Elbert County to seek outside consultant after wide bid discrepancies on sheriff's evidence building

Elbert County commissioners on Jan. 7 discussed large inconsistencies among bids for a planned sheriff's office evidence building and agreed to explore outside help to rewrite the solicitation and potentially rebid the project.

Chris Swain, facilities staff member standing in for facilities manager Maddie Bond, opened the discussion by summarizing the county's bid process for the evidence building and asking the board to consider next steps. A county official who participated throughout the meeting and who was addressed in the session as the sheriff reported that the county had received seven bids and that one was disqualified for failing to follow finance policies. “We got a total of 7 bids. 1 was disqualified, for not following the finance policies,” the sheriff said.

The sheriff and facilities staff both told commissioners that several line items showed extremely wide price ranges among bidders, which undercut confidence in the current solicitation. The sheriff gave examples: costs for four overhead doors ranged from about $26,000 to $150,000; electrical quotes varied by several hundred thousand dollars; fire suppression bids ranged from roughly $36,000 to $150,000; and design and engineering bids ranged roughly between about $103,000 and $320,000. He concluded the solicitation language likely left too much room for divergent interpretations and recommended further specification.

Commissioners said those spreads — sometimes differing by tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars for the same work — indicated bidders may not have been given an "apples-to-apples" set of requirements. The chair said the solicitation should be organized in a binder with separated line items (electrical, plumbing, paving, landscaping) and offered to help draft clearer language. “They need to spell it out, a, b, c,” the chair said. Commissioner Book asked that future proposals include explicit lists of exclusions so bidders cannot later claim items were omitted from their offer.

Several commissioners suggested visiting comparable facilities cited in proposals before rebidding. Commissioner Book noted that Crossland Construction included references to projects in Parker and Douglas County and recommended an on-site tour to verify scope and quality. Facilities staff said they had visited evidence facilities in Parker and Douglas counties and found them to be strong examples.

To address the specification problem, the sheriff said he had been made aware of a Colorado-based firm that provides in-house architects and engineers, helps public agencies write bid specifications and assists in identifying grant opportunities. He said the firm often discusses options with counties at sheriff conferences and that he planned to meet them at an upcoming conference to determine what they might offer. “They have their own designers. They have their own engineers. They work with public companies. They also look for grants,” he said.

Staff and commissioners emphasized this meeting was a work study and no formal action would be taken today. A county staff member reminded the board the appropriate process: the county would investigate options, and any decision to hire an outside consultant or rebid would come to a future agendized meeting for formal action. The sheriff said he would research the firm, run it through the county manager and report back to the board. “Why don't you let me do a little research and then I'll run it through the county manager and he can send it on to you guys,” he said.

The discussion also touched on broader, longer-term needs for the county justice center. Commissioners and staff noted the existing jail (built in 1985) is beyond its planned 20-year useful life and that prior master plans and cost estimates are now several years old and likely understate current construction costs. Participants discussed whether phased remodeling or a ballot measure for a new facility would be required, and staff described constraints in the current building—s structure that limit vertical expansion.

Officials also described operational pressure on the jail: an average daily population in the low 20s, a significant share of inmates from outside the county, dependence on intergovernmental agreements with neighboring counties for overflow and a growing share of inmates with mental-health needs. Staff estimated outside-housing fees in the transcript at roughly $70 to $100 per inmate per day and noted the county sometimes must transport people long distances for housing.

Next steps: county facilities and the sheriff will investigate the recommended consultant/firm, verify what services and costs it would propose (including help with specifications and possible grant assistance), and report findings to the county manager and board for a future formal agenda. No procurement decisions were made at the Jan. 7 work session.