Franklin County fiscal court tables exterior-painting contract amid scope and bidding questions

Franklin County’s fiscal court on May 27 paused action on an exterior-painting contract after members raised multiple questions about the bid’s scope, advertising and technical specifications.

Greg, the county presenter for the project, told the court only one company submitted a proposal and that the bid included an alternate to restore stonework on the front of the 321 West Main building. Several magistrates said the public notice advertised only “exterior painting” and did not clearly disclose the alternate scope for stone restoration, masonry repairs and window work.

Squire Whisman asked the county attorney and staff to confirm how the program’s 3% state withholding for road aid works and whether similar reporting is available for other contracts; other magistrates focused on painting specifics. The court’s masonry expert noted the bid calls for “exterior acrylic” paint but questioned whether the listed Sherwin‑Williams Duration exterior acrylic is the correct long-term product for historic wood windows and masonry repairs, saying performance and expected longevity vary by paint chemistry.

“Everything that’s painted right now is actually going to be painted with that bid,” Greg said, explaining the base bid would cover the painted surfaces on both buildings while a separate alternate (about $23,000 in the contractor estimate) would restore exposed stonework to its original condition. Several members said the bid package did not make the alternate’s scope and advertisement sufficiently clear to all potential bidders.

Magistrates also discussed timing. The contractor indicated the base paint work could be completed quickly and even on weekends, but members raised concerns about weather windows, proper drying time if paint removal is required, and the risk of unknown repairs (rot or tuckpointing) that could raise the project cost beyond the bid. One member reported a local firm contacted staff after the advertising period and missed the deadline, underscoring concerns about outreach and competition.

With open questions on the advertised scope, paint selection and how alternate work affects price and schedule, the court voted to table the item and requested staff compile a list of clarifying questions to take to the contractor and, if needed, rebid the alternate scope. “Let’s table it,” said a magistrate during the discussion; court members agreed to reconvene with the contractor for answers before the June 10 meeting.

The court’s next steps: staff will seek clarifications on the advertised scope and technical specifications, verify whether the alternate was properly advertised, obtain a clearer cost breakdown if the court accepts or rejects the alternate, and determine whether rebidding or an addendum is needed. The court asked county staff to consult local technical resources if necessary and return with answers at the next meeting.