Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Procurement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commissioners award $588,800 water‑tower contract; contractor objects to bid‑opening timing
Summary
The board approved a $588,800 contract for the Stryker elevated water tower project but heard a contractor's formal objection that conflicting addenda produced confusion about the advertised bid-opening time and argued the late bid should be returned unopened.
The Williams County Board of Commissioners voted to award the Stryker elevated water tower and control‑panel replacement contract to L and T Painting for $588,800 after a motion and roll‑call that recorded three ‘yes’ votes and carried the measure.
Clerk (S2) read the resolution describing the board's acceptance of Smawley Valley and Feller Finch's recommendation and the contract award to L and T Painting. The resolution specifies a contract will be issued for $588,800 and commissioners then recorded their votes: Commissioner Ronald, Commissioner Westfall and Commissioner Burrell each answered “Yes.”
During discussion a contractor present objected to consideration of a bid that he said was received after the advertised closing because of conflicting addenda. Tom Lingvai, identifying himself as a representative of Brian Excavating, told the board he was “here to express an objection to considering the bid,” saying addendum 2 set the opening at 10:30 a.m. while addendum 3’s header listed 2:00 p.m., creating ambiguity for bidders.
County staff and contractors debated which addendum should take precedence. One participant summarized the procurement practice that bids received after the stated time should be returned unopened; another counsel advised the board that it may reject all bids and rebid the project if it chooses. A county official noted the error appeared clerical and that two bidders were present at 10:30 a.m., while a third bidder arrived later.
Several commissioners said honoring an inadvertently late bid feels unfair to other bidders; others said the county could waive informalities or reject and rebid under its discretionary authority. One county attorney recommended following Dennis Moore’s guidance to not accept the contested bid, noting the revised code procedure for bid openings.
The board did not record a final, separate formal motion on the contested bid in the transcript excerpt; commissioners discussed options including reopening, rejecting and rebidding, or exercising discretion to waive informalities. The board had already approved Resolution 208 awarding the water‑tower contract earlier in the meeting.
What happens next: the transcript shows the objection and debate on procedure but does not record a final, separate outcome resolving the contractor’s objection. Commissioners identified possible next steps — reject and rebid, or proceed with the award and risk protest — and cited the county’s legal authority to reject or waive, but the record here does not show a conclusive action on the objection.
