St. Germain rejects bids for new fire department well

After a spate of setbacks, complications, and delays caused St. Germain to go without its high-capacity well at the town’s fire department for more than a year, the board of supervisors voted unanimously at a meeting on Oct. 24 to reject two bids to replace the well. Two days later, the board voted unanimously to send the project out for re-bids.

Replacement of the well was expected to cost a minimum of $78,000, with expenses potentially escalating depending upon the necessary depth of a new shaft and the fluctuating cost of materials. That information was based on an estimate received last year from Roberts Irrigation of Plover, the company that drilled and installed the previous well roughly 25 years ago. It failed and was deactivated in late summer 2022. At the time of providing the estimate, Roberts indicated the well could be drilled and completed within a few months, regardless of the season.

MSA Engineering of Rhinelander was selected to represent the town in the bidding and contracting processes because high-capacity well-drilling is significantly more complicated than residential-type drilling and only a select few contractors in the state are qualified to install such wells. 

Most of the project’s setbacks over the course of 2023, however, have been related to a request for federal funding.

Based on the estimate from Roberts Irrigation, it appeared as though the town had money available to cover the cost of a new well. Nonetheless, it applied for a grant from the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) to supplement the expense. The federal decision-making process took months longer than anticipated to complete and the fire department is still not pumping water, despite the fact the town board gave the well’s replacement “emergency” status in October 2022.

The town submitted its grant application during the last week of December 2022. At that time, town clerk June Vogel said the grant could provide $50,000 “And there’s a potential for more.” That number was since revised to $35,000.

In January, the USDA informed Vogel it would reach a decision on whether or not to award the grant within 45 days from submission of the application.

At that time, town board chairman Tom Christensen explained the good news about potential funding was offset by a caveat in that the USDA’s requirement is “that we do not start the project until they’ve made their decision,” he said. “So if we started the project now, if we qualified, we wouldn’t have any help from them.”

Between winter and summer, Vogel found herself — and the town — at the receiving end of myriad requests for paperwork and compliance which come as a result of the involvement of the federal government.

“It’s been an ongoing thing where every time we turn around, there’s another thing that they’re requesting,” Vogel told The Lakeland Times in September. “Going into it, we did not know — by any means — that we were going to have all of these requests. It’s very frustrating.”

Forty-five days became more than 240, and the USDA finally announced in August the grant had been approved. Following that announcement, the town board voted to have Christensen instruct MSA to select a contractor and commit to drilling as soon as possible.

During a September town board meeting, supervisor Brian Cooper stated he was “flabbergasted with this whole process.”

Christensen concurred. “Well, this process is probably what causes other towns never to do anything with the federal government,” he said. “It’s a pathetic process.”

Contractor bids were subsequently sent to MSA, and the board discussed the results with municipal engineer Brad Stuczynski during a town board meeting on October 18. The board’s expectations of a roughly-$80,000 price tag and a quick turn-around time were quashed.

“There were only two (bids),” Christensen told the board. “Midwest Well Services comes in at $256,215 and CTW comes in at $269,090. Two hundred and forty days to substantial completion is Midwest Well, 180 days to substantial completion for CTW. So, those are the time estimates: the lesser expensive company is taking longer; the more expensive company is taking less time.”

Roberts Irrigation did not place a bid.

St. Germain Fire Chief Tim Gebhardt was in attendance at the meeting. “Any indication on why there’s such a lag — are they that busy? — to drill this?” he asked. “Drilling right now, we’re talking six months out for the best possible time. And a year for the other one?”

“That’s a good question,” Stuczynski said. “I think it’s important to understand how it was worded in the spec. Often, when we put together specifications, we define the substantial completion date, and if the contractor doesn’t meet it, there’s liquidated damages. They could be incurred a dollar-figure per day. In this case we said ‘Contractor, you name your substantial completion date’, and we put the maximum of 240 days...But basically, the contractor doesn’t want to be too aggressive in that, because there’s penalties or liquidated damages on the backside. I would think they’re not going to be overly-aggressive with those dates.”

