Commission tables motor‑grader award after Road & Bridge recommends Caterpillar, John Deere contests spec comparisons

A contentious procurement discussion over motor graders dominated the March 17 Natrona County commission meeting after Road and Bridge staff recommended awarding Caterpillar machines and a competing vendor disputed the county’s spec comparisons.

Road and Bridge director Mike (first referenced by his given name in the meeting) said county operators tested a John Deere machine provided by the low bidder and encountered steering and visibility issues under conditions the county routinely faces in winter operations. “I went in the ditch twice, and so did my operators,” Mike said, describing problems he said occurred at higher speeds and when operating with wings and plows out.

Mike laid out operational differences he said matter for safety and total cost of ownership, citing braking surface area, fluid change intervals, steering behavior at plow speeds, and the availability of features such as a stable‑blade control and seat adjustments on the Caterpillar machines. He said the county’s existing fleet and maintenance systems are built around Caterpillar equipment, which affects parts, repair workflow and operator familiarity.

Jason Camp and Jeff Eastwood, regional and local representatives for John Deere (RDO), disputed technical comparisons in the county packet and said several points compared different machine classes or incorrect model data. Eastwood said in the meeting that the John Deere machine bid included redundant braking and comparable fluid capacities when properly compared to the correct six‑wheel‑drive model, and asked the commission to allow his company to respond in writing and to provide more detailed technical staff to address line‑by‑line questions.

Commission reaction and procedural outcome

Several commissioners emphasized fairness in competitive procurement and the need to avoid specifications tailored so narrowly that only a single manufacturer can comply. At the same time, multiple commissioners stressed they would defer to the Road and Bridge director’s safety assessment.

The board voted to table the award and asked the low bidder (RDO/John Deere representatives) to submit written responses to a 20‑point comparison list and to provide technical experts for the commission’s next meeting. The motion required and received a second; the chair confirmed the low bidder had 90 days of bid validity and the board scheduled follow‑up in two weeks.

What’s next: the county requested a written technical response from the low bidder and additional documentation to address operational and safety items raised by Road and Bridge staff. The county will revisit the award after vendor responses are provided and reviewed by staff.

Provenance: extended exchange documented in the meeting record where Mike described his field test experiences and Deere representatives requested time to correct inaccurate comparisons.