Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Infrastructure Contracts topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council approves multiple construction awards including Coach Miller and Highway 6 & 24 path; Southbridge CM RFQ also awarded
Summary
Council approved three major procurement items: the Southbridge construction-management RFQ, Coach Miller Drive/14th Street construction to Timberwolf Excavating, and Highway 6 & 24 shared-use path improvements; votes were recorded and staff described grant contingencies and scheduling constraints.
The Glenwood Springs City Council approved a series of procurement actions and qualifications selections on Feb. 5, including a construction-management RFQ and two construction contracts.
Southbridge construction management and inspection (RFQ): Staff recommended the Roxul/SGM team to provide construction‑management services for the Southbridge project (a federally funded project with extensive reporting requirements). Council discussed staged task orders, the risk that the larger Southbridge construction may not proceed and the need to limit initial task order amounts. Councilor Schachter moved to award the RFQ; the motion passed 5‑1.
Coach Miller Drive and 14th Street (RFP): City engineering recommended awarding the RFP to Timberwolf Excavating, the low bidder, for a recommended contract amount of $2,119,025 (staff noted one mathematical line-item error that does not change the ranking). The city will not sign a final contract until DOLA grant decisions are known for a $200,000 grant component. Ryan Gordon emphasized the schedule requirement to complete work while school is out and said the contract includes liquidated damages of $10,000 per day for schedule overrun. Council approved the award 6‑0.
Highway 6 & 24 shared‑use path: Staff recommended awarding this project to Gould Construction (low bidder). Funding includes CDOT and MMOF sources; final contract signing is contingent on CDOT concurrence. Council moved and approved the award unanimously.
Councilors requested staff to return with task‑order limits and appropriation details where necessary before large task orders are executed. The council’s votes advanced the three procurement steps but left several contractor task orders and appropriations to subsequent staff actions and council approvals.
