Low bid isn't always the best bid in the real world...
There are a lot of legalese in most requests for bid. There are some games vendors play that omit things or don't completely deliver the items that the entity feels are important.
For example, in my former job, I put out an RFB for procuring a specific device that I was not allowed to sole source. I had 75 of them around the county, I needed a 76th one because of the software to control them, as well as a stock of repair parts. 75 of one plus 1 of another won't cut it, as I need parts, training, and control mechanisms that are completely different. It would have been impractical to accept a low bidder from another manufacturer, as the costs to spool up on the product would have far, far negated any cost saved. That's one scenario.
The second scenario is that a vendor deliberately lowballs the bid. You open it, and see it's way out of whack. You're wondering, "What's missing?" So, you send out a questionnaire with an itemized listing (which is what you should have done in the first place) to see if everything is there. On the lowball bid, it's not, or it's way stripped down. Surprised? My first misadventure in municipal procurement was a "state bid" Dodge fleet van. It came in without upper windshield tinting or a passenger seat. Literally a basic conveyance. Van - comma - quantity 1. It took me a pretty long time, extra money, and unanticipated labor to get it done right after the fact, because if you don't spec it, you don't get it. Simple as that (and the bidder usually has a team of people combing through the RFB omitting things that aren't on paper). I wasn't sad to see it get reassigned to animal control.
The third scenario is where the vendor deliberately lowballs the bid, provides some items that, to someone who knows what they're looking at, looks "improbable." Can it work as specified? Maybe, if the specs were authored by an incompetent party and have a lot of holes in them. But darn if that price tag doesn't look "fiscally responsible to the taxpayer" (despite the decade of hidden costs to make the device actually work as needed).
The fourth scenario is a bid from a vendor who you might not have had a satisfying experience with. You see the folder with the vendor on it and think in the back of your mind, "Oh no, not them for another 15 years!"
The best way of dealing with things I've seen is to throw out the highest and lowest prices. The highest doesn't really want the business. The lowest will be much more trouble in the long run. Then weigh the returns from the middle band of respondents and pick the one that's got the best value for the taxpayers and most appropriate utility for the served agencies.
And, then, there are performance-based bids. "Make me a system that has a DAQ of 4.0 in 97% of the county, 97% of the time" (not saying that's what Bay County used). Vendor A says they can name that tune in 10 sites. Vendor B says they can name it in 1. And, you're like, "yeah, sure you can," and go with the one that can do it in 10, because you don't necessarily want the gamble your career on it. Face it, once it's built, what's the possibility of saying, "Get a forklift and get your crap out of here!" That would end most peoples' careers... not because you said it, but because you didn't pick correctly from the beginning. Those things end up being like building the pyramids in endless improvements and optimization.
Who knows what happened?