07122022 Board of Public Works Meeting
07122022 Board of Public Works Meeting
7/26/2022 2:40:00 PM
7/26/2022 2:39:52 PM
Board of Public Works
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
All rights reserved.
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View plain text
AGENDA REVIEW SESSION JULY 7, 2022 159 <br /> <br />The Agenda Review Session of the Board of Public Works was convened at 10:30 a.m. on July <br />7, 2022, by Board President Elizabeth A. Maradik, Vice President Joseph Molnar, and Board <br />Members Gary Gilot, Jordan Gathers (arrived virtually at 10.47 a.m.), Murray Miller, and Board <br />Attorney Clara McDaniels (virtual) present. Board of Public Works Clerk, Theresa Heffner, <br />presented the Board with a proposed agenda of items presented by the public and by City Staff. <br /> <br />Board members discussed the following item(s) from the agenda. <br /> <br />CHANGE ORDERS <br />Project Engineer Finnian Cavanaugh was present to discuss item 5.A. the Coal Line Trail, Phase <br />I. Mr. Cavanaugh noted that there are a lot of different line items included in this change order <br />that includes some additional work. Change order fifteen (15) was an adjustment in the way <br />items were paid that resulted in the avoidance of a charge that was brought to the city. The City <br />is responsible for twenty percent (20%) of the cost which is broken down in the memo to the <br />Board. Gary Gilot asked if it was a project controlled by INDOT, and Mr. Cavanaugh confirmed. <br /> <br />REJECT BIDS AND QUOTATIONS <br />Assistant City Engineer Leslie Biek was present to discuss item 4.B. the 2022 Community <br />Crossings Road Rehabilitation. Ms. Biek explained that the bid is being rejected because it <br />exceeded the project budget by double and because Milestone Contractors North Inc. stated that <br />they could not complete the project by the required completion date of October 31, 2022. Ms. <br />Biek explained that both Reith Riley and Milestone Contractors expressed interest if the <br />completion date could be extended. <br /> <br />Mr. Gilot asked if there were concerns about MWBE capacity for this project. Ms. Biek <br />mentioned that Milestone Contractors did state their concerns about MWBE capacity in the letter <br />to the Board with their bid, but they did submit MWBE documents. Murray Miller stated that <br />Milestone Contractors were concerned about the availability of MWBE to contract work out to. <br />Ms. Biek stated that sometimes they can hire people on to do the work, but they are not always <br />available. Mr. Gilot noted that the Office of Diversity and Inclusion could possibly help grow <br />some of the MWBE firms in our area. <br /> <br />Mr. Gilot asked Attorney McDaniels if the engineers use the same bid document in the open <br />market and they only adjust the timeline for the project completion deadline, would the project <br />need to be rebid. Attorney Daniels recommended that if there were no time constraints, <br />Engineering should rebid the project even if the only thing changing is the completion deadline <br />because of the length of the planned completion deadline into 2023. Ms. Biek noted possible <br />INDOT timing complications. Due to CCMG funding, INDOT requires a signed contract with a <br />contractor by 8/19/22. If re-bidding, the soonest we could open bids is 8/9 and award on 8/23. <br />President Maradik and Mr. Gilot stated that a special meeting could be called to accommodate, <br />or the Board could take action at an agenda review session. President Maradik stated that Ms. <br />Biek should speak with INDOT to see if the signed contract deadline date is flexible then include <br />a request to advertise so that the project could be rebid. <br /> <br />Mr. Gilot asked if the Board were to give contractors until August of 2023 to complete the <br />project, would they hold the prices with no escalation to the City. Attorney McDaniels noted that <br />she has seen vendors build pricing escalations into their contracts. Mr. Gilot advised that index <br />pricing would benefit both sides and would allow for pricing to adjust up or down depending on <br />the market. Mr. Gilot also noted that the project could be broken up to allow for flexibility in the <br />project. <br /> <br />AGREEMENTS/CONTRACTS/PROPOSALS/ADDENDA <br />Ms. Biek was present to discuss item 7.D. the Amendment No.1 to Owner-Engineer Agreement <br />– A & Z Engineering, LLC. Ms. Biek explained that they would be putting a bump in the road <br />between Dean Street and Sherwood Street where the road shifts slightly and cars are not shifting <br />over which results in accidents with parked cars along the road. She noted that this is a zero-cost <br />amendment. <br /> <br />AGREEMENTS/CONTRACTS/PROPOSALS/ADDENDA <br />Mr. Gilot asked about item 7.B. Professional Services Agreement with Shive Hattery <br />Architecture + Engineering. Mr. Gilot pointed out to Attorney McDaniels that they have a <br />substantial section of their own terms and conditions inserted into the boilerplate contract that
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.