Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Procurement Public Works topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Board upholds procurement director on Espararo Wash culvert project; denies contractor protest

5968128 · October 21, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Pima County supervisors denied an appeal from Falcone Brothers challenging a limited‑competition procurement for the Espararo Wash culvert replacement, saying the method was justified to complete the work before the monsoon season. The board voted to uphold the procurement director's decision.

The Pima County Board of Supervisors upheld the procurement director’s use of a limited‑competition procurement strategy for the Espararo Wash at Sunrise Drive culvert replacement and denied an appeal from Falcone Brothers and Associates, the contractor that protested the process.

Background: The project first went out under the county’s job‑order‑contracting pool but the bids exceeded the $3,000,000 threshold allowed under that award pool. Procurement rebid the project using a limited competition among prequalified contractors so that the county could accelerate work and complete the culvert replacement before the next monsoon season.

Procurement rationale: Procurement Director Collins told the board the limited competition approach is allowed under Arizona Revised Statutes and the Pima County procurement code when public exigency or the county’s best interest require an accelerated schedule. County counsel reviewed the procurement director’s interpretation and advised that the statute and code supported the approach, Collins said. The county’s goal was to minimize traffic disruption and complete the work ahead of seasonal rains.

Appellant’s claims: Gaetano Falcone, president of Falcone Brothers and Associates, argued the project did not qualify as an emergency and said his firm — which holds state licenses and has successfully completed similar projects for the county — was excluded from invitations to bid. Falcone asked the board for a written justification to be included in the procurement file and raised concerns about fairness and discrimination.

Board action: After hearing procurement staff’s explanation and the appellant’s comments, the board voted to deny the protest and to proceed as recommended by procurement. The outcome was recorded as passing 4‑0 (Supervisor Allen was off the dais at the vote). The director also noted that similar limited competition procurements have been used previously by the county.

What the board ordered: The board upheld the procurement director’s decision that the limited competition process complied with county and state procurement code and allowed the project to proceed on the accelerated schedule.

Ending: The board’s decision clears the way for the county to proceed with the culvert replacement on an accelerated schedule aimed to finish before the monsoon season. Falcone Brothers said they will seek a written justification in the procurement file and indicated disagreement with the board’s decision.