Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Procurement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Carmel board denies contractor's bid‑reconsideration request, proceeds with paving bid opening
Summary
The Carmel Board of Public Works rejected a contractor's written request to reconsider the board's earlier rejection of bids for project 26STR01, citing scope changes and specification clarifications; the board then proceeded with bid openings for a separate paving project, 26‑STR‑02.
The Carmel Board of Public Works on March 4 denied a contractor's written request to reconsider the board's earlier rejection of all bids for paving project 26STR01 and moved forward with scheduled bid openings for a separate paving contract.
Sergei Gertrzukin of the Office of Corporation Counsel told the board he had received the contractor's request two days earlier and outlined staff's recommendation to reject it. Gertrzukin said staff found two principal reasons for the earlier action: an expansion of project scope (adds to Meeting House Road and Highland Drive that could raise the project cost by about $250,000) and multiple technical and specification clarifications, including INDOT certification and subcontractor bidding capacity and experience requirements. "Our recommendation to the board is to reject the request to reconsider and to continue with bid opening for the project today," Gertrzukin said.
Gertrzukin cited Indiana Code 36-1-12-4(b)(5) to explain the board has discretion to reject bids and noted case law the contractor referenced; he also pointed out the contractor has won multiple city projects in recent years, saying that history did not support an allegation the city acted in bad faith. A board member moved to deny the reconsideration request, the motion was seconded and the board voted in favor by voice vote.
After the vote Matt Higginbotham, Street Commissioner, reported two bids for a separate paving project (26-STR-02): Howard Asphalt LLC at $6,341,446.73 and E&B Paving LLC at $6,479,357.30; he said staff will return with a recommendation about award.
The board's action was procedural: it denied the contractor's request and kept open the option for the contractor to rebid under clarified specifications. No formal finding of wrongdoing was made; the board's counsel emphasized the rejection decision was based on scope and specification changes and the statutory discretion granted by state code.
