The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About11.C.1. Consideration of Huber Park Improvement Bids-Res. No. 6454 and 6455 11.C.1. CITY OF SHAKOPEE MEMORANDUM To: Mayor and City Council Mark McNeill, City Administrator From: Mark Themig, Parks, Recreation, and Facilities Director Meeting Date: July 5, 2006 Subject: Consideration of Re-Bid Amounts for Huber Park and Related Riverfront Redevelopment, Fillmore Street Extension, and Alley Improvement Project Project No. PR2005-3 INTRODUCTION City Council is asked to consider the re-bidding amounts for Huber Park and Related Riverfront Redevelopment, Fillmore Street Extension, and Alley Improvements. BACKGROUND In May, City Council rejected the bids for Huber Park and related work. At that time, the Council directed the project to be re-bid in two separate bid packages, with the buildings in one package and the site work in a separate package. They also directed the park pavilion building (restroom/storage) be added to the bid alternate list. BID RESULTS Bid opening for the re-bidding was held on June 27,2006. At that time, there were five bids submitted for the site work package and two bids for the building package: Site Work Package Amount Building Package Amount K.A. Witt 2,196,473.00 A & L Construction 1,069,520.20 Veit and Company 2,253,735.74 Greystone Construction 1,138,601.88 Gladstone Construction 2,304,888.85 S.M. Hentges and Sons 2,311,249.30 L.S. Black Constructors 2,985,933,39 The bids are tabulated and included as Attachment A. Bid Protests/Irregularities There are two bid protests and a bidding irregularity that City Council needs to be aware of. 1. Late Bids Two of the bids were received after the 2:00 p.m. deadline: . Site Work Package: Veit and Company, Inc. @ 2:05 p.m. . Building Package: A & L Construction Inc. @ 2:03 p.m. Since we had not started reading the bids, we included the late bids in the reading and indicated to the bidders (including the late bidders) that we would confer with the City Attorney on whether or not the late bids would be accepted. While conferring with the City Attorney and waiting for his response, we received formal bid protests from both Greystone Construction and S.M. Hentges & Sons. The City Attorney has provided an opinion that the bid documents prohibit the City from considering a bid that was received after the bid deadline. Therefore, bids from A & L Construction and Veit and Company, Inc. can not be considered. The late bid protests and Mr. Thomson's opinion are included in Attachment B. 2. Site Work Bid Alternate Amounts The second bid protest relates to the bid alternates. Two of the bidders wrote in something different than a specific dollar amount for select bid alternates: . K.A. Witt: "Use Unit Prices" and "Deduct $300/LF" . Gladstone Construction: "No Bid" S.M. Hentges is protesting the apparent low bidder for the site work because S.M. Hentges claims that the bidder is required to fill in an actual dollar amount for the alternates. Mr. Thomson has provided an opinion that if City Council chooses to award the contract with the recommended bid deduct (or award the contract in full), K.A. Witt's bid is acceptable because we can calculate the actual dollar amount for the deduct since the plans specifically state a linear foot amount. However, if City Council chooses to select an alternate that is listed as "Use Unit Prices", the bid would need to be rejected because we simply can not calculate that amount. This protest and Mr. Thomson's response is also included in Attachment B. 3. Bid Withdrawal A & L Construction's bid appeared to be the low bid for the building construction. However, I received notice at on Wednesday afternoon that A & L was withdrawing their bid due to a math error. Under normal circumstances, releasing a low bidder would beat the City Council's discretion. If Council chose to not release the bidder and the bidder failed to execute the contract within 15 days, the City could retain the bidder's bid bond (5% of the bid). However, given the fact that their bid can not be considered since it was late, their withdrawal is not an issue. The bid withdrawal notice is included in Attachment B. Apparent Low Bidders - Base Bid Given the information listed above, the apparent low bidders for the base bid are as follows: Site Work Package: K.A. Witt Construction $2,196,473.00 Buildinas Packaae: Grevstone Construction $1.138.601.88 Total Bids $3,335,074.88 The amount for the previous bid was $3,389,545.07. Rebidding resulted in a savings of approximately $54,470.19, excluding the rebidding costs. Apparent Low Bidder - Recommended Bid Deducts I have reviewed the bid alternates with Stuart Krahn, project manager, and have two deducts that provide a significant cost savings while not impacting the core function of the proposed design: Site Work Package: K.A. Witt, Eliminate Upper Level Terraced Seating $120,900* Buildinas Packaae: Grevstone. Eliminate Picnic Shelter $100.909 Total $221,809 (*As discussed previously,.using the linear foot quantity listed on the bid form ($300/LF) and the linear foot amounts listed on the plan (403'), we can calculate this amount. If City Council would like to add other alternates in awarding the site work package, we would ask that you provide direction on which alternates to add and table action on awarding the bid. We will then recalculate the bids to determine the apparent low bidder.) TOTAL PROJECT COSTS AND FUNDING Other Project Costs As we discussed in May, there are other costs associated with this project not reflected in the bid: Additional Costs Not in Bid Estimate Notes Contingency 16~_,47? 5% of bid. Levee Drive Parking Lot Need to deduct costs for X feet of conduit Undergrounding ____~Q~Q9 in bid costs. Estimated at 2% of bid amount. Includes costs previously approved with contract Construction Administration ._"!~]-!~Q. extension for building design. Sound/Light System ----_.~~Q9.Q. Reduced from $90,000 estimate. Surveying/Staking ..__._-~~QQQ Estimate for all surveying/staking. Need to deduct costs for X feet of conduit Alley Undergrounding ._..:i~~Q. in bid costs. CSAH 101/Sommerville Intersection 2?..!.QQQ_ Paid by the County. Building Permit Fees .._.__..1~~~5 _ SAC/WAC Fees __.J~_&QQ Acoustical Panels .__.~I_QQQ_ Special Inspections .._---~.!QQQ Truck Water Charge ___..__._~!900 Paint and grafitti coating costs. Sentence Repainting Underpass and Walls ..--..- 5,.000. to service doing work. SPUC Inspection Fees 4,675 Water main installation. Total 535,767 Funding The adopted CIP has $1,455,000 of funding for the park development, which includes the $1.4 million previously allocated by City Council and an additional $55,000 for construction administration. The final cost estimate in February noted that the allocated $1.4 million was not adequate to cover the estimated costs. In addition to Park Reserve funding, there are a number of other funding sources that are part of the project: Final Other Funding Sources Estimate Notes Assessments 204,870 Donations 28,208 Irrigation systems. DNR Trail Grant 92,000 DNR Boat Landing Grant 100,000 LMRWD Boat Landing Funding 34,500 HRA Parking Lot Funding 36,000 City Parking Lot Contribution 36,000 Playground Committee Donation 10,000 For playground entryway. Levee Drive Parking Lot Undergrounding 80,000 Funding source to be determined. SPUC Contribution for Alley Undergrounding 21,650 1/2 of total estimated costs. SPUC Costs for Conduit Placement in Bid TBD To be determined. Scott County 25,000 CSAH 1 01 /Sommerville Total 668,228 Total Project Costs and Funding Summary Assuming the bid were to be awarded in full or with the deducts, the project costs and funding would be as follows: Item Amount Building Package Bid -1,138,601.88 Site Work Package Bid -2,196,473.00 Additional Project Costs -535,767 Park Reserve Funding 1,400,000 Other Funding 668,228 Sub Total -1,802,613.88 Recommended Deducts 221,809 Total -1,508,804 The additional funding required for the project would need to be provided as an interfund loan to the park reserve fund. Attachment C provides an overview of the revised CIP given the proposed costs and interfund loan payback. PARKS AND RECREATION ADVISORY BOARD RECOMMENDATION The Parks and Recreation Advisory Board had considerable discussion about the bid results at their April 24 meeting. Following this discussion, they made and unanimously approved a recommendation to City Council to construct the park with no deducts, but recognized that City Council would use their best judgment to accept this bid or consider rebidding. Based on the informal discussion they had at their June 26 meeting, I believe their recommendation to construct the park still stands. AL TERNA TIVES 1. Accept the bids and award the contract in full by offering the following Resolutions: . Resolution No. 6454, A Resolution Awarding a Contract to KA. Witt Construction for the Site Work Package of Huber Park and Related Riverfront Redevelopment, Fillmore Street Extension, and Alley Improvement Project Project No. PR2005-3, and direct additional project funding be allocated from the Park Reserve Fund with an interfund loan. (Resolution No.1) . Resolution No. 6455, A Resolution Awarding a Contract to Greystone Construction Company for the Buildings Package of Huber Park and Related Riverfront Redevelopment, Fillmore Street Extension, and Alley Improvement Project Project No. PR2005-3,and direct additional project funding be allocated from the Park Reserve Fund with an interfund loan. (Resolution No.2) 2. Accept the bids and award the contract minus the recommended deducts by offering the following resolutions: . Resolution No. 6454, A Resolution Awarding a Contract to K.A. Witt Construction for the Site Work Package of Huber Park and Related Riverfront Redevelopment, Fillmore Street Extension, and Alley Improvement Project Project No. PR2005-3, and direct additional project funding be allocated from the Park Reserve Fund with an interfund loan. (Resolution No.3) . Resolution No. 6455, A Resolution Awarding a Contract to Greystone Construction Company for the Buildings Package of Huber Park and Related Riverfront Redevelopment, Fillmore Street Extension, and Alley Improvement Project Project No. PR2005-3, and direct additional project funding be allocated from the Park Reserve Fund with an interfund loan. (Resolution No.4) 3. Accept the bids and award the contract with additional deducts. If you would like to award the contract with additional deducts, we would request that you provide direction on which deducts to include and table action until the July 18 City Council meeting. This will allow us to recalculate the bid results and determine whether this is a change in the apparent low bidder. 4. Award the Site Work Packaae and Reiect the Buildinas Packaae. Another option that City Council could consider is to award the site work package at this time and defer the construction of the building, performance area, and entry monuments until a later time. This option would provide the core parking and infrastructure improvements, including the power line undergrounding. It would also require deleting the site furnishings (#2), both terraced seating alternates (#5 & 6), and the terraced grading and stage electrical (#10) from the Site Work package. Adopting this option would make S.M. Hentges the apparent low bidder and would reduce the total project costs to approximately $2,001,250. If you would like to adopt this option, we would request that you table action until the July 18 City Council meeting. This will allow us to recalculate the bid results, confirm the apparent low bidder, and analyze any other impacts this action would have on the other funding sources. 5. Reiect all bids and delete the proiect or defer it to another time by offering the following resolutions: . Resolution No. 6454, A Resolution Rejecting bids for the Site Work Package of Huber Park and Related Riverfront Redevelopment, Fillmore Street Extension, and Alley Improvement Project Project No. PR2005-3. (Resolution No.5) . Resolution No. 6455, A Resolution Rejecting bids for the Buildings Package of Huber Park and Related Riverfront Redevelopment, Fillmore Street Extension, and Alley Improvement Project Project No. PR2005-3. (Resolution No.6) RELATIONSHIP TO VISION B. High Quality of Life C. Great Place for Kids to Grow Up REQUESTED ACTION City Council should, by motion, move an alternate consistent with your direction. I Resolution No. 1 I RESOLUTION NO. 6454 A Resolution Awarding a Contract to K.A. Witt Construction for the Site Work Package of Huber Park and Related Riverfront Redevelopment, Fillmore Street Extension, and Alley Improvement Project Project No. PR2005-3 WHEREAS, pursuant to an advertisement for bids for the Site Work Package for Construction of the Huber Park and Related River Front Development, Fillmore Street Extension, and Allley Improvement PR2005-3 bids were received, opened and tabulated according to law, and the following bids were received complying with the advertisement: K.A. Witt Construction 2,196,473.00 Veit and Company, Inc. 2,253,735.74 Gladstone Construction, Inc. 2,304,888.85 S.M. Hentges and Sons, Inc. 2,311,249.30 L.S. Black Constructors 2,985,933.39 AND WHEREAS, the bid by Veit and Company, Inc. was received after the bid deadline of 2:00 p.m. and therefore is not an acceptable bid; AND WHEREAS, it appears that K.A. Witt Construction, 1530 280th Street West, New Prague, Minnesota, 56071 is the lowest responsible bidder. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA: 1. The appropriate City officials are hereby authorized and directed to enter into a contract with KA Witt Construction in the name of the City of Shakopee for the construction of the Site Work Package for Huber Park and Related Riverfront Redevelopment, Fillmore Street Extension, and Alley Improvement Project Project No. PR2005-3, according to the plans'and specifications therefore authorized by the City Council and on file in the office of the City Clerk. 2. The City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to return forthwith to all bidders the deposits made with their bids, except that the deposits of the successful bidder and the next lowest bidder shall be retained until a contract has been signed. Adopted in session of the City Council of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, held this day of ,2006. Mayor of the City of Shakopee ATTEST: City Clerk I Resolution NO.2 I RESOLUTION NO. 6455 A Resolution Awarding a Contract to Greystone Construction Company.for the Buildings Package of Huber Park and Related Riverfront Redevelopment, Fillmore Street Extension, and Alley Improvement Project Project No. PR2005-3 WHEREAS, pursuant to an advertisement for bids for the Buildings Package for Construction of the Huber Park and Related River Front Development, Fillmore Street Extension, and Allley Improvement PR2005-3 bids were received, opened and tabulated according to law, and the following bids were received complying with the advertisement: A & L Construction, Inc. 1,069,520.20 Greystone Construction Company 1,138,601.88 AND WHEREAS, the bid by A & L. Construction, Inc. was received after the bid deadline of 2:00 p.m. and therefore is not an acceptable bid; AND WHEREAS, A & L Construction Inc. has provided notice to the City that they are withdrawing their bid; AND WHEREAS, it appears that Greystone Construction Company, 500 South Marschall Road, Suite 300, Shakopee, Minnesota, 55379 is the lowest responsible bidder. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA: 1. The appropriate City officials are hereby authorized and directed to enter into a contract with Greystone Construction Company in the name of the City of Shakopee for the construction of the Buildings Package for Huber Park and Related Riverfront Redevelopment, Fillmore Street Extension, and Alley Improvement Project Project No. PR2005-3, according to the plans and specifications therefore authorized by the City Council and on file in the office of the City Clerk. 