|
REGULAR MEETING
<br />DECEMBER 22 2016 408
<br />immediately. Mr. Ryan added at this point there is no harm done to move to the next low bidder.
<br />Mr. Lingenfelter apologized for the problem this caused. Attorney Michael Schmidt explained
<br />the process that occurred, noting bids were opened on December 13 and ranged in amounts from
<br />$2,900,000 to S$3,800,000 with Gibson Lewis submitting the low bid. He stated Gibson Lewis
<br />contacted Kevin Fink one day after the opening requesting to withdraw their bid due to a
<br />substantial bid error. He noted that was done after hearing the bid amounts. Mr. Fink notified
<br />them that their bid appeared to be a legitimate bid and withdrawal could result in claim on their
<br />bid bond. Gibson Lewis sent further notification that specified that the error was due to the
<br />roofing aspect of the project. They explained their own inspector failed to check the roof. Mr.
<br />Schmidt noted Gibson Lewis used a sophisticated database that they are familiar with to compile
<br />their bid from subcontractors. Mc Lingenfelter stated they realized there was an error upon
<br />opening, and went back and reviewed their online bid invitations and found the missing
<br />information. Mr. Schmidt stated Gibson Lewis does not claim the bid specs were ambiguous.
<br />They claim their error will result in over $200,000 out of pocket loss. He added this is due to not
<br />reviewing their bid prior to submittal. Mr. Schmidt stated the general rule is clerical or
<br />mathematical errors are the kind of excusable mistakes that allow for relief, mistakes of
<br />judgment do not qualify for such. relief. Attorney Schmidt stated the case presented by Attorney
<br />Ryan could be easily distinguished by the facts surrounding Gibson Lewis's bid. He stated
<br />Gibson Lewis did not vet each of its subcontractors to match the bid specs; this is not a clerical
<br />error. Attorney Schmidt stated his recommendation is to award to Gibson Lewis, noting that
<br />using a roughly 10% profit estimate, they still stand to profit $100,000. He explained they are not
<br />losing, they are just not getting the profit they were expecting. Mr. Lingenfelter stated they sent
<br />in their math and it shows they stand to profit only $125,000. Ms. Dorau asked what happens if
<br />the bid is rescinded. Mr. Schmidt state if they don't accept the contract, his recommendation is to
<br />submit a claim on the bid bond and look to consider them in violation of I.C. 5-22-16-1, and
<br />declare Gibson Lewis to be a non -responsible bidder, which would impact their ability to bid on
<br />future projects with the city. Mr. Schmidt noted it's important to maintain the integrity of the
<br />bidding process, and the city shouldhold them responsible. He added if they withhold the
<br />contract, the city would place a hold on their bid bond, adding it wouldn't even cover the
<br />difference between theirs and the second lowest bidder and would still cost the city _
<br />approximately 5160,000. He stated he recommends, therefore, to make the award and allow
<br />everyone to work to make the relationship work and maintain the integrity of the bidding
<br />process. Attorney Ryan stated the city could still maintain the integrity of the bidding process
<br />and still allow the law to maintain that this is a clerical error. Mr. Mueller asked how we have
<br />certainty that this isn't just a remorse after the opening. Mr. Lingenfelter stated they submitted
<br />documentation to the board to show that. He noted they were all shocked when the subcontractor
<br />contacted Gibson Lewis the day after the bids opened to notify them they had not submitted their
<br />bid. Mr. Schmidt stated this was out for bid for thirty (30) days and the contractor waited until
<br />the last minute to submit their bid. Mr. Mueller stated technically, we award the bid, they reject
<br />the award, and we would be back in January to award to the next low bidder. Attorney Schmidt
<br />stated the Board would award the bid, come back in January to award to the next low bidder, and
<br />place a claim on.Gibson's bid bond if Gibson refuses to accept the contract. Mr. Schmidt stated
<br />there may be some hope in reconciling this in sixty (60) days, but by making the award, the
<br />Board is authorizing Mr. Schmidt to have discussions with Gibson Lewis. Therefore, Ms. Doran
<br />made a motion that the recommendation be accepted and the bid be awarded as outlined above.
<br />Mr. Mueller seconded the motion, which carried.
<br />AWARD QUOTATION — EMFRGENCY SEWER i.LNING — NOTRF. DAME AVEATUE —
<br />PROJECT NO 116-139 (CONTRACTUAL SERVICES)
<br />Mr. Roger Nawrot, Engineering, advised the Board that on December 13, 2016, quotations were
<br />received and opened for the above referenced project. After reviewing those quotations, Mr.
<br />Nawrot recommended that the Board award the contract to the lowest responsive and responsible
<br />bidder, Insituform Technologies, 17988 Edison Avenue, Chesterfield, MO 63005, in the amount
<br />of $25,310.30. Therefore, Ms. Doran made a motion that the recommendation he accepted and
<br />the quotation be awarded as outlined above. Mr. Mueller seconded the motion, which carried.
<br />AWARD QUOTATION — COUN'TY-CITY BUILDING VAN ACCESSIBLE PARKING
<br />PROJECT NO. 116-038 (LRSA)
<br />Mr. Kevin Fink, Engineering, advised the Board that on December 13, 2016, quotations were
<br />received and opened for the above referenced project. After reviewing those quotations, Mr.
<br />Fink recommended that the Board award the contract to the lowest responsive and responsible
<br />bidder, Rieth-Riley Construction Co., Inc., 25200 State Road 23, South Bend, IN 46614, in the
<br />
|