Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Procurement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council approves $25,000 modification for on‑call engineering services; recusal and procurement questions raised
Summary
Council approved a $25,000 modification to an on‑call engineering contract with AVI Engineering after Councilmember Rennie recused due to a family conflict. Public commenters and some councilmembers questioned sole‑source optics and increasing cumulative contract amounts; purchasing staff said the firm was selected via a statements‑of‑qualification process.
The Cheyenne City Council on May 11 approved contract modification number 1 to an on‑call engineering services agreement with AVI Engineering, adding $25,000 to the contract. Councilmember Doctor Rennie recused because his son is a partner in the firm.
Why it matters: The modification increases the available contract amount for on‑call engineering work the city may need when internal staffing or workload requires supplemental consultant support. Some council members raised transparency concerns because the original contract amount was below the threshold that required council approval, and incremental changes have pushed the total near the council reporting threshold.
Charles Miller suggested on public comment that a fully staffed municipal engineering department should not require outside contracts and pressed for an itemized list of projects for the added funds. "Can the council provide the taxpayers with an itemized list of the exact projects this specific $25,000 will be spent on?" Miller asked.
Purchasing manager TJ Bartlebort explained that the engineering office uses a statements‑of‑qualification (SOQ) process that allows selection of qualified firms for professional services up to $200,000 and that AVI has an SOQ on file. Councilmembers divided on whether the process provides adequate public scrutiny; some supported the need for on‑call capacity in emergencies and heavy workload periods, while others expressed concern about sole‑source perceptions and cumulative contract totals approaching $100,000.
Outcome: The council approved the modification. Two members recorded dissenting votes on the modification.
