~Pi.8LíC
v01ifM1SSt:.'
"
McKAY CONSTRUCTION CO., INC.
GENE CONTcrOR
PO BOX 2450 EAGLE ID 8316
OmCE 208-')9-'00 I FAX [phone] SERVIG TH BOIS VAlY SINCE 1946
Idaho Public Utilities Commission
Jean Jewell - Secretary
PO Box 83720
Boise, ID 83720-0074
February 15, 2008
RE: Formal Complaint Request - United Water Idaho, Inc.
Dear Jean,
I am petitioning the Public Utilities Commission to request that
a formal complaint be considered against United Water Idaho,
Inc. based on the stated facts below.
In December of 2007 United Water Idaho, Inc. (UWI) provided us a
Pre-Qualification Contractor Package to re-establish our
standing as an approved contractor. On December 14, 2007 Steve
Snead of our office met with John Lee of UWI at his office to
present and review the pre-qualification package. After review
of the packet with John, Steve forwarded a couple of additional
items via email on December 17, 2007 that John requested to
complete our package. In January Steve made several calls and
left messages to inquire on the status of the packet review and
was contacted by Scott Rhead of UWI' and informed that they had
made a decision not to add any new contractors at this time.
After Steve's conversation with Scott, I directed Steve to
contact the Public Utilities Commission to look into our options
to dispute their findings. After numerous discussions between
Curtis Thaden of your office and Steve, and Curtis's efforts to
resolve this issue on our behalf with UWI through the informal
complaint process, UWI issued the February 5, 2008 letter
(enclosed) .
In response to the February 5, 2008 letter addressed to your
office from United Water Idaho, Inc., I wish to sumarize their
position and refute each item as follows:
Page i
.,
ti e e
1. In the third paragraph it begins......" In the labor in lieu
program the contractor works directly for the
Developer .........Uni ted Wa ter has learned tha t newer, less
experienced contractors will lower the quality of
installation which often increases future operation and
maintenance costs."
We have worked on numerous UWI prior to 2005 and have
continued to work wi thin other municipalities and have
never had our quality of installation questioned or been
considered a ~new" contractor since our company has been
doing business in the valley since 1946.
2. In the third paragraph it continues......"Once a contractor
knows the process and begins their ini tial project on a
Uni ted Wa ter installa tion the Uni ted Wa ter inspector will
often be required to spend two to three times more than
normal inspection time for similar projects. This is
because newer contractors are not familiar with United's
specifications for installation from hands-on prospective."
This statement makes little or no sense because we do have
a long history with UWI and continue to employ most of the
same people we did when we were working in UWI
jurisdiction.
3. On page two, first paragraph it states......"Through this past
experience United Water has learned that each newly
approved contractor will go through a two year learning
curve before the contractor becomes efficient in United
Water process. During this two year time frame United Wa ter
incurs more administrative and inspection time."
Again, this statement is incorrect in regards to our
previous work history as stated above.
4. On page two, second paragraph it states......"Taking all this
into account and due to the recent housing market downturn
and lack of anticipated projects for 2008, and the
associated cost of administrating new contractors, United
Water decided not to add any new contractors to our
approved list in 2008."
Page 2
(.e e "
I am puzzled why the downturn in the market has any
relevance on their decision. We have four developers that
have requested us to be placed on UWI contractor list so we
can provide them our services. They all feel there is a
good chance they will start construction this year. We
would be happy to provide letters from each on their intent
if requested. Because of the downturn in the market, it has
become extremely competi ti ve bidding on proj ects. Because
of their decision not to add us, this gives the approved
contractors an unfair advantage to solicit work that we are
not able to. Secondly, I would think UWI would take
advantage of the downturn to bring on new contractors if
the learning curve is such as they have stated, and their
inspector's additions man-hours required.
5. On page two, item #1 under The following are answers to
your specific questions: "At the end of December 2007
Uni ted Wa ter made its decision..................McKay Construction was
previously an approved contractor but choQse not to keep
United Water insurance requirements and was dropped off the
approved list in October of 2005 (See enclosed
correspondence wi th McKay Construction) . "
This is a correct statement, However; please refer to the
UWI letter dated August 22, 2005 (attached) specifically
paragraph 2 which states........."When you are able to meet the
required insurance coverage minimums you will be allowed to
perform construction on United Water Idaho projects."