2. The City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to return forthwith to all bidders the deposits made with their bids, except that the deposits of the successful bidder and the next lowest bidder shall be retained until a contract has been signed. Adopted in session of the City Council of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, held this day of ,2006. Mayor of the City of Shakopee ATTEST: City Clerk I Resolution No.3. I RESOLUTION NO. 6454 A Resolution Awarding a Contract to K.A. Witt Construction for the Site Work Package of Huber Park and Related Riverfront Redevelopment, Fillmore Street Extension, and Alley Improvement Project Project No. PR2005-3 WHEREAS, pursuant to an advertisement for bids for the Site Work Package for Construction of the Huber Park and Related River Front Development, Fillmore Street Extension, and Allley Improvement PR2005-3 bids were received, opened and tabulated according to law, and the following bids were received complying with the advertisement: K.A. Witt Construction 2,196,473.00 Veit and Company, Inc. 2,253,735.74 Gladstone Construction, Inc. 2,304,888.85 S.M. Hentges and Sons, Inc. 2,311,249.30 L.S. Black Constructors 2,985,933.39 AND WHEREAS, City Council has carefully considered the alternates to the bid and is selecting the Alternate No.5, a bid deduct deleting the upper three levels of precast concrete terraced seating; AND WHEREAS, the bid by Veit and Company, Inc. was received after the bid deadline of 2:00 p.m. and therefore is not an acceptable bid; AND WHEREAS, it appears that K.A.Witt Construction, 1530 280th Street West, New Prague, Minnesota, 56071 is the lowest responsible bidder. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA: 1. The appropriate City officials are hereby authorized and directed to enter into a contract with K.A. Witt Construction in the name of the City of Shako pee for the construction of the Site Work Package for Huber Park and Related Riverfront Redevelopment, Fillmore Street Extension, and Alley Improvement Project Project No. PR2005-3, according to the plans and specifications therefore authorized by the City CouncU and on file in the office of the City Clerk. 2. The City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to return forthwith to all bidders the deposits made with their bids, except that the deposits of the successful bidder and the next lowest bidder shall be retained until a contract has been signed. Adopted in session of the City Council of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, held this day of ,2006. Mayor of the City of Shakopee ATTEST: City Clerk I Resolution NO.4 I RESOLUTION NO. 6455 A Resolution Awarding a Contract to Greystone Construction Company for the Buildings Package of Huber Park and Related Riverfront Redevelopment, Fillmore Street Extension, and Alley Improvement Project Project No. PR2005-3 WHEREAS, pursuant to an advertisement for bids for the Buildings Package for Construction of the Huber Park and Related River Front Development, Fillmore Street Extension, and Allley Improvement PR2005-3 bids were received, opened and tabulated according to law, and the following bids were received complying with the advertisement: A & L Construction, Inc. 1,069,520.20 Greystone Construction Company 1,138,601.88 AND WHEREAS, City Council has carefully considered the alternates to the bid and is selecting the Alternate No.3, a bid deduct deleting the picnic shelter and concrete shelter slab; AND WHEREAS, the bid by A & L. Construction, Inc. was received after the bid deadline of 2:00 p.m. and therefore is not an acceptable bid; AND WHEREAS, A & L Construction Inc. has provided notice to the City that they are withdrawing their bid; AND WHEREAS, it appears that Greystone Construction Company, 500 South Marschall Road, Suite 300, Shakopee, Minnesota, 55379 is the lowest responsible bidder. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA: 1. The appropriate City officials are hereby authorized and directed to enter into a contract with Greystone Construction Company in the name of the City of Shakopee for the construction of the Buildings Package for Huber Park and Related Riverfront Redevelopment, Fillmore Street Extension, and Alley Improvement Project Project No. PR2005-3, according to the plans and specifications therefore authorized by the City Council and on file in the office of the City Clerk. 2. The City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to return forthwith to all bidders the deposits made with their bids, except that the deposits of the successful bidder and the next lowest bidder shall be retained until a contract has been signed. Adopted in session of the City Council of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, held this day of ,2006. Mayor of the City of Shakopee ATTEST: City Clerk I Resolution NO.5 I RESOLUTION NO. 6454 A Resolution Rejecting bids for the Site Work Package of Huber Park and Related Riverfront Redevelopment, Fillmore Street Extension, and Alley Improvement Project Project No. PR2005-3 WHEREAS, pursuant to an advertisement for bids for the Site Work Package for Construction of the Huber Park and Related River Front Development, Fillmore Street Extension, and Allley Improvement PR2005-3 bids were received, opened and tabulated according to law, and the following bids were received complying with the advertisement: K.A. Witt Construction 2,196,473.00 Veit and Company, Inc. 2,253,735.74 Gladstone Construction, Inc. 2,304,888.85 S.M. Hentges and Sons, Inc. 2,311,249.30 L.S. Black Constructors 2,985,933.39 AND WHEREAS, the apparent low bid exceeds the project budget. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA: 1. Bids for the Construction of the Site Work Package of Huber Park and Related River Front Development, Fillmore Street Extension, and Allley Improvement PR2005-3 are hereby rejected by City Council. 2. The City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to return forthwith to all bidders the deposits made with their bids. Adopted in session of the City Council of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, held this day of ,2006. Mayor of the City of Shakopee ATTEST: City Clerk I Resolution NO.6 I RESOLUTION NO. 6455 A Resolution Rejecting bids for the Buildings Package of Huber Park and Related Riverfront Redevelopment, Fillmore Street Extension, and Alley Improvement Project Project No. PR2005.3 WHEREAS, pursuant to an advertisement for bids for the Buildings Package for Construction of the Huber Park and Related River Front Development, Fillmore Street Extension, and Allley Improvement PR2005-3 bids were received, opened and tabulated according to law, and the following bids were received complying with the advertisement: A & L Construction, Inc. 1,069,520.20 Greystone Construction Company 1,138,601.88 AND WHEREAS, the bid by A & L. Construction, Inc. was received after the bid deadline of 2:00 p.m. and therefore is not an acceptable bid; AND WHEREAS, A & L Construction Inc. has provided notice to the City that they are withdrawing their bid; AND WHEREAS, it appears that Greystone Construction Company, 500 South Marschall Road, Suite 300, Shakopee, Minnesota, 55379 is the lowest responsible bidder. AND WHEREAS, the apparent low bid exceeds the project budget. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA: 1. Bids for the Construction of the Site Work Package of Huber Park and Related River Front Development, Fillmore Street Extension, and Allley Improvement PR2005-3 are hereby rejected by City Council. 2. The City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to return forthwith to all bidders the deposits made with their bids. Adopted in session of the City Council of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, held this day of ,2006. Mayor of the City of Shakopee ATTEST: City Clerk . ';0: ... Us'. ...., .t" 2335WestHigtiwaY36..StPaUI~MNS.5Ji3. . . . . .. . ones roo ... . - ,. ... ,... . -=-Ro..'sen~.'. Offle", 651.-636,4~OO. Fax' 651;636;1311 .IPi.'............................:........!.,1 :: '1\1I. ..: ~nde~hk& . www.bonestroo:com.<,t .'\JlAs~oclat~s .' .. . Engineers &.Ar:chitects.. . ", ..' '.,.... .- Jill1e 27,2006..' . ., ~ .~ .... .. J;I~norabl(;dVlayor and 'CitY Council .;. Cit)'ofShakopee .. . .', '.129 Homes St. S. . .' . '," . . .. . . . :Shakopee"MN 5~~79 ' ~ '. '. . . < Re:'Sit:ewotl~Package' . .. ,... . ." ..' HuberPark and' Related RiverfrontRedeve1opment,'.. . .' 'Filltn.ore Stre~tExtension,andAlley IirlprQvementProject ., ': . QifyProJect No~ PR2005~3 . _ .,. . . .. :Fi~e No. 000077-04105~0 ' '. , . Bid Re:Sults .. . -. ",.. " . .. . ~. . . . . . '. ",. .: Bids .were. opened. for the .Project stated above .on Tu~sday, june 27, 2006.. Transrrritte,d herewith .. . ,jsacopy of the Bid Tabula:tion:foryour info~a:tioriand file; "Copies wil1;also.bt},distributedto .' eachJ3i~der.'.. .' .... .., ..... ..- . ' " . ~ .~ . , There w~re a total offive Bids; The attac4edsrtmnntrizes the res~ltsofth6 Bids rec,eived Wi.th .. .. ' " OUr CQrrections foimath(mlatica.lerrors in the submitted bidS. .. . . . ... . "," . '. . '. . .... Fo~ the.CouAcil's informat~on:,\veha:ve alsD.:calcula.ted the val~~sof f.1educt Alternate No. Sand . No.'~ inK.A. Witt's bidba,Sed'onthe'quantities shoWn: on the drawings (Sheet C504) .and ~e:: ' , :" .,umt price listed on theifJ:l.id~Forin; Tho.se values ar~a,s follows:.. . , ' .. ". . . D~ductA1terriateNo>'5. -$120900.00:.'. ..... , <. -,' . :. . ".' '" - ," . " D<iduct Alternate No.6 . -$127,746:00 . .. . .' .: Shou!d 'you have' any. questions; please feet. qee to c~ni.act meat (651 j. 604;'4861~ . .. .. . . . . ' ," ". . '- . Sinc~rely, ... . .:, . ,. .... ~. . l.. . . ,:soNEST~06, ROSENE, AND~RLIK & ASSOCIATES, INC.,. .. . ....~. q:'.: . .';41. ..'j!e'. . . ,', .'- ..' . ..:' . . . . . . .' - . . . .' .' . . , ' . . .... . . .' " ..... ..... . ~ ..' - .... . ." . . .. ....', ..:. '~ .",.".. .:. . ": .~'....' . '..' ~ . . . .',' ,', " .'. . . . . ,:Stuart M. Krahn, R.L~A . ., Enctosure .. .. . ~t.Paul,S:t. CI~ud, Roch~ster; MN -. Milwaukee. WI, - ,Chjc~go,IL . Mf.1rrratlVe Actlon/Eq\lai opportunity' Employer. and EmPloy~e Owned . .. . Jljj Bonestroo SITI!WORK PACKAGE: Huber Park and Related Rlvllrfront Redevelopment. FUlmore street Rosene Project Nallle: Extension, and Allev Improvement , herebycelllfythollhis is a malhemallcally i Anderlik & Client Project No ; PR2oo5-3 FIle No : 000077.Q4t05-0 ..~1!L-~ceNed Associates fIl!lln..1I & Alellll."" Bid Opening: Tuesday. June 27, 2006. at 2:00 P.M.. C.D,S.T. OWner: City of Shalcopoa Slued M. KlBhn, R LA - Registration Nt:>. 4()1)()2 Bidder No 1 Bidder No.2 Bidder No.3 Bidder No.4 Blddllr No.5 BID TABULATION K. A Wilt Veil and Company,lne. Gladstone Construcllon,lnc. S. M. Hentges and Sons.lne. L.S. Black ConslM:tors Item Qty IIInm Item Units Unit Prlce Total Unit Prlea Total Unit Price Total Unit Price Total Unit Price Total PART 1 . FlllMORE STREET EXTENSION AND ALLEY IMPROVEMENTS: 1 MOBILIZATION LS 1 $10.000 .00 $10.00000 $20,000 00 $20.000 00 $51,750.00 $51.75000 510.000 00 510.000 00 $16.350 00 518.350 00 2 TRAFFIC CONTROL LS 1 65.155 00 $5.15500 $3.879 00 $3.87900 $4.600 00 $4.60000 $4 .000 00 $4.000 00 $6.75800 $6.758 00 3 . SAWING CONCRETe PAVEMENT LF 10 $600 $8000 $300 530 00 5920 $9200 $1100 511000 $28 16 $251 60 " REMOVE BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT SY 1565 $500 $7.82500 SSOO 59.390 00 $345 55.39925 $350 $5.477 50 S436 $6.823 40 5 REMOVE CONCRETE CURB AND GIJT1l:R LF 75 S800 $800 00 53500 $2.825 00 $345 $258 75 $450 $33750 $382 S286 50 6 COMMON EXCAVATION (PI CY 1025 $600 $6.15000 $330 53.38250 SS90 $7.072 50 $22 00 $22.5SO .00 S22 89 $23.46225 7 SUBGRADE EXCAVATION (PI CY 430 $700 $3.010 00 SUO 51.376 00 S690 52.967 00 $10.00 $4,300.00 $35 97 $15.467 10 8 SUBGRAOE PREPARATION SY 1750 $075 $1.31250 5120 $2,10000 $460 $ll,050 00 5100 $1.750 00 $409 57,15750 9 ADJUST MANHOLE AND CASTING SA 1 $1.000 00 $1.000 00 5327 00 $32700 $42320 $423 20 $275 00 S27500 $588 60 $588 60 10 12' RCP STORM SEWER. CLASS 5. a - 10' PEEP LF 196 528 00 S5.488 00 $3100 $6.076 00 55750 Sl1.270 00 $29 00 $5.684 00 $4360 $8,54$ 60 11 15' RCP STORM SEWER. ClASS 5. rt - 10' DEEP LF 159 $32 00 $5.08800 $34 50 $5,485 50 SS9 00 Sl0.971 00 $2100 $3.339 00 $4796 57.62564 12 16" RCP FLARED END SECTION SA 1 $1.300 00 51.300 00 $509 00 S509 00 51,265 00 $1,265 00 51.10000 $1.100 00 S981 00 $981 00 13 CONNECT TO EXISTING CATCH BASIN SA 1 $75000 $750 00 $1.340 00 $1.340 00 S575 00 $575 00 $1.200 00 $1.200 00 $1.09000 Sl.090 00 14 CATCH BASIN. DesiGN 4020 . 'D" SA 1 51.10000 $1.10000 $1.370 00 $1.370 00 $1.035 00 51.035 00 $1.11000 $1.110 00 52.180.00 $2.18000 is 2' X:r C8.INCL R-3067-V CSTG AND CONC AOJ RINGS SA 2 $1,400 00 $2.800 00 $1.855.00 $3.71000 51.311 DO $2.822 00 $1.41700 $2.834 00 $2.18000 $4.360 00 16 4' PIA STORM SEWER CBMH.INC R. 3067-V, CSTG AND CONC API RINGS SA 1 51.50000 $1.500 00 $2.504 00 $2.5114 00 $2.30000 $2.300 DO 51.375 00 $1.37500 $3.27000 $3.270 00 17 PROTECTION OF CATCH BASIN IN STReET -INITIAL SA 3 S250 00 $750 00 $311 00 $933 00 $402 50 $1,20750 $51000 $1,53000 $408 75 $1.22625 18 GEOTEXTlLE FABRIC SY 350 $200 $700 00 $1.60 sseo .00 $253 $885 50 $170 $595 00 $338 $1.18300 19 selECT GRANULAR SORROW (eV) CY 810 $1750 S14.17500 S1750 514.17500 $16 10 S13.041 00 51115 $9,031 so $23 00 $19.423 80 20 GRANULAR BORROW (ev) CY 850 $17 SO S1'.37500 S14 00 $9.100 00 514 95 $9.717 so $1115 $7.247 so S1982 512.75300 21 AGGREGATE BASE, CLASS S. 100% CRUSHED LIMESTONE TN 2000 $14 00 $28.000 00 $1940 $38.800 00 $1817 $36.34000 $13 so 527.000 .00 $16.35 $32.70000 22 CSAH 101 STREET PATCHING SY 340 $7000 $23.80000 54400 $14.960 00 551 75 $17.59500 S58 40 519.17600 SSO 14 S17.04760 23 FILLMORE STReEl' BlnJMlNOUS PAVEMENT. ". THICK SY 1400 $1575 $22.050 00 $1500 $21.000 00 $1323 $18.522 00 $1265 $17.71000 51929 521.008 00 24 ALLEY AND ALLEY PARKING BITUMINOUS PAVEMeNT. 3.5" THICK SY 1725 $1375 $23.71875 $1300 $22.42500 S11 21 $19.33725 S1075 $18.54375 $1711 529.514 75 25 BITUMINOUS MATERIAL FOR TACK COAT GAL 150 5290 $435 00 $350 $S25 00 S3.45 SSl7SO $350 S525 00 $327 $490 50 26 Be18 CONCRETE CURB AND GUTTER LF 1300 $tl 00 $14.300 00 $1250 S16.25O 00 $1288 $16.744.00 $1250 $16.250 00 S1657 $21.54100 27 4" CONCRETE SIDEWAlK SF 2500 $400 S10.000 DO $4.00 $10.000 00 $431 $10,775 00 $375 $9.375 00 $534 $13.350 CO 28 8" CONCRETE DRIVEWAY PAVEMENT SY 50 $55 00 $2,800 00 57200 $3.6IlO 00 $7475 $3.737 50 S59 00 $2.950 00 $7085 53.542 50 29 PEDESTRIAN CURB RAMP SA 4 $330 00 $1.32000 $344 00 $1.37600 S358 50 51A26011 $325 00 51.300 00 $354 25 Sl."'700 30 TRUNCATED DOME PANEL SF 72 54400 $3,168 00 $4300 $3.09600 $4468 $3.21696 $4600 $3.31200 $654 $47088 31 CONDUIT INSTALlATION. PRIVATE UTILmeS LF 80 51500 51.20000 $1200 $960 00 $83 25 $5,080 00 $675 $540 00 510 90 687200 32 SODDING SY 1200 $350 54.200 .00 $400 $4.800 00 5804 57.248 00 6240 $2.880 00 5518 $8.21600 33 lOW MAINTeNANCE TURF SEEDING AC 0.5 $3.450 00 $1.72500 $4.200 00 S2.100 00 $3.96750 SUBS 75 54.80000 52.400 00 S27.250 00 $13.62500 34 4" DOUBLE SOLID LINE. YELLOW EPOXY LF 70 $1525 $1.06750 $100 $70.00 $029 S20 30 $260 $182 00 SI09 $7630 35 4" SOUD UNE, WHITE EPOXY LF 230 $775 $1.78250 5100 $230 00 $020 $46 00 SUS $287 50 $109 $250 70 38 36" SOLlO LINE ZS8RA STRIPE. WHITE EPOXY LF 96 $17 75 $1.704 00 $100 $9600 $173 $166 08 $12.40 51,19040 $327 $313 92 37 SAlVAGE AND REINSTALL SIGN EA 2 5175 00 5350 00 SI117 00 S334 00 $632 50 $1.265 00 5200 00 $400 00 S10900 $21800 0000170410505T_5 Ids BT-l Bidder No. ., BIdder No,Z Bidder No.3 Bidder No.4 Bidder No. S BID TABULATION K. A. WItt VelhlRd Company, Inc. Gladstollll Construction. Inc, S, M. Henlges and SOns,lnc. LS. Black Constructors Item Otv ....... lIem Units Unit Price Tolal UnIt Price Total UnIt Price l'olal Unil Price Tolal Unit Prlee Tolal 38 INSTALL SIGN EA 12 $204 00 $2 448.00 $200 00 $2.400.00 $258 75 $3105.00 $225 00 S2.70D.OD 1ii109 00 51.308.00 TOTAL PART 1 . FIl.lMOR! STREET $224,22725 $231.89400 $282,607.54 $210,587 65 $309.753 .39 EXTENSION AND ALLEY IMPROVEMeNTS PART 2 -INSTALLATION OF UNDERGROUND UTD..1T\' CONDUIT: 39 INSTAlLATION OF SPUC CONDUIT LS 1 $7.500 00 57.500.00 $19.000.00 519.1100.00 S9.200 00 $9,200.00 Sn.200 00 ST7.200.011 $52.11110 00 55211011.011 TOTAL PART 2 . INSTALLATION OF $7,5QO.oo $19,000.00 $',200.00 $77,200.00 552,000.00 UNDERGROUND UTILITY COIIIOOIT PART 3" PARt< MOBILIZATION AND SITE PREPARATION: 40 MOlllUZATION LS 1 $10.0011 00 $10.000 00 $10.000 00 $10.00000 $11.50000 511.500 00 $8.00000 $8.000 00 $21.