Westmoreland County supervisors authorize Bay Restoration to remediate AT Johnson building
Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts
Sign Up Free
Summary
Supervisors rescinded an earlier contractor selection, voted to appoint Bay Restoration for mold remediation at the AT Johnson building and approved an appropriation for the work; board members emphasized the tradeoff between a one-stop contractor and preserving warranty coverage for future refit work.
The Westmoreland County Board of Supervisors voted to authorize Bay Restoration to perform mold remediation at the AT Johnson building and approved funding so work can begin.
The board rescinded a prior Feb. 9 decision to allow selection based on revised bids, then voted to award the remediation contract to Bay Restoration after hearing presentations from three firms. A committee member who moved to authorize Bay Restoration told the board the firm had documented mold types and provided thorough testing and project details; the motion was seconded and carried after members answered ‘aye.’
Why it matters: supervisors said the building serves multiple county functions, including social services and a museum, and must be safe for staff and the public. Members pressed firms on whether drywall replacement, ductwork and remodeling were included in bids and noted uncertainty in how much additional work might be needed once walls are opened for remediation.
Board members and staff described three contracting options: select a single firm that handles remediation and refit, contract a remediation specialist and solicit refit bids later, or perform some refit work in-house. A director-level staff member said his maintenance team could serve as project manager if PBM (one bidder) lacked a designated project manager but cautioned the county’s staff capacity could limit speed.
At the meeting several supervisors raised concerns about low initial bids and later price increases. One committee member said of PBM, “They lowballed a bid. I do not agree with that practice,” and asked for guarantees and photo documentation of work. Another member argued Bay Restoration’s detailed testing gave the county more certainty about what work would be required.
Funding and next steps: the board approved a motion to appropriate $216,583.36 to cover the contract (transcript shows the figure as “216,583 36”). Staff said funds would come from the sale of county property and that the county attorney would draft a contract for the board to review. The board voted in favor of the appropriation and instructed staff to finalize contract language with counsel before work begins.
What was not decided: supervisors acknowledged remaining uncertainty about how much drywall or other work will be required once remediation begins and which firm will perform any subsequent refit. Members favored either selecting a single contractor that accepts drywall replacement or contracting remediation first and rebidding refit work once the scope is clearer.
Following the vote the board discussed filling vacancies on a planning district commission and set next procedural steps for contract drafting.
The board’s action: motion to rescind the Feb. 9 selection carried; motion to authorize Bay Restoration carried; motion to appropriate funds carried. The board directed staff to prepare a contract and to identify final appropriation details for a future meeting.