Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Procurement Infrastructure topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Pocomoke City council to redesign 'Safe Path' infrastructure plan after RFP fails to attract bidders
Summary
City staff told the council the advertised RFP for a city-wide Safe Path infrastructure initiative lacked sufficient scope, producing little contractor interest; council directed staff to meet with public-works leads, contact GMB, and consider hiring an engineer or breaking work into smaller procurements.
Pocomoke City officials said on Monday that the city’s recent request for proposals for a comprehensive Safe Path infrastructure project failed to attract viable bids because the RFP lacked necessary scope and detail. City manager Mr. Barclay told the council contractors could not estimate costs or mobilization from the information provided, and only three contractors attended the pre-bid meeting and returned comments (Mr. Barclay said the RFP did not provide sufficient detail and the advertised scope was too general).
Why it matters: Councilmembers framed the project as a visible, citywide priority—repairing sidewalks, improving handicap accessibility and addressing chronically damaged streets—but emphasized the need to deliver a buildable procurement. Without clearer designs or phased scopes, mobilization and seasonal constraints (especially for asphalt work) could slow progress and drive up costs. Several councilors urged using ARPA funds or other available allocations but stressed the need to allocate rather than simply spend them.
What the council discussed: Officials considered three options. Mr. Barclay proposed hiring an engineering firm to conduct a study and prepare a clear scope and RFP for the full program; alternatively, the city could bid smaller, defined projects district-by-district (three bids per defined site) or proceed through an existing contract mechanism. Council members and staff noted mobilization costs make piecemeal work potentially more expensive unless a contractor is retained long-term. Concerns were raised that the first advertised RFP was “embarrassing” to some contractors because it lacked a usable scope and technical detail.
Action taken: The council directed a small staff team—Bill East, Ms. Matthews and Mr. Barclay—to meet and decide next steps, and asked Mr. Barclay to contact GMB (the firm that has performed prior work under contract) to determine whether the city can authorize work under the existing contract or must re-bid. No formal procurement decision was made; council members asked for follow-up with a clearer plan and cost estimates.
What’s next: Staff will report back with either a recommended engineer-led scope and updated RFP or a phased project plan with defined sites for contractor bidding. Council members also requested improved internal communication so elected officials learn about construction starts or major changes before public posts or social media notifications.
