West Chester rejects bids for Gay Street closure project after equipment price surge; engineer to explore alternatives

Council members voted to reject all bids for the Gay Street closure infrastructure project after three bids arrived far above the borough's $973,000 budgeted amount, the council was told.

Council members and staff said the bids returned at about $1.4 million to $1.5 million, driven primarily by a sharp price increase from the supplier of a proprietary system identified in the bid documents as the Matador system, which is manufactured in the United Kingdom. "The bids came in, much higher than our budgeted money of 973,000. They came in at 1,400,000 … close to $1,500,000," a council speaker summarized during debate.

Council engineering staff and the borough manager said the borough will direct its engineer, RVE, to examine alternative solutions, including redesigning the scope to allow multiple crash-barrier systems rather than specifying a single proprietary product, buying materials direct from the manufacturer, or using Matador in high-impact areas combined with locally installed removable bollards. Remington Burnick, the borough engineer referenced in the discussion, and RVE staff will evaluate options and pricing and report back.

Council members emphasized the project schedule is constrained by grant conditions. Staff said the funding for the project is tied to American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) funds that must be spent before the end of 2026; the borough manager said that if the council rejects the bids, RVE would be directed to issue a revised solicitation within roughly 30 days with a 30-day bid cycle and hope to return to council in about two months with an award recommendation.

The council noted they had considered buying materials directly to avoid contractor markup and sales tax, but that step still did not bring costs below $1 million. Staff also asked RVE to check whether the U.K. manufacturer's force-majeure or price increase had been reversed or altered since the bids were received.

Council members moved the motion to deny all bids and directed staff to pursue redesign and rebidding; the motion was moved to the consent agenda and not debated in a roll-call vote at the meeting. No contract was awarded.