Public Works Procurement Question

Scope change on Sheriff’s Bunkhouse Project

Update – April 8, 2025 (Click)

During the April 1, 2025, Park County Commissioner’s Work/Admin session, the PC Public Works Department representatives presented various bids they’d issued and requested that the BOCC approve them.

One of those bids was Project No. FAC2025-002, “Park County Sherrif’s Office Bunkhouse – Foundation/Excavation.”

Here’s the presentation for that project/bid:

On April 5, 2025, I contacted PC Public Works via their email utility and asked the following questions:

Reference your Project No. FAC2025-002, “Park County Sherrif’s Office Bunkhouse – Foundation/Excavation.”

During the April 1, 2025, BOCC Work/Admin Session, I believe it was Nick Bredsnajder, Public Works Director, who made a presentation to the Board of County Commissioners referencing the above project. That presentation revealed three bids were received: Burbach’s Rocky Mountain Excavating – $54,500.00; Ed Green Construction Co. – $196,850.00; and Rocky Mountain Development LLC – $134,617.00. There was a significant disparity between the lowest bid and the other two. This disparity is, of course, a red flag. Mr. Bredsnajder explained that the low bid on the project reflected that the county had decided to do a significant portion of the work in-house: “We’re going to change some stuff around…”

It is assumed the low bid was only for the work the county would or could not do after “changing some stuff around.”

The scope of work in the original bid had changed, and the low bidder provided their bid in light of that fact.

Government purchasing/contracting best ethical and procedural practices require that if there is a change in the scope of work following the issuance of an RFP/Bidder’s Proposal, said change in scope must be provided to all potential bidders via an addendum. Bidnet revealed only one addendum for this project, which provided the plans. Were the other two bidders given the new scope of work to enable them to adjust their prices according to the change in scope? Doing so would ensure all bidders had an equal chance at the award and that their bids would be apples to apples?

Mr. Bredsnajder requested the bid award go to Burbach’s Rocky Mountain Excavating, the apparent low bidder. However, if the other two bidders were not allowed to offer bids in response to the drastic scope change for the project, then the RFP/Bidder’s Proposal should have been canceled as it would no longer be a true and accurate reflection of the scope of work. If the county negotiated with Burbach in light of the scope change, negotiations with the other two bidders should have been conducted to give them an opportunity to provide new pricing. If this is the case, the RFP/Bidder’s Proposal would require cancellation without an addendum memorializing the scope change.

The significant discrepancy from low to high bidder remains a red flag. It may or may not indicate a breakdown of proper government purchasing/contracting best ethical and procedural practices.

I am on the outside looking in, and there are probably details concerning the RFP/Bidder’s Proposal for this project I’m unaware of. If so, would you kindly advise?

Thank you

On April 7, 2025, I contacted County Manager Meyer (Administration Department) via their email utility and asked the following question:

To Manager Meyer: Per the Agenda for the April 8 semi-judicial BOCC meeting, among the APPROVAL OF AWARDS is Project No. FAC2025-002, “Park County Sherrif’s Office Bunkhouse – Foundation/Excavation.” Referencing my communication of April 5, 2025, to Park County Public Works provided below [above in this post], would a delay in the approval of this award be justified until a reasonable answer is offered to dispel perceived procurement irregularities related to the project?

Since the final BOCC approval of this bid/project is on the April 8, 2025, quasi-judicial agenda, it would make sense that any misgivings about the possible impropriety of what occurred with this bid project are explained.

As I noted in my communication with the Public Works Department, I am, like most of us, on the outside looking in and may not understand all the nuances of this issue. If so, certainly in the interest of transparency, a reasonable answer should be forthcoming from Manager Meyer or Public Works.

In my former life, I served as Director of Purchasing for the City and County of Denver. Our purchases of goods and services, even way back then, amounted to five or six times Park County’s entire budget. I am no stranger to government purchasing best practices and ethical procedures, most of which- in Denver at least- are codified.

Then again, in this case, maybe I’m full of baloney and don’t understand the unique mountain-centric way the Park County government procures goods and services.

Or maybe I’m not. We’ll see…

On April 8, 2025, Nick Bredsnajder, Director of Public Works, responded to my inquiry of April 5, 2025, providing the bid forms from each of the three bidders:

You will note that Burbach’s “winning” bid provided a “no bid” on the second bid item. In the video above, that was not explained to the commissioners, and the narrative was a wee bit specious in presenting the bid totals as apples to apples. They were not. The other two bidders provided pricing for both bid items, and Burbach did not. The video offers the county’s plan to “change some stuff around” and do the work described in the second bid item as “Utility lines and hook-ups” in-house and using subcontractors. It will suffice to say that doing that work in-house and utilizing subcontractors will most likely cost more than the pricing offered in the bidders’ proposals. County employee wage costs, county costs for materials and equipment, and the cost of subcontractors to complete the work defined by bid item two will, most likely, cost more than what was bid to do the job.