2008_0609_packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Department Approval Rs&spv�:E REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION Date: 06/09/05 Item No.: 7. o City Manager Approval Item Description: Rejection of bid for W-08-10 Watermain Replacement Project BACKGROUND City Proj ect W -05 -1 0 Watermain Replacement Proj ect consists of the rehabilitation of a segment of Watermain between Woodhill Avenue and County Road C -2 between Churchill St. and Oxford St. This will rehabilitate just under 2,000 linear feet of Watermain. This main is located along the shared lot line of homes and has a history of recent breaks with property damage. These single family backyards have fences, sheds, mature trees, lawns, and gardens that would be torn up if we pursued a traditional open cut replacement project. At the February 25, 2005, the City Council authorized staff to move solicit bids with a project to line this Watermain. The bids were opened on Wednesday, May 25, 2005. We received the following two bids: J Fletcher Creamer & Sons, Inc ($494.515.20) and Insituform, Technologies, Inc. ($417,947.00) Based on past practice, the City Council has awarded contracts to the lowest responsible bidder. In the case of Proj ect W -05 -1 0, the lowest bidder was Insituform Technologies, Inc. However the low bid was more than twice as high as the engineer's estimate, $200,700, as a result, staff recommends that we not award the work. POLICY OBJECTIVE Pipe lining is the least disruptive rehabilitation method for to property owners when it comes to time and excavation, however, it is not the only trenchless technology that the City can use. When we moved forward with bidding this lining project, we knew that this technology had never been used in Minnesota, and we understood that the cost of Watermain lining was becoming more realistic. However, the bids we received exceed the amount that we have budgeted for repair in our Water Utility budget. As a result, staff will continue to explore other methods of repair for this segment of Watermain. FINANCIAL IMPACTS The bid price is more than $2001 foot. In comparison, directional drilling costs about $751 ft and pipe bursting about $160/ ft. Both methods could also minimize disruption to the property owners. As a result, based on the cost and the potential for alternative construction methods, staff recommends that we reject these bids. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Rej ect bids received for W -05 -1 0 Watermain Replacement Proj ect. REQUESTED COUNCIL ACTION Approve motion rej ecting the bids received for W -05 -1 0 Watermain Replacement Proj ect. Page 1 of 2