Contractor says bid tabulation errors cost it FLOUR BLUFF ISD bond work; asks board to reconsider

Michael Miller, vice president of Teal Construction Company, told the FLOUR BLUFF ISD Board of Trustees on June 3 that his firm submitted the lowest general contracting fee for the district’s bond projects but was not recommended for award.

“On Wednesday, June 3rd, we submitted a proposal for the various district projects… I was elated to see that we had proposed the lowest general contracting fee. The bids ranged from our low of 3.25% up to a high of 6.58%,” Miller said, urging trustees to reconsider the staff recommendation.

Miller alleged two categories of inconsistencies in the scoring and tabulation: published fees in the board packet differed from the amounts read aloud at the public bid opening, and one contractor received 11.25 points in a category that had a 10-point maximum. He said he raised those concerns with the district procurement officer after finding the board packet did not reflect the publicly read bids.

The procurement officer, Miller said, told him staff had contacted two contractors to clarify their submissions but had not contacted all bidders; Miller said he had attempted to alert staff by email on June 8 and by phone.

“If given the same opportunity to clarify as the two other bidders, we would have clearly illustrated that we would have provided the lowest pricing and best value for the district,” he said, and asked trustees to “reconsider the staff’s recommendation.”

Jamie Vickers, a project coordinator who spoke on behalf of Teal Construction, echoed Miller’s request for an interview before the board finalizes award decisions. “Knowing that Teal has submitted the lowest fee on your project, I would ask the board to reconsider the choice of the general contractor or at least give Teal a chance to have an interview before your final decision is made,” she said.

Board members did not respond to the public comments on the record during the meeting; public comment rules posted by the district state the board is prohibited from responding to items not on the posted agenda. The procurement- and award-related items were on the board’s bond agenda for consideration during the meeting.

Next steps were not recorded on the public record during the meeting; Miller said he had already contacted procurement and supplied the June 8 email for staff review.

The board’s formal award actions on bond projects were taken later in the meeting.