Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Procurement Roof Hollowell topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Public questions Hollowell Elementary roof award after lower bids were rejected; solicitor cites missing bid documents
Summary
Two community members asked the board on June 2 to reconsider the award of the Hollowell Elementary roof contract after lower bids were rejected; the district solicitor said required bid documents were missing and Pennsylvania case law required rejection.
Two community speakers raised objections at the June 2 work session about the district’s recent award of the Hollowell Elementary School roof replacement contract, saying a lower, more-reputable contractor had been rejected and asking the board to revisit the award if the contract was not yet signed.
John McCarty told the board he was “concerned” that a second bid from Metal Alliance—he described it as a lower and more reputable offer—was rejected “due to misinformation on the application” and asked the board to “make the solicitor do their due diligence” and, if the contract has not been signed, to reject the award and hire a different contractor.
Natasha Scott Lawson also addressed the board and said she had reviewed the proposals and was concerned that the awarded bid was about $400,000 higher than the lowest bid and asked the solicitor to review whether required documents were missing.
The district solicitor responded at length, saying the public-bid process requires mandatory attachments and financial documentation. He said the lowest bidder “did not attach their financial paperwork and did not attach their workers comp factor paperwork and so that was to what we call non waivable defects or sometimes fatal errors. So we rejected the the lowest bid.” He added that Metal Alliance, the second-lowest bidder, also failed to attach required financial paperwork and had asked the district for a nondisclosure agreement—an ask the solicitor said local governments cannot accept when public funds are at stake. The solicitor cited Pennsylvania case law saying failure to attach mandatory paperwork is a non‑waivable defect that requires rejection of the bid package.
The solicitor told the board the third-lowest bidder had submitted a complete bid package that met mandatory requirements and that the board ordered the award to that bidder at the prior meeting. He said rebidding is not practical because the roof work must be completed this summer, and the district relied on the legal standard that requires treating all bidders the same when required documents are missing.
The public comments and the solicitor’s explanation were part of the community input segment; no new motion or rescission of the prior award was made during the June 2 work session.
