Published: June 26, 2009 02:09 pm      

New Albany Board of Works rejects lowest bid for paving project

Lowest bidder, Sedam Contracting, said it didn’t receive e-mail about stipulation on project

The New Albany Board of Works rejected the lowest of four bids for a citywide paving project Thursday, igniting a war of words between New Albany City Council members and administration officials.

Sedam Contracting submitted an estimate of $795,000 for the paving effort, which is backed by $2 million in Economic Development Income Tax funds allocated by the council.

But that bid didn’t include acknowledgment of an addendum that the other contractors included in their estimates, according to city attorney Shane Gibson.

Following a prebid meeting last week, contractors interested in bidding on the project were e-mailed a change to the contract that specified a kind of material to be used in the asphalt, Gibson said.

Sedam’s estimate didn’t include pricing for the asphalt ingredient, which violated the terms of the bid specifications, according to Gibson.

“It is my opinion that Sedam did not respond to what was asked for,” he said.

Gibson referenced state codes calling for municipalities to award contracts to the lowest bidder that submits a responsive estimate.

“It doesn’t change our bid whatsoever,” said Ty Bowling, a representative of Sedam who was on hand for the board of works meeting. He said the cost of the material specified would be about $60,000, but added the bid Sedam proposed would not change because of the stipulation.

Bowling said he never received the e-mail Gibson referred to, stating the first he heard of the addendum was Tuesday when bids were opened at a board of works meeting.

All the other contractors received the e-mail, Gibson said. Despite Bowling’s explanation, Gibson said the legal paperwork submitted by Sedam does not acknowledge the change so he recommended the board deny the company’s bid.

Sedam not including the addendum in the bid puts the other suitors at a disadvantage, Gibson continued.

“Does it limit their ability? Yeah, I think it does,” he said.

Board President Matt Denison said it was an unfortunate situation, but accepting the bid could set a bad example for awarding contracts that are not complete.

“There’s a reason the addendum was required,” he said.

Board member Kay Garry said in her experience, some projects have multiple addendums that must be met before a bid can be accepted. She justified voting against Sedam because of Gibson’s legal advice.

Garry opposed rebidding the project because legal notices to do so would mean a bid couldn’t be awarded for more than a month.

“You’re going through another 40 to 45 days with no paving,” she said of what would happen if another round of bids were accepted. Upon turning down Sedam, the board accepted the next lowest bid, which was from Gohmann Asphalt & Construction for $851,800.

Councilwoman Diane McCartin-Benedetti and Council President Dan Coffey protested the decision at the meeting. Coffey said denying Sedam sets a bad example since the company agreed to accept the conditions at no additional cost.

“It’s going to be where we’re stuck just getting certain people to bid,” Coffey said, adding that he told Benedetti before the meeting the board would find a reason to reject Sedam.

Gibson countered that this case was only the second time he’s recommended a body reject a bid.

“I don’t take it lightly and it’s not something that happens very often,” he said.

Benedetti wanted the project rebidded and left the room even before the vote, visibly frustrated by the explanations Gibson had given. She said the issue could have cleared without eliminating Sedam from consideration for the project.



SO YOU KNOW

• The difference between the two bids was $56,800.



BY THE NUMBERS

$851,800 — the amount of the accepted bid by Gohmann Asphalt & Construction