Lordstown Board reviews RFQs for redundant 24-inch water line, delays final pick until absent member returns

At a special meeting, the Lordstown Board of Public Affairs reviewed responses from three engineering firms to an RFQ for engineering services to design a redundant 24-inch water line, but agreed to delay making a final selection until an absent member can review the committee’s scoring.

Board members identified four scoring categories—experience, quality, technical capability and plan implementation—and agreed to weight them so the scores total 100% (technical capability 35%, experience 25%, plan implementation 20%, quality the remainder). The firms discussed in the packet were listed as Thrasher, Verdantis and LJB Engineering.

Members evaluated each firm’s project history, technical tools and proposed approach. Darren Big said he had looked through the submissions “just briefly” and flagged differences in the scope and size of prior projects submitted by each firm. Members noted Thrasher provided detailed software and scheduling processes, Verdantis included project management, communication and grant-administration support, and LJB had examples of larger, long-run water-main replacements.

The board discussed how to assess quality without extensive local references, with one member suggesting the group could call listed references to clarify satisfaction and punch-list history. They also noted the RFQ selection process is governed by the Ohio Revised Code and emphasized that qualification-based selection is the legally preferred step, with price to be negotiated later.

Using the agreed weights, one member read provisional totals: Verdantis about 39.98, Thrasher about 16.65 and LJB about 43.31, which placed LJB at the top of that member’s ranking. Members acknowledged possible reversals in how they had mapped 1–3 to best–worst during scoring and said they would recheck the arithmetic and weighting to ensure consistency.

Because board member Michael Sullivan was absent, members voted to postpone a final recommendation until he can participate; the board agreed to resume and finalize scoring at the regular meeting the next day. The chair confirmed the RFQ for the 24-inch waterline will remain on the next meeting agenda. There were no public comments on the item. The meeting ended after a brief round of member comments and a vote to adjourn.

What’s next: The board will reconvene at its next meeting to finalize the weighted scores and make a formal selection or recommendation on the engineering contract. Any final action, including the official mover, second, and vote tally for the selection, will be recorded in the minutes when the item is taken up again.