Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Water Infrastructure topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board rejects Red Technologies’ low bid, awards Marjorie Water Plant tank work to ETT Environmental Services
Summary
The Danbury City Board of Awards rejected the apparent low bid from Red Technologies for the Marjorie Water Treatment Plant fuel tank replacement as nonresponsive and approved an award to ETT Environmental Services (the second-low bidder), with the award contingent on contract execution; transcript contains inconsistent reporting of the final total.
The Danbury City Board of Awards voted April 15 to reject the lowest bid for the Marjorie Water Treatment Plant fuel tank replacement and to award the work to the next-lowest responsive bidder, identified in the record as ETT Environmental Services, contingent on contract execution.
Steve Foger, the purchasing agent, told the board that three bids were received and that the apparent low bidder, Red Technologies, submitted a proposal that included an alternate above-ground tank system materially different from the specification. Foger said the bids were reviewed by Sean Lorton, a principal engineer with TRC Engineers, and that Lorton’s April 13 letter recommended Red Technologies be declared nonresponsive after the company did not correct the discrepancy. “Mr. Lorton indicated Red Tech’s bid included an alternate above ground tank system, which was materially different from the one that was specified,” Foger said.
Based on that recommendation, staff recommended awarding the contract to the second-low bidder, recorded in the meeting as ETT Environmental Services, which staff deemed responsive and qualified. Foger moved to award the contract including alternates 1 and 2; the motion was seconded by Mr. Garrett and carried.
The transcript records the low bid amount for Red Technologies as $384,400 and records the alternates 1 and 2 bid amount for the recommended award as $518,700. During discussion a final total award figure was stated but is inconsistent in the meeting record and could not be confirmed from the transcript; staff described the award as contingent on contract execution.
Charge/account codes for the project were read into the record. The board provided approval to proceed with contract paperwork; the award remains subject to a signed contract and any required pre-construction conditions.
Because the transcript contains inconsistent spellings and an unclear final total, staff follow-up to confirm the final contract amount and the exact awarded line items is required before publication of contract specifics.
