Dufferin County council went behind closed doors last Thursday to mull a thinly veiled threat of litigation if a paving contract is not let to the lowest qualified bidder, or an acceptable explanation given.

Oddly, the difference between the two bidders on an almost $2-million contract is in the order of $15,000. The contract is for rehabilitation paving of County Roads 2, 9 and 21.

Furfari Paving would have been awarded the tender last Thursday on the recommendation of the director of public works at a total bid of $1,927,100.36 or $1,928,893.16 but lawyers for GCCL Contracting Ltd. argued that its low bid of $1,913,634.96 should have been the winner.

(The difference in the two Furfari numbers results from tax calculations on $1,837,041.10, in which GCCL’s reckoning is a bit higher than Furfari’s.)

“GCCL’s price, taxes included, is $1,913,634.96, which is less than Furfari Paving’s price on any analysis. On the basis of disclosed tender criteria, GCCL is low compliant bidder and is entitled to award of (the tender),” says lawyer Duncan Glaholt in a letter to the county.

“Our position is take the lowest price from well known (contractors),” said Glaholt LLP lawyer Charles Powell, who appeared as a delegation at the open council session preceding the closed-door one.

In the letter, Mr. Glaholt warns: “In the event that the County of Dufferin breaches its tender contract with our client by proceeding to award to Furfari Paving on one of the two inconsistent tax-included numbers, or an any basis other than the disclosed tender terms treating the parties fairly and equally, we will seek instructions to recover our client’s damages.”

Following the in camera session, the council backed off its intended award to Furfari until an amicable solution is reached with GCCL.

Should such a solution be found, the warden and CAO have authority to award the tender “if the concerns of GCCL have been resolved subject to confirmation by the county solicitor,” the motion will read.

If the issues have not been resolved, the matter will come back to the next council meeting.

In other county council news, building permit fees are set to rise 25% in areas controlled by Dufferin County, and by an additional 25% on Jan. 1, 2011. The county Building Department issues permits for all municipalities that don’t have their own such departments.

The increases would take effect when or if county council adopts a new bylaw at its June meeting. They are intended to replenish the department’s dwindling reserves and, said Treasurer Alan Selby, the reserve situation and the fees could be reviewed after year.

By the start of 2011, the fee schedule would rise to $2,200 for a 2,000 square foot house, from $1,474.30 under the present (2005) schedule. It would place it generally on a par with Orangeville, at $2,175 on the same house, or Centre Wellington at $2,240.

Dufferin, including Shelburne and Grand Valley (ELGV) would remain at less than $1,900 for the remainder of 2010 as the immediate increase would be 25%, not 50%, as had previously been generally recom- mended.

Both Grand Valley and Shelburne are looking to expansion although Chief Building Official Mike Giles said the homebuilders he spoke to don’t expect much growth because of a lack of serviced land that they can purchase.

The initial 25% hike, amounting to $363 on the hypothetical home, would be imposed immediately the bylaw is adopted. Builder Albert Box had asked for a 30-day grace period beyond the adopting meeting, but Mr. Giles said that would mean the county would lose a lot of money, as the peak of the building permit season would be over.

Mr. Giles had met with several builders prior to the council meeting last Thursday. He said one concern was with his salary and the fact that he has been involved with several county capital projects in the past year.

Responding to a question from Mono Mayor Lorie Haddock, he said it would be “only fair to permit holder that when I do a capital project they should pay for it. Only problem is it changes monthly. I might spend more time on time sheets than on the job.” He added that the builders would be happy with the 25% hike.

On the request for a grace period, Mr. Giles said builders have known about the planned increase for two months. “This is busy time. By giving 60 days (from last Thursday) you would lose a lot of revenue.”