Utilities committee holds $11.7 million constructed‑wetlands contract after questions about excluded bids

The Atlanta City Utilities Committee on Oct. 14 held an amended resolution to award a constructed‑wetlands contract after public comment and council members questioned why two of the five bids were not included in the department recommendation.

The matter involved an amended resolution authorizing an agreement for the Valley of Holes constructed wetlands project with a joint venture that the paper lists as InterContinental Services Corporation and Rockdale Pipeline Incorporated for an amount not to exceed $11,717,733.00. Council members and a speaker raised concerns that the bid evaluation packet provided to the committee listed only three bidders although five bids were received.

Why it matters: committee members said the omission left bidders and the public without a clear record of how DOP (Department of Procurement) reviewed bid packages. A public commenter who identified himself as a construction company executive specifically urged the committee to reject the resolution and direct watershed staff to select “the lowest and responsive bidder” that he said would provide “value and equity to the city and the taxpayers.”

Public comment and council questions MG Zalik, who identified himself as a construction company executive and Atlanta taxpayer, told the committee he had reviewed the DOP bid tabulation and said five bids were received on the solicitation published by DOP. Zalik said the committee’s recommendation listed only three bidders and urged the body to reject the resolution and “direct the DMW to select the lowest and responsive bidder who brings value and equity to the city and the taxpayers.”

Council members asked procurement and watershed staff to explain the omission. Council Member Mahaj asked to see the bid tabulation sheet during the meeting and pointed out the discrepancy between the five bids on the tabulation and the three bidders listed in the evaluation and contract award recommendation.

Department of Procurement and legal response Brandon Hall, assistant director with the Department of Procurement, told the committee DOP performs an initial responsiveness review after bid opening. Hall said some submissions on this solicitation were deemed nonresponsive because “there were several items that were missing within their submission packages.” He said DOP shows only the responsive bids to the user agency (in this case the Department of Watershed Management) for the agency’s award recommendation.

City Attorney John Gall advised the committee that the procurement office treats the period before contract execution as a blackout period. Gall said challenges by bidders about responsiveness or award decisions may be pursued after the blackout period ends and that there is a defined process for vendors to challenge award determinations.

Watershed management and committee action A representative from the Department of Watershed Management told the committee that moving forward on the award would end the blackout period and allow DOP to provide debriefings to the firms that had been deemed nonresponsive. After discussion, a motion to hold the resolution passed: the committee recorded 3 ayes, 0 nays and 1 abstention, and the item was held in committee.

What the record shows and next steps - The committee record and the bid tabulation that attendees showed at the meeting indicate five bids were received for the solicitation (the public comment cites a bid opening date of June 10, 2025). The evaluation packet circulated to the committee listed only three bidders; DOP representatives said that reflected their responsiveness determination. - The award paper lists the vendor and the not‑to‑exceed amount of $11,717,733.00 and indicates the contract term tied to a notice to proceed and an 18‑month completion window. - Procurement said it will provide debriefings to firms deemed nonresponsive once the blackout period ends and vendors have the opportunity to challenge DOP’s responsiveness determinations under the city’s procurement process.

The committee did not approve the amended resolution; the item remains held pending further information and any follow‑up from procurement and watershed staff.