Facilities committee deadlocks over authorizing engineer to issue air-handler RFP; matter sent to full county board

Champaign County’s facilities committee debated whether to authorize its contracted engineer, GHR, to issue a request-for-proposal for replacement of aging air-handler units at the Elias facility but failed to approve the measure and forwarded the item to the full county board.

The issue surfaced after staff circulated a technical study and drawings describing the air-handler replacement; a facilities contributor noted the units are about 50 years old and that demolition of an adjacent, older county nursing-home building will create access for installation. Committee members agreed the technical scope and drawings were in the packet, but several members said the committee had not been shown the one-page bid announcement or other front-facing RFP language that typically contains procurement requirements such as timeline, insurance, bonding and liquidated-damage clauses.

“These handlers are 50 years old,” said Speaker 6 during the technical overview, noting demolition would make routing and installation easier. Multiple committee members questioned whether the replacement would reintroduce pneumatic controls or be upgraded to the modern direct digital controls (DDC) used elsewhere in county buildings; staff representatives said the project will use digital controls and that the ductwork does not need replacement.

Opponents of the authorization argued the facilities committee cannot approve an RFP it has not seen and raised broader concerns about whether the county’s purchasing policy has been consistently observed. “It seems to me that is a big loophole in the purchasing policy,” said Speaker 2, who pushed for clearer oversight and suggested the finance committee review how RFPs issued by third parties are governed. Another member said they would vote no because they were uncomfortable following a process that was not written down and could set an inappropriate precedent.

Supporters said the county already contracts with GHR as its engineer and that GHR typically manages the technical scope and bid process; they argued the committee’s approval would confirm that GHR should move forward with the bid process while county-required clauses (such as prevailing wage and the project labor agreement) are enforced. “If we have language when we tell them to go to RFP where we say you have to use our practices for prevailing wages and for project labor agreements…then I would feel comfortable telling them to go to RFP,” said Speaker 1 during debate.

After discussion, Speaker 1 moved, and Speaker 9 seconded, a motion amended to approve GHR engineering to proceed to RFP on the Elias air-handler units. During the recorded vote one member opposed and the motion failed; the item will be presented to the full county board in two weeks, by which time committee members expect to have the one-page RFP/bid announcement or equivalent facing document for review.

Committee members also asked staff to locate prior RFPs (members referenced a 2022 satellite jail package) and the GHR contract on the county’s bids/RFPs page so members could compare previous bid-facing documents and standard AIA contract language used on similar projects. Several members said they want either the facing document or a brief “shell” RFP describing the procurement-facing elements before authorizing work to proceed.

The committee did not adopt any contract at the meeting and did not authorize funds beyond confirming the scope of work and the role GHR would play; members discussed that half of the demolition work is ARPA-funded and the highway department will fund the remainder, while the AHU replacement itself is classified as a capital expense and not ARPA-funded.

The committee expects the bids to be returned and reviewed at the Jan. 6 meeting, when contract approval decisions would be considered, or for the full county board to take up the item at its next meeting if timing requires it.