Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Procurement Transparency topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Firms and counsel press Fulton County for procurement records after disqualification of top-ranked bidder
Summary
Representatives of JC Water Partners and its counsel asked the board to demand selection-committee scores and procurement records after JC was disqualified from a wastewater O&M RFP despite ranking highest on technical merit and offering lower price estimates, warning taxpayers face $5 million in excess costs.
Multiple speakers representing JC Water Partners and affiliated firms told the commission their joint venture was the highest-ranked technical proposer for a wastewater operations and maintenance procurement and had the lowest life-cycle cost, but was later disqualified. Kevin Ross, counsel for the joint venture, said the written evaluation existed and urged commissioners to request the committee’s evaluation documents so the public could see whether the disqualification was applied consistently.
"Fulton County ratepayers should not be burdened with $5,000,000 in excess professional service costs," Kevin Ross said, urging the board to insist procurement forward the committee's written evaluation. Joshua Williams of Jacobs and partner representatives said JC’s 1-year price was about $27 million — more than $1 million lower than the firm on the agenda — and $5 million lower over five years.
James Washburn and others described a narrow technicality cited for disqualification (non-disclosure of corporate-parent litigation), arguing the RFP did not specify that corporate-parent litigation had to be disclosed and that denial of procurement records prevented meaningful public review.
Board action and votes: later in the meeting the board approved a request for O&M services for North Fulton wastewater in an amount not to exceed $28,084,782; the motion passed with four yeas and one abstention. Several public commenters had urged production of evaluation scores before that vote.
County response and next steps: procurement staff noted that some procurement materials are withheld until awards become final for commercial reasons; several commissioners said they want more transparency and requested procurement scoring and records to be reviewed by board members where permitted.
Why it matters: public commenters framed the issue as a cost-of-award and fairness concern — a disqualified lowest-cost, highest-ranked proposer could mean larger long-term expense for county ratepayers and reduced trust in procurement integrity.
The board did not reopen the award vote during this meeting; commissioners asked procurement to provide the selection-committee evaluations and pricing records to the board and to clarify disclosure rules for such records going forward.
