Jordan School District details construction procurement rules after greenhouse bid raised questions

Jordan School District officials explained the district—s construction procurement rules on Tuesday after board members and members of the public raised questions about a recently approved greenhouse bid in Herriman.

The presentation, led by Director of Purchasing Kurt Prucy and introduced by Business Administrator John Larson, walked the board through Utah procurement law and the district—s internal practices. Prucy said construction projects are governed by Utah code (cited in the presentation as 63G‑6a‑13 and 63G‑6a‑15) and accompanying administrative rules, plus the USBE facilities resource manual.

Prucy summarized how the district applies dollar thresholds: direct award or small‑purchase flexibility for work under $25,000; competitive quotes for work in the $25,000–$100,000 range (Jordan currently uses an internal $25k–$50k threshold for when to require formal bids); bidding and bid bonds for contracts at or above $50,000; and design professional requirements for jobs costing more than $100,000. Prucy said anything over $50,000 requires a 5% bid bond and that payment and performance bonds become a material cost factor when projects are awarded.

The director also described delivery methods the district uses — single‑prime general contractor, multiple‑prime, design‑build, construction manager (not at risk) and CMGC (construction manager at risk) — and the tradeoffs in cost and risk that come with each. Dave Ross, director of facility services, noted the district—s busy maintenance workload (roughly 2,500 work requests per month), which informs whether a project is handled in‑house or contracted out.

Board members focused questions on several recurring concerns: whether community volunteers or CTE classes may bid on district projects (answer: state rules require a business license, bonding, insurance and other compliance; volunteers can participate in limited ways but there are clear risk tradeoffs), how bid alternates can be used (district staff said alternates can be specified so the board can choose "need vs. nice" items), and how long a bid is held open (staff said 30 days is typical but can be lengthened at the board—s request, which may raise contractor prices).

Several trustees expressed frustration that last month—s greenhouse bid packet arrived on short notice and that additional alternates or more time for review would have helped them feel better prepared. Prucy said staff can adjust pre‑meeting briefings and the bid hold window if the board prefers, though doing so can affect contractor pricing and participation.

A motion to temporarily table that specific greenhouse vote had been proposed during prior discussion but the transcript records it as not carried. Instead, the board voted 6–1 to ask Superintendent Dr. J. Godfrey and executive staff to prepare a plan for regular, short department updates so trustees will better anticipate future large purchases and initiatives.

The district said it will continue to use the state—s public bidding platform (Bonfire), maintain public solicitation notices, and require required bonds and sealed bid procedures for applicable contracts.

What's next: staff committed to provide the board with clearer timelines and an option in bid packages showing when a bid expires and whether alternates were solicited; the superintendent was asked to create a short schedule of department priorities for board preview ahead of major solicitations.