TOMPKINSVILLE — After taking a short time to deliberate, Monroe County magistrates unanimously agreed Tuesday to award a design build contract to J&S; Construction, of Cookeville, Tenn., for the Monroe Family Wellness Center project.

“We’re just humbled that we’ve been given this opportunity to serve the people of Monroe County and we are very confident that we will do a good job for them,” said John Stites II, chief executive officer for J&S; Construction.

The project involves constructing a six-lane swimming pool, a cardio fitness area and support facilities, and will be the second building of the multi-phase project.

J&S; was one of three companies to submit proposals. Alliance Corporation, of Glasgow, and Venture Contracting Inc., of Glasgow, also submitted proposals. J&S; Construction’s proposal included a specific dollar amount for the second building of the wellness center. Representatives for both Alliance and Venture said their proposals did not include specific dollar amounts because they were presenting what could be constructed based on a $2.5 million budget.

The same three companies bid on the first building of the wellness center for which Alliance was awarded the contract as the low bidder. The building was completed in early 2009.

After learning that magistrates had decided to award the contract for the second building to J&S; Construction, Terry Harvey, executive vice president of Alliance Corporation, declined to comment, except to say the magistrates chose “the company they felt comfortable with.”

Daryl Wheeler, president of Venture Contracting Inc., said, “Of course I don’t feel very well about it,” but declined to comment further.

Each company was given 30 minutes Tuesday to make a presentation to Monroe County magistrates, followed by a short question and answer session.

Some of the questions magistrates, members of the wellness center’s executive committee and Jeff Arnold with Arnold Consulting Engineering Services Inc. of Bowling Green asked during the presentations concerned design build experience, ability to finish the project on time, type of insulation to be used, salt or chlorine swimming pool, additional parking spaces, height of the fence around tennis courts, and whether lighting for the tennis courts is included in the proposals.

Each company was asked basically the same types of questions. However, representatives with Alliance Corporation were questioned about problems with the existing building, which opened for public use two months ago. Some of those problems involved the swelling of the racquetball court due to the absence of a humidity control device, water seeping under the exterior doors and a leaking roof.

“I know there are some problems on the other one and I think we’ve stayed with you,” Harvey told those present during the interview.

Magistrate Alonzo Ford pointed out that some of the problems have yet to be remedied.

“I think someone ought to have stepped up to the plate and fixed it,” he said.

Harvey pointed out that they didn’t design the building. The structure was designed by GRW Inc., of Lexington, and constructed by Alliance.

Rita Crabtree, chairwoman of the Wellness Center’s board of directors, said the board was forced to fix some of the problems on its own, such as repairing the doors to keep water from seeping underneath and purchasing a humidity control device to regulate the humidity in the racquetball court area.

Magistrates opted to go with design build proposals on Oct. 15 after rejecting all sealed bids submitted for the project. They acted on the advice of Jeff Arnold with Arnold Consulting Engineering Services Inc., of Bowling Green, who told them rejecting all bids would be the best thing to do since some of the bids were lacking information.

The three companies that submitted design build proposals for the project had also submitted sealed bids.

Wheeler threatened to take legal action against the Monroe Fiscal Court and said in a letter to Judge-Executive Wilbur Graves that his initial 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.

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.

Magistrates feared the county could lose the $2.9 million if it wasn’t spent before June 30, 2010.

Nick Cook with the Barren River Area Development District told magistrates at their Oct. 21 meeting that the monies are set to expire June 30, 2010, but that the county could get an extension. However, the only way an extension is possible is through legislation, he said.

In addition to questions about the physical structure of the building, magistrates and Arnold questioned the construction companies’ representatives whether they thought they could get the second building constructed before June 30. All three were confident that they could.

Now that the contract has been awarded, work on the project is expected to begin in the immediate near future.