|
Tuesday, March 22nd. 9 1927.
<br />encountered: at the .site of the construction of this sewer, not to consider that the -
<br />specifications forbid tunneling, as above referred. to.
<br />As too -the u.se-of reenforcing steel in the Monolithic Type, the Cityfs Specifi
<br />cations fully�-contemplate`reenforeement and the bidding form has the caption "Mono-
<br />lithic Reenforeed Concrete."
<br />The t Indiana Tunnel Construction Co., in bidding upon plain or un-reenforced.
<br />V
<br />concrete offers an alternative by providing in its specifications as follows:
<br />"If a reenforced concrete section is found aesirable by the engineer, the
<br />limbnsions as shown will be reduced in proportion to the amount of re -enforced
<br />steel used*"
<br />kl`
<br />This is a veryyd-efinite form in which to submit a specification for reenforced
<br />concrete, and would leave wide latitude for subsequent interpretation.
<br />The specifications of such Company do not include a design for the 42 inch
<br />and 30 inch sizes as required by the City specifications.
<br />There.are other serious questions to be raised in connection with the Indiana
<br />Tunnel Construction Company's design for a Monolithic Sewer, but I have only pointed
<br />out the items in which this bid has not complied with or conformed to the City!s
<br />specifications,
<br />A Monolithic Sewer has never been cons-L,ructed in South Bend., which -is no ar
<br />meat against it, except that it would be an experiment for South Bend,, and prudence
<br />may warn against an experttent for so large a project as the Northwest Sewer.
<br />One contractor alone offers a bid for Brick Construction, in the amount of
<br />$1,625,152.06. Brick is a.high gracle construction and the bid submitted is within
<br />the City's specifications.
<br />is
<br />The two bidders upon Precast Concrete show a difference in bids of $641533.85.
<br />Both bids submitted -are in accord with all provisions of the City!s specifications.
<br />The lower bid. on Precast Concrete, of the J. J. Dunnegan Construction Co., is
<br />$5,126.09 higher tha3k the bid of the Indiana Tunnel Construction Company on Monolithic
<br />Concrete. It should be explained that the cost of inspection for Monolithic Concrete
<br />sewers is several times greater than for Precast Concrete Sewers. A reliable estimate
<br />pf inspection cpsts for Precast bonstruction for the Northwest sewer is $8,000.00
<br />$
<br />to $I0,000.00. For Monolithic, a conservative estimate is $24,000.00 to 30000.00.
<br />Using the lower figures the Monolithic inspection would cost the city (or property
<br />owners) approximately $16,000.00 more that Precast Concrete inspection. This being
<br />gan Comp $10,000.00
<br />I the case the J. J. Dunne Company's bid is in effect approximately
<br />f a
<br />lower than the Monolithic bid of the Indiana Tunnel C6nstruction Capp 4W
<br />Whichever way figured, the two bids are close, and the difference is slight
<br />as compared with the immense aggregate cost of the sewer. On this account the greater consideration will no doubt be given the comparative merits of the two types of sewers 1;
<br />and to the merits of the bids submitted as relating to the specifications.
<br />It should be stated that upon preliminary investigation it appears that all
<br />bidders are responsible financially and should be able to amply finance their operation..
<br />besides being fully equipped and with records for accomplishing large construction
<br />projects irith &ispatchm& ability.
<br />It may be added that the question arises, in view of the actual lowest bidder,,
<br />being legally disquallified, wlether it might be advisable to re -advertise and invite,
<br />. I new -.bids. I am obliged to say that such a course under all circumstances would
<br />probably be a mistake. As previously stated the bias received are low. It would seem
<br />the b6tter judgement to accept a present favorable and satisfactory ,price -rather than
<br />to indulge in speculation with the mere hope of better price, which involves the chance
<br />of indefinite delay and a possible higher price.
<br />I have discussed the tabulation to some length because of the size of the
<br />project and the importance tb the City of -the interests involved.
<br />Respectfully submitted.,
<br />H. G. Wray, City Engineer."
<br />The following letter from City Attorney,, I. S. Romig, gives legal opinion
<br />in the matter of rejecting the low bid of Gedney &.Sons Construction do. Mr. Romig's
<br />letters is as follows;
<br />March 17th., 1927
<br />d
<br />To the Board of Works,
<br />South Bend, Indiana,
<br />Gentlemen:
<br />You have advised me that a bidder for the contract of constructing the North-
<br />west Sewer has failed to file with his bid the affid.avit known as "non-c-allusion"
<br />and ask what effect, if any, this will have upon the bid... In, answer I wish to, say.
<br />
|