Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Town Hall Accessibility topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Select Board approves moving ahead with GBV for town‑hall accessibility design
Summary
After reviewing two proposals for town‑hall accessibility work, the Select Board agreed to proceed with the higher‑scoring, lower‑cost firm (GBV). Board members asked staff to draft a contract for state review and confirm engineering cost estimates before signing.
The Granville Select Board voted May 12 to move forward with contracting an architectural firm the town scored highest in a recent RFP for the town‑hall accessibility project.
Sarah (project coordinator) told the board the town received two proposals and used the RFP scoring rubric required by state regulations. "I came up with a total score of 88 for GBV and a total score of 71 for WM," she said, noting the higher‑scoring GBV bid was substantially lower (roughly $23,000 for the architectural work) than the out‑of‑state firm's six‑figure estimate.
Sarah told the board the GBV proposal lacked some detail and that engineering work would likely be an additional cost. "Yes, engineering will be on top of this price," she said, adding that the RFP included a built‑in option to extend the contract timeline if needed. She also noted the town has already received the relevant CDBG/CPG grant funding that can be requisitioned as work proceeds.
Board members said the lower cost and GBV's local experience with historic Vermont buildings made the firm a reasonable choice. The chair moved to proceed, and the motion was seconded and approved by the board.
Next steps identified by the board and Sarah include drafting a contract for GBV, submitting the draft to the state funder for review, finalizing engineering‑subconsultant scopes and pricing, and returning a proposed contract and related environmental‑review contracts for board review at a future meeting. Sarah said she would gather outstanding questions for GBV and circulate answers to the board by email.
The board also discussed separate, required environmental review services (archaeological, historic‑architectural and toxics review) and said it would review proposals for those services at the next meeting.
