Matthew Burnette
Staff Writer

A special call meeting was held by the Coffee County School Board on June 18 to hear bid protests from two construction companies.

Representatives from Thrash Construction Services and Brindley & Sons Construction Inc. were on hand to have their concerns heard regarding the acceptance of a bid by the Board from Sain Construction for the planned improvement project at Carden-Jarrell Field.

Thrash Division Manager Jonathan Polk, accompanied by Owner Thad Thrash, thanked the Board for the opportunity to bid and noted that, while they were disappointed, they were grateful that the Board took the time to hear their concerns.

“Our intent in submitting a protest letter was not to create conflict but rather to seek clarity about the evaluation process and to ensure all qualified contractors are afforded a fair and transparent opportunity to compete for public work,” he said.

Polk also expressed the company’s excitement for an accompanying project they are under contract for making security improvements at Coffee County Central High School.

“We view that project to demonstrate who we are as a company and the value we can bring as a construction partner,” he explained. “Our goal is not simply to complete this one project but to build long-term relationships based on trust, communication and a successful project delivery.”

Speaking on behalf of Brindley & Sons, whose owner, Rick Brindley, was also in attendance, was Attorney Ross Hutchison from Stites & Harbison PLLC.

Hutchison stated that he was there to address three points: what happened in the bid process, how the current course is inconsistent with Tennessee Law and how it can be corrected.

He also explained that there were two concerns raised about Brindley & Sons: how low their bid was and the quality of their work.

“There’s been no finding, none, that Brindley’s bid was nonresponsive, incomplete in any way or defective,” said Hutchison. “There have been no findings that Brindley’s not qualified. In fact, Brindley’s been performing this type of work for nearly 40 years.”

Hutchison noted that it was “undisputed” that Brindley & Sons was the lowest bidder on the project, though the Board voted to go with the third lowest bidder, Sain Construction.

He referenced public bidding laws in Tennessee calling them “not flexible” and “strict” with the purpose to protect taxpayers’ dollars and to ensure a fair and competitive process.

Hutchison also referenced that the contract should be awarded to the “lowest responsive bidder” unless there is a legitimate reason not to.

“Respectfully, any suggestion by this Board that the bid was too low likely was a result of someone outside of this Board reviewing Brindley’s bid to poke holes in it,” claimed Hutchison. “Despite that and for reasons unknown and unsupported by any facts that I am aware of, this project was awarded to the third highest bidder.”

Hutchison called the move “improper.” He also alleged that Sain Construction Director of Business Development Matthew Sain influenced the Board by speaking, outside of the allotted public comment time, at the May 11 meeting where the bid was accepted. 

“The idea that one bidder can attack another bidder’s price and that becomes part of the decision-making process undermines the integrity of the entire public bidding process,” said Hutchison.

“Even the Board’s own counsel recognized that this was improper. The other bidder should not have been able or asked to evaluate Brindley’s bid. If there were real concerns about scope or pricing, the proper step would have been to go to Brindley directly and ask questions, not solicit it from competitors.”

Sain commented at the May meeting that the Board needed to be “good stewards” of the taxpayers’ dollars and urged the Board to look into why the bids were so different.

Hutchison also noted that Board member Robert Gilley originally made a motion to accept Brindley & Sons’ bid at the May meeting but then made a motion to go with the awarded company after Sain’s comments.

Gilley had referenced his general past experience in the construction field though did not specifically speak on Brindley & Sons quality.

“I like to think all of the Is are dotted and Ts are crossed, but I feel like somebody missed something,” said Gilley at the May meeting. “Usually in my experience, when you see a spread like that on one, something’s missing somewhere.”

Hutchison also referenced Board Chairman Freda Jones’ comments at the May meeting which were also made after Sain spoke.

She warned that the Board could be “shortchanged” by going with the lowest bidder like they had with the New Union and North Coffee building projects.

“This process by Mr. Sain interjecting himself into the meeting completely threw the entire purpose of the bid process on its head and the Board allowed it and then awarded him for it,” said Hutchison, who also noted that Brindley was not involved with the New Union project.

He also referenced Tennessee law by stating that a bidder cannot be disqualified based on speculation or unverified concerns and that there has to be a “clear, supportable basis of record” which he alleges doesn’t exist in the case.

Hutchison stated that maintaining the current award means that the Board is “knowingly awarding a public contract to a higher bidder without a lawful basis for rejecting the lowest bidder” which is consistent with Tennessee’s competitive bidding requirements and “exposes the Board to challenge.”

“Tennessee courts have been clear on this point,” he said. “You cannot disregard bids or give them less than full and fair consideration and then simply start over when the outcome becomes inconvenient. The integrity of this process matters.”

Hutchison clarified that Brindley was not asking for special treatment or for the Board to “stretch the rules” but to instead follow the rules and apply the law as intended.

“Our goal is to resolve this the right way and do it without litigation, but we also have to be clear: if this isn’t corrected, Brindley will have no choice but to pursue its rights, so respectfully we ask the Board to reconsider its decision, to set aside the improper reward and award this project to Brindley as the lowest responsive and responsible bidder,” said Hutchison.

Board Attorney Katherine Kimmel explained that she had evaluated documentation, the Board deliberation from the May meeting, and the recommendation letter from Wold Architects that recommends Brindley & Sons for the project.

She also said that she consulted Jacob Cherry from Wold and Director of Schools Scott Hargrove, who also recommended Brindley & Sons, on how they came to their recommendation to the Board.

Her conclusion was that the law gives the Board, as stated in the bid documents, the right to reject any and all bids.

“It is important to evaluate bids based on how responsive they are to the requirements in the bid documents, but there is a measure of discretion afforded to Boards and how they choose to spend public funding,” said Kimmel. “As the elected members of this Board, I posit that you are in the best position to determine how to spend the local taxpayer dollars on this system’s schools.”

While Kimmel agreed that the law does require public bodies to select the lowest and best bid, it is not limited to factors listed in the bid documents and that factors such as quality of past work are relevant to the Board’s deliberations and decisions.

She noted that she saw no evidence at the May 11 meeting of public participation, particularly from Sain, that affected or moved the Board’s deliberation.

“That being said, I do believe that there were factors that this Board considered heavily when making its award on May 11, factors that were not in the bid documents,” stated Kimmel. “I do think for the transparency and integrity of the bidding process that it is appropriate for the Board to reject all bids at this time and rebid the contract so that the Board can more fully consider those factors that were raised in the May 11 meeting.”

She also recommended the Board only bid for Option B as they decided at the May meeting.

Brindley then asked Jones what she specifically was alluding to regarding quality at the May meeting to which Jones replied that they needed to make a motion. Hutchison then asked Jones “for the sake of transparency of the process” what the issues were.

Kimmel then noted that the Board could ask questions but “wasn’t there to be interrogated” to which Hutchison responded he thought was a fair question. Kimmel then stated that there was a full discussion on May 11 and that based on her recommendation, those considerations can be factored into future evaluation of bids.

Brindley was then allowed to make a statement where he explained that he had nothing to do with the New Union project or the parts of the North Coffee project that failed.

“I feel that y’all have made a decision, and I’m getting blamed for some quality issues that are not mine,” he said.

Jones again asked for a motion to go with Kimmel’s recommendation which was made by Board member Gary Cordell and seconded by Board member Robert Gilley. The motion passed 6-0 with Board members Holly Matthews and Jennifer Peacock Hodge absent.