Public works outlines $19,800 contract for inspections of smaller county bridges; commissioners ask about local bidders
Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts
Subscribe
Summary
Columbia County public works described a $19,800 contract proposal to inspect 18 non-NBI (under 20-foot) bridge structures on a biennial schedule, and commissioners asked staff to explore local provider interest and requested clearer cost comparisons with the state contract holder.
Grant DeYoung, assistant public works director, told the Board of County Commissioners on July 9 that Columbia County performs bridge inspections on two schedules: NBI bridges (greater than 20 feet), managed through ODOT programs, and non-NBI bridges (under 20 feet), which the county manages and inspects on a two‑year cycle.
DeYoung said the county has 18 non‑NBI structures that receive on-site inspections and periodic timber borings, photographic reports, channel profile work every 48 months and entry of data into Oregon Department of Transportation reporting systems where applicable. “We have 18 non NBI structures, that are reviewed on a, biennial basis,” DeYoung said.
Nut graf: The county presented a contract for the non‑NBI inspection work valued at $19,800 and explained it did not require formal solicitation because the amount is below the county threshold; several commissioners pressed staff to confirm whether local engineering firms had been asked to bid or could provide the service.
DeYoung said the proposed contractor for this cycle is David Evans and Associates, which holds the state contract for NBI bridge inspections and already performs many related tasks under the ODOT program. DeYoung explained that using a firm with the state contract is common because they are already in the field and familiar with state reporting, but he acknowledged the board’s concern that state contract holders dominate the market and encouraged staff to check for local firms that might be interested in non‑NBI work.
Commissioners asked whether the price reflected a discount from the state contract and whether the county could cultivate a local provider for future cycles. DeYoung said the contract cost is comparable to the state invoices the county has seen and that the 48‑month cross‑channel profiling contributed to the slight increase over previous cycles.
Ending: DeYoung offered to follow up with outreach to local engineering firms and to provide comparative cost data; board members thanked staff for the transparency and discussion.