With their statement I feel not only should we be accepted
because we followed their pre-qualification process, but
even more strongly that we should have been placed back on
their list in December when we provided them an insurance
certificate letter from our insurance agent that our limits.
could be increased when required.
In conclusion I am petitioning the Public Utility Commission to
review our dispute and if accepted by the commissioners begin
the process of formal legal proceeding to have UWI reinstate
McKay Construction Co., Inc. as an approved contractor.
Sìncerely,
Page 3
~ r
JOHN LEE
Construction Coordinator
o G
""7j""" .
O'."../,~"'"! 0
F~ECE~\f~:~' ~ 0
e
United Water-s'-ez
:)/1
ti:~
".I.e
UNITED WATER IDAHO INC.
8248 West Victory Road, Boise, ID 83709
P.O. Box 190420, Boise, 1083719-0420
Tel: [phone] . Fax: [phone]
john.leet'unitedwater.com
.._ ,." .. ~:-d ç¡. I oJ'Jilhi ¡:,.;'1 - 1 MI ¡ v. i~;.hhJ i l-~
February 5, 2008 UT\~fr1~r)(~:~\~~:~\\~S¡C .
Mr. Curtis Thaden
Idaho Public Utilities Commission
PO Box 83702
Boise, I D 83702-0074
Dear Mr. Curtis:
United Water has received your letter regarding complaints from Mckay Construction and
Schmidt Construction. We want you to know why United Water did not add these
contractors to the approved list and that United Water believes it made its decisions
based on what we believe is best for our customers.
In the Idaho Public Utilities Commission Case No. UWI-W-96-4 1997 Stipulation and
Settlement Agreement United Water was ordered by the Commission to ßimplement such
systems and procedures as are necessary to monitor the implementation of a labor in lieu
of cash program to insure that implementation of the program does not result in
increased administrative and inspection costs for United and its customers generally".
In the labor in lieu program the contractor works directly for the tleveloper and is
frequently more interested in serving the developer's desire of lower initial cost than
trying to achieve lower future operation and maintenance cost,therefore from past
experience United Water has learned that newer, less experienced contractors will lower
the quality of installation which often increases future operation and maintenance costs.
When a new contractor is add to the a"pproved list United Water administration must
invest a significant amount of time and effort training the contractor in estimating, in
construction standards, and in providing as-built information which is all necessary
before the contractor can even provide developers with accurate bids base on United
Water standards. Once a contractor knows the process and begins their initial project on
a United Water installation the United Water inspector will often be required to spend
two or three times more than the normal inspection time for similar projects. This is
because newer contractors are not familiar with United's specifications for installation
from a hands-on perspective.
There were initially six contractors approved in 1997 when the labor in lieu program was
implemented. Since then, based on contractor performance, United Water has dropped
some and added some so that now there are ten approved contractors on the list. The ten
contractors have been able to provide the development community with competitive
pricing during the recent building boom.
WWW.UNITEDWATER.COM
Lee ".
Through this past experience United Water has learned that each newly approved
contactor will go through a two year learning curve before the contractor becomes
efficient in the United Water processes. During this two year time frame United Water
incurs more administrative and inspection time.
Taking all this into account and due to the recent housing market downturn and lack of
anticipated projects for 2008, and the associated cost of administrating new contractors,
United Water decided not to add any new contractors to our approved list in 2008.
The following are answers to your specific questions:
1.) At he end of December 2007 United Water made its decision not to add
contractors and thus did not invest the time to review the six pre-qualification
packages which were submitted to United Water in December of 2007.
Therefore we have not made any determination as to if McKay Construction and
Schmidt Construction meet all requirements. McKay Construction was previously
an approved contractor but chose not to keep United Water insurance
requirements and was dropped off of the approved list in October of 2005 (See
enclosed correspondence with McKay Construction).
2.) During any given year United Water will receive requests through out the year
from contractors wishing to become approved United Water Idaho contractors. In
order to efficiently implement the labor in lieu program United Water will give
the pre-qualification package to any contractor requesting the information and at
the same time, tell the contractor that United Water does not review completed
packages until January of the next year and mayor may not add contractors.
