Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout15.D.3. Award Contract for Salt Storage Building Project No. 2003-8-Res. No. 5991 'r , . ,/ () -') / .-/, .. 1 ~ .. J ;/ f.'''/e ...~ CITY OF SHAKOPEE Memorandum TO: Mayor & City Council Mark McNeill, City Administrator FROM: Bruce Loney, Public Works Director SUBJECT: Consider A warding of the Contract for the Construction of a Salt Storage Building for the Public Works Department, Project No. 2003-8 DATE: October 7, 2003 INTRODUCTION: Attached is Resolution No. 5991, which accepts the bids and awards the contract for the construction ofa salt storage building on the Public Works site, Project No. 2003-8. BACKGROUND: On September 2, 2003, City Council adopted Resolution No. 5946, a resolution approving plans and specifications for the construction of a salt storage building for the Public Works Department on the Public Works site. Plans have been prepared by Oertel Architects and within the plans were included a proposal for base bid for a 72' x 72' salt storage building and for alternates to be included in the bid package as follows: Alternate No. 1 Provide larger building with an additional 24-foot length including fabric, structure, footings, paving, and related items necessary to complete installation. Alternate No.2 Provide and install 6-foot tall jersey barriers at the building interior in lieu of the 4-foot barriers shown on the plans, Alternate No.3 Provide and install 8-foot tall L-shaped concrete barriers at the interior in lieu of 4-foot barriers shown. I Alternate No.4 Provide and install two fan units, associated ductwork, electrical and concrete pads. The purpose of constructing a salt storage building is economy, availability and convenience, and to prevent formation of lumpy salt from wet weather, and also eliminating the possibility of contaminating streams and wells from salt runoff and eliminating or reducing the loss of salt due to the dissolving of runoff from the site. On October 6, 2003, sealed bids were received and publicly opened for this project. From the bid opening, the apparent low bidder on the base bid was Ebert Construction in the amount of $119,400.00. The base bid received from the other contractor, Greystone Construction, was $121,900.00. Attached to this memorandum is a memo from Jeff Oertel, of Oertel Architects, providing an analysis of the bids received by the City. It should be noted that the base bids received are much higher than the previous estimate that was included as part of the Capital Improvement Program (CIP). The dollar amount included in the CIP was $95,00.00 for this project. In review of the bids, they can be summarized as follows: Ebert Construction Greystone Construction Base Bid $119,400.00 $121,900.00 Alternate No. 1 $ 23,800.00 $ 21,965.00 Alternate No.2 $ 4,300.00 $ 2,400.00 Alternate No.3 $ 6,200.00 $ 2,400.00 Alternate No. 4 $ 26,400,00 $ 22,585.00 Attached to this memorandum is a memo from Jeff Oertel, Oertel Architects, in regard to the bids received by the City of Shakopee. The architect is recommending that the bids were competitive for the work that was defined as a package to bid on. These bidders are the ones that usually bid these types of structures in the metro area. Staff has reviewed its previous budget quote and estimating for the CIP to the new bids received and has found the following items that were not included in this original estimate, and they are as follows: . The front fabric wall and doors to protect the north side of the building from precipitation. . Electrical system for lighting inside of the building for night-time operation. . Asphalt paving of the salt storage building for the pad to store the salt. . . . Permanent concrete columns anchored into bedrock versus concrete block resting on top of the asphalt pavement. These additional items amount to approximately $40,000.00, making the base bid around $115,000.00 to $120,000.00, which is in line with the bids received. In reviewing of the base bid and alternate costs received, staff would recommend the following: ,. To eliminate Alternate No.1 for the additional size building at this time. ,. Eliminate Alternate No.2 for the six foot jersey barrier. . Eliminate Alternate No.4 for the ventilation system. If Council were to award this project, they would need to award based on the base bid or the base bid plus Alternate No.3, The Alternate No.3 is for 8-foot high L-shaped jersey barriers which is similar to Scott County's salt storage building and does provide additional salt storage volume inside the building, Staff would recommend this alternative as the additional $2,400,00 does provide for considerable more height in storing material. The apparent low bidder for the base bid is Ebert Construction at $119,400.00. The low bidder for the base bid plus Alternate No.3 is Greystone Construction at $124,300.00. Staff would recommend, based on the bids received, if Council elects to proceed with the increased amount for the base bid plus Alternate No.3, and a contract be awarded to Greystone Construction. If Council desires to bring this project closer to the budget amount, the following items could be eliminated until expansion of the salt building in the future: . Front fabric wall and door could be eliminated from the plans and leave an exposed north side to weather and exposed to the Public Works building, . Eliminate the electrical and lighting inside the building, which could be added at a later date when the building is expanded. This potential valued engineering cost savings could amount to as much $5,000.00 to $10,000.00 and would depend on negotiations with the contractor with no guarantee on reductions until we meet with the contractor. Another major cost addition is the permanent pier construction versus placing concrete block on top of the asphalt paving pad for the building. The original budget estimate in 2002 had the building on top of concrete block which would be on the asphalt pad surface which is done on buildings that are placed in a temporary location. The final design has permanent pier construction anchored into bedrock so that the building would not be move as the location is next to our current salt shed. (. . In summary, the bids received are higher than previously estimated due to additional items included in the building or items that were not included in the previous budget estimate obtained from Greystone Construction. If City Council agrees to award a contract tonight, staff would recommend the base bid plus Alternate No. 3 is the best value for the City at $124,300.00. If the City Council desires to look at a re-design of this building and lower costs, then the appropriate action is to reject all bids and rebid and have plans and specifications redone. This option would not allow the salt storage building to be built this year, but would have to be built next year. If this project does proceed, there are additional costs, such as surveying of the building site and inspection by the architect. The inspection of the architect contract has been handled previously and is fixed at 9% of the construction costs authorized by the City Council, and the surveying cost should not exceed $3,000.00. The total proj ect cost for this proj ect if the contract is awarded to Greystone at $124,300.00 including architect services ($12,000), public works grading work ($7,700), surveying costs ($3,000) is $147,000.00 or $28.35 per square foot. ALTERNATIVES: 1. Accept the low base bid of $119,400.00 from Ebert Construction and adopt Resolution No. 5991, awarding the contract to Ebert Construction. 2. Accept the low base bid and Alternate No.3 of $124.300.00 from Greystone Construction and adopt Resolution No. 5991, awarding the contract to Greystone Construction. 3. Reject all bids and rebid, 4. Table for additional information. RECOMMENDATION: Staff would recommend Alternative No.2, if the City Council desires to proceed with the salt storage building this year, and to award the low base bid plus Alternate No.3 to Greystone Construction in the amount of $124,300.00. If the City Council desires to bring this building closer to within budget, the appropriate action would be to reject all bids and rebid and have the plans modified to reflect changes to reduce the cost. It is staffs opinion after consultation with the architect that the bids received are good for the work specified on the plans. There are possible reductions in cost by eliminating the front fabric wall and doors and elimination of the electrical lighting until the building is expanded in the future. These changes would amount to $5,000 to $10,000 of savings. A redesign of the building would only be for the concrete foundation work and if the \ . . council would want a building to rest on the ground versus a solid foundation that would be on bedrock. ACTION REQUESTED: Offer Resolution No. 5991, A Resolution Accepting Bids on the Construction of a Salt Storage Building on the Public Works Site, Project No. 2003-8, and move its adoption. ~one BUpmp MEM5991 " > . RESOLUTION NO. 5991 A Resolution Accepting Bids On The Construction Of A Salt Storage Building On The Public Works Site Project No. 2003-8 WHEREAS, pursuant to an advertisement for bids for the salt storage building on the Public Works site, Project No. 2003-8, bids were received, opened and tabulated according to law, and the following bids were received complying with the advertisement: Bidder Base Bid Alt. No.1 Alt. No.2 Alt. No.3 Alt. No.4 Ebert Const. $119,400 $23,800 $ 4,300 $6,200 $26,400 Greystone Const. $121,900 $21,965 $ 2,400 $2,400 $22,585 AND WHEREAS, it appears that Greystone Construction is the lowest responsible bidder for the base bid and Alternate No.3 for the salt storage building on the Public Works site, Project No. 2003-8. 