Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Parking Deck Contracts topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council committee advances parking-deck contracts while members press for solar-array ROI and lifecycle details
Summary
Council staff recommended awarding multiple contracts for a new Northampton County parking deck and presented a $265,000 electrical bid alternate for a roughly 260 kW solar canopy; council members asked for annual energy-savings estimates, panel lifespan and replacement costs before deciding on the solar alternate.
County project staff asked the finance committee on May 20 to approve multiple construction contracts for a new county parking deck and to add a previously intended solar-array alternate that had not been awarded when the design contract was first issued.
Project presenter Mr. Amelio described two components to the Alloy 5 change order: adding the solar-array design alternate and paying for additional design work to create a second entrance to the garage. “Alloy 5 agreed to waive any fees that they had directly associated with this change and they're just passing through the cost of their subconsultant, Pennoni,” Mr. Amelio said.
Staff explained the electrical-low-bid recommendation to Diefenderfer (Archkey Diefenderfer) and an alternate to install the solar canopy and to change earthwork from 'classified' to 'unclassified' so rock-excavation risk rests with contractors. The electrical bidder’s solar package was quoted at $265,000 and staff estimated the array at roughly 260 kilowatts.
Council members pressed staff for more detail before committing to the solar alternate. One member asked how many parking spaces would be lost for a second entrance; staff said the deck will hold about 305 spaces (down roughly four from earlier counts). Multiple members asked for lifecycle information and return-on-investment calculations: how much energy the array will generate annually, how long panels last and what replacement costs would be, whether batteries or storage are included (staff said there is no battery backup), and where panels are manufactured. Staff agreed to return with estimates and sourcing information at the next meeting.
On general-contractor bids, staff recommended Mohawk Group (Allentown) as the low responsive bidder; Mohawk’s package with alternates and rock contingencies was discussed in comparison with Wilmer R. Schultz. Staff also noted that the structural design had accounted for the solar loads when precast panels were specified.
The committee did not record a final contract award in the meeting; multiple contract approvals and alternates were placed on the upcoming full council agenda.
