Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Pine Blossom Drainage topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
County staff say owner-direct purchase saved about $149,000 on Pine Blossom drainage project
Summary
County staff told commissioners that buying stormwater pipe directly through an approved vendor instead of via the contractor saved about $149,000 on the Pine Blossom drainage repair project; the contract had been competitively bid and was the low bidder by a wide margin.
Get email alerts on the Pine Blossom Drainage topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
County representatives and a local resident discussed the Pine Blossom drainage repair project during public comment on Oct. 23, with staff explaining a procurement method that they said produced sizeable savings.
Resident Jerry Cooley described the Pine Blossom area as prone to flooding and said the damage required a large repair project. Cooley told the commission the county had obtained a roughly $5 million grant and that the project is labor-intensive; about $2.1 million of the contract is stormwater pipe material, he said.
County staff explained the project had been competitively bid and that the contract was awarded to the low bidder in February. Because contractors normally purchase materials and include taxes and markups in their price, staff said the county used owner-direct purchasing (ODP) to buy pipe through the same approved vendor the contractor had intended to use, which allowed the county to use its tax-exempt status and secure a discount. Jared, a county staff member, said the approach saved just under $150,000 compared with having the contractor purchase the materials and pass on the cost.
The contract remained the low bid by a significant margin; staff told the public that the next-highest bid exceeded the awarded bid by about $1.5 million. Commissioners and staff characterized the owner-direct purchase as a routine cost-saving measure and invited residents with questions to contact staff for further details.
No change to the contract award was recorded during the meeting; staff described the procurement clarification as background provided in response to public concern.
