Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Procurement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council tables Fillmore Avenue award after low-bidder protests; asks for more vetting
Summary
Council postponed awarding a $4.53 million Fillmore Avenue streetscape contract after Massey General Contractor (the apparent low bidder) disputed staff’s recommendation for Gibson Register Inc., citing missing references; council asked staff to obtain additional similar‑project information from the two lowest bidders and return in April.
Cape Canaveral's City Council voted to table a decision on the Fillmore Avenue streetscape contract after a public protest from the apparent low bidder and questions from council about the recommendation process.
Tim Carlisle, the city's capital projects director, told the council staff and the project engineer reviewed four responsive bids and recommended awarding the project to Gibson Register Inc. for $4,532,737 because the firm provided documentation of a recent, closely comparable residential streetscape project (Delaney Avenue) and demonstrable experience managing maintenance of traffic in residential settings. Carlisle said the team evaluated qualifications, relevant project experience and the risk of change orders when recommending the most responsive and responsible bidder.
Leo Massey, president of Massey General Contractor, which submitted the lowest numerical bid, told the council his company had completed many similar residential projects and asked the council to table the decision so staff could review additional references and documentation. "We were the low bidder on this project," Massey said, and requested time to meet with staff and provide records he said would address staff concerns.
Councilmembers questioned whether the roughly $24,000 difference between the two lowest bids justified immediate rejection of the low bid without further vetting. The city attorney and staff noted the procurement code allows award to the most responsive and responsible bidder rather than automatically to the lowest price. Staff also outlined the bid protest process (a five‑day protest window and an administrative review before council review) should a bidder file a formal protest.
Councilmember King moved to table the award and request additional similar‑project information from the two lowest bidders; Councilmember Willis seconded. The motion passed 5–0.
The council asked staff to gather the requested project references, verify similar‑project experience and return with findings at the April council meeting. If a formal bid protest is filed, the manager will respond and the matter may return to council for resolution.
