TOMPKINSVILLE — Construction problems on the initial phase of the Monroe County Family Wellness Center project convinced the county to use a different process to award the contract to continue the multi-phase project, which angered contractors who initially submitted bids.

Venture Contracting Inc. of Glasgow was one of three contractors that submitted bids for the project. On Oct. 21 the Monroe Fiscal Court voted to reject all bids and to readvertise for design build proposals, instead of bids, because Jeff Arnold with Arnold Consulting Engineering Services Inc. of Bowling Green told county officials some of the bids were lacking in information and that it would be best to readvertise the project.

Daryl Wheeler, president of Venture Contracting Inc., threatened to take legal action against the Monroe Fiscal Court and said in a letter to Judge-Executive Wilbur Graves that his bid met the criteria required by the fiscal court’s scope of work. He also pointed out in the letter that his company’s bid of $2,411,395 was $368,575 less than the other bids.

Wheeler, along with representatives of J&S; Construction, of Cookeville, Tenn., and Alliance Corporation of Glasgow, were present Thursday for a special-called fiscal court meeting for opening of the new design build proposals for the project. All three companies had originally submitted bids for the project. Joining them were representatives of the Monroe County Family Wellness Center’s board of directors.

Magistrates were asked to review the proposals and be prepared to make a decision on who should construct a building housing a six-lane swimming pool and cardio fitness area, plus support facilities, on Tuesday.

The sealed design build proposals, which did not contain dollar amounts, were opened and distributed to magistrates by Arnold.

“We asked them to give us their proposal packets and we also asked in a separate envelope to give us their best take on how to spend the last part of the money on energy efficient items to try to get the monthly operating cost as low as possible for the wellness board,” Arnold said.

The county was awarded $3 million by the state legislature for the project when it passed House Bill 308 in 2006. Of the original $3 million, $2,927,000 remains.

While Arnold opened the sealed design build proposals, Graves explained the selection process.

“There has been so much confusion and misunderstanding that I don’t think a lot of people understand the difference in a bid process and a design build process,” Graves said.

Magistrates were given the option of reviewing the proposals during Thursday’s meeting and making a selection then, or reviewing them over a period of a couple of days and then meet in special-session Tuesday.

Magistrate Alonzo Ford said he was one who misunderstood.

Graves told magistrates the bids for the project contained prices, but design build proposals didn’t.

“We’ve told the contractors that there was a $2.9 million budget to build a building and we are going to hold the other monies to spend for energy efficiency,” Arnold said.

As the design build proposals were being distributed to the magistrates, Rita Crabtree, chairperson of the Monroe County Family Wellness Center’s board of directors, brought up a statement that was made at the Oct. 21 fiscal court meeting regarding the board’s involvement in the project.

“I know the fiscal court decided I think at a previous meeting that the Wellness Board were not to have a vote, per se, in this process. But since we’ve been involved in it from the conception and have some idea of what we wanted to bring to the community with the money that was raised and gotten some from our congress, state representative, senator and governor, would it be possible for us to have a copy of this as an executive committee just to have as a review and come before you guys and at least give you an idea of which one we felt better met our vision? Not that it would be a vote, but that it would be a voice in what we felt.”

Graves told Crabtree he didn’t have any problem with that.

Crabtree said she would be willing to serve as a representative of the Wellness Board when making a recommendation to the fiscal court.

The three companies said they could have copies of the design build proposals ready by Friday in order to give the Wellness Board time to review them before magistrates make a decision Tuesday.

Crabtree interrupted Graves and said the Wellness Board was confused because it thought Thursday’s meeting was going to be a bid process.

“If a design build is different, then I think it wasn’t communicated appropriately for all of us to know,” she said.

Graves explained that a design build is like a reverse option.

Wheeler told Graves he was wrong.

“A design build is a bid process. Your representative gave us criteria that the fiscal court or the Wellness Center wanted for this project, and asked us for the price to build a building to meet that criteria, which we did,” Wheeler said. “I don’t know what this process is. I never saw anything like it.”

Arnold told Wheeler that a design build is a qualification based selection.

“That’s what we’re trying to do here, (and) that’s look at the qualifications of the proposals and determine who the court thinks is the best qualified to give them what we’ve asked for,” Arnold said.

Wheeler disagreed and told Arnold that he was trying to turn a design build into a professional services contract.

Ford questioned whether Tuesday would give magistrates long enough to review the information presented by the contractors.

“Time is of utmost importance here,” Graves said.

He told magistrates that the deadline for spending the money was June 30, 2010.

Magistrate Tim Gordon asked if the facility can be built by June 30.

The contractors have told him that they could have the job completed by that date, Arnold said.

One of the reasons behind the decision to go with design build proposals was because of the relationship that transpired over the previous work, he said.

Arnold was told the architectural plans were bad and that the contractor built it by the plans and then there was a lot of finger pointing as to who was at fault, he said.

Ford brought up the problems that have arisen with the Wellness Center building that opened two months ago.

“I know one thing they’ve had a lot of problems down there with it. I went down there the other day and it’s a shame that you can have a $2 million building and go down there and have buckets sitting in the hallway where it is leaking,” he said.

Graves told Ford that is why the court is going with design build proposals.

“We don’t want that to happen on the next building that’s built,” Graves said.

Everyone agreed that design build would be the better option for the next phase, Crabtree said.

“I think somehow or another the information got convoluted and we are now at the point we are,” she said. “But the point of the fact is as the Wellness Board, we want to see a building that is functional, that will last and that we can build for the least amount of money possible in order to have funds left over to have other types of equipment in it.”

Ford told her he thought the fiscal court felt the same way.

“I don’t want you guys thinking we want anything different than that,” she said. “We want it built the right way.”

Magistrates are scheduled to meet in special session Tuesday at 9 a.m. to listen to presentations. Each contractor will be given 30 minutes to make a presentation followed by a 10-minute question and answer period.