The approaching selection of a Project Manager at Risk to oversee the construction of the Yerington jail project has some people questioning the lack of local firms in the group of five finalists.
Ten applications were received. The Jail Committee ranked the applications 1-10 and cut the list to five finalists:
- Peter Brown Construction, Inc
- Sundt Construction, Inc
- Sletten Construction of Nevada, Inc
- Roche Constructors, Inc
- Core Construction Services of Nevada, Inc
Not making the finalist listing were: Q & D Construction, Inc; West Coast Contractors of Nevada, Inc; The Penta building Group, Inc; Burke & Associates, Inc; and, United Construction Company.
Commissioner Don Tibbals, a contractor and resident of Weed Heights, raised the greatest concern.
“I think it is grossly unfair to the people of the state of Nevada. I think it is a slap to the face to them to not pick anyone from the state for our jail project. It would help out economy...and we don’t have anyone from the state that has been picked,” Tibbals stated. “If we don’t have the qualified people in Nevada, how do we know the rest of the people are qualified, too. I think it is unfair.”
He said he has received calls from numerous contractors who want to do the building and who are qualified to do the work.
The Contractor at Risk will bid the project as a whole, including all estimated subcontracting costs. He will then be responsible for putting all contracted services out to bid. His own company must also bid if they chose to contract on a particular phase.
County Manager Dennis Stark explained that the majority of work, contracting and business will be provided by local contractors and businesses.
Commissioner Chuck Roberts concurred with Stark, stating, “It wasn’t our task to go out and find a local contractor we could award this to. Our task was to review the applicants, of which there were 10, and determine from them based on their qualifications who we believe might be the best qualified, and we narrowed that down to five.”
Roberts, Chairman of the Jail Oversight Committee, pointed out that one of the applicants has done numerous projects with the jail project architect and is partnered not only with a Nevada company, but with a Lyon County contractor.
“Our task is not favoritism. Our task is to give Lyon County the best project it can,” Roberts stated. He asked Tibbals to keep in mind, the process was “open to every qualified individual in the world” and there was at least one local company that attended the required pre-submittal conference. Expecting 50-60 or more applicants, he was surprised to see only 10.
Stark said there is a caveat in the contract that says local help and local assistance will be used when reasonably possible, and “that’s what we really want to have happen – to improve our economy and get the best project for the money.” He said as the process moves forward and the list is narrowed to a final three or four and they come to the board for approval, closer scrutiny can be paid to their relationship to businesses and organizations in Nevada and the county.
Commissioner Phyllis Hunewill said she knew the company placing 6th, Q & D Construction, did have the necessary experience and wanted to know what the rating were based on.
“I am very curious about the conversation on the telephone that was made to that company about not having the experience in public safety buildings. I know personally they do have that experience and hopefully that was not considered that they didn’t have it, because I know they do,” she stated to the board.
Stark said that issue could be discussed at the committee level or privately.
John Madole, representing the Association of General Contractors, also expressed disappointment at the lack of local contractors.
“You pretty much excluded contractors from 400 miles around here. One of the reasons we’re disappointed is we feel we’re a part of your community, and when it comes to supporting activities in Yerington and Lyon County, we’re a part of that,” Madole said.
He charged a number of contractors were excluded from the review process that he felt should have been given further consideration. He said Washoe County has had some “very unpleasant experiences” with people that came from other parts of the country, “And I fear you may be heading down the same road.”
He charged the application process sometimes “comes to be a sales presentation” and the selection process does not always “give you the best person.”
“We have the highest unemployment in the United States in northern Nevada. To see a selection of what’s probably the biggest public work’s project that will come out this year pretty much exclude, except for one contractor in Reno, is pretty hard to swallow,” he told the board. In referring to a pre-bid list, “I know there are one or two I know personally that were qualified to do this and for whatever reason your committee seemed to find that was not the case.”
Roberts, noting the 10 applications received, responded “I don’t think it’s a case of ‘qualified’ or ‘not qualified’. We had 10 applicants. We separated five out. I don’t think that meant that five were not qualified. We’re only going to pick one, so I don’t know if it’s fair to say if we do one that we have excluded everyone else. Our task is to choose one.”
