Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Facility Safety topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board rejects single radon-mitigation bid, orders rebid for 2026 schedule
Summary
After receiving one elevated bid to install radon-mitigation systems at three district schools, the board voted to reject the current proposals and reissue the request for proposals with later dates and multiple walkthroughs so vendors can price work without overtime premiums.
The Teton School District Board of Trustees voted to reject the single bid received for radon mitigation at three schools and to repost the request for proposals with new dates and additional mandatory walkthroughs so bidders can price work for next summer.
Board members said the lone bid — submitted by Lifetime Radon Solutions — totaled $252,047 for mitigation work at Driggs Elementary, Teton Middle School and Rendezvous Upper Elementary. The vendor’s estimate included overtime and weekend work to meet the district’s original timeline, and the board concluded that those premium schedule constraints likely drove up cost.
Board members and facilities staff reviewed the bid package, which described interior suction points, chase construction, roof-mounted fans (not inside the building envelope), and post-installation testing following standards described in the bid summary. The vendor’s school-level totals read in the meeting were: Driggs Elementary $92,851.30; Teton Middle School $99,489.76; Rendezvous Upper Elementary $59,807.40.
Facilities director Cody and board members discussed options including (1) proceeding immediately and accepting the overtime cost to complete installations before school starts, (2) completing a single school this summer and the others later, or (3) cancelling the current procurement and reissuing an RFP with a summer-2026 schedule so bidders can price routine summer labor rather than overtime. Several board members preferred the third option to avoid the premium schedule and to increase competition by allowing more walkthrough opportunities.
The board adopted two motions: to reject all bids received and to repost the RFP with new dates and at least two walkthrough opportunities, with an aim to open bids in October and select a contractor afterward. Staff and board members asked the facilities team to include clearer scope language in the rebid and to consider whether a phased approach (one school this season, the rest next year) would be preferable if vendor availability is limited.
The board also discussed project timing and the district’s constrained window for performing work before school opens; staff noted that the vendor’s timeline required notice by June 22 in order to complete installations and post-install testing by Aug. 22 under the originally requested schedule.
The board did not commit to funding from a specific local source during the meeting and will return the item to bid with updated dates and procurement documents.
The board’s decisions were procedural actions on the procurement; no construction contract was awarded at the meeting.
