Minutes - Council - 04/22/2008 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

There was a Consensus to discuss this case at an upcoming work session. Case #6: Award Contract for Engineering Services and Authorize Preparation of a Feasibility Study for Water Tower #3 in Elmcrest Park Assistant City Engineer Himmer stated that this has been included in the most recent 5 year CIP. He stated that four consultants were given an RFP. He noted that the rankings of these proposals were included in the staff report and that staff had eliminated the RFPs from HDR based on cost and Hakanson Anderson based on lack of experience. He stated that this leaves Bolton & Menk and Progressive. He stated that Bolton & Menk came in with the lowest bid and is a local company that would readily have some of the necessary information available so they could get .going on the project quicker. He noted that they had also included some additional items that were not laid out in the RFP, such as geotechnical evaluations. He noted that their RFP stated that a specific employee was qualified with certification from NACE and another certification. He stated that staff has found that this particular person does not have the specialty certifications laid out in the RFP. He stated that Bolton & Menk hasinformed the City that he is a contract worker and does have people on his staff that can perform the specialty inspection tasks. He stated that Progressive specializes in water supply and has a very good reputation in being detail oriented and staying on budget. He stated that their proposal came in about $20,000 higher than the Bolton & Menk proposal. He stated that Bolton & Menk has contacted the City and offered to withdraw their proposal because of the miscommunication regarding the specialty inspections because they want to remain in good standing with the City. Councilmember Dehen asked why anyone would include information on the RFP that is outside of the scope requested. Assistant City Engineer Himmer stated that they may have felt it would give them a competitive advantage in the bid process. Councilmember Jeffrey stated that he feels it is unfortunate that Bolton & Menk did not meet the specifications set out in the RFP for inspections and doesn't think the City can even consider their bid. City Attorney Goodrich read aloud the definition of an RFP and noted that it is not an exact bid that is statutory and needs to be exact, but a solicitation which does not set forth all the detailed requirements. Councilmember Jeffrey asked if the scores would change now that the City knows about the specialty inspection issues. Assistant City Engineer Himmer stated that the rankings would stand because he took that issue into consideration during the ranking process. Councilmember Look asked why the City needed another water tower and whether the need was immediate or if this was planned for future growth. City Council / April 22, 2008 Page 13 of 18