Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Procurement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Resident questions jail demolition award; administrator says clerical error corrected and contractor agreed to lower price
Summary
A resident questioned the county’s jail demolition procurement at the July 15 meeting; the county administrator said staff had made a clerical error listing the awarded proposal at $400,000 instead of $440,000 and the contractor agreed to perform the work at the lower amount.
During public comment on July 15, a resident questioned the county's decision on the jail demolition procurement and why a lower proposal was not awarded.
Ron Frank, a county resident, said he has attended many lettings and asked why the lowest proposal — about $130,000 lower than the awarded firm’s proposal — was not selected. He also questioned a perceived $40,000 discrepancy in another bidder's submission and whether that should have disqualified that bid.
County administration responded that the project had been solicited as a request for proposals rather than a sealed bid, and that bond requirements apply to the contract after award rather than at proposal submission. Administrator Philip Smith said the awarded contractor originally submitted a proposal for $440,000 but staff recorded it incorrectly as $400,000 on the agenda; when the error was discovered, the county contacted the contractor and the contractor agreed to perform the work for the lower $400,000 figure. Smith said the contract’s performance bond matches the awarded contract amount.
A public speaker also raised concerns about local hauling/ disposal capacity and the contractor's ability to remove demolition material; the resident said he preferred a local contractor on those grounds. Commissioners and staff responded that local capability and experience were factors in the decision, and one commissioner said local preference informed his vote.
The meeting transcript recorded that the contract had been awarded previously by a 3‑2 commission vote. Administration said the award comported with the rules for the RFP process and that the post‑award correction did not change the contractual obligations.
Why it matters: procurement for large public works can generate public concerns about fairness, local economic impact and contract accuracy; the county said staff corrected a clerical error and confirmed the contractor accepted the lower amount before bond and contract were finalized.