3.) All six of the contractors submitting completed pre-qualification packages were
notified in writing with a letter stating that United Water is not adding any
contractors to the approved list in 2008. Some contractors phoned and inquired
about approvals and were informed of the decision prior to the written letter.
4.) United Water currently has ten approved contractors.
If you have any questions, please feel free to call me.
Sincerely,~~
Construction Coordinator
CC: Patty Foss, Scott Rhead, Greg Wyatt
4t(? "
. d '..' ,,;:;.;~(' ",Umte Water ~:j(~;,."- .
i.~
dl
Unitd Water Idaho Inc.
8248 W. Victory Road
P.O. Box 190420
Boise, ID 83719-0420
telephone [phone]
facsimile 208 362 3858
July is, 200S
McKay Constrction, Inc.
Mr. Mie McKay
POBox 3066
Boise, Id 83703
Dear Mr. McKay:
United Water is in the process of revising our pre-qualifcation contractor requirements
for installig water main in the United Water Idaho's certifcated area. Previously
approved contractors wil not be afected by the new pre-qualification requirements.
Along with the new pre-qualification requiements we are also implementing an anual
review process for al contractors. We wil evaluate each contractor on each project. I am
enclosing a copy of the evaluation form. The form is intended to smooth the flow of
projects and capitalize on both Contractor's and United Water's time. You wil be rated
on a scale from one to five on various stages of your projects. Five is a favorable rating
anyting below four is unacceptable. These forms wil aid us in our anual review
process.
We also need to have updated inormation regarding the insurance requirements that
United Water contractors are required to cary. I am enclosing a copy of page 3 of our
standard contract that refers to the insurance coverage amounts. Please send us your
insurance coverage inormation by July 27th, 200S.
If you have any questions, please feel free to cal.
Sincerely,~~
John Lee
Constrction Coordinator
-
Enc: Evaluation Form
Page 3 Main Extension Contract
ww.unitedwater.com -s""ez
.c
UnitedWater't;~;t" .
.l "1;" ".....;.
.~! .æi
United Water Idaho Inc.
8248 W. Victory Road
P.O, Box 190420
Boise, 10 83719-0420
telephone [phone]
facsimile 208 362 3858
August 16,2005
McKay Construction
Mr. McKay
PO Box 3066
Boise, ID 83703
Dear Mr. McKay:
On July 15th I requested information from you regarding proof of inurance coverage
necessar to become an approved United Water contractor. As of ths date I have not
received any proof of insurance from you.
Our files indicate that we have not received any insurance inormation from you since
Januar of 2004. It is imperative that you send your proof of inurance by September 1,2005. United Water wil not allow McKay Constrction to star any new projects until we
have received inormation from your insurance agent that proves McKay Constrction
meets the necessar liits.
I am enclosing a copy of my previous request and the inurance liabilty miums
required.
If you have any questions, please feel free to calL.
Sincerely,t: ~
Constrction Coordinator
Enc: Letter Dated July 15, 2005
Page 3 Mai Extension Contract
ww.unitedwter.com .s~z
f
~'~. .
e,_ '.t
UnitedWater'i;¡7$lr'.
;¡~ ¿ cI
,
United watr"ldah in~:: .'.
, 8248 ij",Viêtór¡ RO¡id .' ,;0 '~
P.O. Box 190tf20 ' - ~ . .;,
Boi~e. 10 83719-0420 ~:' ":'~'.:;'.
telephoné 208 ~Í3 7391(' . :',~ :';
facsimile 208 362 3858' .:'
Áugut 22, 2005
McKayCOÍ1.strction, Co, Inc.
Mr,McKay.
PO Box 2450
Ea~ié; ï:l)'S3616
Dear Mr. .McKay:
3,.
, ,. .~ ~
:;.'.';~
..~~,
Than you for your response to my request for updated inurance inormation. 'Te ;
,'Jnornation, which you sènt to us, indicátes that you do not have theminmUi ïns'wa,ce"
necessar to be an approved United W ater Contractor. .' ,.;. .
