Annex remodel hits procurement and scope issues as contractors and county discuss next steps

Commissioner Thompson and contractors on May 27 debated how to proceed with the Valley County annex remodel after bidders raised concerns that the county’s original construction documents lacked sufficient detail for competitive, accurate bids.

Why it matters: contractors told commissioners the early drawings were a “first draft” and omitted key construction details — such as partition wall connections, the location and relocation of many sprinkler heads, and HVAC/ERV scope — which can materially increase costs. Contractors urged a full scope of work and clearer construction drawings before awarding work.

Joseph Downerhold, owner of Downerhold Construction Services, told the commission the initial plans lacked needed details such as how partition walls attach to floors and how sprinkler heads near new dividing walls would be relocated. He said uncertainty forced bidders to include contingency amounts; he estimated the missing details could add substantial cost and said one bid looked “probably a hundred thousand dollars fat” because it included high contingency for unknown sprinkler and HVAC work.

Downerhold and other contractors recommended preparing a clear construction scope and running a competitive bid through the Associated General Contractors (AGC) or a similar process to get accurate pricing. He suggested a design-build approach could produce better value if the county sought to keep tighter control of scheduling and costs.

Commissioner Thompson said the county had revised the scope after rejecting an earlier bid and planned to act as general contractor in order to control costs and schedule. Thompson said the county will hire a superintendent to manage subs and expects subs to bid directly on discrete packages (electrical, cabinetry, casework, sprinklers, HVAC). Brian (county staff) was said to be preparing a contract for the revised approach to be considered in a future meeting.

Contractors flagged specific trade issues: sprinkler-head relocations (requirements when heads are within four inches of walls), carpet protection or replacement where work disturbs existing finishes, expensive knotty-alder casework, and potential HVAC mechanical upgrades including ERV sizing that could be triggered by the building’s occupancy changes. One contractor suggested carbon-monoxide-triggered ERV controls could allow a smaller, less costly ERV unit in some areas, but noted that mechanical scope and code compliance require detailed specifications.

Several contractors said the original bid advertisement had inconsistent dates and limited circulation (the county advertised in a local newspaper), and one bidder asked why the county did not solicit help from contractors to value-engineer the project before rejecting the initial bid.

County staff and contractors said they had since produced clearer plans, walked the building multiple times, and intend to solicit competitive subcontracts while the county serves as the general contractor. The commissioners asked staff to ensure all subs hold the required public-works licenses and to continue refining the scope to limit surprises.

There was no formal vote on contracting approach at the meeting; commissioners and staff said they will proceed with the revised plan and return contract documents for formal approval.