Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Infrastructure topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Tamworth Select Board weighs options after single $250,000 bid for transfer-station bathroom
Summary
Facing a lone $250,000 bid for a transfer-station bathroom, Tamworth officials discussed negotiating, rebidding or hiring a construction manager and delaying a final decision until USDA and ARPA funding positions are clarified.
The Tamworth Select Board on Dec. 5 reviewed a lone construction bid of $250,000 for a planned transfer‑station bathroom and explored four paths forward: accept the bid, seek a price reduction, rebid with broader outreach or hire a construction manager to control subcontractor markups and reduce costs.
At the meeting a board member summarized the procurement situation: “The bids for the bathroom construction were due yesterday... We received one bid,” and later noted “The one bid was 250,000.” The board contrasted that figure with a Sanborn Head cost estimate from several months earlier of just under $200,000 and reminded fellow members that $50,000 has already been spent on design work.
Why it matters: the town has $100,000 of ARPA funds earmarked for the transfer station; about half of that had been budgeted to the Sanborn Head design and half for construction. Board members said a full acceptance of the $250,000 bid would use a large portion of that allocation and pressure other budgeted items.
Board members discussed a construction‑management RFP as an alternative to a straight rebid. One member described the approach: hire a construction manager on an hourly or fee basis to solicit and manage subcontractor bids rather than have a single general contractor mark up subs. “They would find bidders... and they would come back to you with a total price,” a member said in favor of the RFP approach, noting another town’s use of construction management halved a prior project’s costs.
USDA grant considerations were central to the conversation. Board members said they had contacted USDA to determine whether construction management would fit program rules and that USDA staff had begun to review the plans and specs; they expected comments by the end of the week.
Financial and technical details discussed included the possibility of a separate septic installation (estimated in the meeting at roughly $15,000–$20,000), the presence of a heat pump in the design, and whether a simpler set of bid documents (a sketch rather than fully specified construction documents) could lower contractor pricing while preserving eligibility for funding.
Next steps: the board agreed to pursue both a rebid and an RFP for construction‑management services and to broaden outreach to additional local contractors. The board also set a work target tied to its Dec. 19 meeting to finalize how ARPA funds will be applied.
