Tell City-Troy Twp School Corp board accepts base bids for auxiliary gym, sends packages to architect for review

Tell City-Troy Twp School Corp's Board of School Trustees met in a special session April 2 and accepted six base bids for a proposed auxiliary gym, then agreed to forward the full bid packages to UDA for a responsiveness and completeness review, the chair said.

The board's chair read the base bids aloud at the meeting: "Seifert's base bid is 4,513,000 even," followed by bids for Jasper Lumber, Krimp Construction, ARC Construction, Empire Contractors and Danco as read to the board. The meeting transcript records the board hearing the readouts and discussing the amounts and alternates.

The board and project team emphasized how close the bids were. One board member praised the competitiveness: "That is solid. I mean, 27 years of this for me. I have never seen anything come in this tight," the member said. Board members noted several bidders are contractors the district or its representatives had worked with previously and that some bidders were union-affiliated.

Project alternates were not read during the session; the chair said UDA would verify responsiveness and follow up with bidders about missing information or clarifications. The transcript includes sample alternate costs cited by the project team, including a Danco alternate for finishes and concessions of about 71,000 and an office/janitorial alternate of about 156,000 (combined roughly 250,000), which the board said could be selected without exceeding planned thresholds if UDA's review confirms responsiveness.

A board member moved to accept the base bids and turn them over to the architect/owner's representative for review. Members present voted in favor by voice; the motion was recorded as carrying with vocal "aye" responses and at least one member noting an abstention during the exchange. The board did not adopt any contract award at the meeting; staff and the architect will complete the responsiveness review before any award or recommendation.

After the meeting adjourned, a board member noted that the low bidder told the district it could not start work for approximately four months, a scheduling consideration the district said it would factor into next steps.

The next procedural step is the architect/owner's representative's review of responsiveness and any follow-up with bidders; the board did not take final contract action at the April 2 meeting.