CR 98-51 Assessment Hearing Interlachen Park St Improvements Project 97-12April 1, 1998
Proposed Act ion.
Staff recommends adoption of the following motion: Move that Council adopt Resolution 98 -18,
Resolution or Hearing on Proposed Assessments Interlachen Park Street Improvements. Project 97
12.
Overview.
The bid opening for Interlachen Park street and utility improvements was held March 12, 1998. An
assessment roll has been prepared and calculations were based on the low construction bid submitted
by Hardrives, Inc. The calculations are attached along with the summary assessment roll. Staff
recommends calling for an assessment hearing May 5 followed by award of bid on June 16.
Primary Issues to Consider.
• Bid tabulation and analysis
• Analysis of costs and proposed assessments
• Hearing date and timetable
• Recommendation
Si _pi Information
• Detailed bid tabulation
• Engineer's analysis and recommendations
• Engineer's assessment analysis
• City Attorney opinion
• Assessment worksheets
• Assessment roll
• Resolution 98 -18
James Gessele
Engineering Supt.
Order Assessment Hearing
Interlachen Park Street Improvements
Project 97 -12
Council Report 98 -51
Analysis.
• Bid tabulation and analysis
Contractor Base Bid Amount
Hardrives, Inc. $500,136.90
S. Weidema $584,474.20
Midwest Asphalt $588,901.00
Northdale Const. $644,180.59
C.S. McCrossan $690,037.19
Engineer's Estimate $441,208.00
The consultant examined all bids and found mathematical errors in 4 of the 5 bids submitted.
hi the case of the low bidder staff had to consult the City Attorney for an opinion on erroneous
bid amounts. (See attached attomey opinion.) Otherwise all bids were in order and no
irregularities noted. Bidder qualifications have been examined and verified. Hardrives, Inc. is
a qualified bidder and competent contractor in the Twin City area.
The low bid is roughly 13% higher than the engineer's estimate. Attached is the consultant's
report with a review of bid items as well as discussions with three of the contractors to account
for the increased construction costs. In general, the numerous bid tables led to smaller
quantities within each section. Utility subcontractors then perceived overall smaller quantities
and unit prices were raised accordingly. Union labor rates are increasing by $1.00/hour, and
the consultant estimates this has added 5 -10% increase to the project cost.
The consultant recommends accepting the bids with Hardrives as low bidder. The City
Attorney has already offered an opinion on the two instances where Hardrives has made errors
in unit prices or their extension. This assures that Hardrives is indeed the low bidder. The
consultant goes on to advise that the City may wish to negotiate with the contractor for revised
costs in some of the contract items. This can only be done once a contract has been executed.
The consultant advises that the majority of price increases is due to a raise in labor rates and
increase of aggregate material costs. These factors would still have an impact on a rebidding
process. He advises desired cost savings are to be achieved, if at all, through negotiations
rather than rebidding.
• Analysis of costs and proposed assessments
Computations used to derive the proposed assessments are found on the assessment
worksheets. A worksheet is provided for each of the two streets where an assessment is
proposed: Holly Road and Preston Lane. The worksheets are premised on the low bid
contractor quotes in Tables E (Streets and Restoration) of the bid document and on the
contracted consultant fee. The assessable construction costs for each of the streets is
established, pro -rated engineering costs are added, a 6% admin /legal, finance fee is applied,
and a final 70% share (per current legislative policy) for assessing is calculated. The assessable
project costs are divided by the assessable footage to derive the assessment rate. The "Final
Assessment Roll" summary sheets reflect the proposed assessments for each lot.
Council should note that staff prepared the assessable construction costs without benefit of the
customary 5 -10% contingency added to either the construction bid or the pro -rated consultant
fee. Staff is recommending waiving the contingency in anticipation of renegotiating lower
revised costs on some of the bid items. Staff also is concerned about keeping the assessment
rate as close as possible to the original estimate.
