Richland County committee approves Precision Controls bid to replace courthouse boilers

The Richland County Human and Public Works Standing Committee voted to award a contract to Precision Controls to replace two courthouse boilers, approving the lowest bid after a discussion of bids, asbestos records and system compatibility.

Committee members heard that three vendors submitted proposals: Precision Controls, ASAP (Spring Green) and Thermodynamics. Precision Controls submitted the lowest bid and installation price; the committee recorded a Precision Controls figure of about $97,000 and then referenced $97,171 during the motion. ASAP’s comparable option was discussed at about $101,000 and Thermodynamics’ highest option (cast-iron boilers) at about $166,000.

Ricky, a Highway Department staff member who presented the bids, said the county solicited three vendors with specifications based on the existing boiler nameplate and asked for comparable cast-iron boilers. He told the committee the recommendation was Precision Controls because it met the specifications, had worked with the county in the past and offered a lower installed price. “Factory startup’s included,” Ricky said, confirming that vendor startup and testing were part of the quoted scope.

The committee discussed several technical and procurement issues before voting. Members asked whether the proposed cast-iron boilers could be brought into the boiler room (the vendors visited the site), whether burners and modulation would be compatible with the existing pneumatic control system, and whether warranties and factory startup were included. A committee member noted that a full DDC conversion would be a larger project; presenters said the proposed boilers include on‑board modulation and should operate with the existing control inputs.

Committee members also raised asbestos concerns. Presenters said an asbestos abatement survey and abatement work had been completed previously for parts of the building and that the county would be responsible for any additional asbestos abatement discovered during removal. A presenter said an asbestos report from the prior abatement should be in county records and recommended locating those records before dismantling equipment.

Members asked about procurement procedure and transparency because the county’s procurement policy requires broader advertisement for equipment purchases above a specified threshold. The presenter said the county solicited three competitive bids and believed the expected prices fell under the Class 2 advertising threshold in the procurement policy; the committee discussed whether the process satisfied transparency expectations.

After discussion, a committee member moved to approve Precision Controls’ bid at the stated installed price; another member seconded. The committee voted in favor and the motion carried. The committee recorded that the award is to the low bidder and discussed that work should proceed only after verifying asbestos records and confirming final details with the selected vendor.

Next steps discussed by the committee included verifying asbestos documentation before dismantling boilers, confirming factory‑startup testing and balancing is performed by qualified personnel (to preserve warranty), and confirming lead times for equipment (a Burnham lead time of about six weeks was mentioned).