Members of the Poplar Bluff City Council declined Monday to hear in open session the concerns of a local contractor regarding a bid for more than $18 million in upgrades to the city’s wastewater treatment plant.
Questions also remain regarding whether the item was an appropriate closed session matter, or if it should have remained in an open meeting as it was on three prior occasions.
Representatives of Robertson Contractors attended a special meeting of the council with Poplar Bluff attorney Danny Moore. They asked to speak during a public comment period.
Robertson, of Poplar Bluff, submitted the second-lowest base bid for the project, at $17.560 million. Brockmiller Construction of Farmington, Missouri, bid $17.044 million.
A bid alternate for the project would bring costs to more than $18 million for both companies.
Upgrades are needed to meet stronger requirements under a settlement between the city and the Missouri Department of Natural Resources, and have been approved by voters.
“Who they are attempting to award the contract to have violated most of the bidding procedures and ought to be rejected outright,” Moore said, after being turned away from the open session comment period, adding later, “It doesn’t seem like they’re getting the correct advice. We’re going to offer them the correct advice.”
Mayor Susan McVey instructed Moore during the meeting that the council could choose to invite the Robertson group back to discuss the matter during its closed session.
“We have items to discuss in closed session,” McVey said, when Moore questioned why the item would be taken into closed session.
City attorney Mark Richardson said it would be allowable because it dealt with a contract, city manager Mark Massingham said later. No decisions have been made by the council, Massingham said.
The city has not indicated it is considering entering into a contract with Robertson for the wastewater upgrades.
Missouri Press Attorney Jean Maneke says the state’s open records law allows meetings and records related to sealed bids to be closed until the bids are opened. Bids for this project were opened March 12.
The same statute, 610.021 (12), says documents related to a negotiated contract can be closed until the contract is executed or all proposals are rejected, she said. This statute says nothing about meetings, Maneke explained.
UNBALANCED BID?
The matter has been tabled twice in public meetings on split votes following concerns by Ward 4 council member Shane Cornman. Cornman has said he believes the Brockmiller bid is unbalanced.
The closed session discussion Monday revolved around similar concerns, said Moore.
A line item difference in the cost for the replacement of two blowers and the reconfiguration of three blowers has been questioned by Cornman, and now by Robertson.
It would be $5,000 per unit for both under Brockmiller’s bid.
The next lowest line item is at $89,000 and $30,000 respectively, per unit, from KAJACS, another of the four companies which bid on the project. Robertson put the cost of each new blower at $171,900 and reconfiguration of each existing blower at $58,500.
Bill Giessing, a representative of Brockmiller, told the council April 1 these line items represent only the company’s labor costs.
The cost of materials is included in a separate line item, an $8.7 million expense for lagoon floating covers, he said. Robertson’s costs for lagoon floating covers are quoted at approximately $5.7 million, bid documents show.
The bids require that each line item include the cost of materials, labor, overhead and profit, according to Moore.
This allows for the city to change quantities, if needed, Moore said.
Robertson also believes the Brockmiller bid is front-loaded, and would amount to prepaying for work, Moore said, adding a government entity cannot prepay for work.
Moore says the closed session included additional discussion of errors in the Brockmiller bid.
NOT ENOUGH TO REJECT BID
Smith & Company engineers, who are overseeing the project, have admitted the Brockmiller bid is mathematically unbalanced.
“However, our understanding is to be rejected the bid has to be both mathematically and materially unbalanced,” Greg Bell, of Smith & Company, said Monday afternoon. “A materially unbalanced bid would be subjective to who the low bidder would be should quantities change during construction.”
Engineers do not see the items that are mathematically unbalanced altering the low bidder for the project, Bell said. This is only Smith & Company’s opinion, he added, and it is ultimately up to the city council and attorneys to decide.
TIME SENSITIVE?
Bids for the project were opened March 12. The bids are good for 90 days from the bid opening, Bell said.
Moore contends there is no reason for the city to rush its decision on this matter.
Engineers believe time should be considered. They estimate the city needs to subtract 45 days from the 90 days to allow for financing approval through the State Revolving Fund.
The SRF allows the city to fund the project at a lower interest rate.
It also requires a bond closing prior to signing a contract, Bell said. The loan closing is estimated to take 45 days, and are typically handled within the timeframe for which bids are good, he said.
BID ALTERNATES
Brockmiller also bid on an alternate project that would add $1.1 million, for total project costs of approximately $18.2 million.
Engineers with Smith & Co. have said an award would be made on the base bid.
Roberston Contractors of Poplar Bluff submitted a base bid of $17.560 million; River City Construction of East Peoria, Illinois was $17.595 million; and KAJACS Contractors of Poplar Bluff was $17.895 million.
Bid alternates would bring costs to $18.8 million from River City; $18.9 million from Robertson; and $19.2 million from KAJACS.