Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Procurement Fuel topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
County committee moves fuel contract with Guttman Energy to council; contract spans about 29 months
Summary
Committee advanced a not‑to‑exceed $2.4 million state‑contract purchase agreement with Guttman Energy for fuel deliveries covering sanitary, road and bridge, fleet, airport vehicles and backup generators; staff described tracking and monthly reconciliation measures.
Get email alerts on the Procurement Fuel topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The Cuyahoga County Public Works Committee voted to forward a contract authorization with Guttman Energy to the full council under second‑reading suspension. The clerk read Resolution number 20250142, authorizing a contract not to exceed $2,400,000 for fuel for county vehicles, equipment and generators.
Tom Pavich of Public Works described the procurement as a piggyback on a State of Ohio competitive contract for District 12 (Cuyahoga, Lake and Geauga). "This is a new contract with, Guttman Energy. This is for the county's fuel. It's a not to exceed contract. It goes almost 2 and a half years, I believe 29 months," Pavich said, noting Guttman — based in Pennsylvania — was the low bidder for District 12 and won multiple districts.
Members asked which departments would use fuel under the contract. Pavich said the majority of deliveries would serve the sanitary division, county road and bridge, and the fleet division; the county also receives deliveries at the county airport for airport vehicles and supports generators at county buildings. He clarified many county vehicles use a separate Voyager fuel‑card contract and that this contract primarily covers delivered fuel and generator needs.
On accountability, Pavich described transaction tracking and reconciliation: drivers must submit receipts that are reconciled monthly; some fueling sites require ID codes at the pump tied back to the vehicle and operator, and the fleet manager monitors transactions to flag discrepancies.
Pavich asked for second‑reading suspension due to time constraints; the committee voted to send r225-0142 to the full council under suspension. The full council will consider the contract under the expedited process.

