Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Capital Projects topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Montgomery County awards senior center construction contract amid bid-name discrepancy
Summary
Montgomery County Fiscal Court approved a construction contract for a new 6,922-square-foot senior citizens center, voting to award the project to the bidder named in the motion despite a different low-bidder name appearing in the bid tabulation.
Montgomery County Fiscal Court voted to award the construction contract for a new senior citizens center after opening sealed bids for an approximately 6,922-square-foot project.
The vote approved awarding the contract to the firm named in the court’s motion, identified in the minutes as Walker Principle of Masterland, Kentucky. The court cited MSE Engineers, Architects & Planners’ recommendation in making the award.
The bid tabulation read aloud during the meeting listed multiple bids and identified a different low bidder in the packet: “Block Of Principle at Mount Sterling” was recorded as the low bid at $1,994,000. Other bids read aloud included: BCD of Bardstown, Kentucky, $2,247,292; Omni of Lexington, $2,492,091; Blaze Enterprise of Clay City, $2,535,350; and Tecton Construction of Lexington, $2,000,005.85. The clerk’s recommended award referenced MSE’s recommendation and the motion named Walker Principle as the awardee, creating a discrepancy between the bid tabulation and the name used in the motion.
The court made a motion to approve awarding the contract to Walker Principle; the motion was made by Daniel Carmichael and seconded by Shane Parker. Members voted by voice and the presiding official said the motion carried.
The record provided the project size (about 6,922 square feet) and the line-item bid amounts read into the record; the transcript does not resolve whether “Block Of Principle” and “Walker Principle” refer to the same company or represent distinct bidders.
The court did not read a roll-call vote; the minutes reflect a voice vote with the presiding official announcing the motion carried.
The procurement packet and MSE recommendation were noted as provided to the court prior to the vote; no other conditions, contract values beyond the bidders’ totals, or contractor start dates were specified in the meeting record.
The court approved the contract without further discussion reported in the transcript. The court later moved on to other agenda items including the treasurer’s report and additional appointments.