<100 00 521.000 00 41 TRAFFIC CONTROl. LS 1 $3.49500 53.495.00 $3.477 00 $3.477 00 51.15000 $1.150 00 $3.500 00 $3.500 00 $5.99500 55.995 00 42 SILT FENCE, HEAVYCU'IY LF 155~ 51.45 $2,204 75 $260 54,043 00 $358 55.72240 $300 54,G65 00 $229 53.560 95 43 SAWING BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT LF 380 $250 $900 00 $240 $864 00 $345 $1.24200 $350 51.2SO 00 $534 51,922 40 44 SAWING CONCRETE PAVEMENT LF 5 $800 $4000 $260 $13.00 iff 50 $5750 $12.00 $6000 $26 18 513080 45 REMOVE BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT SY 2780 $5.00 $t3.900 00 $390 $10,842.00 $3.45 $9.591 00 $275 $7.645.00 5436 $12.12080 48 REMOVE GRAVEL ROADJALl.EY SY 850 $750 $6.375 00 $300 $2.550 00 SI13 $1.470 50 5175 51.48750 $273 $2.320 50 47 REMOVE CONCRETE CURB AND GUTTER LF 800 $JOO 53.200 00 $36 25 529,000 00 $345 52,760 00 $425 $3.400 00 $294 $2.352 00 48 REMOVE BOAT RAMP LS 1 $2.00000 52.000 .110 $292 00 $292 00 $U5000 51.150 00 $7.00000 $7.000 00 $5.559 00 55.659 00 49 REMOve SITE DEBRIS LS 1 $2.500 00 $2.500 00 $21 ,000 00 $21.000 00 $2,530 00 $2,530 00 510.000 00 510.00000 $3.48B .00 $3.488 00 50 ct.eAR AND GRUB LS 1 $3.500 00 $3.500 00 $2.8116 00 $2.866 00 $92a00 $920 00 $7.000 00 $7.000 00 57.30300 57.30300 .51 REMOVE LANDscAPe ROCK.WEST ENTRY LS 1 $2.50000 $2.500 00 $400 $400 $8.050.00 $8.050 00 $2.500 00 $2.500 00 $1.65680 51.65680 52 SANMOPS01L BLEND r;v 420 $1&00 $7.560 00 STOO $2.940 00 $5.75 52.41500 $50 00 $21.000 00 54360 $18.31200 53 SITE GRADING LS 1 5120.00000 $120.000.00 533.200.00 $33.200.00 $23,000 00 $23,000.00 51 t5.000 00 S115.000.00 $340.000 00 $340,000.00 TOTAL PART 3 - PARI< MOBILIZATION S178,224.75 $121.091.00 $71.558.40 $192,517.5l1 $425,721.25 AND SITE PREPARATION PART 4 - SITE UTILITIES: 54 CONNECT TO EXISTING SEWER EA 1 S750.00 $750 00 S2.o17 00 52.01700 $9.200 00 $9.200 00 $17.27500 $17.275.00 $1.035 50 51.035.50 55 4. PVC. SDR 28 SERVICE PIPE LF 148 S2000 $2.920 00 $38 00 $5,548.00 $3450 $5,03700 $19 65 $2,868 90 $28 34 $4.13764 56 Ct.eANOUT EA 1 $25000 5250.00 $280.00 $280 00 $460 00 $460 00 $37500 $37500 $1,982 00 $1.982 00 57 ROCK EXCAVATION r;v 62 $SO 00 $3.10000 589 00 $5.51800 $13Boo 58.556 00 $100 00 $5,200 00 $27250 516,895.00 58 CONNECT TO EXISTING 6' WATER MAIN EA 1 $1.000 00 $1.000 00 $1.34000 51.34000 $8.900 00 $8.900 00 5450 00 $450 00 $t ,528.00 51.528 00 59 CONNECT TO EXISTING 8" WATER MAlfll EA t $5.000 00 $5.00000 $3,629 00 $3.62900 $1.15000 $1.15000 $2,590 00 $2.590 00 $1,526.00 $1,526 00 60 8" WATER MAIN OFFSET !A 1 St.OOODD $'.000 00 $2.332 00 $2.332 00 52.990 DO $2.990 00 $1.925 00 51.92500 $&1750 $81750 6t 8" DIP WATER MAIN, CLASS 52 LF 482 530 50 $t4.70' 011 $30 00 $14.460 00 $80 50 $38.601 00 $2650 $12.773 00 S47116 $23.116 72 62 8" GATE VALVE AND BOX EA 2 $1.75000 $3.500 00 51.234 00 $2,468 00 $1.380 00 $2.780 00 S990 00 51.98000 52.398 00 54.795 00 63 DUCTILe IRON FITTINGS La 900 $300 $2.700 00 $100 S900 00 54 eo $4.140 00 $130 $1.17000 $354 $3.185 00 64 4" DIP WATER SERVICE. CL $2, COMMON TRENCH LF 183 $26 00 54.758 00 $2900 $5,30700 55750 $10.52250 $2150 53,1134 50 54Cl33 $7,380 39 65 4" GATE VALVE & BOX EA 1 $1.500 00 $!.liOO 00 $613 00 $61300 $2.05850 52.058 60 $690 00 $690 00 $1.528.00 $1,5260D 66 WINTERIZATION MAHOLE LS t 52.750 00 $2.7500D 52.711 00 $2.711 00 $2.530 00 $2.530 00 $5.041 00 $5.D41 00 52,398 00 $2.398 00 67 12' RCP STORM SEWER. CI.ASS 5, 0'-8' DEEP LF 117 528 00 $3.27600 $3100 53.62700 54600 $5.342 00 $2925 $3.422 25 54360 55.10t 20 58 15" RCP STORM SEWER. ClASS 5. 0'. 10' DEEP IF 154 $3200 54.92800 S34 00 $5,238 00 $57 50 $8.655 00 $30 50 $4.697 00 $4796 S7,385 84 69 12" RCP FlAReD EN!) seCTION EA 1 S1.000 00 51.000 00 $647 DO $641 00 574750 574750 $1.01500 5t.015.00 5872 00 $872 00 70 CLASS III RANDOM RlPRAP CY 20 $6000 51.200 00 581 .00 $1,620 00 $9200 $1.84000 $9000 $1.80000 5114.45 $2.269 00 71 :t X 3' ce, INCL R-30&7.V CSTG AND CONC AOJ RINGS EA 1 5t.2OO00 $1.20000 5 l.530 00 $1.530 00 51.311 00 $1.311 00 $1.09500 51.095 00 52.18000 S2.160 00 72 4' DIAMETER STORM SEWER MH EA 1 $1.50000 51.50000 $2.541 00 52.541 00 $2.07000 52.070 00 $2.067 00 $2,067 00 53.270 00 S3.27D 00 73 4' DIA STORM SEWER CB.INCL R-4342 CSTG AND CONe ADJ RINGS EA 3 $1.50000 54,500.00 S2.141 00 $6.423.00 52.07000 SG,210.00 $1.75200 55.258.00 $3.270 00 so 810.00 TOTAL PART 4 . SITE UTD..tnes $61,533.00 $68.747.00 $121,520.50 $76.624.65 $101,210.79 000077041050BT_S xis BT-2 Bidder No.1 Bidder No. 2 Bidder No. 3 Bidder No 4 Bidder No. 5 BID TABUlAnON K.A.Wllt Veil and Company, Inc. Gladstone Construction, IRI:- S. M. Henlgos lInd Sons, Ine. LS. Black ConstrUctors lIem Num Item Units Qty Unit PrIce Total Unit Price Total Unit Price Tolal Unit Price Total Unit Price Tolal PART 5 - PARKING LOTS: 74 SUBGAAOE PREPARATION SY 8400 $075 $6.300 00 $125 $10.50000 5161 513.524 00 $075 S6.3GO GO 55.89 $49.47600 75 GEOTEXTlLE FABRIC SY 3600 S150 55.400 00 $120 54.32000 $173 $6.226 'DO $120 $4.320,00 5338 512.166 00 76 SE1.ECT GRANULAR BORROW (CV) CV 2530 $1750 $44,275 00 SlB 50 $46.80500 $16.10 $40.733 00 51115 528.20950 S20 71 $52.39630 77 0" PERFORATED POLYETHYLENE PIPE IF 100 $400 $400 00 51000 $1.00000 51725 $1.72500 514 10 51.41000 $14 11 51.41700 78 AGGREGATE BASE. ClASS 5. 100% CRUSHED. UME ROCK TN 4200 St400 $58.80000 $1600 $87.200 00 $18.40 $77.280 CD $13 50 556.700 00 51635 $68.670 00 79 PARKING LOT BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT. 35" THICK SY 7500 $13 25 Sll9.375DO 51225 $91.87500 51121 $64.075 00 $10 75 $80.625 00 $1602 $120.150 CD 80 BITUMINOUS MATERIAl. FOR TACK COAT GAL 360 529D $1.044 00 $350 51.260 00 $345 $1.24200 $350 $1.260 00 5218 $784 80 81 8612 CONCRETE CUl'Ul AND GUTTER lF 28SO $846 $26.961 00 $1200 $34.20000 SI1 73 $33.430 50 $1500 $42.750 00 51417 $40.384 SO 82 8" CONCRETE DRIVEWAY PAVEMENT SY 145 $49 SO S7.177 SO $7000 510.15000 569 63 510.098 35 $5900 S8.555 00 570 as SI0.27325 83 PAVEMENT MESSAGE. HANDICAPPED SVMBOL - PAINT EA 7 $400 00 52.800 00 511000 $77000 $86 25 $5(1375 $1SO 00 $1.05000 532700 $2.289 00 84 STRIPING LS 1 $8,400 00 $8.400 00 51.300 00 $1.30000 $1,72500 $1.725 00 Sl,91500 57.915.00 $4.578.00 $4.578 DO 85 INSTALl SIGN EA 29 $20400 55,916.00 5203 00 $5.887.00 $230 00 $6 610.00 $200 00 $5.800.00 $10900 $3.161.00 TOTAL PARTS. PARKING LOTS $288~8.50 $215.267. aD 5277,332.60 $244.894.50 $365,747.85 PART 6 - WALKS, TRAILS, AND ENTRY IMPROVEMENTS: 8& S" COl-lCRETE SIDEWALK SF 12050 5460 $55A3O 00 $600 572.300 00 55 75 $89.287 50 $450 S54.225 00 $838 $76.87900 87 5" CONCRETE SIDEWAlK-INTEGRAl. I COLOR SF 256 $13 50 53.45600 $1550 S3.96ll 00 $15.30 53.916 80 $27 00 $8.912 00 523 98 $8.13888 88 CONCRETE STEPS IF 62 $&5 DO $3.380 00 $85.00 $3.380 00 S644 00 $33.486 00 $420 00 521.840 00 $9265 $4.81780 89 HANDRAI1. lF 228 511900 527.132 00 $11800 $26.904 00 551 75 $11.79900 $120 00 $27.360 00 $81 75 $18.&39 00 90 TRUNCATED DOME PANEL SF 172 $44 00 57,568 00 $4500 $7.740 00 $44 68 $7.684 96 $46,00 $7.912 00 $854 51.124 88 91 BITUMINOUS TRAIL. SY 3225 $1775 $57.24375 $11 00 $35,47500 51265 $40.796 25 $1475 $47.56875 $1962 563.274 SO 92 VINE TREUIS, WEST ENTRY LS 1 $15.000 00 S15.ooo 00 5700 00 5100 00 $11.50000 $11.50000 $15.50000 $15.SOO 00 513.20000 513.200.00 93 36' SOLID LINE ZSBRA STRIPE. WHITE EPOXY LF 490 $1775 58697.50 $100 $490.00 5173 $841.70 $11 90 55 831.00 $491 52 405.90 TDTALPART6-WALKS, TRAlLS,AND $117,9117.2$ $150,957.00 $179,320.21 $187,148..15 $188,479.98 ENTRY IMPROVEMENTS PART 7 . TERRACED SEAl1NG: ll4 4" PERFORATED POLYETHYlENE PIPE LF 1700 $450 57.650 00 510 00 $17.000 00 $14 38 $24.446 00 5785 $13,345.00 $981 516,677 00 95 6" PERFORATED POLYETHYlENE PIPE LF 600 $600 $3.600 00 510 00 $6.000 00 $1495 $8.97000 $900 55.400 00 $13 0lI $7.B48 00 96 CONCRETE SEATWALl. UPPER TERRACE LF 702 $325.00 $228.150 DO $39000 $273.780 00 $305 90 5214.741 80 5280 00 5196.560.00 $256.15 $179.81730 97 CONCRETE SEATWALL,lOWER TERRACE.SlNGLE STEP lS 1 $52.000 00 $52.000 00 576.000 DO $76.000 00 $36.736 75 $36.736 75 $58.755 00 $58.755 CD $16.300 00 $16.300 00 98 CONCRETE SEATWALL. LOWER TERRACE.DOUBlE STaP LS 1 570.000 00 $10.000.00 $76.000 00 576.000.00 $46.71875 $46718.75 $89.280 00 $89.260.00 $27.30000 $27 300.00 TOTAL PART 7 . TERRACED SEATING $361,40000 $448.180.00 $331,613.30 $363,3211.1I0 $247.1142.30 PART 8. SITE AMENITIES: 99 BeNCH EA 10 $2.120 00 5:21.200 00 52.205 00 522.0s0 00 $2,300 00 $23.000 00 52.35500 523.560 00 51.63500 $15.3SO 00 100 PICNICTABLE.INCl CONe SlAB EA 9 $2.000 .00 51B.000 00 51.987 00 $17.883 00 Sll91 25 5lM21 25 53.025 00 $27.225 00 52.616.00 $23.544 00 101 PICNICTABle.W/OCONC SLAB EA 9 $1.500 .00 513.500 00 $1.30000 $11.700 00 $54625 $4.916.25 $2.650 00 523.650 00 $1.744.00 515.896 00 102 TRASH RECEPTAClE EA 10 $1.650 00 $16.500 00 $1,51000 515.10000 $61lO 00 56.000 .00 $1,80000 $16.000 00 51.19900 $11.99000 103 BIKE RACK EA 3 $38500 $1.15500 $liDO 00 $1.200 00 S500 00 51.500 00 $37500 $1.12500 5365.15 $1.095.45 104 SECURIl'Y BOUAROS lS 1 52.660 00 $2.680 00 53.000 00 $3.000 DO 58,188 00 58.18800 52.G30 00 $2.530 00 S3.379.00 $3.379 00 105 GATE-DOUBlE EA 1 $8.73500 $6.735.00 $!l.610 00 $8.670.00 $750 00 $750.00 $4.000 00 $4.000.00 S8.393 00 58 ~93.oo TOTAL PART 8 - sITE AMENmES $71I,750ll0 $77.llG3 .00 $53,275.50 5100,280 00 $80,447 A5 PART 9. SITE ELECTRICAL: 108 SITE ELECTRICAL. COMPLETE LS 1 $449.636 00 $449.636.00 5254.000 00 6254 000.00 $437.000 00 $437.000.00 $372.315 DO $372 315.00 53S2.llOO 00 5352.000.00 TOTAL PART 9 . SITE eLECTRICAL $4411.636.00 $254,000.00 5437,000.00 5372,315 00 $352.000.00 0000770410SOBT_SJds 8T-3 BIdder No. t BIdder No.2 Bidder No. 3 Bidder No.4 Bidder No.5 BID TABULATION I(,AWllt Veil and Company, Inc. Gladstone Construction. Inc. S. M. Henlges and Sons,lnc. Ls. Black Conslructors Ilem Olv Nllm lIem Unlls Unit Prlee Total Unit Price Tolal Unit PrIce Total Unll Price Total Unit Price Total PART 10 . BOAT LANDING: 107 MOBILIZATION LS 1 $7.50000 $7.500 00 $10.300.00 $10.300 00 $9.20000 $9.200 00 $12.000 00 $12.000 00 $18.530 00 $18.53000 108 CLeAR AND GRUB LS 1 $3.500 00 $3,500 00 $2.40000 $2.400 00 $2.64500 S2Jl45 00 55.500 00 $5.500 00 $3.181 00 53.161 00 109 REMove STORM SEWER PIPE LF 180 S1S00 $2,700 00 $8.40 $1.51200 51810 $2.898 00 512.00 $2,160 00 528 34 S5.101 20 110 REMOVE MANHOLE SA 1 5500 00 5500 00 $300 00 $300 00 $28750 $287 50 $275.00 $275 00 $1.635.00 $1.835 00 111 REMOVE FES EA 1 5300 00 S300 00 S300 00 $300.00 $17250 517250 575 00 $75 00 $1.090 00 51.090 00 112 SALVAGE AND REINSTALL GATE SA 1 51.500 00 51.500 00 $1.70000 $1.700.00 $1,03500 51.03500 SI.000 00 51.000 00 51.308.00 $1.308 00 113 12" RCP STORM SewER LF 65 $2800 51.820 00 $390G 52.535.00 $5750 $3.737 50 S30 25 51.96825 $3815 $2.47975 114 24" RCP STORM SEWER. ClASS 3 LF 130 $37.00 $4.81000 $50 00 $6,500 00 $6900 $6.970 00 $500G $6,500 00 559 95 $7.79350 115 27" DIAMETER CATCH BASIN SA I Sl.1000o $1.100 00 $1,221 00 $1,22100 51.49500 Sl.495 00 564500 $645 00 S2.180 00 52.18000 118 24" RCP FLARED END SECTION SA 1 S1.70000 $1.700 00 $700 00 $700 00 $1.72500 $1.72500 $1.02500 51.02500 S1.090 00 StOlID 00 117 SALVAGE: AND REINSTALL RIP RAP LS 1 $2.50000 52.500 00 $42.000 00 $42.000 DO $1.38000 $1.380 00 $250 00 $250 00 $5.12300 $5.12300 118 4' OIA STORM SEWER ceMH. INC R- 3067-V. CSTG AND CONC AOJ RINGS EA 2 S1.8OO 00 $3.200 00 $1.70000 $3.40000 $2.53000 $5.060 .00 $2.040 00 $4.080 00 $3.270 00 $6.540 00 119 CLASS I RIP RAP TN 500 $4300 $21.500 00 $30 00 $15.000 00 $9775 $48.875 DO $4000 $20.000 00 S70 85 $35.425.00 120 CLASS IV RIP RAP TN 500 $4300 $21.500 DO $45 60 $22.600 00 59775 $48.67500 $4000 $20.000 00 $6175 $40.675.00 121 1 5'.2" CRUSHED ROCK TN 80 $2400 $1.920 00 $3000 $2.400 00 $4025 $3.220.00 $2D 00 S1.60000 $33 79 $2.703.20 122 CONSTRUCT BOAT lANDING LS 1 $16.720 00 516.720 00 $30.000 00 $30.00000 $102.350 00 $102.350 00 $62.500 00 $82.500 00 $104.84000 $104.640 00 123 MILL EXISTING BITUMINOUS (1") SY 3560 51.75 56.212 60 5200 $7.100 00 $201 $7.13550 $2.00 $7.100 00 $300 $10.850 00 124 COMMON EXCAVATION (P) tv 1550 $7.00 S10.850 00 $900 $13.950 00 $5.75 sa.91250 $31 20 $46,360 .00 $1982 $30.411 00 125 SUBGRAOE EXCAVATION tv 200 $700 $1.400 00 $900 51.80000 56.90 51.380 DO 51200 $2.400 00 $19 62 53.924.00 128 GRANUlAR BORROW (CV) CV 200 $1750 S3.500OO $1500 53.000 OG $1840 $3.680 00 $1115 52.230 00 $27 25 $5.450 OG 127 AGGREGATe BASE, CLASS 5, 100% CRUSHED - UME ROCK TN 760 $14 00 510.64000 $21.00 $15.960 00 $19~ 514.858 00 $13 50 $10.20000 $18 35 $12.42800 128 BOAT LANDING BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT. 4.5" 'l'H1CK SY 1420 . $17 75 $25.205 00 51800 $25.560 00 $14 38 $20.419 60 $1375 $19.52500 $18 53 $26.31260 129 pARKING LOT BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT 355ll OVERLAY, r THICK SY $820 $29.11000 $900 $31.950 00 $719 525.524 50 $690 $24.495 DO 5763 527.086 50 130 8lTUMlNOUS MATERIAL FOR TACK COAT GAL 250 5290 $725 00 $400 51.000 00 $345 $862 50 5330 $825 00 $327 581750 f31 SmlPlNG LS 1 $4.000 00 $4.00000 $1.20000 $1.200 00 $690 $690 $3.005 00 $3.00500 $2.725 00 52.72500 132 6- BITUMINOUS CURB LF 175 $525 591875 $600 $1.40000 $11 50 $2.01250 $1100 $1.92500 $981 $1.71675 133 Mlo-HlEGHT XERIC PRAIRIE SEEDING AC 0.5 $1.500 00 $750 00 $6.300 00 $3.15000 55.980 00 $2.990 00 53.200 00 51.60000 $4.95950 $2.47975 134 EROSION CONTROL: BlANKET SY 2420 $300 $7,280 CD $200 $4,840 00 $288 58.96960 $200 $4,840 00 $425 $10,28500 135 SILT FENCE, HEAVY DUTY LF 250 $190 $475.00 5300 $750.00 55.75 51,437.50 $300 $750.00 5245 5812.50 TOTAl PART 18 . BOAT LANDING S193,91625 $254,72B 00 $338,114 GO $286,891.25 $374,571.25 PART11.PLANTlNGSANDTURF ESTABLISHMENT: 138 SODDING SY 1840 $3.60 $6.440 00 $400 $7.360 00 $575 510.68000 $275 $5.060 00 $5.78 $10.635 20 137 SPORTS TURF SEEDING AC 12 $3.650 00 $4.620 00 $4.700 00 $5.84000 $4.427 50 $5.3\300 $4.10000 $4.920 00 527.250 00 $32.70000 138 lOW MAINTENANCE TURF SEEOING AC 28 $2.B50 OD $7.98000 $3.500 OD $9.800 00 $3.277 50 59.17700 $4,100 00 $11.48000 $28.16000 $73.248 00 139 TEMPORARY SEEDING AC 4 $2.250 00 59.000 00 $2.800 00 511.20000 $2.587 50 $10.350 00 5600 00 $2.400 00 $2.725.00 $1D.9tl0 00 140 SEDGe MEADOW SEEDING AC 16 $4.600 00 $7.360 .00 55,60000 $8,960 00 $5.290 00 $8.464 00 53.100.00 $4.980 00 S28.340 00 $45.344 00 141 Mlo-HEIGHT XERIC PRAIRIE SEEDING AC 13 $5.200 00 $6.760.00 $4.50000 $5.850 00 $5.53150 $7.19095 $3.100 00 $4.03000 527.250 00 535.425 00 142 EROSION CONTROL BLANKET SY 8000 $200 $16.000 00 SZOI1 516.000.00 $288 $23.040 00 52.00 $16.000 00 5120 59.GOO 00 143 MAINTENANCE LS 1 $4.5011 00 $4,500 .00 56.300 00 $6.300 00 $5.934 00 55.934 00 $3.700 DO S3.700 00 S5.995.OO 55.99500 144 EVERGREEN TREES LS 1 $1.95000 $1.950 00 $2.000 00 $2.000.00 $1.903 25 51.903 25 SI,605.00 SI.605 00 51,803.95 51.803 95 145 DECIDUOUS mEES LS 1 $46.930 00 $48.930 00 $50.800 00 $50,80000 $48,30000 $48.300 00 $50.095 00 $50,09500 $45.780 00 $45.780 00 146 SHRUBS LS 1 513.980 00 $13.98000 $14.50000 SI4.500 00 $13.80000 513.800 00 $17.930 00 $17.930 00 513.080 00 $13.08000 147 PERENNIALS LS 1 $11.650 00 511.660 00 $10.800 00 $10,800 00 51 t.600 DO $11.500 00 $14.700 DO $14.700 00 510.900 00 $10.90000 148 GRASSeS