My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Agenda - Council - 10/11/2016
Ramsey
>
Public
>
Agendas
>
Council
>
2016
>
Agenda - Council - 10/11/2016
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/17/2025 3:53:36 PM
Creation date
10/26/2016 9:25:48 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Document Type
Agenda
Meeting Type
Council
Document Date
10/11/2016
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
510
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
OPTION 1: AWARD LOWEST QUALIFIED BID AS -IS TODAY (DRC. S92.900). DO NOT RE -BID. <br />STAFF NOTES <br />• This alternative was reviewed by the City Engineer, Attorney, and the Project Manager <br />Hakanson Anderson. The City is compliant from legal/ contractual perspective to move <br />forward with awarding this bid as -is. <br />■ Any correspondence effecting bids was to come from the project manager <br />Hakanson Anderson in writing —and an addendum was to be made —for all <br />bidders to see —as described in the bid documents. That never happened <br />RE crushing. <br />• The City has 60 days from bid -opening to award a bid, or reject all bids (from 09/21). <br />• Staff informally contacted the four groups that were told crushing was not allowed on - <br />site. It is staff's general understanding none of said contracts would have bid lower than <br />$92,900. <br />• Timing: if this alternative was selected, and the bid was awarded, the project schedule <br />should be amended. The substantial completion date would change slightly (4-6 weeks <br />later). The final completion date would remain the SAME as originally scheduled (June <br />01, 2017). <br />POSITIVES <br />• Lock in low bid of $92,900 for a project that was estimated at $175,000 (majority of bids <br />came in between $150K-220K). <br />■ DRC appears to be a good contractor —reference checks were made. <br />• Avoid spending additional resources on re -bidding (less than $2,000). <br />DRAWBACKS <br />• Perception of City not being fair and transparent in the bidding process. The City has <br />received informal feedback from a couple contractors concerned RE this situation. No <br />contractors have formally protested the bid process. <br />2 I 3 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.