Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Infrastructure Pathways topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commissioners direct county to solicit bids for Phase 2 of pathways project after RFQ review
Summary
After reviewing two qualified RFQ responses, Valley County Commissioners voted to move the Samhsa/Valley County pathway Phase 2 project to a competitive bid so contractors can price construction given the county’s approximate $250,000 of available funding.
Valley County Commissioners voted July 7 to advance Phase 2 of the county pathway project from a qualifications review to a formal bidding process, instructing staff to prepare a bid packet and confirm statutory procurement timelines.
County staff said the RFQ issued June 2 drew two qualified respondents. Commissioners discussed the qualifications scoring rubric and said the RFQ step is intended to confirm contractors have the necessary experience; staff clarified that the next step would be a bid so the county can determine how much of the approximately one‑mile pathway (from Elo Road toward Pearson) could be built with available funds. Staff reported phase 1 of the pathway had construction costs around $312,000. The county currently has about $250,000 in grant funding committed to Phase 2 and Valley County Pathways (a nonprofit) is fundraising to close any shortfall.
Contractors named in the RFQ materials included a firm that completed Phase 1 (identified in materials as Valdez/Falvey) and a second local contractor (listed as OLS Construction/Casey Dickinson in the submitted packet). Commissioners and staff reviewed qualifications, project experience, proposed schedules and approaches. Both respondents included schedules that met the county’s target of completing work before winter; staff noted that if the top‑ranked firm and county cannot agree on contract terms in negotiations, the county will open negotiations with the next qualified firm.
Commissioners voted to proceed to a bid phase so contractors can provide cost proposals for the full route and the county can assess the funding gap; staff will review procurement statute language and return with a recommended bid timeline and packet.
