Agenda - Council - 02/13/1996 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

CASE # AWARD FOR THE ENGINEERING AND DEVELOPMENT OF CONTRACT FOR WELL NO. 3 By: Steve Jankowski, City Engineer Background: In December, the Council authorized the solicitation of proposals from five consultants for the engineering work associated with the design and construction of Well No. 3. The five firms include Hakanson Anderson Associates, Inc. (I-IA), Progressive Consulting Engineers Inc. (PCE), John Oliver & Associates (JO), Our Schelen - Mayeron & Associates, Inc. (OSM), and Bonestroo Rosene Anderlik & Associates (BRA). This project is necessary, due to the increasing demand of the City's growing water utility, and the fact that the City does not have sufficient water supply to meet the peak summer day demand if any of our existing three water sources would become unavailable. It was stated in the request for proposals that the consultant would be selected based upon (a) price, (b) experience with similar projects, and (c) the ability to complete the work as expedienfly as possible. All five consultants from which proposals were requested have submitted a proposal on the project. These proposals are too voluminous to attach to this case, but are available for review. In reviewing these proposals, it became apparent that Well No. 3 could not be completed earlier than September 1996, which is beyond the period during which the peak demand day is likely to occur. The completion date projected for the well ranges from September 1996 to February 1997. Because of this, time of completion becomes less of a selection factor than anticipated in the request for proposals. In addition to designing and constructing a municipal well, this project also includes the construction of a new well house and a supervisory control system to coordinate and direct the operation of the entire water system. However, of all the project elements, the one which involves the least degree of scientific evaluation and the most practical knowledge is in the construction and development of the well itself. I have, therefore, focused the evaluation of experience in the area of well construction rather than on the other project element. To assist in the comparison of proposals, I have prepared a table based upon the proposals summarizing the experience of each of the engineering consultants. I have also prepared a table summarizing the project costs anticipated by each proposer. Observation: On the basis of total project cost, I believe three of the five consultants are quite competitive. While BRA has the lowest not-to-exceed price for basic engineering services, their estimated cost for technical en~neering services is higher than HA. The total number of hours estimated among the lowest cost proposals falls within a couple of percent of each other. In the area of well design and construction experience, both BSA and OSM have completed a substantially larger number of wells than the other three proposers. The engineer from BSA has also performed more wells in recent years than the OSM engineer who has done only three wells since 1990. The degree of overall project understanding and approaches to the work was relatively balanced among the five proposers. 133