Skip to content

Game Fish and Parks Will Rebid Shooting Range, Says Project May Cost $20M

Bob Mercer gets confirmation that Game Fish and Parks is rebidding its proposed Rapid City shooting range, but project leader John Kanta of the Division of Wildlife says Scull Construction’s sole and rejected bid of $19 million wasn’t actually an overbid:

“We did put the project out for bid in late February. We only received one bid, and we did reject that bid, and so we’re going to put the project back out, hoping for a better path forward and a more favorable bid,” Kanta said.

The project’s estimated cost has grown substantially, from $10 million to $12 million to now $20 million.

“The bid was just over nineteen million dollars, and that was within the ballpark of what the architectural engineers had estimated the cost to be,” he explained. “We just feel that, one, we would like to see more bids in a more competitive bidding process, and we believe we can put the bid back out in a way that should allow us to get to get a more favorable bid” [Bob Mercer, “GFP Decides to Re-Bid Rapid City Shooting Range Project,” KELO-TV, 2023.05.09].

Hmmm… GF&P says it’s trying to get a better deal, but it’s tipping its hand to potential new bidders that it actually believes the project might cost more than the one bid they’ve received and rejected. Is this some new negotiation strategy? Is GF&P just trying to give crony-capitalist Jim Scull some cover to resubmit his bid and still land a juicy government contract? Or is GF&P so far behind on fundraising—

He said GFP is committed to using federal funds “in part” and the department will look to gifts. “And we have had a lot of interest in folks stepping up and providing donations. To date we’ve raised just over three million dollars in donations,” Kanta said [Mercer, 2023.05.09].

—that it doesn’t dare actually issue a contract that it can’t pay for yet?

19 Comments

  1. Donald Pay

    So, are they going to downsize or change the project to be less expensive? I’m not sure why you would put out the same project with the same specs if you were re-bidding in an inflationary environment.

  2. P. Aitch

    Maybe GFP was concerned that rejecting the only bid because GFP determined that bid was “overpriced” could trigger a legal challenge so they covered their diaper hole by saying it actually wasn’t overpriced. 🤔 Research reveals …
    – Depending on the specific circumstances and applicable laws and regulations, there may be potential legal issues, such as:
    1. Violation of fair and equitable competition laws: If there were no other bidders and the reopening of the bid process was not fair and equitable, it may violate laws related to fair and open competition.
    2. Violation of bid protest rules: Depending on the specific procurement rules, rejecting the only bid may trigger a bid protest, which could slow down the procurement process.
    3. Violation of local/state procurement laws: Depending on the state or locality, there may be specific procurement laws that govern the bidding process and rejection of bids. Failing to follow these rules could lead to legal issues.
    – It is important to consult with a legal and procurement expert to ensure that all rules and regulations are being followed to avoid any potential legal issues.

  3. John

    SD GFP has a systemic problem playing fast and loose with federal matching funds. This “range” is perhaps another example. One wonders whether GFP will stop funding the dozen ranges that are within 90 miles of Noem’s Taj Mahal. GFP could do much more for wildlife, fisheries, and parks by spending that $20 million on habitat and things the public needs and wants.

  4. Jack Behrens

    Seriously, how can anyone support a $20 million shooting range that has very little public support?

  5. All Mammal

    GFP and Noep have zero interest in working for the people of SD. This project has been rejected by us from the start. Who in tarnation do they think they are? I suppose Kanda didn’t get the hint the last time we dialed him up and left messages. Maybe Prank dot com will get through like it did Noep’s overly-wigged skull. I have a personal love for that area because that’s where my dad used to drive us out to in the middle of the night sometimes to watch Hale-Bopp, meteor showers, the Northern Lights, and lightning shows. My niece and her husband just bought a house out there with their two short-stacks, not knowing this was their future neighbor. We have to figure out who else we can urge to stop this because the ones we elected have no more use for us and refuse to pay us any mind. The legislature did listen up. Now the commission in Meade went ahead like they do in their own interests. SD has a learning disability if we pay for this to be built. And a bunch of small wieners.

  6. P. Aitch

    Good one, All Mammal … :)

  7. Mark B

    Forgive me for this liberal thought, but this whole project sounds like a Taliban Training Camp where righties tighties can hone their AR15 skills for the upcoming Q-Anon ‘Storm’ or Civil War 2.0. Noem wants a MAGA militia that answers only to her. Am I wrong?

  8. Arlo Blundt

    The whole shooting range mess is a ridiculous expenditure of state and federal dollars. I doubt that they have any “donations” actually in the bank. I can’t imagine that this place will ever “break even”…it will be a constant drag on the GFP budget, and then after a decade will be abandoned.

  9. O

    Could we increase the tax on food in SD to pay for it?

  10. Aren’t there a few used up bowling alleys? Competitive shooting is in order. By the way Mark B, those AR15s are only good for killing things you aren’t going to eat. An Antelope with a hole as big as your head isnt good. Maybe an Elk would be OK. You can always identify a human by what remains of their clothing, or shoes.

  11. Retired

    Shooting ranges are nothing new for GFP, investments were in the hundreds of thousands, not tens of millions. A twenty million dollar facility will will impact the GFP maintenance budget by $200,000 a year plus the cost of staffing, insurance and the headache of policing down range complaints. I enjoy shooting and understand the need but this cost is way over the top.

  12. P. Aitch

    Well, my dear friends , it’s a fact of life that everyone’s gotta pay the piper. We all gotta kick in a bit of our hard-earned greenbacks to Uncle Sam. And let’s be honest, not all of us are gonna see exactly eye-to-eye on what our tax dollars are spent on. Some folks like me think it’s just fine to spruce up the ol’ downtown or put some fancy art up in the park. Others might rather see those dollars go toward fixing the potholes or beefing up the schools or building a temple to lead and gunpowder. But that’s just the way it goes. You can’t please everybody all the time.

  13. Matthew k

    A 9 million dollar shooting range increased to 19 million on one man’s bid. Gfp is run by a sdsu football washout how probably never had to work hard for a dollar. Otherwise maybe they would be a little more concerned about other peoples money. Maybe they should pay rent to our school kids for there hunting on there ground before they double up on a shooting range. Sickens me they have lost all regard for wildlife!!!!!

  14. bearcreekbat

    Marie makes a good point about “turning in your guns.” I wonder how many guns the State could buy back and take out of circulation in SD with $20M.

  15. e platypus onion

    Guns, beaten into plowshares do more to feed the world than guns that control populations through killing.

  16. leslie

    13,333 AR-15 at $1,500 a pop. Prolly a little high on a erage.

    How many lives in the 5 state area do you suppose could be saved? A year?

    A lot more than the tourist machine-gun and violent extremist “patriot” paramilitary idiots are worth.

    grdz, after your last “stool” comment, don’t bother showing YOUR stupidity.

  17. grudznick

    Ms. leslie, Lar has deep take for a libbie. Try not to be so shallow, and get as deep as grudznick’s close personal friend Lar.

Comments are closed.