Laserfiche WebLink
qrNEWOf11 <br />7r�yy�7 <br />the city that works AlllrJ�l)L <br />Report Number <br />Agenda Section <br />Council Meeting Date <br />. REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION <br />10-119 <br />VI -5 <br />May 11, 2010 <br />ITEM DESCRIPTION: CONSIDERATION OF BIDS AND AWARD OF CONTRACT FOR <br />2010 REROOFING OF THE FAMILY SERVICE CENTER AND WATER TREATMENT <br />PLANT. <br />DEPARTMENT HEAD'S APPROVAL: Cmn/ <br />CITY MANAGER'S APPROVAL: <br />No comments to supplement this report S+tJ Comments attached <br />Recommendation: Accept all bids except Rayco Construction Inc. since it was not valid and <br />adopt the attached resolution awarding a contract for the 2010 Reroofing of the Family Service <br />Center (FSC) and Water Treatment Plant (WTP) project to the lowest responsible bidder, <br />McPhillips Bros. Roofing Company in the amount of $658,000. The type of roof to be installed at <br />both locations is asphalt built up roof (BUR). <br />Legislative History: Previous presentations to the council have been made as shown below <br />Worksession: <br />January, 27, 2009 <br />Worksession: <br />May 4, 2009 <br />Worksession: <br />June 23, 2009 <br />. Worksession: <br />October 27, 2009 <br />Worksession: <br />April 27, 2010 <br />Financial Impact: Please see the attached April 27, 2010 Worksession memorandum for a <br />detailed discussion of the financial impact. At this Worksession, Council directed staff to install <br />built up roof styles at both the FSC and WTP as the life cycle comparison was so close and when <br />other factors such as maintenance and repair costs are considered, the built up roof was the deemed <br />the best choice and value. <br />Explanation: On April 7th at 2:00 p.m. the bids for the 2010 Reroofing of the Family Service <br />Center and Water Treatment Plant were opened at City Hall in the council chambers. In total, 10 <br />bids were received. A bid tabulation is attached. A detailed bid evaluation and background check <br />was performed by the City's roof consultant, Inspec, on the apparent low bidder, Rayco <br />Construction, Inc. They found their bid was not signed. The City Attorney was consulted and <br />stated that the bid must be rejected because the bid was improper and was not a valid bid since it <br />was not signed. Staff recommends rejecting the bid from Rayco Construction Inc. since it was not <br />valid and award the bid to the second low bidder McPhillips Bros. Roofing Company in the <br />amount of $658,000. <br />A bid tabulation has been completed by Inspec and bid totals verified. <br />The lowest responsible bidder, McPhillips Bros. Roofing Company, has not done work for the City <br />in the past, but has done similar work in other communities and is qualified and capable of <br />performing work of this kind and magnitude. <br />