Argos Town Council members approved bids for their two major Community Crossings projects when members met last Wednesday. The Town was awarded about $926,970.24 in the most recent grant round.
The paving work expected on Westview Court and Woodland Trail was bid out as one project. That work was awarded to the lowest bidder, E&B Paving.
While that decision was arrived at pretty easily, the bid process for the Colonial Estates project required a bit more discussion.
As a reminder, this project will entail not only paving Constitution, Freedom and Independence Streets but it will also include the installation of curbs, sidewalks and drainage within the subdivision.
Town Superintendent Jamie Lindstrom told members he didn’t think it would be a good idea to go with the lowest bid from John Ward Concrete and Excavating after encountering several “red flags” while coordinating with others about the company.
He recommended going with the second lowest bid instead, which was submitted by Walsh & Kelly.
Town Attorney Derek Jones chimed in, explaining that this is a situation where they must be aware of particular regulations. He noted that they have to be very specific about their reasoning if they decide to go with a company other than the lowest bidder.
Jones discussed an Indiana Code (IC-36-1-12-4) which appears as a section in the public works statute related to bidding projects. It says a governing body shall award the contract to the lowest, responsible and responsive bidder.
He added that the same statute goes on to list certain guidelines that must be followed if an entity is interested in awarding the contract to someone other than the lowest bidder.
He said if that’s the case, they must note in their meeting minutes the factors they used to determine that the company didn’t fit the requirements in order to sufficiently justify the alternate award choice.
Through some research conducted by both Town Attorney Jones and Superintendent Lindstrom, some viable factors were determined and read into the record.
Jones noted, “I’m going to start with responsive, and an issue there is that John Ward is not prequalified contractor listed by INDOT.”
Jones explained that there are at least two different state statutes that require a bidder to be a prequalified contractor in order to be awarded a project.
He said even he double checked prior to their meeting and as of February 14th of this year, the last day the list was updated, Ward and his company were not listed.
He went on to mention some of the reasons that the lowest bidder was not considered the most “responsible”, including a reported reputation of not paying vendors, of having unsafe work practices and producing a poor quality of work.
Jones added that there was more alleged evidence of failure to comply with state law concerning equipment and concerns related to a lack of experience within this locale and poor reviews from customers and clients.
He also cited a noted concern with his ability to perform the work, given the distance from his principal place of business, specifically in regards to the transportation of concrete.
Jones informed members that despite having all these factors laid out, they may still be required to justify their decision in the future and it wouldn’t necessarily eliminate the possibility of potential litigation.
Members seemed to understand the risk and it was noted that their reasoning appeared to be solidly backed by state regulations and other extenuating factors.
Councilman Charles Randy Snead requested some assistance with the wording for the motion in order to ensure it was going to be made in accordance with what is required.
Jones indicated that if the council wished to proceed with Superintendent Lindstrom’s recommendation to go with the second lowest bid, they would need to make a motion to do so and include that they decided to reject the lowest bidder specifically because it was determined that he was not the most responsive and responsible based on the factors that were previously identified.
A motion to that effect was made and passed with a unanimous vote.
If you wish to hear the whole conversation about the Community Crossings Bids, reference the video below starting a little bit before the 28-minute mark.
