Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Roads Management topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Long debate over proposed DCCM engineering contract highlights questions about procurement, scope and county capacity
Summary
A proposed engineering services agreement with DCCM Infrastructure Inc. prompted an extended court discussion over competitive selection, contract language (liability, caps, agency authority), staff capacity, and the pace of road projects; commissioners split on whether to approve, disapprove or seek an RFQ.
The court held a protracted and detailed debate on a proposed engineering services contract with DCCM Infrastructure Inc. for project management of county roads. Commissioner Stacy introduced the draft contract and described the contractor role; several commissioners and the county auditor raised procedural and substantive concerns that led to mixed procedural votes and no final approval.
"This is a huge contract," said Commissioner Lickty during a page-by-page review, raising issues about liability limitations, insurance levels, the $120,000 fee cap and the contractor’s right to provide similar services to other counties. The county auditor noted discrepancies in the procurement code citation and recommended a competitive RFQ for a project of this scale.
Commissioners aired broader concerns about the county’s road-delivery performance, staffing capacity in the county engineering office, and an earlier February letter from a consultant that some commissioners described as ‘‘politicized.’’ Staff and the county engineer said the county would need either ITS support or an outside firm to manage workload and that the presented contract was based on a template used elsewhere. After motions to disapprove and to approve were considered, the court did not approve the contract (final approval motion failed 3–2). Members agreed further negotiation, more bidders, and additional legal review are needed before reconsideration.