LS 1 522.135 00 522.135 00 $15.500 00 $15.500 00 $21.850 00 $21.850 00 S25,310 00 $25.310 00 $20.71000 520.71000 149 RAINWATeR GARDEN PLANTINGS LS 1 $5.82500 $5.825 00 SZ.oooOO S2.ooooo $5.750 00 55.750 00 $3.300 00 $3.300 00 $5.460 00 55.45000 150 1 5" RIVER ROCK, 3" THICK.INCI. FABRIC UNDERLAY r:i 40 $87 50 53.500 00 $9100 $3.64000 $7360 $2.944 00 $10000 $4.000 00 $8720 53.486 00 151 IRRIGATION SYSTEM. COMPlETE LS 1 $25.000 00 $25.000.00 $181.31874 5181 318.74 $17.250 00 517.250.00 530.000 00 $30 000.00 $185.000 00 5165 DOO.OO TOTAl PART11 . PLANTlNGS AND $195,630.00 $351,668:74 $lOU4IUO . $1911,4911.oD $490.059.15 TURF eSTABLISHMENT 0000771141050BT _ S lCls 8T-4 BIdder No. 1 BldderNo.! Bidder No.3 Bidder No.4 Bidder No.5 BID TABULATION K. A. Wilt Veil and Company,tnc. Gladstone Construcllon,lnc. S. M. Hentges lII1d Sons. Inc. LoS. Black Constructors Item AI._ Item Units alv Ihllt Price ToIaI Ihllt Price Total Unit Price Total Unit Prlee Tolal Un" Price Total BASE 810: TOTAL PART 1 - FILLMORE STREeT EXTENSION AND AllEY IMPROVEMENTS 5224.227 2S 5231.89400 5282.607 54 $210.567 65 5309.753.39 TOTAL PART 2 .INSTAUATION OF UNDERGROUND UTILIlY CONDUIT $7.500 00 $19.00000 59.200 00 577.20000 S52.0oo 00 TOTAL PART 3. PARK MOBILIZATION AND SITE PREPARATION $178..22475 $121.D91 00 $11.55& 40 $192.517 50 $425.721 25 TOTAL PART 4. SITE UTIUTIES S5f.li3300 $611.74700 $121.520.50 $71U124 B5 $101.21079 TOTAL PART I) - PARKING LOTS 526B.848 50 5275.26700 5277.332 60 5244.894 50 5365.74785 TOTAL PART 6 - WALKS, TRAILS. AND ENTRY IMPROVEMENTS 5177.90725 SI50.957.oo 5179.320 21 S187, 14875 5186.479 96 TOTAL PART 7. TERRACEO SEATING $361.40000 5448.7&0 .00 $331.61330 $363.320 00 5247.94230 TOTAL PART 8. SITE AMENITIES $79.75000 $77.603 00 $53.27550 $100.280 00 $80.44745 TOTAL PART 9 - SITE ELECTRICAL $449.636.00 $254.000 00 $437.000 00 $372.31500 $352.000 00 TOTAL PART 10 - BOAT LANDING 5193.81625 5254.728 00 5338.114 60 $286.89125 $374.571 25 TOTAL PART 11 . PlANTlNGS AND TURF ESTABLISHMENT $195.630.00 S351 668.74 $203.346.20 $199 490.00 $490.059.15 TOTAL BASE 810 $2.196,473.00 $2,253,735.74 $2,304,888.85 $2,311,249.30 $2,985,93139 ALTERNATE NO.1. OlileJE PLAYGROUND ENTRY IMPROVEMENTS (DEDUCT): 152 ALTERNATe NO. , . DELETE PLAYGROUND ENTRY IMPROVEMENTS Use Unit (DEDUCT) LS 1 Prlce& $000 $0.00 -$3.500 00 -$UllO.oo $000 $0.00 -535.00D OD -$35.000.00 ALTERNATE NO.2. DEleTE SITE FURNISHINGS: . 153 Use Unit DELeTE SITE FURNISHINGS (DEDUCT) LS 1 Prices -$56.000 00 -$56.000.00 NoBld -sao.oOO 00 -saO.OOO.OO -$80.000 00 -$80.000.00 ALTERNATE NO.3, DELETE WEST ENTRY IMPROVEMENTS: 154 DELETE WEST ENTRY IMPROVEMENTS Use Unlt (Dl:DUCT) lS 1 Prices -$30.000 00 -530 000.00 -$6.500 00 ..$6,500.00 -$13.000 .00 -513000.00 -$30.00000 -$30.000.00 ALTERNATE NO.4 . DELETE RAINWATER GARDEN: 155 DELETE RAINWATER GARDEN UseUnII (DEDUCT) LS , Prlees 0$5.000 00 .$5.000.00 -$5.750 00 -$5 750.00 .$3.000 00 -53 000.00 -S5.200 00 .S5,200.00 ALTERNATE NO.5. DELETE UPPER 11iREE lEVElS OF PRECAST CONCRIiTE TERRACED SEATING: 156 DELETE UPPER THREE LEVELS OF PRECAST CONCRETE TERRACED Deduct SEATING (DlroUCT) LS 1 S300 OOILF -$100.000 00 -$'00.000.00 ..$8.000 00 -$8.000.00 -$10.000 00 -570.000.00 -$85.70000 .$85.700.00 ALTERNATE NO- 6 - DELETE LOWER FOUR LEVELS OF PRECAST CONCRETE TERRACED SeATING: 157 OELETE LOWER FOUR lEVELS OF PRECAST CONCRETE TERRACED Deduct SEATING (DEDUCT) lS 1 $300 OOILF -S100.000 00 -$100.000.00 45.000 00 -$5000.00 -$150.000 00 -$'50.000.00 .S106.ooo 00 -$106.000.00 ALTERNATE! NO.7. ELIMINATE PARKING ON NOR11i SIDE OF ALLEY: 158 ELIMINATE PARKING ON NORTH SIDE Use Unlt OF ALLEY (DEDUCT) LS 1 PlleS5 -$5.000 aD -$5 000.00 -S7.ooo 00 -S7 000.00 -$3.500 OD -$3.500.00 -S2.500 00 -52.500.00 oo00770410508T_S xis BT-5 BIdder No.1 Bidder No. 2 Bidder No. 3 Bidder No.4 Bidder No.5 BID TABULAll0N K. A.. WIU Veil and Company. 1m:.. Gladstone Constnlctlon,lne. S.M.Hentges und Sons,tne. l S. Blaek Construetors Item Otv "',- lIem Units URn Price Tolal Unit Price Tolal Unit Price Tolal Unll Price Total Unll Price Total ALTERNATE NO. a -REDUCED LANDSCAPE PLANTlNGS: 159 REDUCEO LANOSCAPE PLANT1NG5 (DEOUCn lS I -$35.000 00 -$35 000.00 -$65.000 00 -$65.000.00 No Bid -sso.ooo 00 -saO.OOO.OO -$202.000 00 -S202 000.00 At TERNATE NO.lI- EXTERIOR SERVICE PANEL: 160 EXTERIOR SERVICE PANel (ADD) LS 1 510.000 00 510.000.00 $10.000 00 S 10.000.00 No Bid 531.000 DO $31 000.00 $12.000 00 $12.000.00 At TERNATE NO.10 - alMINATE TERRACED GRADING AND STAGE . ELECTRICAL: 161 eliMINATE TERRACED GRADING AND STAGE ELECTRICAL (DEDUCT) LS 1 -$15.000 00 -$15.000.00 -$15.000 00 -S 15 000.00 No Bid -$10.000 00 -$10.000.00 0$120.000 00 -$120 000.00 ConIra<:Ior Name and Address' K. A. WRI Veil and Company. Inc: Gladtlone ConslRJdlon. Inc: S. M. Hemges and Sons, Inc: L.S Black ConslRlClOlS 1530 W 280lh Sl 14000 Veil Place 1315 Frost AVIlI1Ue 650 Quaker Ave. Sle 200 1959 Sloan Place New.Prague. MN 56071 Rogers.MN 55374 $1 Paul. MN55109 .Jordan. MN 55352 51 Paul. MN 55117 Phone: (952) 758.2106 (783) 428-2242 (851) "'-4990 (952) 492-5700 (651) 774-8445 Fax (952) 758-5159 (783) 428-8348 (651) 7714150 (952) 492.5705 (651) "4.9695 Signed By: Jason Will Greg l30zlke RIchard Carter SIeve Henlges SI8IIIng Black nile: Ptesldll/ll SenlorVlce President PreslcIent President VIce Presldtll1l Addenda Acknowledged: One One One One One 000071041D50BT_S leis 9T-6 , ,. ....~. '..'. .. , .2335 WestHighwa/36.. St. Paul,'MN 5sil3 ... . Bonestroo. ,.. , ... .'.. . ,.' . ..':. '.... .'.R.' .. , .. Office: 651-636-4600 . Fax: 651-636-1311 ....-..... osene., . .. .'. . .' .1\l1~Ande~lik&' , www.bonestroo.com,... . ' ., . Associates. . .. : E;n~irie~.;s & Ard~itect~ ....June27.2006 '., < .'. .:., .., ..' : , . , . , HOllOrable.:Mayotann City Council ,. , ' :'..Ci~yof.Shakopee'<.. ... . .. .. .CityHalh' COl.mciICham:hers . . .. ' ' . '.l29Holri~s-StieefSouth q ., q' .',Shakopee; ~MN' 553?9' , ." _ , ' Re.: ...Buildings'Packa,ge . , ' . _ ....Huber Parkand.RelatedRiverfrollt Red.evelopment, , " ,'Fll.lmoi'e Street Extension, and Alley Improvement Project ' - 'CitYPrQjectNo;PR2005-3 ';, . , .,.. ' '. .. F:i1~No. OQ0077-:041 05-0: ' ..,' ,Bid .Results . . " .. . "Bid~"were opened for the Project stated ab(~we on Tuesd~y, JUne. 27, 2006. Tr~smitt~ herewith , isa copy'of the Bid Tabulation fo~ your infOrmation ,and file, , Copies will also be disti:ibuted to, . eachBi,dder. '. . ,: . .... :. . . ' ,There were a total of two Bids received.. The attached .sumnlarlzes ,the results ~f: the' Bids .. ' . ... ' received with our corr~c~ions for maihematicaretri:>rsinthes~bmittedbids.. . . . . q . " , ,. ... '. Should you have any.questions~ please feeI.freeJocont~ct tne. at (651)604-4861;'. . . , . . . .".. . . ", " ..: SincerelY; ': .' . " , ' '. . . ".' . . . BONESTitO_O." ROSENE'ANDERLIK.& AS,~ocy\'rES. INC.. " ,. . _ ~~ .. ,,".. .' , . " .' '" . . '. . . . .' . .. . . . . . .' . . .' '.' . . .' . ,'. , .,--- A ~ .. ... . ..' " '." ,'/V(t..",.".. . . .:- ". ,".. . . . . . . . ". ..... '".' . '. . . -. '. . .' "~' . . .~ , StumtM; Krahri~ R.L.A. Eilclosure . , .... .' . .... .. St. Pau!., St.tloud,R6chester, tvw- Milwaqkee.'WI- chica9.o; It . Affirmative Action/Equaloppcirtunity Emplc:iyer~nc! Employee .owiled. Jl]j Bonestroo Project Name: Buildings Package - Huber Park and Related Riverfront Redevelopmenl FiUmore Street Extension, Rosene and Alley Improvement I hereby certify that this is a mathematically I Anderlik & City Project No~ PR2005-3 File No.: 000017.04 105-0 corrected reproduction of Bids received Assoclates ~$!- Engll1eeu & Architects Bid Opening: Tuesday. June 21. 2006 at 2:00 P.M. Owner: City of Shakopee Registration No. 40002 Bidder No.. 1 Bidder No.2 BID TABULATION A & L Construction Ine Greyslone Construction Company Item t.Jum Item Units Qty Unit PrIce Total Unit Price Total PART 1 . MOBILIZATION AND SITEWORK: 1 MOBILIZATION LS 1 $15.000.00 515.000.00 $42,866.60 $42,866.60 2 BUilDING EARTHWORK LS 1 $16,650.00 $16,650.00 $23.512.50 $23,512.50 3 fI HIGH CHAIN UNK FENCE LF 1260 $4.55 $5,733.00 $428 $5,39280 4 5" CONCRETE SIDEWALK SF 5800 $7.22 $41.876.00 $5.00 $29,000.00 5 8w CONCRETE DRIVEWAY PAVEMENT SY 200 fil7.70 $15,54000 $72.72 $14,544.00 6 TRUNCATED DOME PANEL SF 48 $44 .40 $2.131.20 $52.25 $2,50B 00 7 PARK ENTRY COLONADE. COMPLETE LS 1 $33,30000 $33.300.00 $51,704 51 551,704.51 8 PARK ENTRANCE PYLON SIGN. COMPLETE EA 3 $8.880.00 526,640.00 59,541.90 $28.62570 9 PLAYGROUND ENTRANCE PYLON SIGN. COMPLETE EA 3 55.550 .00 $16.650.00 59,541.90 $28625.70 TOTAL PART j . MOBILIZATION AND $173,520.20 $226,779.81 SITEWORK PART 2 - PERFORMANCE SHELTER: 10 PERFORMANCE SHELTER. COMPLETE LS 1 $245,000.00 $245 000.00 $319,538.01 $319.536.01 TOTALPART2-PERFORMANCE $245,000.00 $319.,538.01 SHELTER PART 3. PAVILION BUILDING: 11 PAVILION BUILDING. COMPLETE LS 1 $473.000.00 $473,000.00 $486.834.15 $486 834.15 TOTAL. PART 3. PAVILION BUILDING $473,000.00 $486,834.15 PART 4 - PICNIC SHELTER: 12 PICNIC SHELTER, COMPLETE lS 1 $178.000.00 $178.000.00 $105.449.91 5105.449.91 TOTAL. PART 4 - PICNIC SHELTER $178,000.00 $105,449.91 SLOGS PKG. 000077041050BT xls 8T-1 Bidder No.1 Bidder No.2 BID TABULATION A & L Construction Ine Greystone Construction Company Item u Item Units Q Unit Price Total Unit Price Total BASE BID: TOTAL PART 1 - MOBiliZATION AND SrrEWORK $173.52020 $226,719.81 TOTALPART2-PERFORMANCE SHELTER 5245,000.00 $319.538.01 TOTAL PART 3 - PAVILION BUILDING $473.000.00 $486,834 15 TOTAL PART 4 - PICNIC SHELTER S178,000.00 $105,449.91 TOTAL BASE BID $1,069,520.20 $1,138,601.88 ALTERNATE NO.1- DELETE PERFORMANCE SHELTER ROOF STRUCTURE AND COLUMNS: 13 DELETE PERFORMANCE SHELTER ROOF STRUCTURE AND COLUMNS (DEDUCT) LS 1 -$34.00000 -$34,000.00 -$176,876.00 -$176,876.00 ALTERNATE NO.2 - DELETE HUBER PARK PAVILION BUILDING: 14 DELETE HUBER PARK PAVILION BUILDING (DEDUCT) LS 1 -$470,000.00 -$470,000.00 -$417.625.00 -$417 ,625,00 ALTERNATE NO.3. DELETE PICNIC SHELTER AND CONCRETE SHEI.TER SLAB: 15 DELETE PICNIC SHELTER AND CONCRETE SHELTER SLAB (DEDUCT) LS , -$160,000.00 -$160,000.00 -$100,909.00 -$100,909.00 ALTERNATE NO.4 - DELETE FIRST AVENUE PARK ENTRY COlONADE: 16 DELETE FIRST AVENUE PARK ENTRY COLONADE (DEDUCT) LS 1 -$33,000 00 -$33,000.00 -$49.478.00 -$49,478.00 ALTERNATE ~O. 5 - DELETE PARK ENTRY AND PLAYGROUND ENTRY PYLONS: 17 DELETE PARK ENTRY AND PLAYGROUND ENTRY PYLONS (DEDUCT) LS 1 -$30,000.00 -$30,000.00 -$54.786.00 -$54,786,00 BLOGS PKG - 000077041050BT .xls BT-2 Bidder No.. 1 Bidder No.2 BID TABULATION A & L Construction Jnc Greystone Construction Company Item Item Unlls Qt Unit Price Total Unit Price Total Contractor Name and Address: A & L ConstrucUon Ine Greystone Construction 11032 Pleasant Lane North Company Maple Grove. MN 55369 500 S. Marshall Road #300 Shakopee. MN 55379 Phone: (763) 424-4360 (952) 496-2227 Fax (763) 391-7942 (952) 445-4191 Signed By: Boon l. Ang KevIn W. O'BrIen TIlle: President Presldenl Addenda Acknowledged: One One SLDGS PKG - 000077041050B1 xIs 8T-3 Kennedy 470 U.S. Bank Plaza I] 200 South Sixth Street Minneapolis, MN 55402 . (612) 337-9300 telephone A . (612) 337-9310 fax C H ART ERE 0 http://www.kennedy-graven.com JAMES J. THOMSON Attorney at Law Direct Dial (612) 337-9209 Bmai1: jthomson@kennedy-graven.com MEMORANDUM TO: Mark Themig FROM: Jim Thomson, City Attorney~ RE: Bidding Issues/Huber Park Project DATE: June 30, 2006 You have asked me to provide an opinion. with respect to two bidding issues that have arisen with respect to the bids for the Huber Park project. The issues relate to the timeliness of two bids and the bidding of alternates. Timeliness of Bids The bid opening was scheduled for June 27th at 2:00 p.m. At 2:03 p.m., A & L Construction, Inc. submitted a sealed bid for the building construction portion of the project, and at 2:05 p.m. Veit & Co. submitted a sealed bid for the site work portion of the project. When those bids were received, none of the bids for the building construction had been opened. One of the envelopes containing a bid for the site work had been opened, but the only thing that had been removed from the envelope was the bid bond. The bid itself had not been removed from the envelope and it had not been read aloud. The City accepted and opened the two late bids. A & L Construction is the apparent low bidder for the building construction portion. Veit & Co. is not the apparent low bidder for the site work. Section 4.3.2 in the Instructions to Bidders states: "Bids received after the time and date for receipt of Bids will be returned unopened." (emphasis added) Section 4.3.3 states that each bidder assumes full responsibility for timely delivery of its bid. Based on the above facts, you have asked me whether the City can accept the bids from Veit & Co., and A & L Construction. In Nielsen v. City of Saint Paul, 88 N.W.2d 853 (Minn. 1958), the Minnesota Supreme Court upheld the award of a contract to a bidder who submitted its bid between one and five minutes after the stated bid award time. At the time the bid was submitted, none of the other bids had been. opened. The reason why the bid was late was because the city changed the location of the conference room where the bid opening was to occur. The bid documents did not contain any 29309Svl JJT SHlS5-157 ...)~ Mark Themig June 30, 2006 Page 2 provision dealing with late bid submittals. Under the circumstances in that case, the Minnesota Supreme Court upheld the City Council's decision to allow the late bid to be accepted. In Rexton, Inc. v. State of Minnesota, 521 N.W.2d 51 (Minn. Ct. App. 1994), the Minnesota Court of Appeals dealt with a situation where a bid to the state was submitted one minute late. In that case, a state regulation stated that the failure to submit a timely bid was not a minor defect that could be waived. Based on the language in the state regulation, the court concluded that the late bid could not be considered. In this case, the bid documents unequivocally state that late bids will be returned unopened and that each bidder is responsible for timely delivery of its bid. Based on the Rexton decision, it is my opinion that the two late bids cannot be considered by the City. Bid Alternates The second issue concerns the bids on the alternates relating to the site work portion of the project. Section 4.1.5 of the Instructions to Bidders states that all requested alternates shall be bid. The apparent low bidder, K.A. Witt Construction, inserted either unit pricing or lump sum amounts for each of the alternates. It is my understanding that staff is recommending Alternate No.5, which is a deduct for eliminating the upper three levels of the concrete terraced seating. K.A. Witt's bid on that alternate reads: "$ (deduct 300.00/1f)." The plans for the project show the amount of lineal footage that is associated with that line item. Therefore, it is a simple mathematical calculation to determine the total amount of KA. Witt's deduction for alternate No.5. Making that mathematical calculation does not give the low bidder an unfair competitive advantage over any of the other bidders. Therefore, it is my opinion that the bid for that alternate is acceptable. It is my understanding that it would not be possible to calculate K. A. Witt's bids on some of the alternates using a unit price or lineal foot amount. We will need to address those alternates on a case-by-case basis if the council decides to consider any of those alternates. . 