Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Procurement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Staff member: changing beer‑garden contract would likely violate procurement rules; board to consider RFP fixes
Summary
At a Schererville Town study session board members reviewed a firefighters union request to alter the beer‑garden contract after a reported shortfall. Town legal staff said retroactive changes would likely breach procurement rules; the board directed staff to explore RFP revisions rather than reopen the current contract.
At a Schererville Town study session on Aug. 6, board members discussed a request from the firefighters union to modify the town’s beer‑garden contract after the most recent Schererville Fest left the union claiming a financial shortfall. The session opened with the chair introducing the item and asking staff for background. A staff member providing legal counsel told the board the contract had been awarded through a request for proposals and that altering material terms after award would probably violate procurement law.
"My legal opinion is that that would constitute a material modification to the contract and that we shouldn't do it and, legally, we probably can't do that," the staff member said, arguing that changes that affect the competitive basis of an RFP are generally prohibited. The staff member cited an integration clause in the agreement and the general procurement principle that post‑award changes which could have affected bidding are legally fraught.
Board members described the facts underpinning the request: the contract included a flat guarantee the town expected ($7,500), plus a percentage share (the RFP specified 8% of gross sales), and the firefighters’ summary showed receipts, tips and charitable donations. One board member noted the union reported being "$32,816.11" short after accounting for expenses and donations, and other members asked whether tips or unrelated charitable contributions had been included in the fest totals.
Members and staff reviewed the RFP text and the union’s spreadsheet and flagged inconsistencies. "We did notice a discrepancy," one staff member said, pointing out that tips and donations were included in some totals but not others, which affected the calculation of the town fee. Staff walked through the arithmetic and indicated the figures tracked with the contract terms as written.
Several board members voiced sympathy for the volunteer fire department and discussed options short of reopening the awarded contract. "This is our fire department, and they're not making a profit off of this," a committee member said, urging the board to seek a legal, practical solution that does not penalize volunteers. The legal staff recommended against unilateral credits or retroactive cuts to the flat guarantee, noting that the town could accept a negotiated withdrawal and rebid the contract if both parties agreed, or else revise future RFPs to build in more flexibility.
Board members discussed possible RFP changes — for example, splitting a multi‑day guarantee into daily guarantees, clarifying whether tips or charitable donations count toward gross sales, or offering a net‑profit structure — to reduce vendor risk while preserving a competitive procurement process. No formal motion or vote was taken at the study session; the chair closed the meeting and asked staff to research alternative procurement methods and to draft revised contract language for future festivals.
What happens next: staff will return with recommendations for procurement options and specific contract language changes; the existing contract remains in force and no retroactive adjustment was approved at this session.
