Grantsville picked the lowest of six bids for its sewer plant

Grantsville's City Council voted 4–0 on April 1, 2026 to approve Resolution 2026-18, awarding construction of the city's new wastewater treatment plant to VanCon, Inc. Councilmember Brittany Skinner was absent. ^[1]

Public Works Director Christy Montierth told the council the city received six bids from pre-qualified contractors and that VanCon was the lowest responsive bidder, within the engineer's projected budget, according to the minutes. ^[1]

The council approved the April 1 minutes 5–0 on May 6. ^[3]

The bids

The bid tabulation in the April 1 packet lists VanCon at $39,133,419.96 under "Cost" and $43,700,000.00 under "Cost + Equipment." The two figures overlap; the second includes the first. ^[2]

The other five bids ranged from $46,426,813.00 to $58,924,612.19 in the first column, and from $50,993,393.04 to $63,491,192.23 with equipment. ^[2]

The draft resolution in the packet states the award amount as $43,700,000.00 and authorizes the city manager to negotiate and sign the contract. Its signature lines are blank. ^[2]

City Manager Michael Resare said the design meets current requirements and leaves out some components to reduce cost, and that the plant is designed to be expandable, according to the minutes. ^[1]

The inspector

On May 6, the council considered Resolution 2026-33, selecting a firm for inspection and materials testing on the plant. The minutes say four firms submitted proposals, none fully complied with the submission instructions, and staff evaluated all four. ^[3]

Staff recommended Offeror C, which had the highest technical score and remained highest after cost was included. The council's motion instead selected Offeror B, citing a total point difference of less than one point and a cost savings of about $90,000 compared with Offeror C. ^[3]

City Attorney Tysen Barker advised that the council could award the contract based on its determination of the city's best interest, weighing scores and cost, as long as it stated its reasoning on the record, according to the minutes. The motion passed 5–0. ^[3]

The scoring sheet in the May 6 packet lists the four offerors only by letter. Offeror A proposed $145,023 and scored 84.33 points out of 100. Offeror B proposed $175,000 and scored 87.24, Offeror C proposed $266,995 and scored 88.20, and Offeror D proposed $350,000 and scored 83.29. Offeror B's price was $91,995 below Offeror C's, and its total was 0.96 points lower. Offeror A's price was the lowest of the four. ^[4]

The minutes and the scoring sheet do not name the firms behind the letters. ^[3][4]