29309Svl JJT SHlSS-lS7 ...r-'\l '1l1MIi>""-'"'I[" TrH-m-t_ '" T"'!r'l lj~:r~.lUl"n CONSTRUCTION COMPANY June 28, 2006 City of Shakopee 129 Holmes Street South Shakopee, MN 55379 Attn: Mr. Mark McNeill City Administrator Re: Huber Park Bid Award Dear Mr. McNeill, Greystone Construction Company was the "Low Responsive Bidder" on Project No. PR2005-3. Our bid was presented on time and meets all the project requirements. As the "Low Responsive Bidder" we look forward to working with the City of Shakopee to complete this project. I am very concerned that the City of Shakopee opened a bid which was turned in after the designated bid time of 2:00 PM CST on Tuesday June 27, 2006. The project specifications are very clear as to how bids received after the designated time are to be handled. Paragraph 4.3.2 on page 4 of the instructions to Bidders states the following: "Bids shall be deposited at the designated location prior to the time and date for receipt of Bids. Bids after the time and date for receipt of Bids will be returned unopened." This is the procedure which was set by the City of Shakopee. The City of Shakopee should abide by its own rules. The bid submitted by A and L Construction was received by the City of Shakopee at 2:03 PM CST. According to the specifications, this bid should have been returned unopened. If one is not familiar with the public bid procedures and what it takes to prepare a bid, it may seem that 3 minutes would not give a contractor an advantage. I wish to inform you the 3 minutes in this case can give a contractor an incredible advantage. Weare receiving bids via phone, fax and email in our office right up to 2:00 PM. We have our bid runner in the lobby of the designated bid area with a cell phone. At the last possible minute, we give our bid runner the number to write on the bid form and. submit it. Three additional minutes will allow a general contractor to receive subcontractor bids that the rest of the competition can not use. In my 30 years in this industry, I have had the unfortunate experience twice, of arriving at a designated bid location a couple of minutes late. In both cases, my bid was handed back 500 S. Marschall Road, Suite 300 www.greystoneconstruction.com Phone: (952) 496-2227 Shakopee, MN 55379 Equal Opportunity Employer/Contractor Fax: (952) 445-4191 to me unopened. While this was disappointing, I did understand the decision and the need to uphold the integrity of the bid process. I hope the City of Shakopee is not an organization that sets the rules, but only abides by them if it is to their advantage. Greystone Construction Company has been contributing to this community for many years. Not just by providing 50 high paying jobs. Greystone and its employees are very involved in the community and provide financial support to many local activities. All we request from our City Government is a fair process and a fair shake. One might say "It's just 3 minutes. What's the big deal?" The big deal is the City can not give away just a little of its integrity. The bid process either has integrity or it does not. Once again as the "Low Responsive Bidder" we look forward to working with the City of Shakopee to complete this project. Sincerely, GREYSTONE CONSTRUCTION COMPANY K~~ Kevin W. O'Brien President KWO/dq CC: StuartKrahll, R.L.A. - Bonestroo-Rosene-Anderlik & Associates GREYSTONE CONSTRUCTION COMPANY ~..,:~--,-_.,_.,-- :i JUN-313-213136 138:55 952 233 38131 P.131/132 MOORE,COSTELLO & HART,P.L.L.P. A. Professionall.JmlleO LI8DlIIlY Pal'tnersnlp ATTORNEYS R!~V TO MUlUl'S DIRECT OWo1l\uMSER SAINT PAUL 1li1~ TELECOPIER COVER SHEET Thill mea~g' i$ ialeacled only tor tbe QSe 0" tbe iQdividua1lJ to wllom, or elltily 10 wbit", it is addresstd and may eontain Jafot.alioD rb;LC is privileged, eODlic1eotial aDd f"'lDpt from clisclosure uncJcr Mpplic:ald4 law. It sbe awder of Ibis message is Jlo'llb~ infended Rcipiea,. or tbe emp)oyeeor ageDt rC'SpoDSibl~ lor deJiverillg tbl! message to rb~ iDteadtd rmpieDr, YOII' art htl'tby Doufied that any 4issenlioation, I.1btribuJiOD. or ,upyiag of tbis communication is probihitt<<l. 11' you ba\lt retciv~ dlis commuDleatiol in elTor, please Dodr]' us immediaw) lIy rclCtpboDeP. aDeI returD rh. original JIltsSage to us at tbt above address via tbt Vaited Statn postal service. Thrmk )OU. ---..- .Ill. T.HlS TRANSMISSION CONSISTS OF -L rAGE(SJ, INCLUDING THIS COVEa PAGE. DATE: JUGe 29, 2006 TO: MARk. MCNEILL AT 952 233 3801 ~~HnuCAT~32333831 ~ FR.OM: JOHN G. PATTERSON (Pbo~e: (651) 602-2645 (jgp@m.c:b-pllp.com) X ORIGINAL fOllOWS VIA MAIL ORIGINAL WILL. NOT fOllOW ..,....... ....J T Iftberr is. proble... receMna Ibis InAll:ImbsioA, please eall (651) 2Z7-7683 for 91. Paul or (612) 6'3-0148 for MilllleapoUs. Our marhiae ."swt"n alaromalically ADd will receive SCtV.na'pa;a without ;llIlIistlulce. (()'Oll wisll co rep'Y via le'l:I:opier. our TELECOPIER M1MB.ERSare listld below for c.ch ornee. . AD)' ild\'ic:e C'ua~iD.d ill this e.mail, i..~ludiDg any anaCbmtDts (unless expressly stared othtnvist) is DOl hnended or wrinen tu be UHd) aDd eaAAot be used, fot pllrposes of avoidine pel.bies ullder eb. Iaterllal Revenue Codo. )tiP .\3$1194 ] , , 5S EFlFTH ST. SUITe 1400. SAINT PAUL. UN 5510'.1712' TEL. (651)227-7&13' FAX (651)'02-2&1D QO S~COND AVENUE SOUTH' SUITE 1.00' MINNEAPOLIS. MN ,"D5-1079. 11ia... 18'12) &73-0148' FAX 1612) 38&-8800 . M'729-06 04:32pm From-MOORE COSTEllO HART 6516022670 T-401 P.02/02 F-977 MOOREI COSTELLO & HARTl P.L.L.P. A Profes510nal wmlted L.lanihlY Partnersnip ATTORNEYS ReI'l- y TO wRlTiR'S I)IREC1' DIll!- I\IUMiI"~ ST. PAUL OFfICE (651) 602-2645 ~@>.mch-pUp.com June 29, 2006 VIA FAX (952) 233-3801 and MAIL Mr. Mark McNeill City Administrator City of Shakopee 129 Holmc:s Street South Shakopee, MN 55379 Rc: Huber Park and Related Riverfront Rc:development Dear Mr. McNeill: Our office has been reta.ined by Greystone. Construction Company in connection with irregularitit:s associated with the o~ning of bids torthe above-referenced project. J understand that the City accepted one: bid afterthe bid opening time of2:00 p.m. on Tuesday, June 27, 2006. That bid. submItted by A and L Construction, is non-responsive and should not have been accepted by the City. By accepting this non-responsive bid, the CitY eMended to A and 1.. ConstrUction an advantage: of additional time that was not available to Greyslone Constr\.lction Company. The City must rej~ct this late bid and awardtht: contraCt to Orc:ystone ConstrUction Company, which submitted the lowestresponsive bid. lfyou have any questions, please do not hesitate to call. Yery truly yours, MOORE, COSTELLO & HART, p.L.L.r. (1-C/~~ By J n G. Patters.n pjkh cc; Grey~o'lonc: ConstructiOn Company M.... Mark Thernig $TP 130:586 1/:t171 \I 65 EAST FIFTH STREET' SUlTE,400' ST. PAUL, MN 55101-1792. TEl.. t651) 22.7-7683' FAX. (651) 602.2670 SilO SECONIJ AVENUE SOUTH' SUITE 1500' MINNEAPOUS. litH S540Z-S079. TEl- (612) 67:s.G148 . FA). (612)395-8600 650 Quaker Avenue · P.O. Box 69 · Jordan, MN 55352 Phone: 952.492.5700 .. Fax: 952.492.5705 June 27, 2006 City of Shakopee Parks Department Mr. Mark Themig 129 Holmes Street South Shakopee, MN 55379 . I Re: Huber Park Site Work Package I Dear Mr. Themig, I I I This'letter is written to notify you that S.M. Hentges & Sons Inc. is protesting the award i I of the above referenced project to K.A. Witt, Veit & Company or Gladstone Construction. . I I i ! The proposal of Veit & Company was submitted 5 minutes past 2:00. Per the project I ! specifications (see attached) ". ..that sealed bids will be received by the City of Shakopee, I I Minnesota, in the City Hall, 129 Holmes Street South, until 2:00 P.M., C.S.T. on I i Tuesday, June 27, 2006, at which time they will be publicly opened and read aloud for i I the furnishing of all labor, materials, and all 'else necessary for the following:" I ~". ,. I I 11__ .... ...m ... . ;':~.'!lf;T. .,..:g.... ;..]jf ~ll ": ....,;."~.,...v....t i~.' , , ~~." -" ~-_"_ ::'~':-," .~ - " .: (,-<., :': -',' '):> :":.:':-. 0.' '. ,< ,: r:. - -';~:,'.':";_:; .'::~~ . , :- ;_-'-,~ -~ : " .~iL-~::_:~~~ /'.m....(t.~..... ...........~III~'_.~ ; --,.,. : ~,~;' ",. , '- .' - ) -.~~.-- .; ,: .:::-' -,.- ~ '/,,~ :dJt~L~_JOO- 'Lre;.~;:)~;,:,-- ".: J~:-;..;..-; .-~~q,;ti .. The proposal of K.A. Witt did not include bids on 7 of the alternates and/or deviated from the lump sum items requested and inserted to use unit numbers. . The proposal of Gladstone Construction did not bid 4 of the 10 alternates. K.A. Witt and Gladstone Construction entered no bid or left blank on 7 & 4 of the 10 alternates. These proposals are incomplete bid proposals per the project specifications and also must be rejected. S.M. Hentges & Sons Inc. turned in its proposal before 2:00 p.m. on June 27, 2006 and completed the bid proposal form per the specifications. Equal Opportunity Employer The bids of K.A. Witt, Veit & Company and Gladstone Construction must be rejected. The award must go to the next lowest qualified bidder. If you have y qu?ons, please feel free to call me. :m , "'"",,.,.. Steven M. Hentges President Attachments Cc: Bob Huber, Leonard; Street &Deinard Law Firm G:\Steve\huber park protest.doc : I . . i. INVITATION FOR BIDS Huber Park Site Work Package Project No. PR2005-3 I NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that sealed bids will be received by the City of Shakopee, Minnesota. in the City Hall. 129 Holmes Street South, until 2:00 P.M., C.ST. on Tuesday. June 27,2006, at which time they will be publicly opened and read aloud for the furnishing of all labor. materials. and all else necessary for the following: II Sitework Packaae: Huber Park and Related Riverfront Redevelopment. Fillmore Street Extension. and Alley Improvement Proiect No. PR2005-3 .- In general, the work consists of removals, earthwork, site utilities, site lighting and electrical. electrical utility conduit installation, street. alley and parking lot construction, bituminous trails, concrete walkways. concrete seatwalls, sit~ amenities, landscaping, irrigation, and other correlated work and miscellaneous Ii appurtenances. The work also includes construction of a new boat landing on the Minnesota River. The following are approximate quantities: 1.535 LF 4" PVCSanitary, 4"- 6" D.IP Water Main and .RCP Storm Sewer . 2,400 LF Drain Tile 4,150 LF Concrete Curb and Gutter 15,620 SY Aggregate Base and Bituminpus Street, Parking Lot, and Trails II 3,550 SY Bituminous Mill and Overlay .. 24,000 SF ConcreteWalkways; PI~zas, and Pads 33 EA Parking Lot and Trail Lights 3,040 SY Sodding . 12 AC Seeding 154 EA Trees 405 EA Shrubs II 1973 EA Perennials .. Bids should be submitted at the office of the City Clerk, City Hall, 129 South Holmes Street. Shakopee, . Minnesota 55379 (952-233-9300). Bids must be sealed and the envelope clearly marked on the outside that it is a bid for this improvement. Plans, specifications; and proposal forms may be obtained at the office of the City of Shakopee . Enaineerina Department. 500 Gorman Street. Shakopee. Minnesota 55379 (952) 233-9369 upon payment of $100.00 for each (non-refundable) set. If orderina plans by mail, reQuests should be sent to City of .Shakopee, 129 S. Holmes Street. Shakopee. Minnesota 55379. Bidders who II purchased documents for the previous combined bidding package will be provided one set free of >.. charge upon request. A Pre-Bid Meeting will be held on Thursday, June 8,2006, at 10:00 A.M., at City Hall. . ',.. .',' Each bid shall be accompanied by a bid bond, cash deposit, certified bank letter of credit, or certified check , made payable to the City of Shakopee. Minnesota, in the amount of five percent (5%) of the total bid amount, as '. a guarantee that the bidder will enter into the proposed contract within the time specified and at the price bid. No bids may be withdrawn for a period of forty-fIVe (45) days from the date of opening of bids. The City Council of the City of Shakopee reserves the right to reject any or all bids, to waive any defects or II technicalities in bidding. and to detennine whether a bid is responsive or non-responsive. The City Council .. . '. further reserves the right to make a bid award to the lowest and most responsible bidder as detennined by the City Council. . II Published by authority of the City Council of Shakopee, Minnesota, the 25th day of May 2006. Judith S. Cox, City Clerk . CITY OF SHAKOPEE .>. Published in: Shakopee Valley News May25 and June 1, 2006 Construction Bulletin May 26 and June 2, 2006 '. 06-28-2006 14:05 A L CONSTRUCTION 763 391 7942 PAGEl , "032 Phaant Lane NCll1h Maple Gnwe. UN 5S3f:l9 A & l Construction, Inc. Tit (763) 424-C3llO Fa: (763)391-7942 . Fax To: fif (II ~ rAem"J Franc 'bG>OI) AI{ 9 / Fa1c Pages: I ....... Date: 6/.:z gfi.. -to ; k HI.46FI' ?ou*' .7>v,)J,111 cc: "&,'d tAl/lhra.1,) , R Urpnt 0 For Review 0 Please c-.....ent o Please Reply [J Please R,.cycle .,w . CGI"'....~~ A17A~II'f,.P . . IS A L 5' 111. tL I fI~v€ .... I . f4~"i.O A- .,M ., i J. ~.JJ .70 '&.O//~~Ir()b .. .... , . /I tJ it'll} nl iftJ' t1Ie' /'-t. -II1P41 . I-AI ,"llJdf4vh7t.j ?/51J()-S J , ~. " ~ I'" _b,~d . . ....- . , .,. . ~.._.--._- -.... "'='... 06-28-2006 14:05 A L CONSTRUCTION 763 391 7942 PAGE2 K~ J<- Mo.:;J A & l CONSTRUCTION, INC. 11032 Pheasant Lane N Maple Grove, MN 55369 T el:763-424-4380 Fax:763-391-7942 Cell:763-221-5993 June 28th,2006 Bonestroo Rosene Anderlil< & AssociateS 2335 West Hwy 36 St. Paul,MN 55113 Re :Building Package: Huber Park and Related Riverfront Redevelopment Project No. PR2005-3 Dear Stuart Krahn: We regret to inform you that A & L Construction Inc. is withdrawing its proposal bid for the above mentioned project dated June 27th.2006. A msthltypo error was found out after reviewing our proposal. A & L Construction Inc. cannot afford to absorb this significant error especially as a small company. Your understanding is very much appreCiated. Please feel freefo contact me if you have any fUl1her questions. Thanks you very much. Since",ly, ~ ,,__ -. _...... - ~ ? - --' eside 1 Copy: Mark Themig, City of Shakopee - \ I i 1 , . Revised 2006-2010 CIP Summary - Full Funding Scenario for Huber Park with Extended Loan Payback C. Expenses Task Estimate Funding Source 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Project Mgr Comments Church Addition Neighborhood Park Construction 200,000 By Developer 200,000 Andrea . . . . . .. ... . . .. ..... ....... ...................... .................................... ................................ ....................................................................... 9.Q!:!~.~r.~.~!Q!:!.A9.P.!.':!!~~E~!!Q!:!................................... .........................9..9.Q2... !:~r.~..R~~.~.!Y.~............. ........................~,.Q9.9... ................................. .................................. ................................. ................................. ....................................... ................................................................................................................. .. ... .. .. .. .... ....... . . Quarry Lake Reuse Project Acquisition 250.000 Park Reserve Mark Complete . . . . . . ... ...... ............................................................................................................ Design and Construction Administration 84.000 Park Reserve 14,000 14,000 14,000 14,000 28.000 Andrea Received grant for $92,000 to be used by end of 2007. Construction 840.000 Grants 280,000 280.000 280,000 All work contingent on funding. ......................................................-.............................................. 9.Q!:!~Jr.!!.9!!Q!:!...................................................................... ...................~.~!?,!?2.2.. !?!?D.?.!!2!:!~...................... ....................................... ............g~Q,QQQ.. ................. ... .. ........ ............?.~Q,.9.9..9.... ............?~.Q,.Q.9..9.... ....................................... ...................................... ...... .. _.......... .. .... . ...... . ............ .. . . . .... . . . . Lions Park Improvements Fountain 3.000 Park Reserve 3,000 Andrea' .. . . . .... . . ..... ........ ...... ............. . ...... .............................. ................................................................................. Construction 40,000 Donations .19,9.90 30.000 t ;;V~~1~~~~P .M~~Off';fm~~~di;Y ~~~,~m- JJ!7~Il!EarJUm tov e If%~r4,'~ II~'~',"! Rnasei1> a 0 ~".!:..ffiI.,("""'.h".':.