|
Councilmember Wise introduced the following resolution and moved for its adoption:
<br />Contractor
<br />W. Gohman Construction
<br />Peterson Companies
<br />Municipal Builders
<br />Landwehr Construction
<br />RESOLUTION #10- 04 -082A
<br />RESOLUTION AWARDING A CONTRACT FOR CITY PROJECT 10 -23,
<br />EAST MEANDERING COMMONS PARK — SITE IMPROVEMENTS
<br />WHEREAS, on January 26, 2010 the Ramsey City Council authorized the solicitation of
<br />bids from plans prepared by URS Corporation, Close Landscape Architecture, and City staff; and
<br />WHEREAS, pursuant to an advertisement for bids for Improvement Project 10 -23, East
<br />Meandering Commons Park, bids were received, opened and tabulated according to law; and
<br />WHEREAS, the following is a summary of the bids that were received for the Site
<br />Improvements, Contract A:
<br />CONTRACT A: Site Improvements (hardscape)
<br />Base Bid
<br />$2,077,913.05
<br />$2,488,698.85
<br />$2,694,770.25
<br />$2,836,851.00
<br />Alternate Totals
<br />$736,622.57
<br />$878,327.25
<br />$863,018.95
<br />$886,340.40
<br />RESOLUTION #10-04-082A
<br />Page 1 of 4
<br />Total Bid
<br />$2,814,535.62
<br />$3,367,026.10
<br />$3,557,789.20
<br />$3,723,191.40
<br />WHEREAS, W. Gohman Construction Company ( "Gohman") is the lowest responsible
<br />bidder for Contract A.
<br />WHEREAS, in Resolution #10 -03 -075, the City Council resolved to award contract A to
<br />Gohman, including the base bid, and Alternates A, B, C, D, K, M, and N.
<br />WHEREAS, the bid form for Alternates A, B, C, D, and M required unit price bidding,
<br />and Gohman did not fill in the unit prices, but did set forth a total price for each alternate.
<br />WHEREAS, the City Engineer determined from the face of Gohman's bid that the unit
<br />prices for Alternates A, B, C, D, and M could be determined as a matter of simple math. Using
<br />the base bid unit prices, the unit pricing totals exactly match the total prices listed for Alternates
<br />B, C, and D. Alternate A included one item for which there was no corresponding base bid unit
<br />price. By applying the unit prices that did correspond to the base bid for Alternate A, the City
<br />Engineer determined the amount of the one other item and found that it was consistent with both
<br />the City Engineer's estimate and the bids of the other bidders. Alternate M only had one line
<br />item, so the total price Gohman listed was identical to what the extension must be, so the unit
<br />price could be determined by simply dividing the total by the quantity.
<br />WHEREAS, the second low bidder, Peterson Companies ( "Peterson "), has protested the
<br />award of contract A to Gohman Peterson contends that Gohman's bid must be rejected as non -
<br />responsive because Gohman did not fill in all the blanks for the alternate bid items and did not
<br />fill in the blank stating the sum of the base bid plus all alternates. Peterson also alleges that the
<br />
|