Clearly, the proposed assessment rates are higher than those quoted in original feasibility study
estimates. This is a reflection of the higher bids in the total contract. The consultant has
provided an assessment analysis to demonstrate how increased unit prices and changes in bid
item quantities, subsequent to the feasibility report, have contributed to the assessment rate
increase. In the case of Preston Lane, the analysis shows that an increase in quantities from the
feasibility phase to the bidding stage contributed at least 36% to the increase of the assessment
rate. Below is a comparison of the assessment rates:
Preston Lane
Feasibility rate - $51.03/FF
Proposed final rate - $55.90/FF
Holly Road
Feasibility rate - $53.32/FF
Proposed final rate - $55.08/FF
Council should also note that the bid documents reflect quotes in separate tables for utility
service costs on the part of the City and the homeowners. Table CI reflects costs the City may
bear in making new connections or repairs to resident owned water and sanitary services inside
the R.O.W. construction zone. Table C2 reflects costs the homeowners may have to bear
should upgrades to their sewer and water services be required outside the City's right -of -way.
Should homeowners face such costs, staff is prepared to have them sign waiver /petition forms
to have the cost placed on the property as a special assessment.
• Hearing date and timetable
Staff recommends an assessment hearing be held May 5, 1998. This is in keeping with a
project schedule, now somewhat delayed, that anticipates construction to begin by July 1, 1998.
Timetable
April 7 Order assessment hearing
May 5 Assessment hearing and adopt assessment roll
June 16 Award contract
July 1 Begin construction
October Project complete
• Recommendation
Staff recommends adoption of Resolution 98 -18 setting an assessment hearing date of May 5,
1998.
2
|
)
ni
\
o
;8834§
■§
a i;;
5
(
\
;
8
\
/
]
§
(
k
ƒ
|
§
\
§
t
k
§
eZ
}
|
■
fa
Lu
(
•
La
co
8
a
a
0
8
#
tl
8
a
a
8
8
8
#
a #
a
a
8
a
8
8
6
8
8
8
w
8
8
6
8
5
a
8
8
8
8
8
8
a
8
8
8
8
88
88
g
SS
a
8
8
a
N
U
6
8
#
8
8
a
8
8
6
U
a
8
g 8
8
8
x
a
8
5
a
a
8
8
a
8
e
a
3
m
F
gsk
1.1
8
8
R
a
8
4.
h
0
8
#
a
a
8
#
8
a
a
8
4
#
8
8
a
t
5
8
#
6
W
8
1
6
8
8
88
9a
88
8
z
b
8
3
W z
WI CO
8
a
2
8
8
8
6
aa
as
gg
8
88
8
8
88
in
88
8g
8
8
G
8
R
8
G
S
a
88
88
88
88
88
x
88
ga
S A
I
88
88
88
tt
cv
g
a
#
8
8
8
a
0
w
N
1
8
8
8
8
8
8g
FN
88 8
i E
8
a
8
8
SS
8
a
8
8
p
8
88888888$
w $a
»0. «R RR«
8$8188888
" JR QS'/»
8888
8.888.88888 q
as
z.
2
z
0
8$
cm
r0.
88
Sj
sa
RR
$ 81
at
88
88
aa
�Aa
R«
88
Fri
sn
a»
$
p 8
gh
Q
N
el a 1 .0 W
8
pan
6
8
»iw
88
4§ 4a
88
88
»s
88
3g
RR
88
»l
3
t
8
8
8
8
88
8I8
E
'
xs .
8
8
8
a
$
a
it
0
0
$ $'8
Sm
8$
51s
8
aa
88
4
88
bl�
88
R8
88
8§8
60.
U U
K
8
8
a
z
z
8
6
SS
a
„8
88
th
z
0
8
8
6
u
8
8
8
g 8
fi
6
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
88
8
8
R
A
8
8
h
8
a
8
8
8
8
8
8
NOW I
8
•
Vl
0
m
U z
y3 a
a
1-
u
8
8
8
g $
A
t
d
8
4.