~,.. 6 .. EHii!!i,l' Phase 1: Park Development 54.515 Grants 54,515 Phase 1: Park Development 170,415 Donations 170,415 Phase 1: Park Development 216.752 Assessments 216,752 ........................................................................................................ .~.~.?~!!!..?..!?..?.D.~..~!?..~!J.!~~!!Q!:l...................................... ...............1,.~.?!?,9.9.Q.. Qr.?D.~~............................. ....................................... ................................. .......1...??Q,Q,9fL. ................................. .............. .................. ....................................... .E~!:l9.!!:!9..!~D.~!.':!.9:..................................................... ..................................... .. .. ................. .. .... . . ........ ... . ... . . . Levee Drive Parking Lot Design and Construction 152.000 Donations 152.000 Mark Includes construction and design costs: . . . . . . .... .......... ...... ............................ ...... ........................... ........................................................................................................ .................................................................................................... ......................~?,~~.?... .Qr.?DJ~.............................. ......_..........~?,.1.?.~... ................................. ................................. ................................. ............. ................... ....................................... ......................................................................................... .. ........................... .. .. .... . ........................ ... .. .. ..... . . . . Minnesota RiverBoat Launch Relocation Design and Construction 134.500 Grants 134,500 Mark .. ........ ..... ............ ...................................................................... ........................................................................................................Q~~.i.9D..~!:!!:!..9.2!:!~!r.!!~!2!:!..................................................................~.,!?9.Q...P.?~..R~~.~.!Y.!!!....................................~,.~.QQ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................._................................................................................................................................................................................. Archery Range Relocation Design and Construction 20,000 Grants 20.000 Mark Includes construction and design costs. 20,000 Donations 20,000 ......................... .............................................................................. 9.2!:!~Jr.!!.9!!!?!:!.~!:!g..~.!9.~!!!:!9......................................... ......................?~.,!?.2g.. .!:~r.~.R~~.~.!Y.~............. .....................!.~.!.Q.Q.9... ................................ .................................. ................................. ........... ..................... ....................................... .......................................................................................................................... .. . .. .... . . .. Tahpah Park Improvements Field Improvements Design and Const. 455.250 Park Reserve 455.250 Andrea . .-. .... .... ............ ...................... .............................................................................. Countryside Development Parks (3) Design and Construction 659.000 By Developer 659,000 Andrea . ...... . . .... .................. ....... .................... Construction Administration 16.475 Park Reserve 16,475 .southbiidge..Area..Park..Develo.p...ment.................Savljnnii..Oa.ks..Park..Oeveiopm.;;.ii(...-.............................1"4i:oo.o...Park.Reserve..............................147:000.......................................................................................................................................Anej'relj.......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... CambridgelWhitehall Trail Installation 84.920 Park Reserve 84.920 Southbridge Parkway Active Park DevelOp 289.800 Park Reserve 289,800 Future Fishing Pier 20,000 Grants 20.000 Future Valley Creek Crossing Park Development Design and Construction 120.000 By Developer 120.000 Andrea . . . ..... . . .... ................ ..... ................................ ..................................... ........................................................................................................ 9.Q!:!~!!:!!.~J!!?!:!.A9.P.!.':!.i.~!@!!Q!:l...................._............ ........................~,!?2.Q.. .~.~!~..~~~.~.!Y.!!!............. ............._......~!.9.Q.Q... ................................. ................................. ................................. ....... ......................... ....................................... ..................................................................................... ..... ...................................... . .............. .... . . . . ... . . . . Glacier Estates Neighborhood Park Dev. Design and Construction 110.000 By Developer 110,000 Andrea Development recently approved. ... . ... . . ...... ................ .. ..... .................................. ......................... ........ Construction Administration 2.750 Park Reserve 2,750 SmaIl1!ai!~rojec~~ ". . ~ii! .. "C.or~tr~~li~~"'.___.~_~ ...~-"., P!!!l13~~ , ~_'-"_ ....~-_...- """"..~_ "1""'" q,~~~_"""""""""".",.....". . " ,. .._~ 11' ~~... ......::...::=:......:..:..::.....::..~~~:..:.::........:.....:~:::~ ntemmdtoanRa 6aCK..\".I7 iiI." I' "1': Emancm ,5 ear a baCK. It ....t. :d,824,QOO Park Reserve..,vf".., ..,:.,'456,1100.'*,.. 45&,0'00 ..E 456000,. ff(,!O. :456,000 Onea ditional a menHluein201,1~Gl.\j~.".!'0in .~.\I.\ll'{;ol,:..l!&'*'''':,&il\l':..lffilllti''":..I,I..:i''' l..I'll;I'l>"ll!llti..;.\.';;.,.~...!0. Total 3,077,320 2,259.800 1 ,725.675 4,859,700 This page contains no text, but text may be added. j f, c. ( .. <r. ~ CITY OF SHAKOPEE MEMORANDUM To: Mayor and City Council Mark McNeill, City Administrator From: Mark Themig, Parks, Recreation, and Facilities Director Meeting Date: July 5, 2006 Subject: Revised CIPSummary Sheet for Huber Park Attached is a revised CIP summary sheet the City Council agenda item on Huber Park. There are three main changes: . I learned today that we received the first Xcel Energy host fee payment on 5/15/06. The fund balance that Gregg Voxland gave me on Friday contained this payment, so the revenue projection showing this payment as yetto come in 2006 was incorrect. . All the costs associated with the bid and related work (park development, boat launch, Levee Drive parking lot, power line undergrounding, contingency, construction administration, etc.) are included in the "Huber Park Improvements" section (lines 11-14). . I have removed the completed projects from the list. The cost estimates for the other projects on the list are the same as what City Council reviewed as part of the 2006-2010 CIP, and more recently as it relates to the Huber Park funding scenarios. The PRAB tabled any action on the 2007-2011 CIP until a decision is made on Huber Park. Once that decision is made, the PRAB will be reviewing the draft 2007-2011 CIP and will make recommendations to you on project costs, funding, and timing. . ~-,,- ~. '" - 1 Revised 2006-2010 CIP Summary - Full Funding Scenario for Huber Park with Extended Loan Payback C. 4 Church AdCfition Neighborhood Park Construction 21'11'1,1'11'11'1 By Developer 200,000 Andrea 5 Construction Administration 5,1'11'11'1 Park Reserve 5,000 6 .Qu.ariY'Lake..Re.use..ProjeCi....................................... .De.s"fg.ii..anci"Co.iistitict"fo.ii..Ad.mln"fstration....... ......................s4":ooo...Park.Rese.iVe............. .....................1.4";000.. ...............1"'(000.. ...............1.4.:iiiii,.................1";J::<ioo... ..............28-;(500.. ...Mark..........................Received..grant"fo.r--$9Z;000..to..be.useci"by.e.ii"lfof'200:r......................................................................................................................................... 7 Construction 8GJQ,QQQ Grants 280,000 280,000 280,000 All work contingent on funding. 8 Construction 8GJQ,QQQ Donations 280,000 280,000 280,000 9..Uo.ii.s..Park..imp.roveme.iits...........................................Founta"fn........................................................................................................................Park.ReseiVe...........................................................................................................................................................................................Andrea....................Compiete..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 10 41'1,1'11'11'1 Donations e 15..........................................................................................................p..~.~.~~..?..~.~D.~..~!?.~!!!?.?.!~~D......................................................~.!t.~g,gQ9...9.E.~.~!::?.............................................................................................................1.!?!?9.I.Q.9.9........................................,......................................................................~~f.I.9.!~9...f!:!~~!~9.:.................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 16 Archery Range Relocation Design and Construction 21'1,1'11'11'1 Grants 20,000 Mark Includes construction and design costs. . 17 21'1,1'11'11'1 Donations 20,000 18..........................................................................................................g.~D.::?!~.~!!?~.~.~.~..~!9.~!.iD.9...............................................................!..!,g.Q9...!:~r.~..!3.~::?~.!Y.~..................................?.1.!QQQ................................................................................'c.......................................................c................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 19 Tahpah Park Improvements Field Improvements Design and Const. 455,251'1 Park Reserve 455,250 Andrea 22 Countryside Development Parks (3) Design and Construction 659,1'11'11'1 By Developer 659,000 Andrea 23 Construction Administration 16,475 Park Reserve ~6,475 24 .soutiihria'ge..Area..Park..Deveiopm.e.iir...............Savanna..Oaks..Pa.ri{..Deveiopm.eiir.................. ....................1.47:.000.. .Parj(..Rese.iVe...............................14'T;00o... ................................. ................................. .................................. ................................. ..Andrea.................... ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 25 CambridgelWhitehall Trail Installation 84,921'1 Park Reserve 84,920 26 South bridge Parkway Active Park Develop 289,81'11'1 Park Reserve 289,800 Future 27 Fishing Pier 21'1,1'11'11'1 Grants 20,000 Future 30 Valley Creek Crossing Park Development Design and Construction 121'1,1'11'11'1 By Developer 120,000. Andrea 31 Construction Administration 3,1'11'11'1 Park Reserve 3,000 '32 ..GiaCie.r.Estates.Nelghbo.rt1ood..PaikDev:........Desig.ii..anifConstiticti'o.ii...............................................................1.:;.0.:000.. .By'Deve'ioper............. ..................1'1'0;000.. ................................. ................................. .................................. ................................. ..Andrea.................... Deveiopm.e.iirrecentiy.approved................................................................................................................................................................................................. 33 Construction Administration 2,751'1 Park Reserve 2,750 .~E~!~~~i~=iiiii~=:===:~!!!=i.;iio=====i!i==i!~~~=::====---===-===-===== 45 .~~!:!!!.p.p...!:~!.~...!?.~.~~)gp..~~~!..................................... .!?~.~!9!.!..?.~~..gp.!.!~!.~~!.~D........................................... ....................~~.~!.QQ9... !:?r.~..R~::?~.~~............. ....................................... ................................. ................................. .................................. ............???.I.QQQ.. ...!~.!?........................... f..!!.~!:!r.~............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 48 smalllml!.ov~!:!lent Pr?iects .. 9.onstl~.c!(on .. ." ~ ,,~.~Q,Q9Q Park .R~serve .. .?'.Q,Q.9.Q .. .. ..~Q,.Q.Q.9 _ .?o.!pqo . . ..~Q..Oo.Q.. .. TBD .. . Adde~ !~!t<.>l"'in9..~.~B reco.mm~ndation. . 52 __"!P\''' '10)11'.." .!n--"'{fc)ll'73?4~"!!)II'_ffi1')11'.: "'_.... .:10 .p. .''''....._'l.'IIII''.!SlIl:_ ."!P\'q_.,,,..'Ei'1$Cll;t',,.//.,r:i!!i.c: ..---"2:&"."'.. 'i.WiO"'''t',fl'li'''.. ")II'%",1\':o\t"1'",,,, ...V!fiO&.r;w'.fi?"il!:,zw"J>)'i'/l1r"".'EI!:'!.i$!!!li$l.._.. 'l"''!!''!''&l':' ......,_'l'li '.o.-Slt"'it."-l' ... ,"".M:~.J3 """'.""". 2."....ij.~J~. . . ... !!lilleID!lil,:L~a!il:!<i..<! <!.....&iWJiXlJi&li!!lBf2!b.i!llI'..i.!?lfi.l@:. fF':lI'I<!!il!!lln ,"'P:Y. lil<!.: .!.l<!Sl!!\2, . .:.,"!'llI'..qs.",. i.v."':,"!'bbl.l!h"'''''';:~...:%1..<!!:I$:."e~rvely.Y:..&iW .. .,' ?lf~~f"''''\lb.. YYi.l@Jkn",,,,:IV,,,,,,..., /!.,::""'YVI\:/'k :222Y1Jl/f;W~i",,,,.""i .i.I@,.i%1..: ii._.... .. .!..!~l1oe$..!..\eJ:I'!l>l,. lile::a.ou. I,Q!1liha eU'::l.lI.(e::mr{~"'i.lt( vbi...., ... .. bi;.. .... 53 Total 19,564,887 3,1'177,321'1 2,259,81'11'1 I 1,725,675 I 4,859,71'11'1 I I 55 Revenue/Credits Descri tion Estimate 6/30/2006 1/1/2007 1/1/2008 ~/1/2009 1/1/2010 Comments 56 Park Reserve Fund Balance 2,163,550.00 484,746 1,299,482 3,089,707 3,337,062 ~--- '" '" 70 72 Grants 246,500 280,000 1,270,000 280,000 280,000 74 Assessments 204,870 - - - - 76 Donations 281,858 310,000 - 280,000 280,000 "i''''', '/'''~' {N' h:', .......JL;;.... '\ ".. .\.\;"....>...",.. " ::"):/%i},,' ~:. ",'?PiJ,.".,,: '.. "., i/:V 78 flntl!". . 1l0,l,[-oall",,/ffi,llwiXc"" ....A",,,,.,.. ..11&11&,.b, .",ffiYlJl. 79 Total Revenue/Credits 7,807,138 4,376,802 5,349,507 5,062,737 5,310,092 80 8~ Park Reserve Fund Expenditures 82 83 Total Ex enditures 84 12131 Ending Park Reserve Balance 85 86 7/3/2006 I/,C./ \! CITY OF SHAKOPEE MEMORANDUM To: Mayor and City Council Mark McNeill, City Administrator From: Mark Themig, Parks, Recreation, and Facilities Director Meeting Date: July 5, 2006 Subject: Jim Thomson's Response to S.M. Hentges Bid Protest Attached is the bid protest from S.M. Hentges that I received late in the day on Friday, along with Mr. Thomson's opinion on the validity of the protest. If Council chooses to award the site work package either in full or with the recommended deduct, Mr. Thomson affirmed that K.A. Witt is still the apparent low bidder. If Council chooses to award the site work package with additional site work deducts, we would ask that you table action until July 18 so we can determine the apparent low bidder based on the deducts you select. " V 470 US Bank Plaza 200 South Sixth Street Minneapolis MN 55402 & (612) 337-9300 telephone (612) 337.9310 fax http://www.kennedy-graven.com CHARTERED MEMORANDUM TO: Mark Themig FROM: Jim Thomson, City Attorney RE: Bidding Issues/Huber Park Project DATE: July 3, 2006 I am sending this memo to respond to the letter dated June 30, 2006 from Robert Huber, the attorney for S. M. Hentges & Sons. Mr. Huber contends that the city must reject the bid from K.A. Witt because of the manner in which K.A. Witt bid the alternates. Mr. Huber refers to what is essentially a New Jersey trial court opinion. That opinion, however, involved different facts from the present case because in that case the bidder submitted no bid on the alternate. In this case, K.A. Witt submitted a bid on each of the alternates. Even if K.A. Witt had not submitted a bid on some of the alternates, court decisions from other states have held that such a "mistake" is not material if it is on an alternate that the city does not accept. See George A. Fuller Co. v. Elderkin, 154 A. 548 (Md. 1931); Warnock & Zahrndt, Inc. v. Wray, 230 N.Y.S. 681 (1928), In summary, Mr. Huber's letter does not change the conclusion in my June 30, 2006 memo to you on this matter. 