AGENDA MARCH 9, 2011 5:00 PM 1. Meeting called to order 2. A ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

MemorandumDate: December 22, 2010To:TWAFrom: Shawn Hindle, P.E.Project ManagerRe:Hoagland Phase 1 Bid EvaluationThe attached spreadsheet includes both the roadway and utility portions of the project as theseitems were bid together for Hoagland Boulevard Phase 1. Rows 106 through 168 represent theutility portion of the bid.The average bid price for utility work in the contract is $1,191,195.03 and the apparent low bidprice secured from Pospiech Contracting, Inc. for the utility portion of the project was$856,970.72.Six bids were received for the project and they are ranked as follows based upon the total bidamount on the entire project (both roadway and utility):1. Pospiech Contracting, Inc. $4,196,527.782. Jr. Davis Construction Company $5,011,277.803. Ranger Construction $5,303,737.634. Emerald Utilities and Site Development, Inc. $5,438,642.62*5. The Middlesex Corporation $5,789,157.836. Lundquist Excavation, Inc. $5,846,004.59* Emerald Utilities and Site Development, Inc. was not a pre-qualified firm and therefore their bidshould be rejected by Osceola County and they will not be considered in this evaluation. For informationpurposes, the evaluation spread sheet has included the firm individually and the associated bid itemshave been eliminated from my analysis. Emerald USD columns are hidden on the spreadsheet as well toprevent any confusion.There are several concerns with the apparent low bid that must be considered in the finalevaluation of the bids and the recommendation for award. First and foremost, the bid wassubmitted on a computer generated form that did not replicate the established bid form.Specifically, the bid form submitted did not include Bid Item Numbers (bid item number definethe pay item descriptions and measurement and payment criteria) and did not provide unit pricesin a written (in words) format. The written unit price takes precedent in the bid documents andas the form submitted did not provide the unit price written in words the unit prices could not beverified as was done with other bids.Secondly, the bid submitted by Pospiech did not provide a bid on Item 7.00 GeneralRequirements, Bonds and Permits. The average bid submitted for this item was $18,248.00.
Please note: To avoid errors on the spreadsheet a value of $0.00 was placed in this line item forPospiech, however the bid form submitted left this item blank, therefore I must consider this asan irregularity as the bid is incomplete.Finally, as standard bid evaluation procedures any item within 5% of the average bid price isconsidered acceptable, items between 10 and 25% of the average bid price are evaluated as thisraises a flag for clarity and accuracy of the bid item intent, and any item over 25% of the averagebid price is reviewed in depth to include an explanation from the contractor acknowledging theintent is reflected in the bid item as presented. The bid from Pospeich included 2 items ofconcern per the analysis, which were items 5.90 (20” Line Stop) and 5.12 (20”x20” wet tap). 36additional items were flagged as the unit price being extremely low and several of the items wereof concern as to whether the materials and labor could be provided for the price quoted.Based upon the above concerns, and the irregularities of the bid quoted above, it is myrecommendation that the bid received from PospiechContracting, Inc, be deemed irregular andremoved from consideration for award.Evaluating the second low bid, Jr. Davis’ Construction Company, is 8.68% lower than theaverage of the remaining four bids and 4.24% lower on the average of the utility items whenisolated from the overall bid. While Jr. Davis Construction Company is the second apparent lowbidder on the overall project he is actually the third low on the utility portion to Pospeich andMiddlesex. Pospiech has been recommending to be removed from consideration and thedifference between the second and third utility bids is approximately 7%.In evaluating the bid received from Jr. Davis, there are four unit prices that have raised aconcern. Two of the items are lump sum items (1.0 – Mobilization and 2.0 – Locate Utilities inAdvance of Construction). The lump sum item for mobiliazation is in line with the engineer’sestimate and while not a large number the utility locate item is above the engineer’s estimate butthe methodology for locating the improvements could result in larger maintenance of traffic andequipment costs should the contractor choose to excavate the existing mains with a backhoe.The other items were 3.4 (within Engineer’s estimate), 3.9 (acceptable bid amount) and item 3.12(item of concern). Item 3.12 is 8” – 45 degree bends at a unit price of $675.00 which is morethan double the average cost bid on these items. It is my suggestion that if the project has in anincreased quantity of these bends that any change order consider the use of a cost plusitemization.All other conditions of the bid submitted by Jr. Davis appear to be acceptable and complete.Therefore, it is my recommendation that Tohopekaliga Water Authority accept the bid receivedfrom Jr. Davis Construction Company, contingent upon the Osceola County doing the same inaccordance with the executed interlocal agreement.If you have any questions or would like me to perform any background/reference checks pleaselet me know.