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 in the name of the City of Shakopee for the construction of a salt storage building on the Public Works site, Project No, 2003-8, according to the plans and specifications therefore approved 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 ,2003. Mayor of the City of Shako pee ATTEST: City Clerk Oct-07-03 12:16P OERTEL ARCHITECTS bb.l b~O ~.l.OO " . r-.......... . e - OERTEL ARCHlTECTS 1795 SAINT CLAIR A VENUE, SAINT PAUL, MN 55105 TEL: 651'696-5186 FA.X: 651/696-5188 DATE; October 7, 2003 TO: Bruce Loney FROM: Jeff Oertel RE~ City of Shakopee Public Works Expansion Salt Building bids MEMORANDUM We are in receipt of the bids received by the City for the Salt Building project Please note the following: 1. The two tight bids received represented a defined package and clear understanding of the scope. Depending on the alternates selected, either contractor is capable of undertaking the work. The two bidders / manufacturers are the ones that generally bid structures such as this in our state and metro area. 2. The base bid for each contractor is roughly $120,000.00. The budget you had established for the project earlier in the year was $95,000.00. While we cannot be certain of all reasons behind the increase in cost over the budget, I would guess that the increase is based on two items. First, the original structure was planned without a front fabric wall, overhead door and service door that were included in the base bid. In addition, the electrical component likely increased! the cost because of the complexities involved. 3. We were comfortable with the budget up to date as we obtained an estimate from the low base bid manufacture, Accu-Steel, earlier in the year. This company is generally twenty five percent under the other supplier / contractor that bid, Cover-AU / Greystone Construction. Over the past month, A(cu-Steel signed an exclusive contract with Ebert Construction, a local contractor, to handle their product and marketing. This likely had an impact on the higher price than expected, as the two bids are so dose together. Other items that increased the cost over initial estimates are the addition of a front wall, doweling connections from piers into the high bedrock level, and extending electrical power to the building. 1 Oct-07-03 12:16P OERTEL ARCHITECTS O:>.l o~o 0.1.00 r_"-'c- 'll . . .. 4. If maintaining overall cost is considered critical by the council, my suggestion would be to eliminate the front fabric wall and doors, which also eliminates the immediate need for the alternate mechanical system. If, after use, the front enclosure wall is deemed necessary, the wall and mechanical units could be added at the same time. 5. We had included an alternate to construct a larger building in hopes that the competition drove the base bids down to make thils affordable, which did not happen. Another alternate was provided, namely a ventilation system. We had advised that the mechanical units be considered for installation at .:llater date to assist with removing the fumes within the structure given the full enclosure of the structure in the base bid. You had advised that these be included as an alternate as they might be needed sooner or later, which is still the case, unless the front wall is eliminated. 6. If only the base bid is considered a viable plan, Ebert Construction would be the low bidder at $119,400.00. This includes the 41 tall Jers,ey barriers that we had discussed from the onset of the project, Given the minimal 5,pread between the L-snaped concrete barriers (6' versus 8' tall) I would recommend that: the 8' design be selected, should the taller barriers be considered a viable option by th~? council. This would involve the base bid and Alternate #3. The taller barriers increase the storage capacity and reduce the short term need for the larger building shown as Alternate #1. In this case, Greystone Construction would be the low bidder at $124,300.00, Please advise on anything else you need to evaluate and recommend the bids. Jeff Oertel 2