New Mt. Lebanon pool renovation bids come in low
After being sued over a disputed contract for the municipal pool improvement project, Mt. Lebanon officials made the best of a bad situation when a second round of bids for the job came in lower than the first.
Officials opened bids this week for the project to renovate the bath house, add features and make a sloped entry to the pool. Commissioners could award a contract during Monday's meeting.
The apparent low bidder is Clairton-based DiMarco Construction, with a $1.325 million base price, plus $58,000 for work on drainage systems around the pool, Mt. Lebanon Manager Steve Feller said.
DiMarco's bid — which officials will check to ensure it meets requirements and contains no errors — is $226,000 lower than a bid submitted in August by Plavchak Construction of Jefferson Hills.
A Mt. Lebanon resident sued the municipality in August, contending that Washington-based Waller Construction was the low bidder but the municipality allowed Plavchak to lower its initial bid for the drainage work.
Plavchak countered in court filings that there was a math error in its drainage bid, which Mt. Lebanon staff allowed the company to correct.
Allegheny County Common Pleas Court allowed Mt. Lebanon to seek new bids, and although Waller and Plavchak submitted bids the second time, theirs are higher than DiMarco's.
Feller said it could take several weeks for work to begin. The contract will specify that crews complete the work by June 15.
Matthew Santoni is a staff writer for Trib Total Media. He can be reached at 412 380 5625 or firstname.lastname@example.org.
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments â either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.