08/07/06 Board of Public Works Special Meeting Minutes

Home Browse Search

SPECIAL MEETING ,. AUGUST 7, 2006 ~'~9 22' Wide (Includes Tack. Coat & Stri ing) Lum Sum for Entire Project $57,472.70 BROOKS CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC. 625 South Beiger Street Mishawaka, Indiana 46544 i 1 Quotation was submitted by Mr. Harold Joy QUOTATION: No. Description Amount Unit Cost Total 1 Remove Designated Asphalt Pavement 1805 sy $5.45 $9,837.25 2 Replaee~••; Designated Asphalt Pavement 1805 sy $15.25 $27,526.25 3 Resurface Designated Asphalt Pavement 6,667 sy $5.30 $35,335.10 Total $72,698.60 Upon a motion made by Mr. Littrell, seconded. by Mr. Inks -and carried, the above Quotations were referred to Water Works for review and recommendation. AWARD BID -KENSINGTON FARMS/CREST MANOR BASIN DRAINAGE AND STORAGE IMPROVEMENTS - PROJECT NO. 105-OI3 (SEWER BOND) Mr. Jason Durr, Engineering, advised the Board that on July 17, 2006, bids were received and opened for the above referred to project. After reviewing those bids, Mr. Durr recommends that the Board award the contract to Herrman & Goetz dba Underground Services, 225 South Lafayette Boulevard, South Bend, in the amount of $796,653.33, which is the base bid: only. Therefore, Mr. Littrell • made a motion that the recommendation be accepted and the bid be awarded as outlined above. Mr. Inks seconded the motion, which carried. AWARD BID - TWO-HUNDRED FORTY-EIGHT (248 MORE OR LESS FIREFIGHTEF:S PROTECTIVE CLOTHING (EMS CIP 288 AND 2006 CIP) Chief Luther Taylor, Fire Department, advised the Board that an June 26, 2006, bids were received and opened for the above referred to project. Chief Taylor expressed his thanks to the Board and Board Attorney for all the work undertaken to process this bid. Mr. Tom Bodnar provided memoranda to the Board dated August 4, 2006. Mr. Bodnar stated there are two companies left in this evaluation, Total Fire Group (Morning Pride) and Environmental Services Group (Securitex), the lower bidder. Both were given a chance to submit corrected bids and were requested to provide a sample turn out gear conforming with those bids. The original bid package required conforming samples. The samples were timely received. There were 14 exceptions noted in the Environmental Services Group. Four exceptions were noted in .the Morning Pride sa~~ple. ,.;, The most serious of Securitex's shortcomings was the strength of the outer shell material. "Phis is one of the most important components in the package and contributes directly to the safety of firefighters. IC 5-22-16-2 states that the purchasing agent may •consider whether the offerer has submitted an offer that conforms in all material respebts to the specifications. The sample submitted is non-conforming in the material respect. The gear does not adequately protect the firefighters who will wear it, nor with the instructions to the offerers. For this reason the Securitex bid may be rejected as non responsive. If Securitex's bid is rejected as non responsive, then the contract should be awarded to the remaining bidder, which becomes the lowest responsive and responsive. IC 5-22-7-8 authorizes this award. For the record, while there are four discrepancies between the specifications and the sample submitted by Morning Pride, one of those, Item 4.0, was a mislabel. The garment ,•