Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Procurement Asphalt topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council declines to award resurfacing contract after debate over bidder's federal case
Summary
A 3to3 vote defeated a motion to award a $2.7 million asphalt resurfacing contract to Al's Asphalt after residents cited federal DOJ findings about bid rigging; city leaders said the federal matters did not involve Taylor contracts and stressed the cost savings and number of streets that could be completed.
A motion to award the citywide asphalt resurfacing contract to Al's Asphalt failed on a 3to3 roll-call vote after extended debate and public comment. Council members weighing cost savings against allegations tied to federal investigations split evenly, leaving the city without an approved contractor.
The mayor and city staff said Al's Asphalt submitted the lowest bid at about $2.7 million while the next bidder was $3.1 million, a difference the mayor described as "about $400,000" that would allow the city to resurface 29 streets instead of 20. "They're $400,000 cheaper than the next bidder," the mayor said in defense of pursuing the low bid and urged council to consider the benefit to residents on the affected streets.
Residents and a local commenter who reviewed public records urged caution. Miss Carroll presented a timeline of news coverage and a Department of Justice press release alleging conspiracies involving Al's Asphalt and related firms, saying the material undermined confidence in awarding the contract. "A bid was put together by Al's Asphalt and Asphalt Specialties who conspired together, and we took the contract on," she said, urging the council to investigate before approval.
Al's Asphalt's representative responded directly to the council and public. Mr. Swanson said the company is not debarred from local contracts, described the federal matters as resolved or limited to federally funded projects, and said the firm had taken steps to comply with government requirements. "This matter had nothing to do with any municipality, period," he said, adding that the company had made operational changes and was seeking to resolve pending suspensions tied to federally funded work.
City staff and the engineer detailed the procurement record: the city advertised the contract and received seven bids with a low bid of approximately $2.7 million and a next-lowest of about $3.1 million. The engineer said the low bidder's price and local presence meant more streets could be resurfaced within available funds. The mayor, engineering and DPW staff said they jointly recommended awarding the contract to the low bidder after reviewing quantities and bid materials.
Council members expressed divided views about whether a prior federal plea and related suspension should disqualify the company for local work. One council member said officials had reviewed charter and purchasing rules and concluded debarment was a department-level decision with mayoral approval; others said community trust and ethical standards should weigh heavily.
On roll call the tally was: Miss Rose (no), Mrs. Daniels (no), Mr. Johnson (yes), Mrs. Brandana (no), Miss Winton (yes), Mr. Geist (yes). The motion failed 3to3. Councilman Johnson asked the city engineer to provide house counts on the nine streets affected so the council could consider next steps at a future open meeting.
Next steps: because the motion failed, the city has not awarded the contract; council discussion indicated staff will return with supplemental information (number of homes affected and funding implications) and that the mayorand administration may pursue further procurement options or recommend the next-lowest bidder at a later meeting.
