Acadia Parish board votes to advertise bids for Iota High turf after procurement dispute

The Acadia Parish School Board on a majority vote approved a measure to advertise and seek public bids to turf the Iota High School baseball and softball fields, after board members and attorneys debated whether the district could proceed without competitive bids. Board member Glenn Milton sharply defended his earlier vote in favor of the project and said he had not tried to block the work. “I didn't kill nothing. I voted for the project,” Milton said during the discussion, adding that the project “should have been tabled since it was rushed so much.” Board attorney John Guy, speaking on behalf of the board's legal advisors, told attendees there had been confusion about whether state procurement rules applied and said, “There’s been no law violated” in the sense that no contract had yet been issued; he also explained the district received differing guidance on expedited procurement mechanisms. Guy added that under state law, “If a project is 250,000 or more and constitutes an erection, construction of of sort, then it has to be bid.” District staff and board members described a timeline in which administrative staff briefed the board on the planned turf project shortly before the meeting, and outside attorneys later advised the district that awarding the work without public bidding would create legal risk. That advice led the board to pause the prior procurement path and instead approve seeking bids publicly. The board directed staff to accept a proposal from Simpson Engineering and to bring a detailed scope, plans and specifications to the Sept. 2 meeting so the district can prepare proper public bid documents. A staff speaker said Simpson Engineering will visit the site to obtain field dimensions and prepare plans after board review. Speakers emphasized the local impact and timing concerns. Several board members and parents said the delay disappointed students and volunteers preparing for the upcoming season; one board member estimated that preparing formal bid documents and specifications could add 15–20% to the project cost because of additional engineering and procurement steps. The motion to advertise and solicit bids passed; the vote was recorded as “ayes have it” on the meeting record. The board did not record a formal award at this meeting and no contract was executed. Board and staff comments also noted the possibility of seeking a future Attorney General opinion to clarify whether certain expedited procurement mechanisms used elsewhere in the state could apply to the district in similar cases. What happens next: Staff will present Simpson Engineering’s proposal at the Sept. 2 board meeting for approval to proceed with public bidding; only after bids are received and evaluated will the board consider awarding a contract.