Bradford County commissioners on July 1 discussed a proposed countywide energy‑conservation program that had been presented as a collaborative or "piggyback" procurement with an outside vendor. The county attorney advised that the way the deal was presented did not meet Florida procurement comparability requirements and recommended the board proceed by issuing a formal request for proposals (RFP) if the county seeks to competitively procure the work.

County Manager raised the proposal and asked for guidance after a prior presentation from an energy‑services vendor. The County Attorney told commissioners that piggybacking is permissible only when the prior contract was competitively awarded under substantially similar procurement rules and that the vendor offer as presented did not meet that standard. The attorney recommended caution and said the transparent approach was a formal RFP to ensure compliance with county purchasing policy.

Why it matters: the project as described would have targeted energy savings and long‑term operating cost reductions (for example, at the jail, which the county noted has high electricity costs). Commissioners and staff discussed exploring a smaller, targeted solar or roof‑contour solution for the jail to reduce a large portion of annual electrical consumption without entering into a countywide agreement under the vendor’s presented terms.

Key points: the board did not vote to award a contract. Instead members agreed not to move forward with the proposed piggyback and asked staff to pursue alternatives, including an RFP or smaller pilot projects. County staff and commissioners stressed a need to follow state and county procurement rules and to prioritize projects that can demonstrably reduce operating costs.

Taper: The board asked staff to return with draft procurement language if the county wants to proceed with an open competitive process and to explore targeted pilot projects (for example, jail roof‑mounted or contour solar) that could deliver near‑term savings.