My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
CCP 01-08-2001
ArdenHills
>
Administration
>
City Council
>
City Council Packets
>
2000-2009
>
2001
>
CCP 01-08-2001
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/8/2007 1:16:28 PM
Creation date
11/13/2006 2:35:52 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
General (2)
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
102
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
<br />JAN-04-2001 17:20 <br /> <br />BRW <br /> <br />612 373 6526 ~,~~/~5 <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />URS <br /> <br />SRW, Inc, <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />Mr, Joe Lynch <br />January 4.2001 <br />Page 2 <br /> <br />Base Bid <br />Gridor Construction, Inc. submitted the low base bid with a total base bid amount of $302,484,00 which <br />includes $184.700,00 for the lift station reconstruction and $117.784.00 for sanitary sewer line testing and <br />sealing and crenchless spot repair of the sanilaI)' sewer mains flowing into lift station #8. MCES will <br />reimburse the City for $5800.00 of the $184,700,00 for the installation of a new flow monitoring meter to <br />this slation, The remaining $178.900.00 is approximately S% greater than the Engineer's estimate of <br />$170,000,00 (budget $175,000,00) for this portion of the projcCI. Considering the other two bids, the <br />Engineer feels that this bid is represenlative of the current market value of the improvement and the City <br />would not likely see a significant savings by rebidding the work, <br /> <br />The sanitaIy sewer testing and sealing and trenchless spot repair of this project is was 17% more than the <br />Engineer's estimate and budget of $100,000.00, The approximately 17% difference between the <br />Engineer's estimate and the actual bid price can be attributed to a joint test prices which lire considerably <br />higher than prices previously paid for similar work, Considering the two other bids, the Engineer feels that <br />the joint test prices are represenlative of the current market vallie of the improvement and the City would <br />not likely see a significant cost savings by rebidding the work, <br /> <br />Therefore, although the base hid is approximately 12% ($32.000,00) greater than the Engineers estimate of e <br />$270,000,00 the bids submitted were all relatively close in price and represent fair market value for the <br />improvements. Therefore the City Engineer recommends that the City Council award tbe base bid for this <br />project to Gridor Construction. Inc, <br /> <br />Bid Alleniative #1 <br />Bid a1temative #1 includes the various open trench spot repairs of 8" clay pipe, Bid prices received varied <br />from $56.920.00 (tbe low base bidder) to $30,500.00, We believe the prices vary greatly because this work <br />can become labor intensive, Although this work should be completed fairly soon. it is not required to be <br />completed with the lift slation reconstruction. Bid Alternative #1 was included with this project in order to <br />solicit coastru'tion costs and accomplisb the work if budgets allowed. <br /> <br />The bid prices arc higher than expected for this work and it is not a necessaI)' component in the <br />reconstruction of lift starion #8. Therefore the Engineer recommends that Bid Altemative #1 not be <br />included in this project and be completed separate from this contract at a later date either by City forces. <br />under pavement management progmm or with ne"t years sanitary sewer program. <br /> <br />Bid Altemanve #2 <br />Bid Altemative #2 included about 22,000 linear feet of sanitaIy sewer cleaning and televising, The <br />average pri,e of the three bids is approximately 17% higher than the Engineer's estimate and budget of <br />$25,000,00, The Engineer's estimate was based on bid prices of previous sanitaIy cleaning and televising <br />projecls, <br /> <br />The work associated wirh Bid Alternative #2 is not necessary for the reconstruction of lift station #8, <br />Because the bid prices for Bid A]remative #2 are higher than one might expect and are not necessary to the e <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.