Bridge department head defends selecton
After numerous news stories and editorials with wrong information, I felt it necessary to set the record straight on the facts concerning the recent Fayette County bridge inspection “request for proposals.” I recommended to the county commissioners that they select Fayette Engineering for the three-year contract for a number of reasons. Fayette Engineering met all the specifications of the RFP, which were delivered in a sealed proposal to the controller’s office on time. They followed the instructions of the request for proposal. They are PennDOT certified with bridge inspection experience, and are willing and able to inspect all 61 bridges when requested. And Fayette Engineering’s proposal was the lowest price to the county by $13,390.
Other issues that seem to be of question:
– All companies received the same specifications from the chief clerk in the commissioners’ office.
– All companies had the same opportunity to ask questions at the pre-bid meeting or by fax to the chief clerk.
– All companies received a copy of all of the questions and answers to those questions by fax from the chief clerk.
– All companies had the opportunity to mail or deliver their proposal to the controller’s office.
– All companies had the opportunity to set their cost for what the county and PennDOT would pay. The specifications separated the bridges by class, including the 11 bridges that are not paid in the 80 percent-20 percent cost split. The cost to inspect the 50 bridges that are 20 feet and over is split 80-percent Penn Dot and 20-percent county. The cost to inspect the 11 bridges under 20 feet in length is paid by the county.
– The controller’s office received the original proposal.
– All sealed proposals were opened in a public meeting by the controller’s office and the commissioners’ office staff.
– The chief clerk, commissioners and I received a copy of the proposal.
When I reviewed the proposals, I found all the engineering firms had bridge experience within their company and were PennDOT certified. Fayette Engineering had more experience with the Fayette County bridges since they designed and worked on many of the bridges in the past, not to mention they have done the inspections in the past. Fayette Engineering’s proposal to inspect all 61 bridges was more cost effective for the county than the other proposals.
In conclusion, choosing Fayette Engineering was the right thing to do. They have the most experience working with the Bridge Department on Fayette County bridges and they are the lowest cost to the county. This decision saved the county’s liquid fuel funds, which can be spent on other bridge projects, and to help the municipalities on their bridges and road projects.
Paul Nixon is superintendent of the Fayette County Bridge Department.