When you art able to meet the required insurance coverage miums you will be
'¡;llowedto perform constnctIon on United Water Idaho projects. .
If you have any questions, please feel free to calL.
Sincerely,t=~
COI1trction Coordiator
! _Complete items 1 " 3. Also complete
: 'Item 4 if RestrictEÌd Delivery is desirëi:t\ Ii Prlrityour name and address oa, tne reverse
i, so that we èan return the card to you, .,' "
,~ . Attcti.this card to the báckofthe 'mailpieca.
I or On the t.roiit if space permits.
: "1. Artcle .oddresse~',~i1..".~,:.~',_ . _ _
I
...-.-,.,
,
JMr. :MeKay ii,
McKay Constrction, Inc
PO Bòx 2450 .
Eagle, ID 83616
. ;'. ¡~'::~
i:
iClÂgeri (
. o Atsseè
t' c. Dat.ofo~nir!y ,
.sV'èz,;'. .; .~:.:~ :~
~,-~:.
Unite d Water ,:):~~~~.. .
;/'\..",.
..'.~.::
., .(i
United Water Idaho Inc.
8248 w. Victory Road
P.O. Box 190420
Boise, ID 83719-0420
telephone [phone]
facsimile 208 362 3858
September 19, 2005
Mr. McKay
McKay Constrction, Inc.
P.O. Box 2450
Eagle, ID 83616
Dear Mr. McKay:
We stll have not received verification from either you or your inurance provider
that your company cares the mium insurance requied by United Water
Idao to be an approved contractor. If we do not receive verfication ofthe
necessar insurance minimums by September 30, 2005, we wi1 have no
alterative but to remove McKay Constrction, Inc. from our approved contractor
list.
If you have any questions, pleae feel free to calL.
Sincerely,~~
John Lee
Constrction Coordiator
Enc: Letter Dated August 22, 2005
i: :' i¡ ).~ ¡ r ',,¡"lo.-~~., '.. ~,;~u¡'.;in~ ': \. ,,:rj l!-:;'!!,X, lJ"I~:
ww.unitedwater.com s"-ez
"
..:.....,...:...,
" .lJnitèdWater
,.' ,.t:ç;'
~ti(Ç; "
,- .(!'4'.';
Unite Watr Idaho Inc:
8248.W. Victory Road
.. P.e, Box .H10420
Boise, 10.8.719-0420
telephone [phone] .
fácsimile 208362 38t8
October 4, 2005
'. Mr. McKay
McKay Construction, Co, Inc.
PO Box 2450
Eagle, lD 83616
Qear Mr. McKay:
The letter is to inform you that McKay Construction, iiic. has been removed from
'Ûnited Water Idahols list of approved contractors. This decision results from a
faìlure tö provide our office with a Certificate of Insurance from yourinsurancè
carrier gUaranteeing minimum insurance coverage as required by the contract. As
stipulated in our September 19, 2005 I,etter to you, this Certificate of Insurance
was to b~ "in our office by Septembèr 30, 2005.
. If.you . have any questions, please feel free to c.al!:
, Sincerely,..lt.~
. Co'nstr:udiòri' Coord i nator....: .:.:,.. -..
~'. , ~'-.
.k~;., ,..i,.,.";",;_.&.,,,,~.. iÓ~
::I · Complete it~rns 1 ~ 2, anc 3. Also. compleeí item 4 if Rescted Delivery .is desire.1 Ii Print your name and addre on the reerse
. j so tha we c~n retun the car to you.
:.¡ ,. Attcl this car to the back of the mailpiece,
. . \ or on the frnt if spa pennit
i. 1. Arcle ~rè to: .
)( r. ¡ve- ka y . .
kr~ç ka X L~/J5 r r ¿L L'¡llir1~;.
f2'l7, tft'-X Z 7. S t?
,. Eat ~ /e/ 1 f) 'V 3'6/ l
OMPLETE THIS SECTION ON DELIVERY
'ti: Agnt '
i: Addres ~"
C. Date of Çllivery L
fÀ'.~\£'1 '.-I".~i.Rr/ __
Ii _.~~. :~~.)~.-... . .3'~::Mail i:~"'/ ~ ;:~~t:'_.',c
4. ==-=-"=-fl~~1I~