Eight questions to ask when comparing water and wastewater treatment plant proposals
Two water or wastewater treatment infrastructure proposals may carry different prices because they cover different work, contractual terms, and responsibilities. Before comparing totals, buyers should confirm that each proposal addresses the same required treatment capacity, water or effluent quality standards, delivery timeline, expected service life, and future growth assumptions. Buyers should identify what is included, what is excluded, and which obligations remain with the customer. Only then can they compare the following eight factors on a consistent basis.
In This Article
1. What Will It Cost to Finance the Project?
The upfront capital investment is often a key consideration, but buyers should also assess the total cost of financing the infrastructure over time. This includes interest and financing costs, the timing of capital expenditures, and the impact on borrowing capacity. Investing significant capital in water infrastructure can leave fewer funds available for core operations or other infrastructure priorities.
Comparing different delivery models can help buyers understand how each option affects cash flow, capital allocation, and long-term financial flexibility. Three approaches to consider include:
- Direct Ownership: The customer finances and owns the treatment plant and retains responsibility for its operation and maintenance, either directly or through contracted services.
- Plant Lease Agreements: The customer leases treatment infrastructure rather than purchasing it outright, with operations and maintenance responsibilities determined by the agreement.
- Water Treatment as a Service: A performance-based delivery model in which a provider such as Seven Seas Water Group may finance, build, own, and operate a treatment plant while the customer pays for treatment services under a long-term agreement.
2. What Is Included Before Construction Begins?
The work required to move a water or wastewater infrastructure project from concept to construction can vary significantly between proposals. Buyers should determine whether each proposal includes the necessary preconstruction activities or only the construction of the treatment plant itself.
This includes clarifying responsibility for engineering and design, site studies and preparation, permitting, regulatory coordination, and legal or administrative requirements. Buyers should also confirm whether startup and commissioning are included, as these activities are necessary to prepare the system for operation.
Work excluded from the initial proposal may create additional costs or responsibilities for the buyer before the plant can begin operating.
3. Who Carries Construction and Schedule Risk?
When treatment capacity isn’t available on schedule, a development, industrial expansion, or compliance-driven project can face costly delays that extend beyond the treatment infrastructure itself. Buyers should establish who is responsible for construction cost overruns, what schedule commitments the provider makes, and how risks associated with long-lead equipment, contractors, and supply-chain disruptions are managed.
Proposals should also clarify how change orders are handled, who bears the associated costs, and what happens if the system isn’t ready to provide the required capacity by the agreed date. Depending on the project, delays could affect occupancy, production, revenue, or regulatory compliance.
4. What Will It Take to Operate the System?
Once a treatment plant is operational, buyers need to consider the ongoing resources and costs required to keep it running. Proposals should identify staffing requirements and clarify who will recruit, train, and retain appropriately certified operators and ensure their certifications remain current.
Buyers should also compare operating expenses, including energy consumption, chemical usage, routine monitoring, and technical support. Just as importantly, they should determine whether operations and maintenance will be managed in-house or if the services will be outsourced, and how those responsibilities and costs are allocated.
5. Who Is Responsible for Compliance and Performance?
A treatment plant must consistently meet applicable permit conditions and treatment requirements. Buyers should review each proposal to determine who is responsible for monitoring water or effluent quality, maintaining operational records, submitting regulatory reports, and responding to treatment problems.
Buyers should also evaluate whether the provider offers performance guarantees, how performance is measured, and what remedies apply if the system fails to meet agreed-upon standards. Contracts should also clarify who is responsible for addressing regulatory changes, including the cost of any necessary upgrades or process improvements.
A service provider may handle day-to-day compliance tasks, but the contract alone does not determine who is legally responsible under applicable permits and regulations. Buyers should confirm who must hold permit coverage, which parties have operator responsibilities where applicable, and how the agreement assigns each compliance task and its cost.
6. Who Pays for Maintenance, Repairs, and Replacement?
The cost of owning and operating water or wastewater treatment infrastructure extends beyond routine operating expenses. When comparing proposals, buyers should account for both the expected costs and responsibility for:
- Preventive maintenance
- Parts and consumables
- Emergency repairs
- Major equipment replacement
- Plant rehabilitation
- Capital reserves for future repairs and replacements
Under direct ownership, these costs typically remain with the customer, although certain maintenance responsibilities may be contracted to a third party. Under service-based agreements, some or all of these responsibilities and costs may be assumed by the provider, depending on the contract terms.
7. What Happens When Capacity Needs Change?
Infrastructure designed around current demand may become insufficient as a development, industrial facility, or community grows. On the other hand, building for full capacity upfront can leave buyers paying for infrastructure that may remain underutilized for years.
When comparing proposals, buyers should evaluate the cost of installing full capacity upfront versus expanding treatment capacity in phases as demand increases. They should also consider the cost of future expansion, whether sufficient land and supporting infrastructure will be available, and how expansion could affect ongoing plant operations.
Proposals that offer phased expansion may provide greater flexibility, but buyers should also account for the potential costs and operational challenges of adding capacity later.
8. What Does the Infrastructure Cost Over Its Useful Life?
To make a meaningful comparison, buyers should evaluate the total cost of each proposal over the infrastructure’s expected useful life, rather than focusing solely on the initial price. This includes capital and financing costs; ongoing expenses such as energy, chemicals, labor, maintenance, and compliance; and future repairs, equipment replacement, and capacity expansion. Using the same evaluation period and consistent assumptions for operating costs, maintenance, and future capacity needs can help buyers make a more accurate comparison between proposals.
Compare the Whole Proposal, Not Just the Price
For some buyers, direct ownership or leasing may be the right choice. For others, Water-as-a-Service® (WaaS®) offers an alternative to purchasing and operating treatment infrastructure directly. Depending on the agreement, Seven Seas may assume responsibility for financing, ownership, operations, maintenance, and specified performance obligations under a long-term service arrangement.
Contact Seven Seas to discuss which delivery model best fits your financing, capacity, and operational requirements.
Image Credit: bilanol/123RF