05/21/2015 Agenda Review - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

AGENDA REVIEW SESSION MAY 21, 2015 161 of the bidders. He added they are still working on the award of divisions A, B, and F. Ms. Roos questioned if they are asking to rebid these. Attorney Michael Schmidt stated public bidding law allows the City to go out to the open market. He added they will still get three (3) quotes with the same specs. He noted the Open Market Special Purchase allows them to have the authority to negotiate with the bidder if good faith efforts are not met. Ms. Roos asked if they felt the non - responsiveness was due to the bidders not understanding the form, or they just simply didn't do it. Attorney Schmidt stated it is difficult to determine from what was submitted. He noted some of the bidders felt since they were doing the work themselves, they didn't need to meet the requirements. Mr. IIorvath concurred and stated that is a big part, some of the vendors are not accustomed to doing these types of projects and didn't feel it necessary to fill out the forms. Ms. Roos asked what the time frame to solicit quotes is. Mr. IIorvath stated it is a minimum of three (3) weeks. Mr. Gilot suggested wouldn't it be easier to hire one prime contractor and let them take care of these details. Mr. Horvath agreed, but explained they try to parcel out pieces of the bid, noting it's more difficult under redevelopment projects. Ms. Roos stated her concern is the commitment to the administration's priority to MBF/WBE contractors. She stated they need to commit and be consistent in their commitment. She added based on the conversations, she feels the bidders didn't understand the requirements of the forms. She noted it is important, therefore, to make sure there are mandatory pre-bid meetings to explain and answer the questions. Mr. Horvath stated they need to weigh in on the timing and if it is an issue to rebid; and the option to have a little more flexibility to negotiate. Attorney Schmidt noted they can negotiate, but it doesn't mean they need to compromise. Mr. Pawlowski stated the conversations he heard indicated the vendors didn't feel they needed to fill out the forms. Attorney Schmidt stated when the bidders see that their bids are rejected as non - responsive to the MBE/WBE requirements, they will realize the seriousness of the failure to complete the forms. - Revised Project Completion Affidavit — Pinhook Water Treatment Efficiency Improvements Mr. Toy Villa, Engineering, stated this is an amendment to the previous completion affidavit that the Board approved on September 9, 2014 subject to negotiations. He stated the liquidated damages were reduced from eighteen (18) to thirteen (13) days based on some damages L.D. Docsa was entitled to on the City's part. He added their attorney found a clause if the client doesn't pay within a certain time frame, the contractor can charge the City. Mr. Horvath explained they decided rather than they cut the City a check and the City cut them a check, it -- was agreed on to reduce the damages. - Reject Bids — Wastewater Treatment Plant Grit and Screening Improvements Mr. Al Greek, Environmental Services, stated the Engineer's estimate on this project was $1,500,000.00, but the bids came in at $2,500,000.00, exceeding the budget. Mr. Horvath stated they are having the Engineer of record do an analysis and they will take a look at where it went wrong. - Professional Services Agreement — Greeley and Hansen, LLC Ms. Roos stated the cost of this agreement, $74,000.00 shouldn't be on the City, it should fall on the general contractor. She asked if that should be noted somewhere in a memo or letter to the contractor. Attorney Schmidt stated there will be a record in the Minutes of the Board and the memo in the file prepared by Environmental Services. - Professional Services Agreement — OJS Building Services, Inc. Ms. Roos asked Mr. Jim Monroe, Morris Performing Arts Center, when was the last time this was bid. He stated it was bid last year and he created a quote package this year and this was the lowest of three (3) quotes received. She asked why he is asking for a three (3) year agreement. Mr. Monroe stated it gives guaranteed pricing that won't increase. - Non - Residential Block Party Ms. Faheemah Fowler, Applicant, stated she was asked to come to the Boatel meeting to address any questions the Board might have regarding her block party application. She explained her block party request was for a graduation party for one individual, not the whole block. She noted, however, that the whole block is in compliance, and there are a number of other Riley High School students on the block. She stated everyone is excited and all the neighbors signed off and will attend. She stated she spoke to City staff and they gave her direction on what form to use. Mr. Gilot apologized for the miscommunication she received from City staff, but the Board got away from private block parties several years ago and they are afraid this will set a precedent. Mr. Gilot stated in the past when someone has wanted to close a street for a private party the Board has recommended thy use a park facility close to their home, and suggested Rum Village Park picnic shelter as an altemative. Ms. Fowler said she would like Rum Village. Mr. Gilot asked her to work with Mr. Pawlowski on getting a shelter at Rum Village Park. He added her