Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Procurement topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Residents press council for clarity after McCarter Park playground bids are rejected

Fairhaven Borough Council · July 14, 2026
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

A resident questioned why bids for McCarter Park Playground were rejected and what will change in a rebid; staff explained a low bidder's paperwork was noncompliant and some bids exceeded the engineer's estimate. Council indicated bidders will receive a memo explaining the outcome.

A resident questioned Fairhaven Borough Council about the recent rejection of bids for the McCarter Park Playground, asking whether there had been a post-bid review and what would change in a rebid.

During public comment the resident asked three questions: the estimate used, whether a post-bid meeting occurred to understand high bids and what the borough would change when it rebids. Council and staff answered that at least one low bidder submitted noncompliant paperwork and that some bidders' prices exceeded the engineer's estimate.

A staff or contract representative explained the low bidder had left key quantities off the bid form and made multiple paperwork errors, rendering that bid nonresponsive under the Public Contracts Law. Council members and staff said multiple reasons contributed to rejecting the bids: paperwork noncompliance by an apparent low bidder and bid amounts that exceeded the engineer's estimate. Staff said the governing body will send a memo to bidders explaining the outcome and next steps.

The public commenter expressed confusion because the resolution in the meeting packet did not clearly show the items the resident expected; staff said the supporting bid details were included in the packet and in a binder at the front of the meeting materials and had been emailed to councilors ahead of the meeting.

No new award was made at the meeting; councilors discussed that, if the governing body chooses to award the contract to the second bidder, that bid amount would be higher than the apparent low (but nonresponsive) bid. The council indicated it will rebid and follow-up with bidders and the public on next steps.