The lowest bid was from Lanesborough-based D.R. Billings Inc. at $1,296,946. The second lowest bid was from C & A Construction Co. Inc. at $1,640,065. J.H. Maxymillian Inc. bid $1,735,760 and Warner Bros. LLC bid $1,738,637.
The bid has not yet been awarded but the town and the contractor must be under contract by June with construction completed no later than mid-2013 to fulfill state requirements.
The construction work would be the first in more than a decade at the often controversial site. Several projects have been attempted and failed; the most recent incarnation is to build a campground, an amphitheater and conference center. Town officials hope that by improving the infrastructure they will be able to attract a private developer to bring the project to fruition.
The Department of Community Development is hoping to secure a state MassWorks grant to finish the remainder of the infrastructure phases.
iBerkshires.com welcomes critical, respectful dialogue. Name-calling, personal attacks, libel, slander or foul language is not allowed. All comments are reviewed before posting and will be deleted or edited as necessary.
Comments are closed for this article. If you would like to contribute information on this article, e-mail us at info@iBerkshires.com
Can't do better than D. R. Billings. Always the lowest bidder and the lowest problem contractor on municipal projects for which they are qualified. A true value for the taxpayer dollar.
I wonder if this is a good idea. We have spent how much taxpayers' dollars so far on the dream of the Greylock Glen development? Now we are fixing up the roads to attract a private developer? Are we saying that prospective private developers are not capable of the vision that roads could be fixed up? Is the marketing going to say "come and develop the Greylock Glen, we have great roads"? If there has been no interest so far a new road is not going to change that! What if we don't attract private developers? How much more will we waste before we get something concrete? How are we doing at removing the invasive species of plants up there? Did we really need to do that? Study this and study that. I guess all those people who are making a living studying stuff and fixing things noone is using, will have a nice road to drive on. Maybe we should charge a toll on the new roads to all the environmentalists we hire to tell us what we can't do up there and find new things for us to spend more money on. So far it has been a monumental waste of taxpayers' money.
Hey Adams Guy, we fix public roads in Adams when they are in disrepair, right? Gould Road is in terrible disrepair. People do live on that road. Fire trucks and ambulances still need access to it. And I know I've stated this before, it is one of the busiest places in town -- it is a recreational area. So regardless, the road needs to be repaired. I don't understand the controversy.
Lila...we are upgrading all of the infrastructure up there in hopes of attracting a developer. Simply read the article..."Town officials hope that by improving the infrastructure they will be able to attract a private developer to bring the project to fruition." There is one reason this is being done. I am not a contractor but it doesn't take 4 mil. to fix up that road which is in disrepair. I wouldn't be against simply fixing up the road. From what I understand there are different funds earmarked for road repair. What about 30 years of wasted resources with no results? Removing the invasive plants and all this studying has nothing to do with improving the quality of life for the folks that live and visit up there. Split the 4 mil. between the people that use the road. Then you will be helping them and I bet they would be happy to drive on rough roads in exchange.
So go through the trouble of stripping, grading, paving the road for say, I don't know, 1/2 the money, and then if someone wants to develop the place, dig that all up and then put the upgrades in? I'm no accountant but wouldn't that be a waste of money?