Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Infrastructure Procurement topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Court approves flood‑related culvert work to Beyond Blessed amid protest from local bidder

5453041 · July 21, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

After debate with a local contractor who challenged bid treatment and length pricing, the fiscal court approved the recommended low bid for flood‑related culvert work; a contractor objected to how longer culvert lengths were handled and requested bid documentation.

A motion to award flood‑related culvert work to the apparent low bidder, Beyond Blessed, was approved by the Fletcher County Fiscal Court on July 21 following a contentious exchange with a local contractor. The court recorded the vote as 3‑2 and the presiding officer declared the motion passed. An unnamed local contractor who spoke at the meeting said he had submitted lower prices for multiple 20‑foot culverts and contested how the county treated longer lengths on bids. “We are a local company that does all our banking, all our business right here in this town,” the contractor said, adding his understanding that “Beyond Bless is from London.” He also said he had completed nine jobs for the county since March and asked the court for a copy of the contract and the bid documentation. County staff responded that they could not arbitrarily change a bid sheet and that procurement rules required rebidding when terms changed; staff also told the contractor the recommendation reflected the bid as posted. A motion to approve the recommendation was made, seconded and approved by roll call with a 3‑2 tally; a court member stated the low bid recommendation was being followed. The contractor requested a copy of the bid sheet be provided to him; staff said they would provide it. No ordinance or contract signature was completed at the meeting; the court approved the award pending the standard contract and procurement paperwork. The transcript shows disagreement about whether price differentials for 40‑foot versus 20‑foot culverts were handled consistently and whether local preference was properly applied. Court members stressed they could not retroactively change awarded bid terms without rebidding. The court did not indicate further legal action at the meeting; the contractor repeatedly requested documentation to verify the county’s bid tabulation.