Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Procurement Construction topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Single bid of $1.59 million for county road rehabilitation draws questions; commissioners consider rebid
Summary
The county opened bids for a local road rehabilitation project (referred to in the meeting as the “blue project”) and received one base bid for $1,589,859. Commissioners said the amount exceeded their expectations and a state funding limit cited in the discussion; they discussed contacting additional contractors and possibly rebidding.
Brown County officials opened bids for a road rehabilitation project (referred to in the meeting as the “blue project”) and received a single base bid for $1,589,859. Commissioners said that amount exceeded earlier engineer expectations and noted a state program limit discussed in the meeting that would not cover the full cost.
A commissioner said the engineer’s earlier estimate had been about $1,300,000; the sole base bid received was $1,589,859, with additional line items for apron work, graveling and ditch cleaning. The commission noted that the state program limit discussed in the meeting was $900,000, leaving an apparent shortfall the commissioner estimated at roughly $600,000 and observed that the county did not have that amount in its budget.
Commissioners discussed whether the apparent single bidder had been adequately notified and whether to rebid. During the meeting one participant said a contractor in Wichita (name recalled approximately as “Berman” or similar) told staff they would have bid had they been notified. The board asked staff to contact the engineer and the bidder to get more information, to obtain digital copies of the bid package and to determine deadlines and rebidding rules. The county’s engineer (identified during the meeting as the project engineer) was asked to be available by phone or Zoom for follow‑up questions.
Commissioners also debated possible technical approaches for the work; one commissioner described the job as “total reclamation” because of poor underlying pavement conditions and contrasted that with options such as chip‑seal or a three‑inch overlay identified in the bid documents. The board did not take a final vote on award or rejection of the bid at the meeting and instead asked staff and the engineer for follow‑up information about rebidding timelines and bid contents.
Ending
No contract award or rejection was recorded. Commissioners instructed staff to obtain digital copies of bid documents, contact the engineer and bidder(s) and return with information to determine whether to reject and rebid or proceed.