8
A
8
8
8
8
8
V
8
Q
8
8
N
8
8
8 8
88
88
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
6
$
8
8
8
8
8
s
$
8
8
8
a
tt
8
a
S
8
8
8
8
1
8
a
8
8
a
u
8
8
8
8
8
8
88
»j
$ 88
8w
8
8
8
A
8
8
8
A
z
CO
0
m
LL o 2
O w .
1—ax
() P 2
g 0
m 8 8
a �2
re
0
N
0
4
•
88
nF
88
08 G
ary
88
88
r
88
a
8
d
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
a
d
6
8
A
8
1
8
8
8
8
88
48
CA
88
88
88
2
th
1 U
044
ill Qt.
88
Q
E8
gg
A8
8
8
a
g 8
8
A
88
8
A
NCO
8
8
8
8
A
8
n
Q 8
a
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
a
8
8
a
A
ig
b
8
8
8
8
8
a
8
F
0
ce
0
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
A
8
8
A
8
A
8
8
A
8
A
8
8
a
p 8
8
a
8
4
3
a
8
8
A
8
8
a
8
a
8
A
a
8
8
A
8
a
G
8
8
8
8
8
a
8
8
8
a
G
8
8
8
G
8
2
p 8
8
n 8
p 8
S
8
a
8
}
a
8
8
8
8
8
4
8
8
A
8
8
8
8
8
8
d
8
8
9
8
8
8
A
8
2
8
2
8
8
A
8
Cf
8
a
8
8
8
a
8
a
8
A
8
8
8
a
8
8
a
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
1
8
8
A
8
2
8
8
a
8
8
8
A
8
A
$ 8
A
8
88
A
8
8
8
8
8
A
8.
A
p 8
a
A
A
8
8
F
8
8
5 0
0
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
a
O F
5
A
8
8
8
8
1
a
3
8
8
1
z
8
a
p 8
8
8
8
8
8
5
8
9
5}
||}
)
a
B
\
|
2,28228888
/ye
!l;., :.,
as \g
8222888882 8
@ �
228288
»8
@
}
|
1
/
a gOin
MPOWNOMO
)
|
V)
W
o 8
V d
gla
re
z
0)
6
d
Q ;lit
0
cg,,
Og
88888888888 8
mIBE_IEV01 §t
8d8p8°R8888
-S' pap
»8
US
8
al
8
08
Ti
88
8
aa
'8
S
8
8
8
tY
8
5
8
8
8
ui
0
0
8
8
8
S
8
a
8
3
8
4 .
0
0,
0 m
8
rc
8
H
8
3
8
8
a
8
x
8
8
2
0
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
6
0
2
W
6
F
G
N
8
d
A
a
8
8
8
8
8
4
8
8
a
8
8
0
5
8
4
8
8
8
a
D
8
0
g 8
8
8
8
1
z
2
5
$
8
8
a
8
Yi
T
3
8
8
a
8
8
1
8
8
8
8
t
8
1
S
a
8
8
a
f
3
8
8
8
8
5
8
3
g $
8
8
88
88
88
8
N
0
8
1
»
z
8
8
8
8
a
8
»
z
z
a
8
X
9
N
8
8
»
8
a
88
$S
8 8
88
88
8 8 g 8
88
00
88
99
88
S'4
8 8
8
3
»
8
8
8
8
6
8 8
88
»»
F8
8
d
8
»
8
»
0
8
8
8
c
8
8
8
8
8
4
8
8
»
8
8
0
8
a .
8
888
a R
888
424
88
s 8
88
.
88
88
88
88
88
»8
Fa
88
Uf
N
N
8
8
8
a
8
8
8
8
9
8
8
8
8
8
a
Q
8
8
8
9
co
8
8
8
a
N.
8
8
8
4
8
8
8
01
8
8
Q
N
8
8
8
LL
a
8
8
8
2
8
8
8
8
0
8
8
6
8
8
8
8
z
6
8
8
a
8
8
8
a
8
8
8
8
3
8
8
8
2
0
N
2
3
8
O
8
8
8
2
0
N
0
8
a
i t
3
■
■
)
a
!
