Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Procurement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board rejects rebid for county seal-coating after township supervisors decline over‑estimate
Summary
After public comment from township officials and union investigators about procedural defects and rising costs, the Grundy County Board voted to reject the April rebid for 2026 seal-coating work; two bids came in above estimate and most townships declined to accept an award.
Ryan Bridal, a road commissioner from Nuttall Creek Township, told the board the township relies heavily on motor-fuel-tax funds and manages a $186,000 annual road budget for more than 53 miles of roads, saying small differences of “4 or $5,000 even makes or breaks a deal on some of our roads.” Bridal said the township had planned 5–7 miles of seal coat annually to preserve pavement and expressed disappointment that the recent rebid process may have been driven by local tensions rather than engineering recommendations.
Mike Phillips and Tom Garcia, who identified themselves as LMCC investigators for Local 179 Teamsters and residents of Grundy County, told the board they do not represent any paving company and that their concern was procedural. Phillips said the bid packet “wasn't filled out properly” and noted that in sealed-bid situations, timeliness and correct paperwork are key to an even playing field. Garcia added there is a police report from a prior on‑site confrontation and urged the board to adopt clearer procedures for incomplete bids.
County staff responded that historically the county has sometimes allowed contractors to correct missing, non‑price information where it did not affect pricing, but investigators and township supervisors disputed that this practice applied in the contested case. Highway staff reported two bids received on April 9: AC Pavement at $793,281.04 and Stefan's at $811,165.84, compared with a project estimate of $768,604.63 — a difference of $27,613.21 above the estimate. Staff said multiple townships declined to concur with awarding the contract at those prices.
After discussion, a motion to reject the rebid was offered and carried. The board’s action leaves townships able to rebid, adjust scope, or pursue alternative procurement options; staff said the county would continue to coordinate with township supervisors and report back.
Quotes in this article come from participants who spoke at the meeting: road commissioner Ryan Bridal and investigators Mike Phillips and Tom Garcia.
