Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Procurement Contracts topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Southaven board tables award of public-works term contract after questions about low bid
Summary
The Board of Aldermen voted to table awarding a multi-year term contract for public works and utilities after members raised concerns about a roughly $1 million gap between the two bids and requested further documentation on equipment, insurance and past performance.
Get email alerts on the Procurement Contracts topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The Southaven Board of Aldermen on Sept. 30 voted to table awarding a multi-year term contract for public works and utilities after members raised questions about a roughly $1 million difference between the two bids received.
Dan Cordell, a city staff member presenting the results, said the city received two bids — from Mifus Junior Services and M and H Contractors — and that “there were significant difference[s] between the 2, approximately a million dollars.” Cordell told the board the bid evaluation used unit prices and hourly rates and that the recommended approach was to name Mifus Junior Services as the primary contractor and M and H Contractors as the first alternate should the primary fail to perform.
Board members pressed staff on oversight, billing and whether a very low bid indicated a contractor could sustain the work. Mayor Ford emphasized that the term contract is a convenience contract and said the city would be able to go to the alternate if the primary failed to respond in a timely manner. Cordell described city controls: requiring time sheets, equipment checks and documentation of similar contracts submitted by bidders.
Several aldermen said the price gap raised red flags, asked for an equipment list and proof of insurance, and requested verification of prior contract performance before the board finalizes an award. One alderman asked for a tabulation comparing the new bids to the city’s estimate, which Cordell said was based on prior bid tabs and stood at roughly $3,000,000.
After discussion, a motion to table the award passed on roll call. The board directed staff to return with additional documentation — including equipment inventories, insurance certificates and clearer evidence of comparable past work — before resuming the award process.
Next steps: the item will return to a future meeting after staff provides the requested materials and the board reviews the supplemental information.

