Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Detention Hvac topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
One bid for detention-center heat-pump work; commissioners, staff raise questions about geothermal wells and flow
Summary
County staff opened a single bid of $478,000 for replacement of failed water-to-water heat pumps at the county detention center and discussed whether the site''s geothermal injection wells and flow rates can support the proposed equipment. Commissioners asked staff to obtain technical clarifications before awarding a contract.
County staff opened bids on Jan. 15 for a detention-center HVAC project to replace failed water-to-water heat pumps and to add a heat exchanger and associated pumps, piping and controls. The lone bid came from Apex Mechanical for $478,000.
The bid opening prompted an extended technical discussion among commissioners, county facilities staff and the consulting engineer about groundwater flow, sediment in the raw-water supply and how the proposed equipment would perform. Commissioners and staff repeatedly emphasized that the detention system had failed in the past when flow was increased to the manufacturer''s specification because water returning to the injection well flooded a parking lot.
Josh, county staff, confirmed only one bid had been received and said staff would review it. Dan, a consultant who advised the board earlier in the project, said the contract package included replacement of three failed water-to-water heat pumps, the addition of a heat exchanger, and integration and commissioning work.
On technical points, participants discussed whether adding a plate/tube heat exchanger would reduce the raw-water flow needed through the existing pumps and whether sediment could damage new equipment. At one point a participant summarized the system requirement given in the plans: "75 gallons per minute is what we have to have minimum," and a later exchange noted three units would require about 225 gpm in total if that per-unit figure were applied.
Commissioners asked staff to bring Tim (county facilities staff) and Dan back for a short work session with the board and to confirm: (1) the intended system design in the bid documents, (2) the minimum and recommended flows for the proposed heat exchangers and heat pumps, (3) whether adding plates or other modifications to the courthouse''s existing heat-exchange equipment could reduce required well flow, and (4) whether the existing injection wells need rehabilitation or replacement before major equipment is installed.
No award or final action on the bid was recorded at the meeting. Commissioners agreed to schedule a follow-up discussion with staff and the consultant and to review the bid packet and specifications before deciding whether to accept the single bid or re-bid.
Ending: Staff were directed to gather the technical details (manufacturer minimum-flow requirements, heat-exchanger specs, any required flow meters and an updated cost estimate if well rehabilitation is required) and to return to the commissioners with a recommendation. The meeting record shows steps to verify whether the project can proceed without further well work; no contract award was made at the Jan. 15 meeting.
