Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Facilities Hvac topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Patrick County presents bids to replace aging courthouse HVAC; board seeks references, clearer procurement safeguards
Summary
County staff presented bids to replace the circuit court HVAC and upgrade electrical service after the existing 1989 rooftop unit failed to cool the courtroom. Two HVAC bids and one electrical bid were received; supervisors asked staff to collect references and consider performance protections before moving forward.
Courthouse staff presented the Board of Supervisors with bids to replace a 1989 rooftop HVAC unit serving the circuit court and to upgrade the building's electrical service after repeated cooling failures that limited court operations.
The issue surfaced after a judge reported the courtroom had become uncomfortably hot during jury selection, prompting facility staff to pursue replacement options. "The system is from 1989. It's a 20-ton single unit system on the roof," a county facilities presenter said, noting maintenance crews had repeatedly added refrigerant and that a juror had to be dismissed because of heat.
The vendor responses and engineering work: staff said they solicited five contractors for the HVAC walk-through; two submitted HVAC bids (one for $103,470 and another for $98,057). An electrical contractor, Triangle Electric Corporation, returned the only electrical quote at about $51,000. Staff said engineering drawings were prepared to clarify scope and reduce subcontract markup. The proposed replacement plan would install two 7.5-ton units and one 5-ton unit and would require roughly 320 amps of service; staff recommended running 400 amps to allow future upgrades.
Why it matters: Supervisors raised procurement and risk-management concerns, including limited bidder responses, the need for contractor references for a lower-priced bidder (Covenant Enterprises), and whether to require a performance bond. The facilities presenter said Covenant had not yet provided three commercial references requested by staff and that Vipperman (an existing county vendor) was a known, established contractor.
The board took no procurement action at the meeting. Supervisors asked staff to check references, consult the county attorney about whether reissuing the bid would be allowed after revealing submitted bid prices, and return with additional documentation. Staff also said they could require a performance bond if the board preferred such protection.
Supporting details: staff said the courthouse electrical feed currently contains a hot-tied line with no switch or circuit and described it as "noncode"; county building inspector Jason Brown assisted the assessment. Vendors who attended the mandatory walk-through included Vipperman, McKinney Heating and Air, Hydro Air Systems, Covenant Enterprises, and Pilot Mechanical Inc. Staff said some contractors declined to bid after reviewing the scope. Staff also noted one electrical firm (Cost LLC) declined because the required technical resource was unavailable.
What comes next: staff will request Covenant's commercial references, confirm the list of vendors who received bid invitations, ask the county attorney whether rebidding is permissible without releasing proprietary information improperly, and report back to the board before any award. No contract award was made or approved at the meeting.
