After contested presentations, commissioners approve Ruby Collins for Phase 2 regional water pre-construction services

The Effingham County Board of Commissioners on March 3 approved staff’s recommendation to award the pre-construction services portion of the construction manager at risk (CMAR) contract for the Phase 2 Effingham Regional Water Supply Facilities to Ruby Collins.

The decision followed more than an hour of presentations and questions after staff disclosed a scoring omission in the procurement review. Staff said the solicitation used a two‑part scoring approach — a qualitative 70‑point section and a 30‑point pricing section — and that the pricing portion was not initially tallied; after an applicant raised the discrepancy staff rescored the missed items and retabulated results. Tim Wilkins (capital projects staff) told commissioners the board could accept staff’s recommendation, table the item for further review or ask for an appeal process. “Those options were available,” Wilkins said, noting the scoring recomputation narrowed the results to a small margin.

Reeves Young, which had been the initial recommendation in the first tabulation, told the board the re‑evaluation introduced weighting or criteria not evident in the RFP and asked the board to request a BAFO (best-and-final-offer) from the top firms to break the tie. “The reevaluation introduced criteria or weighting that’s not identified in the RFP,” Reeves Young’s Matt McCormick said, warning commissioners that the county was poised to award “a $140 to $150 million job” and that the procurement process should be beyond reproach. The Reeves Young delegation argued the change risked legal exposure and asked for a fair, disclosed tiebreaker.

Representatives of Ruby Collins said their proposal was responsive to the RFP and that staff had followed the evaluation process. “Ruby Collins is 100% focused on water and wastewater treatment projects,” TJ Ackerman, vice president of Ruby Collins, told the board, adding the firm had local partners and pointed to prior work with the county as evidence of experience and competitive pricing.

After questions from commissioners about the RFP language, change‑order markup versus general‑conditions entries, and financing sources (staff said local property tax will not pay the project; it is funded by state investment and 0% long‑term financing to be repaid through fees), a motion to support Ruby Collins carried. Commissioners discussed tabling the item to examine the scoring further, but several members said the numerical proposals had been submitted by both firms and the price numbers themselves would not change. The board voted to approve the staff recommendation to award the pre‑construction services to Ruby Collins.

The board did not include a separate vote on the construction contract itself; the action approved at the March 3 meeting covers the pre‑construction services phase of the CMAR agreement. Commissioners also noted options remain — if the guaranteed maximum price later proposed by a CMAR is unacceptable, the county retains the ability to re‑bid the work.

Next steps: staff will proceed with contract finalization for the pre‑construction services phase and return to the board for later approvals as the design and GMP (guaranteed maximum price) process advances.