Citizen Portal
Sign In

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

Get email alerts on the Procurement And Contracts topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Council rejects lowest bid as ‘not responsible,’ awards rear‑lot paving to Meeley & Sons

4741911 · June 19, 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

Monroe Borough Council declared the low bidder not responsible after engineer and solicitor review and awarded the rear parking‑lot paving contract to the next lowest responsive bidder, Meeley & Sons, at $113,543.50.

Monroe Borough Council voted on June 17 to reject the lowest bid for the rear‑lot paving project as “not responsible” and to award the contract to Meeley & Sons Inc. for $113,543.50, the borough’s engineer and solicitor said.

The lowest bid — listed in the bid tabulation as from Prior Excavating at $96,194.90 — prompted concerns from the borough engineer about experience with paving work. Counsel told council members he had reviewed court precedents and said municipalities are required to award to the "lowest responsible bidder," allowing the borough to deem a low bidder not responsible on valid grounds.

Solicitor and engineer statements: The borough’s solicitor said it is within council’s discretion to withhold award from the low bidder if a valid, documented basis exists to question responsibility. The engineer advised that the apparent corporate changes and the bidder’s recent work history raised concerns and recommended awarding to the next lowest responsible bidder.

Council decision: Council amended its motion to name Meeley & Sons Inc. (the second‑lowest responsive bidder) as the contractor for the rear parking‑lot paving at $113,543.50. Councilors then voted in favor and the motion carried.

Why it matters: Rejecting the apparent lowest bid can preserve project quality and protect the borough from contractor performance risk, but it also requires documented, defensible reasoning to withstand legal challenge. Council and staff said they reviewed references and past performance before reaching their decision.

What remains unresolved: Council did not provide a detailed written finding in the public minutes beyond the engineer’s and solicitor’s statements; follow‑up documentation of the responsibility determination should be available in procurement records for the project.