Is the Halifax Selectboard really looking to spend an additional $14,000 on bridge repair work? One would think so, based on their actions at Tuesday’s meeting. As Margo Avakian reports on page one, the board flatly told the low bidder on the project that they didn’t believe his numbers, that it couldn’t be done for the amount that was bid.

We have to admit we were just as bewildered by the actions of the Halifax selectboard as the bidder was. It would appear to us there should be some fiduciary responsibility to research the low bid, make some phone calls, ask for and check some references, and inspect some of the low bidder’s work, instead of ruling out of hand that they weren’t acceptable.

That background work is what a prudent board does. A similar situation occurred earlier this year in Dover, where the school board received a bid on a school bus that was $20,000 less than the next highest bid. However, after researching the bus, the Dover board found out from other purchasers that the low initial price of the bus was more than offset by the increased maintenance costs and down time. So Dover went back to the drawing board, and decided not to accept the low bid bus.

The difference here, as we see it, is that the selectboard in Halifax did not do the required background work to find out if the low bidder’s numbers were realistic and their work was reliable. Perhaps they did, but if so they didn’t really explain it very well. They merely said they had made a decision based on their belief that the bid was unrealistic and a working relationship with the company that was awarded the bid.

Those reasons seem more than a bit flimsy. We’ll be the first to admit we don’t have all the facts. But based on what was reported, it appears the board could have done a better job in researching the bidder’s work and explaining it to the public at their meeting.

We can only hope that Halifax taxpayers will feel comfortable with their board’s actions, because the increased expense of the bridge repairs will cost the taxpayers some additional money, since the project will cost approximately 18% more.

We feel the board needs to do a better job explaining their position, rather than just dismissing a disgruntled bidder out of hand. The contractor deserved better, and certainly the voters deserve better.