Local engineering firm protests county award for April Road bridge contract, cites budget and procurement concerns

Andrew Neney, owner of Lower Columbia Engineering, told the Columbia County Board of Commissioners on Aug. 27 that his firm filed a formal protest of the countys award for engineering services for the April Road bridge project.

Neney said the protest alleges the county effectively hired the top-ranked firm, DEA, prior to completing the public procurement process and that action "sacrificed any competitive advantage that the county had and eliminated the number of firms that would pursue the project." He told commissioners that the contract before the board was already approximately $77,000 over the budget stipulated in the request for proposals (RFP).

"This is not in the county's best interest," Neney said. "As taxpayers, we ask, is it responsible to approve a contract that starts out 30% over budget when you have other solid options to consider?"

Neney referenced RFP language (section 2.4) directing the county to negotiate in the county's best interest, including terminating negotiations with the highest-ranked proposer if the county and proposer cannot reach agreement in a reasonable time and negotiating with the second-ranked proposer. He said the solicitation schedule in the RFP was already "over three months behind schedule" and urged the board to follow the RFP terms.

Carson King, office manager at Lower Columbia Engineering, read several testimonial letters into the record supporting Lower Columbia Engineerings experience, including excerpts attributed to local public-works and construction-project managers describing past work on the Clear Creek reconnection project. King read praise from a project manager at Granite Construction and from Jason Smith, director of habitat restoration and monitoring at the Columbia River Estuary Study Task Force, about Lower Columbia Engineerings work on the Clear Creek project.

Neney said his team could perform the contracted services within the RFP budget of $180,000 to $250,000 and that local staffing would reduce travel-related costs claimed by the winning firm.

No formal procurement decision or vote on the protest occurred during the meeting. Neney asked the board to reopen negotiations consistent with the RFP and to consider the second-ranked proposer. The record does not show the board taking immediate action on the protest during the Aug. 27 session.

The county clerk's procurement record and the RFP (section cited by the speaker) were referenced by the commenter; the board did not provide a staff response on the record at the meeting about next procedural steps.