293283vl JJT SH155-157 ~ ~-30-2006 14'56 F"m' To:952 233 3831 P.1/9 LEONARD 150 SOUTH !'IFTH STREET SUITE 2300 STREET MINNt;^POIIS. MINNESOTA 55402 _....... 612-335-1500 MAIN AND hI2-1JS-16~7 VAX -.-. .0 DEINARD FACSIMILE TRANSMITTAL LETTER ... . CONFIDENTIALITY NOTE: The informlltion \:ollwinct.! in Ihis lclccopy messaGe I~ heine trllnl;mitted to llnd is intended only ft,r lhe use of Ihe individual named below, If the reader of this is noL the inlclIJll1I recipient, YIIII ~lJ'e herehy lldvil:lt1d t.hllt (Illy dissemination, disltibutillll nr CIIPY nr Ihi::! h.:h.:CllPY ill strictly prohibilcd. If you have re~eived thi$ teJecopy in error, piCniC immediately notity \IS ~y telepl~,~u: wll.ll.lestroy Lhis lclecopy message. ......... - Dllte ofTransminal: June 30, 2006 Rt:cipit:nls: SCI; Below .-.. .- 952::::::: N~195i;;I;:~::'~O~~ Name/Company Mark ThemiglCity of Shakopt:t: Scnl.lcr's NUlm:: Bob Huber Sl:llllc:r':; Number; 612-335-1714 Client/Matter Numhcfll: SOC> 12.0000 I (:()MM~~NTS: .... .... IF YOU ARE HAVING PROBLEMS RECEIVINC OR TRANSMITTlNC, PUASE CALL: 61Z.33",176U. RClurn urigim:lI to: J. Mesenbringl22 LAW OFFICES IN MINNEAPOLIS. SAINT PAUl. MANKJ\Ttl. SAINT rLOUI) AND W ASHINIJTI.IN, I) t' A f'ro!ession"t AS30ci"tion WWW.LbONAIW.COM - JUN-30-2006 14:56 From: To:952 233 3831 P.2/9 \! LEONARD 1';;0 ,oun'II;1 HH STREET SUITE 2 JOO .-- MINNIJAF'OLIS, MINNES('J I A 55402 STREET 61~-3J~-I~OO MAIN AND 612.:n.'i.165" FAX IJEINARD -'.' ROlleR'" J. HUBER 612.'335-1714 DIReCT ~OB.HlIBER@II,()NAn.O.COM June 30,2006 BY FAX ONL X. MI". Mark Themig City of Shakopee Parks Departn1e11t 129 Holmes Street S. Shakopee.~ 55379 Re: BID l'ROTlJ."'ST Siti!WtJrk Ptlckage Huher Park and Related .Riverfront Development .Fillmore Street E)."tmsion ami Alley Improvement Project No. .PR2005-.-t Dear Mr. Thcmig I am writing on behalrof"S. M. Hentges & Sons,Inc., to follow up Steve Hentges' June 27 protest against the non-responsive bids submitted by Veit & Company. K. A. Witt. and Gladstone Construction. ; A. bid is materia.11y non-responsive and 111\\St be- rejected if it deviates from any pro\;t:duml req,~irel11ents or on any matter involving the substane~ or the bid;~uch a.Il th()~e which may affect price, quality, quantity, manner ofperformanc.e, or other things that go i1no the acroaldeterml11atlon of the amowlt oJ'the bid. Gri.\woldv. Ram.\'ay County, 242 Minn. 529, 65 N.W.2d 647 (1954). An owner may also make an item material by the term~ of the invitation for bids. Bolander & Sons Co. v. City ofMinnaapolis, 451 N.W.2d 204, 207 (Minn. 1990). A deviation is also material ifit allows a bidder to repet1t it~ bid after bid opening. ld at 207. Veit's bid was irregular because it was not submilLl~d unlill1ve minutes aller the specHied ul;;aulinc of2:00 p.m. on June:: 27. The invitation for l3ids states that" ; 4.3.2 Bid~ ~hnll he deposited at the designated location prior to the time and date for receipt of bid. Bidsreceil'ed after tile time and d(ltefor receipt olbids will be returned unopened. 4.3.3 The Bidder shall assume rull rc~;ponsihility rOT timely delivery at the localion designated for receipt of llids. LAW OFFICES IN MINNIiAPOLlS. MANKA"fO. Sf. CI.OUIl tlNll WASHINO'l'ON, 1),('. A ProJesslOlliJ1 AssodtuJ(J1J WWW.LI!UN^KIJ.(';UM JUN-30-2006 14:56 From: To:952 233 3831 P.3/9 June .10, 2006 Page 2 (Emphasis added.) The: invitation made timely delivery ~ m~lerialterm, as the Invitation !;tates that late bid!> "will he returned unopel1ed:' 110t "ma.v be returned unopened" (Emphasis added.) The City, therefore, should have returned Veil's bid unopened and must now r~iect it. The bids of Witt and Gladstone were both non-responsive for failing to bid all of the ten alternatos. The faill:lre to till out a bid altemnte is a material irregularity mand~ting the bid's rejection. Hall Con,\'fr. Co., Inc. )), New Jersey Sport,~ & J:.xposirion Aulh., 685 A.2d 983 (N. .T. Super. 1(96). The hid specitlcations mandated that bidder:> {ill in all of the ten alternate bid items: 4.1.5 Afl req'lesled AlIermltt:~ shall hi! hid. I"I"no change in the Base Bid is required, enter "No Change." (Emphasis added.) Witt did not fill in a price for seven ofthe altel'1latcs. and Oladstone did nut tlllln tour. Neither did they fill in ''No Change" for any oCthe ~11~mat~ls; they just left the bid price blank or i11serted "No bid." The City must reject their bids a:i materially nun-responsive. Lastly, witt's bid was ma.terially non-respunsive because it included unit prices fOJ' items that were to be hid lump sum. Contractors have less risk for unit-price items, and Witt was trying to lower its risk by bidding 011 different tenns than the other bidders. Bidders, however, tn\lst bid the terms of the invitatiOl\ for bids and cannot bid on different terms than other biddc.rs. Any attempt by the City to convert the unit prices to lump :sum is an illegal post-opening modification ofthe bid. Griswold v, Com'/Iy o/Ram.st:y, 65 N. W.2d 647, 652 (Minn. 1954) ("no material change may be made in any bid after the bids have been received and opened since to permit such change woultl be to upen the dUOT to fraud and collusion"). The City should award the contract to S. M. Hent.ge~ & Sons, which submitted the lowest responsive bid. Attached is a copy of the Hall ConsTruction decision cited above. Sincerely, LEONARD, STREET AND nETNARD ~~_. ~~ R.JH/j11'l cc: Jim Thomson (bye-mail) Gary ~iClc (bye-mail) , ~ 7(,llJll 1 ~ JUN-30-2006 14:56 From: To:952 233 3831 P.4/9 / '~ 685 'A.,2d 98J Page. 1 295 NJ.Super. 629, 685 A.2d ?83 (Cite all: Z9S N,J'.super. 629, 6HS A.2d 983) C . ~ Superior Court of New Jersey, ill Puhhll COl\t~'oct~ ~8 Appellate Divillioll. 316AkS MOllt Cited Cuses , , " IIALL CONSTRUCTION CO" INC., Plaintiff- All bids must comply wIth terms unposed HI IlJd Rel\llondenl, specificalion; lmy 1TI1Iterial dcpl:lrture from bidding v. specifications Invalidates noneontbnning bid :1.~ well NEW JI::::RSEV SPORTS & EXPOSITION us uny contracL ha'!cd upon iL. A l)THOR IT.Y, Defendant-Respondent, and .w Public Controcts ~8 Pri1l1l111tic Dcvelopment Corp., D~fc::m.lalll-Appellanl. ~ M05t Cited Cases Nonconforming bid is nO bid ul ull. Argued Nov. 7, 1996. Decic.JeO Dcc. 16,1996. IDStates €='98 360klJ!! Most Cited Calles Purported IllW bidder on construction contract Bid for ;'l;/Istr~(;tion"contrdct which left blank splice t\warded by New Jersey Spo~ and Exposition whel'e bid for landscaping altemate was to be jnserlcu AULhority appealed from order of the Superior CO\\rt, Wl)S inl~o/llplctc lInu materially defective. rendering Law L>ivision, Bergen County, C,inlino, J., declaring bid invalid, although Ncw Jersey Sports lind If,~ bid moteri(llly defective lmd invalid. The P.l!.fllll\ili~ll\ Authority later decided th~t landscaping Superior Court, Appellate L>ivisiOIl, CutT, J.A,D., would not be required; ~ub!ltantial co~ of nlterl\llte . held that hid fur cnn::;l.mcl.ion contract which left could have been determining f"clor in bid i:Iwdrd, ..md i, blank space where bid for landscaping alternate .W3~ by failing to submit bid for landscaping, bidder to be inscrtcd wa~ incumplcte and mluerlally n$~ullled less I'isk thfln (I~her biddcTll, placing itself on defective, rendering bid invalid. unetlual footing from its competitors. N.J':).A. 5: 10- 21.1, subd. a. Af/irrnc::d. ill rllbli~ Conlrllc,b cE?s West Ht~lldnolc!l 316AkK Most Cited Cases To be lee.i1.lIy acceptable, bids mu~l 1101 mlllcrialJy ill States ~9H devil.1te from specifications set fOlth by contl'llcting 36~~~~ MO$t Cited Cnses _ , . agency. Statute governing New Jersey Sports and EXPOSItIon ,,\uthorl1:y's llwOJ.d ~lf bids inv~lk.(:s A~lhmilY's W PUblic Contracts ~8 (h~crction to award bId only aft:r I~ d!term!nes that ll6AklI. M,Qst_Cite.d. Case~ bid in question conforlUs to IIlVltaull1I fur hlds. Mh\(lr (Ir ill"Q"l.\\ll\\1(1llti~11 dili\lrl.lplmcics Lind lechnical N..I..~.A. ~; !.9.:2.U,llubd. a. omissions in bid can be waived by contracting Il@,ency; material condiliollll cuntained in hidding; ill Public Contracts ~5.1 specifications cannot be waived. :t 16Ak5.1 MI,!;t Cit.ed CMClt Publi~"bidding llllltulC:l IUC lo be construed with sole l2.l Public Contracts ~8 reference to public good and rigidly adhered to by 316AI<8 Most Cited Cases courL'!. Deviation in bid on publiC contract is material if: waivel' of such defecl t1cprivcll (lurcha.'!cr of its Q1 PUhliC! C()ntra~t!l ~H assurance that contrl.lc.t will he cntered Into, 316Ak8 Mos( CiLl~u C~!i\;l! pertonncd, and guaranteed according to specific Conditions and specltlealions of InvilatiulI 1II hid req\lirements, tmd it adversely nffects competitive must apply equally to all prospective bidders; bidding prO(:C::lS by phl\ling bidder in position of individual bidder eannot decide tCl follow or ignore advantage over other bidders, or by otherwise theRe co!,<liliI)IlS, \hereby i1ble \0 ~:;\iIll1.1le hil; ur h~!' undermining necessary cnmrnnn sl.lindllrd (If bid on basis diflerent from that afforded to other t~ompetilion. c.ontenders. ~'1 2006 Thomson/West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works. - \' JUN-30-2006 14:56 From: To:952 233 3831 P.5/9 685 A.2d 98:3 rage 2 295 N.J.Super. 629, 685 A.2d 9R3 (Cite as: 295 N,J.Sllp~r. 629, 685 A.2d 983) llill Public COlltractll C=>H conlrllcl III 1I11bmiL II bid for preliminary work nssociated with the norrh-slde suites. It is Prismatic's ~.I~l~k8 MOISt Cit.ed ClIses response to Ihis alternate in its bid for the general Failure to submit hid on alternate render.q bid construction conu'act which is nt issue ill this cnse. nOl\cotlformins and i!)Vlllill whon bid spocilicaliuns require bid on each nltemate. The SPOlts Authority solicited bids for general u984*631 Mark L. Fk~dcr. RQsehmu, for ~ppclllint constl'uctioll for the soullt-side :lUiles in .Ium: 1996. (Connell, Foley & Geiser. anomeys; Theodore W. Each bidder was requested to provide a lump sum (h:isc::r IlIU) Mr. Flcller, of clIlInscl; John P. NCf1ryon bid. Euch bidder Wllll alsu direcleulo provide prices the brief), for three alternates: landscapingnnorth-side only (Alternate No. I), lightning protection (Alternate No. Roben T. Lawless, Florham Park. fOf respondent 2). and lm:.hilel.',tural signago (Alkrnllh: No.3). Hnll Constl11ction Co.. Inc. (Hedillger & Lawless. The Authority rCllcivcd fOllr bills for lhc gcncntl tittomeys; Mr. Lawless on the briet). construction contract. Hy the time the bids were Lawrence P , Cohen. Hackettstown, appeared for llihuhttcd, the SpllT!.~ AUlhl.lrity hlld decided to defer rellpondent New JerRey SllOn.~ & Exposition installation of the foundation for the norrh-side Authority (Courrer, Kobert, Laufer &1. Cohen, luxury :;lUitclI which clhnhlatcd the need for Altcl'I\lltc nnomeys; no brief wns tiled all behalf of this I. It also had decided to proceed with Alternates 2 respondcnt). and 3. Refl,lrc Judges SKl.I,I.f\1.~N. A.A. RODRIGUEZ and Cynthia Lorelli, Director. of Purchasing for the CUFF. SpnrL'I Authority. reviewcd lhebidN fur lhe generol construction contract and prepared a bid tabulation The opinion of this court was delivered by sheet indicl1ting the base bid, the bid. lor cach alternate and the total price of the base bid plus the CUFF. lAD. ^Itemate~ 2 :md 3. Pri~matic's hid contained a lump sumligure for Lhe: Base Did, Allermtlo 2 ilml This appeal concerns the Ilwllrd of at Cl.lnLrllcl by I.he Alternnte 3; Prismntic left the space next to Alternate New Jersey Sports and Exposition. Authority (Sports I. blklnk. On the hlbulolioll shecl for 11Ic Pl'ismntic Authority) for the general constructilln wllrk t.ll bid, Lorelli recorded "No uid" for Alternate I. To com:truct luxury !lpectator !luite!; at Giant!; Stadium. determine the 11lWllSl bidder, lhe Spor1.~ Alllhllrily Prismalie . Dcvclupmenl Corp. (Prilllfl&l ie). lhe tabulated the bids for the base wMk and Alternates 2 pm'poned low bidder, appeals from an order entered lmd ,. Based l'l'l rhls calculation, the 51'011.8 by Judgc Ciolino whieh dcclaT\:d its hieJ materially Authority deternlined that Prismatic waS the lowest defective and invalid. Pending the outcome of this bidder. ; appelll, I.hc Spurl.'1 AUlhllriLY ha.~ tcntltlivcly awarded the contrac,t to the next low bidder Hall Construction Hall med a protest with the SpOIlS Authority. It Co. (Hllll). We affirm. argued that Prismlltic's bid ShllUld not. be considered hecau.o;e it failed to include a bid for. Alternate 1. In 1995, the Sports Authority decided to construct j'he Spons Authority rejecled Ihe protcsL concluding luxury lluilcllllt Giullb SllldiulII for slIlc to llpeCI~IIOI'S, that the failure to. supply an amount tor Alternate When the SpOilS Authority sought bids for the work, *633 I wl1S not n mat.erilll defect. Tn. II celtiticntion it divided t.he projccl. inl.o live ellnlrl1cl~: (1) filed with the trial court, it :)latCid its rCia:;oning as foundation; (2) strUc,tural steel; (J) general fnllllwli: CllllSlrucl ion; (4) elevators; and (5) ~pOIt... field Since the Authority was not proceeding with the lighting. The SportS Authority decided to constnlct foundation on the norrh side and, theretore, the bid the suites i"two segments~ north-side and south-side for Altcml1lc I would nul bell ruclor, [ill ugrccf.! af the Stadium, nnd tentatively decided to '*632 Ihlll it Willi nOIl-"''''985 JIl(It.eril.1 (lnd wQ.ived the proceed only with the south-Nide suiles al lhis time. . defect to the extent one ~xisted. In the belief that it might achieve some cosf-savings if the foundationI' tor the nonh-Ride ~uite~ were llall, tho next lowcsl bidder nn the ha.~e hid, with a installed at The same time as the south-side suites, the bid of $22,407,000, tiled iI. verified complaint and Sports Authority requested the bidders on the ordcr to show Cll1JISC lu cnjllin thc Spor!.'! AUlhl,lriLy founuutiun Cl1ntrnct and Ihe general OOOSlruori(.n Ii'on' awarding the contract to Prismatic and to <0 2006 ThomsonlWest. No Claim to Orig. u.s, Govt. Works. . JUN-30-2006 14:56 From: To:952 233 3831 P.6/9 v 685 ^.2d 983 Page 3 295 N..I.Supcr. 629, 685 A.2d 983 (Cite as: 295 N..T.Supcr. 629, 685 A.2t1 983) declare the Prismatic bid materially defective. In an We said: oral opinion, Judge Ciolino tound that Pl'islIlalk.',s bic.l [Blidder responsibility and hid cnnlilrmily lire what Wlll\ materially deficient because of "failure to submit guanmlee lhal. Ihe goals underlying public bidding the appropriate price...." The mntter wa'\ remanded 10 will be met. Through them the contmctina. unil is the Sports Authority to Hward the contract to one of assured of' equlllity among bidders, uf the financial the re.maining bidders. Hall has been awarded Ihe and ethic,al ability ofthe bidders to perform, and of contract. subject to the dillPllsition of Ihis appeal. perfonnance of the contract in llccordanec with the RFJ>, No mure dc;fcrential standard of review Prismutic argucK that the bid iT submitted was should be t\pplied tu 1I1l::lC slululllry mandates responsive because it complied with the technical llimply hccaullc It stale confract is involved. State r~quirementF; of the bid specHic(lliolls, Prismatic procurement is no less susceptible thll" local also urges that the Sports Authority decision tL) prnclJremcnt to risks of favoritism, extravagance, accept its bid and to I'eject Hall's flrtll.Csl is ent.itled to improvide,nce or corruption. Indeed, strict rules IlS 1I prcsumplion of validity. llall disagrees, (u'guing to hid cl)nr~)"lllil)' ure criticlIlly important on the that the spons Authnrity docs not have br01ld stale level bectuIse of the broad discretion ovailnblc t1illcrel.innllry lluthority to determine whether a bid is to the Treasurer in aCLually awarding the contrdCt. materially det~ctive. [1..1, at 592-93.653 A.2d 1145..1 The New Jersey Sports and exposition Authol'ity The expre~~ language of N..I.S.A. 5: I 0-21.1.a Law, N,lSA. 5: 10.1 through .38, :speci fically compels the conclusion that the Sports Authority's N.1S.A, 5: 10.21.1.01, governs the llwa.rd of this dillcrction is invoked only tlnor it determines that the contract SceLilln 21.1.1:1 provides lhMt the contract bid in question eonto1"11ls to the invitation for bids. shall be awarded to that responsible hidder who~e bid, confomling to the invitll.tiol\ f('ll' bids, is IIlll~l ill The purpuse of all bidding statutes is "to secure advantageous to the authority, in its judgment, competition and 'guard l:Igainsl fllVoritism, upon considerntion of price and othcr fllctors. Any improvidence, extravagance and comtption,' in order bid may be rejected when the authority determines to henctit the taxpayel'lI and not the bidders." "1 n~ thot it is in the public inLcrcsL LI) (II) SC,I. !