Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Wildfire Mitigation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Ravalli County opens bids for Tin Cup hazardous-fuel reduction project; packages sent to county forester
Summary
At its April 28 meeting the Ravalli County Board of County Commissioners opened five publicly submitted bids for the Tin Cup Hazardous Fuel Reduction Project and voted to forward all bid packages to the County Forester for review and recommendation; commissioners asked the county attorney to advise whether late email submissions are responsive.
The Ravalli County Board of County Commissioners opened bids for the Tin Cup Hazardous Fuel Reduction Project on Monday, April 28, and voted to forward the received packages to the County Forester for review and recommendation.
The bid opening was read into the record by county staff, who said the request for bids was advertised on April 2 and April 9 and that five bids had been received through the formal submission process. A number of additional bid packages were later noted as having been sent by email; commissioners asked the county attorney to advise whether those emailed packages should be treated as timely and responsive.
Bids recorded at the meeting included (as read into the record): Mountain View Authorization LLC (bid for Tin Cup units 1–11 and Indian Trees, $139,607); Home Again Firewood LLC (Corvallis, Montana) (bid only for Tin Cup 11, $17,500.08); Seventh Forest, Inc. (Ashland, Oregon) (bid on the entire project, 1–11 and Indian Trees; full total not read aloud); Gonzales Forestry, Inc. (Central Point, Oregon) (bid documents listed a total of $1,115,702 on the front page); CRW Resources (Hayden, Idaho) (bid for Tin Cup 1–11 and Indian Trees, $522,232); and other submitters referenced by staff included GE Forestry (total reported as $116,700), LG Forestry (total reported as $268,750) and several per-acre-only submissions for which a final total was not calculated during the reading.
Commissioners moved and seconded to forward the bid packages to the County Forester for review and recommendation and to consult the county attorney about whether the packages received by email would be considered responsive. The motion carried on a recorded voice vote (three ayes). The board’s direction was procedural: staff and the County Forester will check responsiveness, prepare recommendation(s), and return to the board for any possible award or further action.
Commissioners discussed concerns about bidders who did not follow the submission instructions and whether that should affect responsiveness. One commissioner said consideration of emailed packages was reasonable if they were received by the county clerk by the deadline, and another commissioner asked staff to ensure the county attorney evaluates responsiveness before any award is made.
No formal award was made at the meeting; the board’s action was referral of the packages to the County Forester with legal review. Any contract award or rejection will be a future agenda item after staff review.
Votes at a glance: the motion to forward bids to the County Forester for review and recommendation passed unanimously (three ayes).
