Local contractor protests COVID isolation facility RFP; commissioners say rules bind board

A Suwannee County contractor told the Board of County Commissioners on March 4 that a December request for proposals (RFP) for a COVID isolation building unlawfully excluded locally licensed building contractors by adding a requirement that bidders be certified general contractors.

Luke McInnis of O'Brien said certified building contractors'—who are licensed to build single‑story buildings and accessory structures under state rules'—were effectively barred after addenda changed the bid qualifications. He asked the board to "reject all of the bids" and rebid the project so local contractors could compete.

County staff and the county attorney responded that although McInnis raised substantive objections, county protest rules were not followed in a timely way and the county lacks authority under its own adopted procedures to throw out the bids now. County Attorney Adam Morrison told the board he would not recommend invalidating the award without a timely bid protest because doing so could expose the county to litigation by the apparent winning bidder.

Morrison and staff acknowledged a recurring problem: bid documents sometimes use the phrase "qualified contractors" without listing specific DBPR license categories, producing confusion about which license classes can legally perform a project. Morrison said staff has scheduled a meeting to change the intake packet so architects or engineers will check explicit license categories in future bid documents.

McInnis told the commissioners he previously tried to get the county's protest procedures from staff and that he had filed a protest under state law after not receiving a county procedure. He said the current outcome favors out‑of‑county firms and risks losing millions of dollars in project work and associated subcontracting to firms outside Suwannee County.

Chairman and several commissioners said they were sympathetic but declined to act against written legal advice from the county attorney. Instead they agreed to have staff and counsel gather the competing documentation and return with a recommendation. McInnis urged the board to "look into this matter" so the county can decide whether to set aside the award; commissioners said they want all parties' information before any decision.

No formal action or vote to rescind the award was taken during the meeting. County staff said a procedural change to eliminate the licensing ambiguity will be implemented prospectively; Morrison will present a recommended change to the county's bid packet and protest handling.

The dispute centered on whether the county's addendum requiring a certified general contractor was lawful for a single‑story building project; McInnis said the change excluded qualified local building contractors. Morrison said the county must follow its own bid protest timetable and that changing past awards without a timely protest could create legal liability.

The board did not vote to rebid or to reject existing bids. Instead commissioners directed staff and the county attorney to assemble the relevant documents, clarify the county's bid packet language going forward and return with options at a future meeting.

Ending

Commissioners said they will not take immediate unilateral action to throw out the bids but instructed staff and counsel to prepare options and clarifying language for future solicitations. McInnis said he would continue to press the issue and requested a formal follow‑up to inform the community of any next steps.