Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Bridges topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Marion County commissioners move to solicit bids after engineers’ agreement stalls
Summary
After debate about a consultant that applied for a grant, the Marion County Commission voted to put engineering services for a Catlin Creek bridge project out to bid and separately authorized staff to negotiate fees with the firm that prepared the grant application.
The Marion County Commission on June 22 declined to approve a professional services contract with the engineering firm that had prepared the county's grant application for the Bridge No. 198 replacement on Pony Road over Catlin Creek and instead voted to advertise for engineering proposals.
The disagreement unfolded after staff said the county had been awarded about $1.7 million in grant funding for design and replacement. The packet identified a design/engineering fee of roughly $79,900 and a construction‑phase ceiling of about $172,224.22, producing a stated not‑to‑exceed total near $252,000. Several commissioners objected to awarding the work directly to the firm that submitted the grant, citing the appearance of an unfair advantage and the high percentage represented by the consultant fee.
"Being elected does not mean you go along to get along," public commenter Brandi Smith had told the board earlier, urging commissioners to ask independent questions and scrutinize applicants' studies. In the bridge discussion, several commissioners echoed that concern and said competitive bids would protect taxpayers.
After the vote to decline immediate approval, a motion to solicit bids for engineering services on the Catlin Creek bridge passed by voice vote. Commissioners then approved a separate motion directing staff to negotiate engineering fees with BG Consultants — the firm that prepared the application — given that the firm had already supplied detailed budget figures. County staff advised that either negotiating or issuing a request for proposals would be legally permissible, and that each approach carried tradeoffs: negotiating could leverage known pricing, while an RFP could ensure broader competition.
The board's actions leave two follow‑up tasks: staff will issue a formal solicitation for engineering proposals and will return with the results and any negotiated terms for commissioner consideration. There was no final approval of construction funding during the meeting; commissioners discussed projected timelines including surveys and plan completion prior to bidding.
What happens next: the county will publish a solicitation for engineering services and return to the commission with bids or negotiated terms; any final contract award will require a separate vote.
