Park City staff told the City Council on July 22 that two portions of the 2025 Street Rehabilitation Project will be awarded to Pearson Construction after bid openings July 17. Council approved authorizing the mayor to finalize contracts with Pearson for part 2 in an amount not to exceed $232,358.90 and part 1 in an amount not to exceed $798,092; both motions passed 7–0.

City staff described three treatment methods in the approved option: a 2‑inch mill and overlay on several streets; full‑depth concrete pavement replacement on Hatton Drive and the Wyndham Road entrance; and full‑depth reclamation (FDR) with a 4‑inch asphalt overlay on other streets listed in the packet. The bid opening drew three companies. Pearson submitted the lowest responsible bid for part 2 at $232,358.90, below the engineer's estimate of $408,610, and submitted the next lowest responsive bid for part 1 at $798,092 after Conspec withdrew.

Attorney Chris McElgin, speaking for Conspec, told the council the company withdrew because the bid specification required a 10‑inch cement‑treated base installed using a slurry method that, he said, in the local area is available only from a single supplier. Conspec proposed an alternative dry cement‑treated base method that McElgin said is commonly accepted across the state and used by Sedgwick County. McElgin told the council the difference between the two approaches represented about $345,000 in his comparison, and he asked the city to adopt a clearer process to consider alternative construction methods before bid openings.

City staff replied that the bid package was on the street for three weeks and that staff did not hear about the alternative method until the day before the bid opening; staff also said the slurry product was available through subcontractors and that the other bidders used the same subcontractor. Councilmember Brandy said she wished any alternative had been raised earlier so it could be evaluated before bids were submitted.

Why it matters: The combined awarded contracts put the city at roughly $1.03 million of the $1.5 million anticipated construction budget, with both bids below engineering estimates. The dispute raised questions about procurement processes, potential single‑source specifications, and whether alternative methods should be pre‑approved to encourage competition.

Council action: Council approved both contract authorizations (part 2: $232,358.90; part 1: $798,092) and directed no further action on the Conspec withdrawal beyond the public comments and staff response at the meeting.