Beaver County — A member of the public raised procurement questions at the Beaver County Board of Commissioners meeting on Sept. 11, 2025, asking whether apparent price increases and vendor selections on several agenda bids had been reviewed and whether playground equipment purchases had been competitively bid.

The public commenter, identified in the transcript as “Visitor (public commenter),” asked whether a company listed on the bid packet was the correct vendor for cleaning services and questioned a separate bid line that had increased from an original figure the commenter described as "$93,000" to about "$105,000." “So the original bid by these people that want it was $93,000 a 180. They now increased it twice. So we're up to 105,000, which is now higher than any of the other bids,” the visitor said, asking whether those were change orders and what controls the county had over price increases.

County staff replied that change orders and any increases must be approved by Community Development. “Yeah. it would have to be approved by community development,” a staff member identified in the transcript as “Staff member (unnamed)” said. The staff member said they did not know the specific details of the individual change order at the meeting but that authorization would rest with Community Development.

Playground equipment and CoStar vendors

The visitor also asked whether a playground purchase on the agenda had been competitively bid or acquired through a CoStar vendor list. The staff member said many playground projects use CoStar vendors for purchase and installation but that the actual contract language would need to be reviewed to confirm procurement choice and cost-effectiveness. “Most most of them were most of them were costars. Installation, purchase, and installation,” the staff member said.

Actions taken and follow-up

At the meeting the board approved routine meeting business — motions to approve the Aug. 28 public meeting minutes, pay bills and accept the human resources personnel report — but the procurement questions were posed during visitor comments before votes on agenda items and no specific procurement vote or contract award was taken in response to the public commenter’s questions.

County staff told questioners they would review the contract documents and confirmed that Community Development is the authority that typically must approve change orders and contract adjustments. The visitor accepted that answer and the exchange concluded without a formal board directive ordering an audit or pause of the contracts.

What was not specified

Speakers did not provide documentary details about the specific line-item change order that reportedly raised the bid from about $93,000 to about $105,000: the transcript records those dollar figures and the visitor's question but contains no staff-provided item number, vendor name or contract page reference. The staff member said they would look into the matter after the meeting.

Residents with follow-up procurement questions were not given a specific date for response but were directed to staff for further information.