Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Infrastructure Procurement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission declines both bids for train-bridge sign project, asks for engineering scope
Summary
Facing inconsistent proposals from bidders, the Greendale Redevelopment Commission voted to reject both offers for a train-bridge/sign project and recommended commissioning an engineering firm to prepare a detailed scope with unit pricing before rebidding.
The Greendale Redevelopment Commission voted to decline both bids for a proposed train-bridge/sign project after staff said the submissions differed widely in scope and assumptions, and recommended preparing a formal engineering scope of work with unit pricing before seeking new bids.
Staff said Sorama's higher bid had been priced to include broad assumptions (railroad costs, INDOT traffic control) and likely covered their costs, while ABC's lower bid included site-visit conditions and limited scope that could increase once a survey and detailed scope were completed. "Sinaurama was $137,263.81," staff reported during the discussion, noting that railroad right-of-way and flagger requirements drive costs.
Why it matters: without a consistent scope, bidders estimated different exposures (railroad fees, traffic control), making apples-to-apples comparisons unreliable and increasing the risk of later change orders and budget overruns. Commissioners said a formal engineering scope would help define work items and unit prices so future bids are comparable.
The commission voted to not accept either bid and directed staff to consider hiring an engineering firm to develop a true scope of work. Members flagged uncertainty about funding and grant availability and suggested reprioritizing the project until an identified funding source is available.
