Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Procurement Parking Garage topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Kalamazoo County approves parking garage GMP after contentious debate over subcontractor picks
Summary
After hours of debate over local preference and how a new value-based procurement policy should apply to subcontractors, the Kalamazoo County Commission approved the contractor’s guaranteed maximum price for the 440 North Church parking garage and voted on several subcontractor awards in separate roll calls.
The Kalamazoo County Board of Commissioners voted 9–0 on March 17 to approve Amendment No. 1 to the Construction Manager at Risk agreement with Miller Davis, establishing a guaranteed maximum price (GMP) of $26,825,136 for the 440 North Church Street parking garage.
Why it matters: The vote followed a protracted, often heated discussion about whether the county’s new value‑based procurement policy — intended to weight local participation, safety records, apprenticeship programs and wages — had been applied to subcontractor selections. The dispute forced commissioners to split (bifurcate) the subcontractor approvals and address four contested trades individually.
The debate: Vice Chair Taylor said the board had intended the responsible‑bidder policy to apply to subcontractors and criticized the process used on the project. “We passed this request‑for‑proposal evaluation policy in September — it was our understanding it would apply to subcontractors,” Taylor said, arguing the absence of explicit language had caused confusion and inconsistent application. Administrator (name listed in the record as Administrator) confirmed the adopted policy did not specify subcontractors and said administration would return with revised language so future projects use the matrix consistently.
Building Authority review: The Kalamazoo County Building Authority reviewed Miller Davis’s recommended subcontractor list and proposed a small number of swaps in the interest of local participation and the values in the county’s policy. Ken Wil, president of the Building Authority, said the authority used the same matrix that guided the authority’s evaluation of the construction manager and recommended three contractor substitutions where the difference in price was relatively small and local participation or other values favored a different firm.
Outcome on disputed trades: After bifurcating the approvals, the board took separate roll-call votes on the four disputed categories: - Concrete/unit masonry: the board approved Bracy & JAR (local) by a roll‑call vote of 9–0. - General trades: the board approved Miller Davis as the general trades subcontractor (9–0), reflecting a small price differential and Miller Davis’s local presence. - Fire suppression: the board approved Total Fire Protection by an 8–1 vote; commissioners cited a roughly $240,000 price differential between competing bids as too large to justify a local swap. - Electrical: the board approved Esper/Asper Electric (the low, local bidder) by a 9–0 vote.
Contractor and administration comments: Miller Davis representatives said they conducted usual vetting and post‑bid interviews and recommended the original list they provided; the Building Authority and county leadership said they asked for adjustments reflecting county values. Miller Davis said it supported the board’s final decision and will proceed to finalize the GMP adjustments.
Board leadership and next steps: Commissioners and administration said they will amend the RFP/evaluation policy to explicitly cover subcontractors, add clearer thresholds for when local preference should tip an award (administration suggested a 5–10% range as an example), and document the scoring matrix publicly so bidders know criteria in advance. The board also scheduled a separate session (the building authority met again at 7:00 p.m. per the transcript) to finalize one remaining subcontractor dispute.
What the vote changes: With the GMP approved and major subcontractors selected, Miller Davis can move forward with the construction scheduling and the county can finalize related budget adjustments. Administration said work is underway to prepare a public art program, finalize site logistics and plan a groundbreaking once contract documents are in order.
Documentary evidence: The debate and votes are recorded in the meeting transcript and the board’s packet. The board leadership and administration also committed to amendments to the procurement policy so future construction projects apply the county’s values‑based criteria consistently and transparently.
Ending: The board’s action clears the way for the parking structure construction to proceed; commissioners said they would monitor implementation, finalize the remaining small contracting details and publish updated procurement guidance for future projects.
