Committee approves lower bid for asbestos abatement at 9 Park Street (old courthouse) to protect workers

2350937 · January 21, 2025

Loading...

AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The Physical Services Committee advanced a contract awarding asbestos abatement work at 9 Park Street (Fonda old courthouse) after county engineers identified asbestos in ceiling tiles, floor tile and piping.

The Montgomery County Physical Services Committee voted to advance a contract award for asbestos abatement at 9 Park Street in Fonda (the county’s old courthouse). Committee members said asbestos was discovered during the facility design work and that the immediate risk to county workers required prompt abatement of the materials identified in the architect’s scope.

County staff described what was found during the earlier design and investigation work: ceiling tiles containing asbestos, portions of floor tile and sections of piping; staff said the building experiences pipe leaks and workers frequently must access ceiling spaces above the tiles. Because of the immediate hazard to employees who enter those spaces, the committee agreed to move forward with abatement for the scope identified by county engineers.

Committee members noted a large disparity between two bids. Staff said one bidder had offered to remove a broader scope — including piping throughout the basement and other building‑wide elements — yielding a bid in the mid‑$200,000 range, while the lower bid covered the architect‑specified immediate removals and was roughly $79,000. Staff explained the higher figure reflected a more expansive scope and that the lower bid matched the architect’s removal specifications. County counsel explained that a bidder who responded to a different or broader scope can be treated as non‑responsive and that the county may reject or disqualify such bids under procurement rules.

Members also discussed whether it would make sense to combine asbestos work at 9 Park Street with abatement at the county’s former DPW building. Staff said asbestos contractors typically price on a square‑foot basis and that the time‑intensive setup and decontamination processes limit economies of scale from treating two buildings together; the committee heard that doing both together was unlikely to produce substantial per‑square‑foot savings. Committee members cited an earlier bid opening for the old DPW project that came in substantially higher than an earlier estimate (discussed in committee as moving from roughly $1.4 million to about $4.8 million in a later estimate) and expressed concern about overall project costs.

After discussion, the committee advanced the county staff recommendation for the lower, architect‑specified abatement scope at 9 Park Street so county workers could safely access the building. Committee members said they would address asbestos at the other facility as a separate project in due course. The item was moved to the full board for final approval.

Why it matters: staff said the identified asbestos poses an occupational‑health hazard to county workers and contractors. The committee approved moving forward on the immediate remediation work identified by county engineers rather than delay for rebidding, citing the need to restore safe working conditions and the limited likelihood of substantial cost savings from bundling multiple sites.