Staff reviews five bids for Greenwood’s Hip Park playground; ADA access and budget top concerns

A staff member leading the presentation said the city opened bids on Nov. 21 and that the project budget is $855,000, with about half of that cost eligible for reimbursement through a Land and Water Conservation Fund grant. “We are tasked with selecting the lowest and most responsible bidder,” the staff member said, explaining the board must document its justification to the grant coordinator.

Staff reviewed five complete proposals for Hip Park and described trade-offs among cost, play value and ADA accessibility. One vendor’s submission was the highest base bid and included a large, modern centerpiece structure with three big slides and many internal play elements; staff warned that, despite its size, that design offered less accessible ramping than some competitors and could deliver lower overall play value per dollar.

Aspire to Play’s proposal was singled out by staff as particularly responsive to the project scope for accessibility and sensory needs. The staff member said Aspire’s age-5-to-12 structure includes extensive ADA ramping and a built-in sensory area, and highlighted an assistive component the vendor calls a 360 play system that lets wheelchair users with sufficient upper-body strength access and use slides. “It’s definitely probably one of staff’s highest recommended designs of the five that we’re looking at tonight in terms of meeting the scope, providing ADA accessibility,” the staff member said.

Committee members pressed on procurement options and durability. One member asked, “Why don’t we pick out the equipment we want and take the top three bidders and have them rebid it with the equipment we want?” — a question staff answered by pointing to the RFP language and the design flexibility the city allowed so manufacturers could meet safety and fall-zone requirements.

The board also discussed surfacing choices. Participants compared poured-in-place surfacing and artificial turf, noting maintenance differences; one committee member recounted a local example of heavy wear and an early problem at another site, which the board treated as an anecdote to be checked rather than settled fact.

Staff presented Miracle Recreation and Compam (the Austin-based submission) as mid-range options that meet many scope items; Compam offered a more modern aesthetic and an optional climbing-dome feature that committee members liked but noted would increase cost. Cunningham Recreation submitted the lowest base bid and met the minimum preparation and ADA requirements, though its base package did not include the adjacent sensory play area or sand diggers presented as alternates by other bidders.

Staff cautioned that vendors’ price validity periods differ — some quotes are good for 30 days while others extend into the next year — and said the city will check warranty, durability and installation references. The staff member said staff will return with verified answers about canopy materials, surfacing type, accessibility details and the lifespan of alternate surfacing options before the board makes a final selection.

Next steps: staff will follow up with manufacturers to clarify unanswered technical details, provide references, and recommend an option for the board to justify to the grant coordinator. The board did not take a final vote at the meeting and plans additional review and possible site visits before awarding a contract.