/oneywelllnf'o. Svs, Inc, 145 N.J.Sl(J}C". 187. 200- This statute is similar to the stan\te governing the QI, .39J....1.,.~~ 432 (App.Div.l,)76). clJrlif. dill7led, .1l award of II ccmtTact hy a ~ta.te agency, N..l,S A. 52:34- /'U 53. 372 A.2d 318 (1977) (quoting Townsh;D of J1; therefore, reference to lhe c.asc;s interpreting and Hillside v. Slemirl. 25 N.J. 317. 322.__1.3.1l_.1.2d 2(lS applying that statute is useful to resolve this issue. (\ 957'1). See. alstl "'''98IiKp.vp..~ Mm.tin ,~ ell \'. lJ;1"OCIOI'. mv. of /'urolla.H!. and Pl'Oncrf\l 99 N..I- In Commw:hl! C!~arl{"e Corp. I'. SU/lil'Un. 47 N.J. 24!.t..2.~(l. 491 A. 2.!Ln~ 1985). Therefore, public ~39,_.t4.8.,..222 A..2d 4 (1.q6~), l.he COlin held that the bidding stat1.1tes are to be *635 construed with sole ~La\.u1.()ry standard to award *634 a state contract reterenc.e to the public good and riSidly adhered to by rctlccts 0. clear legislative purpolle to grant the Stllte the courls. Sta/ewull!. lIi.Wav sCire/v. Inc. "'. NJ'W Tre,llslIrer and the Director of l'urchase and l'roperty Jcrsev Dev'l olTnmso" 283 N.J.SurJl!r. nl...2}O, Ji.n I hroad discretion. Conseqnently,. the j\lliiciol stillldnrd A.2<.1 826 fADD.Div.1995); for uppnlising the . prupriely of the exercise of discretion in awarding B state contract or in J'ejecting l31l:4Jl5j TIIc hlW ill ch,:ar I.hll1 "where a Pllrty does a bid ur a bidder jl( "lhlllthe courts will not interfere not materially respond to the bid speciticatioM he in the absence of bad faith, corruptiM, trnud or gross cll.nnot be clllsslfied as II bidder at !III, since lhe uhulIc ortlil\crelil.ln." Ttl. aI. 549. 222 ,4.2d 4. specitlcations are n,andatol)' and jurisdictional," Q/-:.Qrj.tLl:I.urms Crm.l'lr. Co., Inc. v. Borllul'h of [lj In In NJ ()n-T.jm~ Gamt!s Ccmlr(lC/ 279 N..l.Super. Linct/!n Purk. 161 N,J.SuDcr. 36'1.374.391 A.2d 960 566, 65) A,2tl 1145 (ADD.Div.I Q95), this court ( Law Div.197l0. The conditions and speeiliel1liunll emphasized the distim:tiOIl between tJle llctual nw[U'C1 uf UII illviluliult lu bill musL apply equally III all of a contract and rejection of a bid or bidder and proRpective hidders; the individutll biddl;:r clIIulol limited the grullll uhu:lc 01' discretion standard of decide to follow or to ignore these conditions, review to the actual award of a contract. We thereby able to "estimale hill hid un a blL~i8 different emph3..'1ized that decisions c(lncem;ng respollsivencss from thl:ll affordod to other contenders." Stcmin. or II bid, maleri<11 ~It::fect of it bid, and bidder SI/I1"'. 2.5 N.J. at 322-23. 136 A.,.2~.t2.6.1 (L:iling Tiee v. responsibility Of suitability were to be tested by the r.ommis.~ionel',\' of City of Long fJnmch. 90 N.J.L. 2 I 4 ordillllry standards governing administrative ac.tion. (E. & ^.1922)j t.1ll~litage }.':, ..M/))!p,. (11'/(/ CommO/1 @ 2006 Thomslln/WcsL. No Claim 10 Orig. U.S. GoV!. Works. JUN-30-2006 14:57 From: To:952 233 3831 P.7/9 685 ^.2d 983 Page 4 295 N.J.Supcr. 629,685 A.2d 983 (Cite all: 295 N..I.Surel'. 629, 6R5 A.2d 9R3) Council flf Cilv (If Newark. 1\6 N..! L. 5 other New Jersey Authority. in an unsatisfactory (SuP.Ct.1914 I; Case 1I. InhabiTallTs of" TI'e1trol1. 76 manner; (e) (or nonconrurmtince wilh "The New N..{.,/,.._6i6_ (~._~..~,..1~()9J). Accordingly, all bids Jcrsey Prevailing Wage Act" ...i (t) if rhe request mllst comply with the terms imposed. Any material for Did is not submitted on the Did Form furnished; departure from the bidding !:pecit'icatioll!: "illvalidatel: and (g) it'it ill deemed advillahle to do 110 ill the bellt a nonc.onforming bid as well as any contract based interest of the Authority, upon it." Jd. at 323. 136 A.2d 265. Stated The Authority reserves the right to waive any or all diITcrcnlly. ~I n<.lIIcunfl1rllling bid is IIU bid III ull. Tn irrcguhlrilics lInd inforllmlilies inlhc submission of ; re On-Line (jame.v COn/ruel, ~'lIf)r", 279 N.J.Sr./fJe,.. ut Hid docurm:nl:l. 595,653 A.2d 1145. Prism3.tic a.sserts that it intentiOnally left the space ill The bid jll8trul~lions provided that "[e]lIch price for a price for Allemale 1 blllnk bCl~~msc il decided sheet attached ... must be completely tilled in and not to charge anything tor this work. It explains that rctumed wilh Bid." The Terms lllld Cundilions ofil ~tlso submitted ~ bid for lhc founc.bttiun work and the Uid provided that "rulnit prices and totals, where that, if it won both contracts, the net overlap in costs llJlplicahlc, must he inserleLl in llpllee provided." """9R7 he/ween Lhc generlll conlllnJcti(ln lIncl Uidders were also directed to "[ilnsert price.s for foundation projects allowed it to absorb the costs for furnillhing all or any portion of the Inatc\;al OJ- articlcll .. Alternate I. Prillmatic's rationalc, however, ill not described." relevant to the initial consideration of whether the bid complied with the teml5 of the request for bids, The Altelnflte Prices porlion or Ille Adverlbcu Bid document provided: Prismatic acknowledges that the bid documents The following listed alternalC prices llhllll apply lu provided that the Lhrce nltcrnull:N were Ii ptlrt IIf Lhc lhi! bid.... bid. However, 'Prismatic contends that the language Altcrnate Prices shall be all inclusivc or UIC cost nr inslructing the bidder lOslnte "l1rn\)unL~ 10 bc addeLllll materials, work, balancing and testing of or subtracted from" the base proposal excused its mechanicnl IInd electricnl S)'I1t.emll n.<; required, fnillll'e t(l inllert nny figure. It rell.80ns thnt Its u\lerhead and profit, supervision, lldminiSlr4lion, dccisic,ln nollo ch.,rge for the nurth side Itmdlicaping allY and all other costs in connection therewith for neither added to nor subtracted fJ'Om its base priee work in place anl,! l:Icccpled ur omilted as.lhe ~~a~e proposal, tmd Pri:mll.llic argues lhal an llmuunl was may be, and shall hold tor the same period ns the required to be inserted only if it altered its base price. bid. Prismalic's rc1iam:e un lhis single senlence ignures "'636 llidder shall state amounts to be added to or the language of the rest .of the document, including subtl'llcted [ft'om] the base PI'oposaJ fl1\" the the immediately precedinG laoSllllse which clearly alternates listed below. directs each bidder to provide a price for each The bidding instructions speeined: alternate which is inclusi've of all work "'637 for thot The Authority reserves the right to award a altemllte.' Moreovcr, the bidding instructions, re.ad Cuntract UpO/l basis of lump sum Ihr the cntin:: fill II WhCllc, required each biddes' to ~)r()vide a price work or 11l'On basis of any base price or alternates for the general construction work plus a price for of :lilY comhination of base price!; or alternate!; each alternate and a total price t'or the general which may best serve the inlerescs ofl'he AuthllrilY. conl'1tnJClion w(lrk Hnd cHch alternale. Prismatic's failure to insert a Iigure for Alternate I rendered its In lIddilioJl, lhe in~lrllcliull~ ~~~l forlh sp(lci1ill bid if\(\(I\lIplclc. We (1lso c(If1olude \."(lllhi$ del/intion grounds tor rejection of bids, It provided: was a material defect which required the Sports 7. CAUSE FOR RE.JECTION Condition, Authority to invalldElte the ellth'e bid. limitations or provisions attached 10, or accompanying the requesr tor Bid may cause its 1'7'lnfll~)'J To be legally acceptable, bids must not rejection. mUlcriully I.!\,:viull: frorn lhe.; :lp\:cilic;ulioll~ ~t;/ lurlh by In addition. Bids !\\o')' be rejecled (n) if the 13iddet. the contrncting agency. M(!(~t.l(Jwbr(1(Jk. Carline Co.. fails to comply with the provisions of Paragraph (j 'tic. 1I. BQrOIl'i!h of'shmd T-{ci"hr.f, / 38 N.J. 307. 314. herein [suhrnilling request lilr bidsJ; (h) if the 6$.1l A.2u. ]48 (l.99.M- Minor Or inellllN(;lIuenlinl pric.es are obviollSly unbalanced; (c) if competition discrepancies and technical omissions can be waived, obvioullly hn.'i been supprcllscdi (d) jf rcccivc.d Ibid. Material conditions contained in bidding from Uidders who have previously performed work specifications cannot be waived by the c.ontracting tor the !\tate of New .Ier!ley, the ^uthority,nt" !lome authority. Tf,rrr!/ru:i{ r.!)!.~ttJ:.:...0..)'p, \I. Allanlit! Cmmll:! t.') 2006 Thomson/West. No Claim to Orig. U.S, Govt. Works. JUN-30-2006 14:57 From: To:952 233 3831 P.8/9 " 685 A.2u 983 Page 5 295 N,J,Supcr. 629. nllS A.2d 981 (Cite as: 295 N.J.Supel'. (,29, (,RS A.2d 9R3) $e.W..et.c1g,11 Au/h. 67 N.J. 403. 411. .141 A.2d .n7 if aWl1rdcd the contract. Riwrlond ('ons11', Co.. !.!.2ID. A deviation is material if: (1) waiver of ,umra. 154 N..,l.s.l,IJ~e.r:...... at. 4:'i~ ....:1.110 A.2ei 1161. such defect deprives the purcha!lcr or its l1.lolSlIrance Moreover,the omission of a COST item has been held thaI t.hc contrllct will be entered into, performed, and per scntaterial "even if it is unlikely that it could guaranteed accl'\rding to the :,;peciflecl requiremenTs, ha'lo affected the rdative posiliuns of lhe bidders" and (2) it adversely affec.ts the competitive bidding because it undemlines the common slandard or process by placing a bidder in 11 position of advantage cumpetition. InNS On-l.inl1 name.I' (;rmr.l'O.ct .~lJnrn over (I1:her bidders, or by otherwise lInlkrmining lhe 279 N..!.SIIlH!I'. at 601-02.653 ,eM '1145. necesst\l)' common slllndurd uf \:ompl.:tilioll. MI!(ld'IJ.v,.I:!!.!!!.lk Carting, ,~Ilnra, 1:38 N J, IH 315. 650 In L. Pucillo & Som;. Inc. \'. Mayor and Cm/!JJ:.lLaf ,'1.2d 748; TowlIshiv of Rive,. . Vq{p-y".jJ.l..J,qngn l!ifU~.i](.r!!!1;h 01' Nllw Milli.mJ. 73 N.J 349. 375 A.2d Constr. Co., '''c.. 127 N.JSU(,IU. 207.216.316 A.2d 602 (,1977), lhe COllrt set forth ~everal ways in which 737 (Law Div.1974t tailure to bid on all proposals could undcl'nlinc llle compelitive billding process, even if the omitte.d bids As interpreted by the Sports Authority, Prismatic were not included in the contract tiS awarded, In made no oller 10 do the work ellcornpu-llllcd hy PucIllo, lhe municipality rcqlleilt.cd bid proposllls for AlIcm~tc I. Without all offer to perfonn the work, garbage collec,tion for a duration of OM, two, three Prismatic would not be bound to perlotm A/remote] i l.md tivc years. Thc tinnawardecl thc contract failed thns, Ihe Sports A \Ithority hilt! no assurance that The to submit a bid for the five ye.ar alternate. The Court Altel'1'late I work would be done if the contract was tound the failure to submit a bid fot' efJ~h Ollel'JlOle a awarded 10 Prismlllie-. 'rhis uclici\lllcy lllrn\.~u oul tl> material defect Tl stated: be of no moment because the SpOilS Authority ~639 Wc would havc nO ohjCL':liulI III u prnccdurc decided nol lO in~I.lIlIlhc f<.lllndlltions for the north. in which bidders were clearly told that they could side luxury boxes, thereby eliminating the need for select one or lIeveral optionll on which to hid. We hm"scaJ'lin~ II) disl.'\Jisc the foundations, are not, however, willing to transform the Nevertheless. we conclude that the failure. to insell a mandatory requirement in these specifications into lIumber fur the Allernllle I work fruslnllcd lhe ~I polite reqllest The ordimlry reader of the competitive bidding process. specifications would regard them as calling for bids tin all lhe lI,:rrn!l specified. A wtmling the cunlrael *638 L!Q1 Prismatic argues that it did submit a bid to one who failed to submit bids on all terms for Alternate 1. It contends that the blank meant that necessarily created an inequality in the hidding and it would install the north-side landscaping ~t no cost an opportunity for favoritism. to the Sport.~ Authority. That may have been it!! l~d.,.at)5.t1.,_~n.4...2d. 6.02.) inlent; however, its i'-llent wll~ not cOlluilunicllled III the Sports Authority. Notably, the staff of the Sports . "he deviation was found material, despite the Authority illlCI'pl'cled the blank space as a railun~ 10 municipal dccisiurlto award 11 three year conlrael. bid to do this work. Undoubtedly, Prismatic could . The C'ourt noted that the bidder who failed to bid on have submillcd It nmnimd ur no eharlte bid. lhe lon~csl lerm gliined Ii competilive advantage However, there is a substantial distinction between a because the municipality's desire for a long-term I\ominal or no chnl'e.e hid nnd no bid at llll. The eontl'llct !noy have dil'courne,eei otJ\er hiddel'~. 1,1. ot latter renders the bid non-conforming and invalid 357-58. 375 A.2d 602. when the bid specifications require a bid on eat.h allcmlllc. Riv,!rlal1d C'Instr, ('(,. v. L'ln7bllrdo Wo arc nol prcpllred 10 ,SHY 111111 Ihe Sporls , Comrm:t1nrt Co.. Jnc.. 154 N.J.SI/f)/;:r. 42. 47-4H. 3!lO Authority's post-bid opening decision to construct tI.2tLlli.L(ArJ.P..:!lb~:.!9.7J). aJJ'd, ?~..!."~!~, ~22,...;tR_~ llnly lhe slIulh-side luxury suitCll rendered the A.2d 626 (' 19711). Prismatic deViation immaterial. First, the blank space for Alternat.e 1 rendered tho ~l'ismllt.ic bid The failure to bid on all terms necessarily creates an incomplete: it failed to include any bid on a incql1l1lily in the bitltling alll1 un opporlunity for mllndllled item. Second, many of the ~amc fl:lctl>T'S favoritism. f14tWdOwbrook CUrlill1? .~uOrli. I 38 N..1. discussed in Pucillo ore present here, H is J)1)8.1ible al 324-25. 650 .4.2d 748. This inequality is created that the requirement that II bid be submitted for north- because the bidder who fails to bid on a mandated side landscaping work deterred other bidders. item or altcl1iatc docs notohlisaf.c ir.c:c1f to pcrform Rocallse t.he bids for this w\)rk rllnsecl from $400,000 the work and avoids a risk to which other W*9Hti to $800,000, the substantial cost of this alternate biddef!l, actual or potential, l1\U!lt commit themselves, c(llllil hove been the determinative fnclc,r in u bid <9 2006 Thomson/West. No Claim 10 Orig, lI,S, UOVT. Works. JUN-30-2006 14:57 From: To:952 233 3831 P.9.19 'r 685 A.2d 983 Page. 6 295 N.J.Supcr. 629, tillS A.2d 983 (Cite as: 295 N,.r.Supel'. (i29, 685 A.211 983) award. By fnilina lu suhmil: a bid for the lllndscaping, Prbmatic assumed less risk than the olhers, thereby placirlg itself un an unequal footing from iL~ eumpclilors. This factor alone compromised the competitive bidding pmcel':S. T1Iu proCl~ss Wti:.; further /ruslratcd when the Sports Authority declll.lcd the non-conformity immaterial. Iii essence, lhe SJlurls Authority impermissibly rl~Cl\sl the bid spec.ifications after bid opening. .o.,'llfrninJ_.ru{l.ra. 2~ N..!. lit 3'-6. 136 tl,,2d 265. The StlblniSllilln or a non-c,onfomling bid was fl material deyiation from the bid specificaliuns which invalidaled lhe: Prismatic bid in its entirety. Accordingly, the order declaring the Prismatic bid invalid is nllirlllcd. 295 N.J.Super. 629, 685 A.2d 983 IiN.D OF DOCUMENT i 10 2006 Thomson/West. No Claim to Orig. V.S, GOYI. Worb.