Page 1 and 2:
951Martin Luther King Boulevard. Ki
Page 3 and 4:
CATEGORY: PresentationPROCLAMATION
Page 5 and 6:
0.7B. APPROVAL OF JANITORIAL SERVIC
Page 7 and 8:
The Board asked how the delinquent
Page 9 and 10:
7:03:01 PMSupervisor White seconded
Page 14 and 15:
CATEGORY: ConsentAttachments: Resol
Page 16 and 17:
FORWARDThis manual contains instruc
Page 18 and 19:
6.1 Requirements ..................
Page 20 and 21:
16.7 Procedures for Making and Payi
Page 22 and 23:
1.1 MissionTOHO WATER AUTHORITYPROC
Page 24 and 25:
SECTION 2. CODE OF ETHICS AND CONDU
Page 26 and 27:
a. The official or the official’s
Page 28 and 29:
SECTION 3. RESPONSIBILITIES OF PURC
Page 30 and 31:
D. Award1. Purchasing and Warehouse
Page 32 and 33:
SECTION 4. PURCHASING PROCEDURES4.1
Page 34 and 35:
Purchasing and Warehouse Department
Page 36 and 37:
SECTION 5.METHOD OF SOURCE SELECTIO
Page 38 and 39:
approval and should be noted in the
Page 40 and 41:
Authority, hereinafter referred to
Page 42 and 43:
6.3 Pre-Bid ConferenceA pre-bid con
Page 44 and 45:
The site visit may be conducted by
Page 46 and 47:
7.3 Pre-Proposal ConferenceRefer to
Page 48 and 49:
proposal. If a proposal is determin
Page 50 and 51:
strengths and weaknesses. A debrief
Page 52 and 53:
must be coordinated with the Depart
Page 54 and 55:
10.1 Price ReasonablenessSECTION 10
Page 56 and 57:
such person on behalf of a governme
Page 58 and 59:
D. The Purchasing and Warehouse Dep
Page 60 and 61:
agents, against any loss or damages
Page 62 and 63:
The Accounting and Finance Departme
Page 64 and 65:
Brand Name or Approved Equal: list
Page 66 and 67:
13.7 Detail of SpecificationsBids a
Page 68 and 69:
It is the responsibility of the Pur
Page 70 and 71:
SECTION 15. SURPLUS PROPERTY15.1 Pu
Page 72 and 73:
the City of Kissimmee’s Purchasin
Page 74 and 75:
3. Environmental restoration and co
Page 76 and 77:
E. To ensure that the Authority bea
Page 78 and 79:
A. Review transactions with the car
Page 80 and 81:
A. Purchasing cards will be issued
Page 82 and 83:
Over the Counter/Internet Purchases
Page 84 and 85:
Serious or repeated misuse of the P
Page 86 and 87:
ProceduresC. A disputed item must b
Page 88 and 89:
Items that are typically prohibited
Page 90 and 91: contracts require a written contrac
Page 92 and 93: Purchasing and Warehouse Department
Page 94 and 95: SECTION 18. PUBLIC NOTICES18.1 Purp
Page 96 and 97: SECTION 20. WAREHOUSE PROCEDURES20.
Page 98 and 99: Any Stock Requisition with items no
Page 100 and 101: The Warehouse Clerk or Purchasing T
Page 102 and 103: check the transaction records for p
Page 104 and 105: 20.9 SafetyIt is important each emp
Page 106 and 107: B. A copy of a current Osceola Coun
Page 108 and 109: SECTION 22. DEBARMENT OF BIDDERS22.
Page 110 and 111: 5. Respond to inquiries concerning
Page 112 and 113: 2. commission of a fraud or a crimi
Page 114 and 115: E. The committee's decision shall b
Page 116 and 117: SECTION 23. DEFINITIONSAccept: to r
Page 118 and 119: Bona Fide: in good faith.Bond: a bi
Page 120 and 121: Consultants/Experts: persons having
Page 122 and 123: Fee: a sum of money asked or paid f
Page 124 and 125: Negotiation: contracting through th
Page 126 and 127: Purchasing Cycle: the sequence of a
Page 128 and 129: Terms and Conditions: a phrase gene
Page 138 and 139: CATEGORY: Consent 7EAttachment(s):E
Page 142 and 143: Agenda: ConsentAPPROVAL OF SPONSORS
Page 144 and 145: Tohopekaliga Water AuthorityInvestm
Page 146 and 147: Tohopekaliga Water Authority Invest
Page 148 and 149: Tohopekaliga Water Authorityaffecte
Page 162: CATEGORY: Staff ReportsREPORT ON RE
show all

AGENDA MARCH 9, 2011 5:00 PM 1. Meeting called to order 2. A ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?