My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2002_0429_packet
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Packets
>
2002
>
2002_0429_packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/8/2014 3:05:37 PM
Creation date
10/25/2010 1:47:09 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
General
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
Department Approval: <br />��-.��. �-~. <br />REQUEST FOR COUNCII, ACTION <br />1�Tanager Reviewed: <br />Item Description: Rej ect Bids for 2002 PMP Contract B <br />Da�: ai2��a2 <br />ITEM NO.: V B <br />Agenda Section: <br />Reports/Recommendations <br />Background: The 2002 Pavement Management Program consists mainly of Mill and Overlay projects. We <br />ha�e sent out information to all abutting property owners and held a public information meeting April 9. Bids <br />were solicited during the month of ApriL The bids for 2002 Contract B were opened on Wednesday, April 17, <br />2002. This contract consists of the following projects: <br />2002 Contract B: Mill and Overlays <br />P-02-04 Nei�hborhood 16: <br />Lydia Ave, Chatsworth St to Cul-de-sac <br />Lydia Drive, Lydia Ave to Chatsworth St. <br />P-02-04 Nei�hborhood 24 <br />Walnut St, County Road C to Rose Place <br />N. Hwy 36 Service Drive, St. Croix St to Long Lake Road <br />Rosegate, N. Hwy 36 Service Drive to Cleveland Ave. <br />P-02-04 Nei�hborhood 25: Oakcrest Ave, Prior Ave to Fait-view Ave. <br />The apparent low bid was submitted by Tower Asphalt. Upon careful review of a11 of the bids submitted we <br />discovered that this bid did not meet the requirements of the Contract. The project specifications limit the amount <br />of contractor mobilization to 5% of the total project amount. Tower Asphalt's bid does not conform to this <br />provision of the specifications and includes mobilization of appro�mately 6.5%. Therefore this bid is "non- <br />conforming" and it should be rejected. <br />The Second lowest bidder, Bituminous Roadways failed to include the signature page from the bid proposal form <br />with their sealed bid. We consulted the City Attorney about these irregularities and were advised that because <br />both of the low bidders do not meet the requirements of the Contract, it is in the best interest of the City to re-bid <br />the entire project. <br />Schedule: We have looked at the schedule for this project and ha�e determined that delaying award 30 <br />days would not significantly impact the properiy owners in the neighborhoods. It will also give Xcel <br />Gas more time to complete their gas main project in these neighborhoods. A proposed schedule to re- <br />bid this project is as follows: <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.