Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Procurement Rebid topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Branson CID directs staff to rebid corridor project on 20‑month schedule after no bids
Summary
Board reviewed exit interviews explaining why a major corridor project drew no bids, debated 18–24 month timeframes and incentives, and voted to rebid using a 20‑month contract with a 2‑month incentive to balance cost, contractor interest and seasonal impacts.
The 76 Entertainment CID Board voted to rebid a corridor reconstruction project after the initial procurement produced no acceptable bids, directing staff to pursue a 20‑month contract with a two‑month completion incentive. Staff and consultants told the board that contractors’ primary objections were the original 12‑month schedule and extensive utility coordination, and that stretching the schedule would likely increase contractor interest but also lengthen construction impacts.
“Spitball number on the whole intersection is north of $2,000,000,” said Michael (speaker 7), the project lead, describing scale while explaining that bid results will ultimately set precise costs. Staff summarized exit‑interview feedback from plan holders, which repeatedly cited schedule and underground utility risks as the main deterrents to bidding.
City staff outlined three rebid options developed from interviews with plan holders: a 20‑month contract with a two‑month performance incentive (staff’s preferred option), a 22‑month timeline, and a 24‑month timeline to maximize bidder interest. Todd (speaker 10), the financial adviser, and Spencer (speaker 11), the consultant, told the board that longer schedules can lower unit price pressure but raise total duration and public disruption.
Board members weighed tradeoffs including overtime premiums, planting season constraints and how many summers construction would span. After a motion and a voice vote, members approved staff’s recommendation to move forward with the 20‑month option, instructing staff to rebid, to coordinate with MoDOT for required permissions, and to return with contract documents and a resolution for formal appropriation at the next board meeting.
Next steps outlined by staff include advertising the rebid, a virtual pre‑bid for general contractors and a fast turn to present bids to the board and the Board of Aldermen in October. The decision does not commit the board to an award; staff retained the ability to reject outlier bids and rebid again if pricing is not competitive.
