At a special meeting, the Lake County Board of County Commissioners voted to award a $240,000 contract to local firm C4 to provide sustainability services funded by a Colorado Energy Office grant, after a lengthy discussion about the county’s evaluation of proposals and the merits of choosing a local vendor over a staff-recommended firm.

The money originates from a $240,000 Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant (EECBG) awarded to Lake County in August 2024, intended to support staff capacity for a county sustainability manager, a county staff member said during the meeting.

County staff told commissioners that the county issued a request for qualifications, received seven responses and ran an independent scoring process. An internal evaluation team and county leadership’s evaluation committee reviewed submissions and recommended ICF Incorporated LLC as “the vendor with the most responsible, responsive, reasonable proposal deemed the best value, best fit, and most advantageous to Lake County,” the staff member said. That recommendation, however, was not adopted by the board.

Commissioner Elsa argued for awarding the work to local firm C4, saying the firm had local relationships and implementation experience that would help the county follow through on planning and engagement. "They were a major part of us even getting this money and creating the being in the conversations to even have a capacity and a sustainability contractor," Elsa said. She further said keeping the work local would help ensure the county receives community-centered engagement and follow-through.

Other commissioners raised competing concerns. One commissioner noted that the funding is a federal pass-through grant and that the county must spend and be reimbursed under those rules; that commissioner said they had previously voted against hiring a county FTE for the position for similar reasons and expressed discomfort using local hiring as a primary selection criterion. Another commissioner said the history of the county occasionally favoring local relationships had at times not served taxpayers well, leaving them “torn” about whether to prioritize local benefit or the strongest technical proposal.

During the discussion, commissioners referenced evaluation scores furnished in the solicitation process: staff said ICF’s score was 71, while a locally preferred firm scored 82 on one referenced scoring sheet; commissioners debated why scoring differences existed and whether other qualitative factors should outweigh the numerical ranking. The transcript records that commissioners and staff discussed safeguards the county leadership committee uses to confirm funding and management capacity before awarding contracts.

After discussion, a commissioner moved to award the contract to C4; another commissioner seconded the motion. The motion passed by voice vote; the transcript does not record an individual roll-call tally. The item was the only agenda item for the special meeting, and staff and commissioners noted that the meeting did not take public comment because the RFP process is closed.

The contract award shifts the use of the EECBG funds toward a local firm that commissioners said could bring local knowledge to community engagement and implementation. Staff reiterated the contingent nature of the funding: because the work is grant-funded, the county’s obligations and ability to reimburse contractors depend on continued grant availability and compliance with grant reimbursement procedures.

The board adjourned the special meeting shortly after the vote. The transcript did not specify a start date for the contract, specific contract terms, or an implementation timeline; those details were not provided at the meeting and are not included here.