Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Procurement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Goshen board refers tree-removal bids to legal, rejects 2026 asphalt bids and awards water-tower painting contract
Summary
The board referred tree-removal bids to the legal department for review, rejected all bids for the 2026 asphalt package to expand scope, and awarded the Clinton water tower painting contract to Fedoa Inc. as the lowest responsive bidder.
Get email alerts on the Procurement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
At its February meeting the Goshen Board of Public Works and Safety handled several procurement actions: it referred tree-removal bids to the legal department for review, voted to reject all bids on the 2026 asphalt paving Package B so staff can add scope, and approved a contract award for the Clinton water tower painting project.
On the tree-removal project the board recorded four bids: Ryan Calamani Tree Service LLC ($102,165 with a $6,940 add-on option), CutRight Services LLC ($99,643.75 with a $4,899.50 add-on), Dogwood Hills Tree Farm ($171,145 with a $7,845 add-on), and Michiana Tree Services ($133,880 with a $13,890 add-on). A board member moved to refer the bids to the city legal department for review; the motion passed unanimously.
Engineering staff presented Job No. 20260002B (2026 asphalt paving, package B) and recommended rejecting all bids under Indiana public works law in order to add work to the project scope. The board voted unanimously to reject the bids and authorized staff to take the next steps, including revising project specifications and re-soliciting bids.
For the Clinton Water Tower painting (Job No. 20240034) engineering reported nine proposals were received and recommended awarding the contract to Fedoa Inc. as the lowest responsive and responsible bidder for $143,800 (the transcript lists a base-plus-alternate total of $138,800 plus a $5,000 item for ocean decals). Engineering noted consultant Dixon Engineering verified the bid’s responsiveness; the board approved the award unanimously.
Votes on these procurement items were recorded by unanimous voice vote in the transcript; the meeting did not include a roll-call tally in the record.