When asked by the board about the radical difference between the original estimate from Roberts and the quotes from the two bidders, Stuczynski listed several probable reasons. Among them were the fact that the two bidders planned to use a pitless adapter for the pump, as opposed to having it in an above-ground “doghouse”. 

He also said the bidders intended to drill a 24-inch hole “which means there’s a gravel pack down in there,” Stuczynski said. “I think that’s similar to the original construction, but Roberts said they believe their quote didn’t have a gravel pack; it was more of a natural formation. Probably effective, but if we’re looking at optimizing and maximizing the water production, I would say the gravel pack is a better choice for maximizing the water production out of the well,” he added.

“Is this about the normal cost for a well, or do you think that it’s over-inflated because of the federal government grant process?”Cooper asked the engineer.

“I would say that having federal grant requirements on the project would add cost, but I think when it comes to federal wage-rates, I don’t know how much of an impact that would have,” he responded. “On another project recently, I asked CTW if adding federal wage-rates would impact their pricing, and they said no. But then there’s American Iron and Steel. I would tend to think there’s an increase in construction costs, primarily because of American Iron and Steel, and because of the administration that goes with these. But I don’t know how significant that is, or want to try bona-fide that.”

Gebhardt has been a vocal proponent for replacing the well as expediently as possible since the problem was first presented to the board. During a meeting in January, he told supervisors “it is at the point where we need to poop or get off (the pot).”

During the October 18 meeting, however, the chief changed his stance in light of the expense and timetables of the two bids.

“So, to try to save the taxpayers some money, we’ve gone 360-plus days in the grant-approval process,” he said. “Tonight, I’m saying this thing is blown way out of proportion. I think we need to go back to the original thing we got and see if we can get it solidified, which would be nothing different. But this is just nuts, folks. I’m sorry, but as a taxpayer — I’ll take my fire chief’s hat off — I think this is absolutely nuts … Now we’re $260,000? I just can’t fathom that. I’m having a problem with that.”

Gebhardt then told the board he had been in conversation with Roberts Irrigation over the course of several days prior to the meeting. He proposed the town should take another approach to the project which would steer planning back to the specs, price, and timetable of that company’s original estimate.

“I have a bid (from Roberts) in my hand right now,” the chief said. “Is this acceptable?”

“Aren’t we sort of tied to these two individuals who have submitted the bids?” supervisor Jim Swenson asked.

“I sure would hope not,” Gebhardt replied. He then asked the board for roughly another week to continue his discussions with Roberts Irrigation.

“What I hear you saying is — I agree — you want somebody else to bid against these bidding specs,” Ritter told Gebhardt. “But that’s illegal.”

“Yeah. That part would be illegal,” Christensen concurred. “If you come back, Tim, with something that is different, then those specs need to be sent back out and we start the process all over again. And at that point, then, that new process would probably lose the USDA money, I would imagine. Buying you eight days to come up with something? I don’t know what that’s going to do for us. But I’m willing to do that. I don’t know what’s going to be accomplished.”

The board voted unanimously to table the subject of the two submitted bids until the meeting on October 24. At that time, supervisors voted unanimously to reject the two bids and re-bid the well with different specifications. During the follow-up meeting two days later, the board  voted unanimously to have MSA seek a second round of bids, this time with breakdowns for both natural-formation and gravel-pack type well-shafts; an above-ground pump in a “doghouse” and a pitless adapter; and specifications both drawn to be in compliance with USDA requirements and irrespective of those requirements. Such breakdowns should allow the board a wide range of options, with contractors all having listed their line-items in an apples-to-apples fashion.

MSA will put out a request for bids with high-capacity drillers and allow three weeks for their responses, due to the complicated nature of the bid specifications. The Times will continue to follow the story and report details as they develop.