Council hears engineers on Goose Creek substation replacement after low bid far below engineer estimate; bid moved to consent for award
Loading...
Summary
Engineers urged replacement of aging substation equipment at Goose Creek; the borough received a low bid of $545,000 from BSI while engineers’ cost opinion was $700,000–$900,000 and the borough budgeted $1.2 million to cover contingencies; council advanced the item to the consent agenda after detailed questioning about scope, underground cable unknowns and change-order controls.
Council examined the proposed Phase 2 replacement of electrical substation equipment at the Goose Creek wastewater facility after engineers described deteriorated conditions and a recommended replacement.
Wastewater Director Sean Mitchell introduced Charlie Du of BCM (engineer) and Kirsten Hatesick of Keystone Engineering to answer technical and procurement questions. Charlie Du said the substation was originally put into service in the 1980s and that a 2020 condition study recommended replacement; phase 1 had replaced a transformer and switch but Phase 2 remains. Du outlined the bidding process: the team solicited bids, received two responses and recommended vetting the low bidder, BSI Incorporated, based on references and a review of their past performance and change-order history.
Engineers explained the disparity between the borough cost opinion ($700,000–$900,000) and BSI’s low bid of $545,000. Factors included whether a contractor owns temporary power equipment (lowering rental/markup), differences in site visits and estimators’ assumptions, and uncertainty about underground cable conditions and connections. “When you open up your heart, you may find you have artery that need to be bypassed instead of stents,” Du said, describing the uncertainty that can raise costs once crews excavate.
Keystone’s Hatesick said temporary power ownership explained much of the spread and that the low bidder reported they own equipment rather than rent it, which lowers costs; she said BSI’s project list and experience supported their bid.
Councilors pressed for additional bids to confirm market pricing and for change-order protections. Staff noted procurement bonds and prevailing-wage requirements apply; the borough’s procurement policy limits authorization of change orders exceeding 10% of the base bid without council approval. Finance staff said the borough budgeted $1.2 million for the project this year to allow for reasonable contingencies.
After lengthy discussion about risk, warranties and the potential for significant underground surprises, council moved the substation award item to the consent agenda for action consistent with procurement rules and with council reservation that large change orders would return to council for authorization.
Next steps: if awarded under procurement rules, staff will proceed with contract execution, with council oversight required for change orders beyond policy thresholds.
