Dearborn Heights study session probes $2.38M unit-price street-repair contract, procurement concerns raised

City staff laid out the recommendations for a unit-price pavement-repair contract and defended the bid format at a July 8 Dearborn Heights study session, while council members, contractors and residents pressed officials about past workmanship, testing and possible procurement irregularities.

The city’s public-works presenter, Mr D, told the council the solicitation drew seven proposals and that the recommended low bid totaled about $2,383,899. He said the project was advertised as a unit-price contract — meaning the city will pay a line-item rate only for material and work actually used — and contrasted that with a lump-sum contract that carries a single total price for an entire project. “This is a unit-price contract…we pay the unit price for that item we use,” Mr D said, explaining pay items that include 7-in and 8-in concrete, drainage structures, earth excavation and a lump-sum line for traffic control.

Why it matters: Mr D put the recommendation in the context of the city’s Act 51 local-road allocation — about $2,882,500 annually — and warned that selecting a higher bidder or replacing a noncompliant low bidder could exceed available funds. “If I go to the third bidder the price is now $3,584,320, which is $1.2 million over the low bid prices,” he said.

Council members pressed on quality control and past performance. Several members and residents described concrete patches that scaled or failed after winter and pushed for stronger onsite inspection and documentation. Mr D said city staff core-tested failed panels and found compressive strengths in the 4,000–6,000 psi range, concluding that the observed scaling was cosmetic and related to cold-weather finishing and the Type L cement mix rather than structural deficiency. “The issue is not structural… it is cosmetic,” Mr D said, and noted the RFP included guidance from the Michigan Concrete Association for cold-weather finishing.

Contract assignment and responsibility drew sharper questions. The session revisited a prior contract that involved Angel Cement and a later contractor, A&G. An A&G administrative representative, N. Longordo, said A&G had initially been subcontracted by Angel to remove concrete and later assumed the contract after Angel could not complete it. “We assumed the contract to complete the work that he was already involved in,” Longordo said, and A&G’s project manager, Milton Garcia, pledged that A&G would follow specifications and produce records and photos going forward.

Contractors and several council members criticized an unusual approach in one bidder’s submission: combining normally separate line items (earth excavation, subgrade undercutting and base course aggregate) into a single placement cost. Mr D said six bidders followed the city’s itemized sheet; one bidder (bidder #2) took exceptions and combined items, which could be grounds for disqualification under the specifications. “If a bidder does not follow the itemized bid prices…they can be disqualified,” Mr D said, adding that disqualifying one bidder could require moving to a higher-priced bidder.

Procurement irregularity and rebid questions surfaced. Contractors said the RFP appeared with different closing dates in the downloadable solicitation and on the procurement platform; Mr D and procurement staff said they reissued the solicitation after discovering a date mismatch and added the Michigan Concrete Association bulletin to the RFP. Procurement staff said bids were opened on the platform on the Wednesday deadline. Contractors said rebids and changed documents had cost them time and money and urged clearer procedures.

Public commenters asked for stronger safeguards and a dedicated purchasing agent to centralize and manage competitive bids. “Why don’t we have a purchasing agent so procurement is managed consistently?” resident Vince Strowski asked. Multiple residents urged the council to prioritize quality over the lowest price and to demand photo documentation and clearer inspection records before payments.

What happens next: Council members were reminded that this was a study session and no award was made; the formal contract decision will be considered at the regular council meeting on Sept. 10. Mr D recommended awarding to the low bidder that complied with the itemized bid form but said the council has the authority to reject or select another compliant bid.

No formal motion or vote was taken at the July 8 study session.