$
, « „!!!.8aaaaaa8 8
§§ § ;; | ;!] § ! }! |5)`§! °!»
r§;
88888..
;,_8888
, r■ ,,,, «. ;,r«a,Wla aaa•
fl-!! „!,!l;; ;; "§§##
\�c�~ \g \11111111111111111111111111111 2wgwewe :- - ` �� 2222z�a :� & | & & &�� � �����w� -- -- - ,, �: - - -�� �- �/g , �` :
} ��
}
; .
\ | \2`& » \ / \
@� | & & & & & &2 & |�� &|
111 /\ 142 u
& e e, a §;BEBBMA2
" e�#az
!
§ |
a.8fl8884888 888
, !SI ? ;
;; ; # ;Z«
.,. ;..�
;
4 ,,
,
88
■
§ ;!§
.
aaa
!!
!
. ,, .... ..a . ,;.:.;
a
Schedule
Engineer's
Estimate
Hardrives,
Inc.
S. Weidema
Midwest
Asphalt
Northdale
Const.
C.S.
McCrossan
A. Base Bid (original)
$441,208.00
$515,814.90
$579,040.20
$588,762.60
$640,573.75
$690,037.19
B. Base Bid (corrected)
$595,176.90
$584,474.20
$588,901.00
$644,180.59
$690,037.19
C. Base Bid (w /o unit
price error)
$500,136.90
BOLTON a-
Consulting Engineers & Surveyors
March 23, 1998
Mr. Steve Stadler
Director of Public Works
1010 1st Street
Hopkins, MN 55343
RE: Analysis of Bids and Recommendations
1998 Street and Utility Improvements
BMI No. TC97.0168 and TC97.0210
Dear Mr. Stadler:
1515 East Highway 13 • Burnsville, MN 55337 -6857
Phone (612) 890 -0509 • FAX (612) 890 -8065
Enclosed please find an abstract of bids for the above referenced project. We have reviewed the bids
received on March 12, 1998, for the above referenced project. The apparent low bidder from the bid opening
was Hardrives Inc. at $515,814.90 based upon the base bids. However, there was a unit price error in their
bid which caused the corrected bid amount to be $595,176.90. It is recommended that the City Attorney
review this bid error and make an opinion on the acceptance or nonacceptance of this bid. This could have
an impact on the final low bidder.
I. Bid Review
A breakdown summary of the Engineer's Estimate and the five (5) bids received on this project is
as follows:
A review of the bid items, as well as discussions with the three (3) contractors submitting the lowest bids,
indicated the following reasons for the increased construction costs:
1. Sanitary Sewer Pipe
The unit price bid for 8" PVC sanitary sewer is higher than estimated due to the perception that there
are low quantities and short runs of pipe. This would require multiple setups and mobilization of
the equipment around the project area. The sectional bid layout (a separate bid schedule for the
sanitary sewer work in each area or neighborhood) had an impact in the perception of work for this
item.
1
MANKATO, MN FAIRMONT, MN SLEEPY EYE, MN BURNSVILLE, MN AMES, IA LIBERTY, MO
An Equal Opportunity Employer
2. Watermain
Holly Road, Item 10, Wet Tap:
The wet tap for the south connection is significantly higher than estimated. In all cases, the unit
price bid includes the 6" water valve and box. The quantity for the 6" water valve and box for this
Location was included under Item 7, 6" gate valve and box.
3. Utility Services
The breakdown for these items for the low bidder were either at or below the engineer's estimate.
4. Storm Sewer
Mobilization costs was the primary factor here for Hardrives' bid. The next three bidders were
below the engineer's estimate.
5. Streets
A. Common Excavation:
The contract documents require the contractor to excavate, haul, stockpile (located by contractor),
rehaul and place suitable material back on the job site, either as trench backfill or as subgrade
backfill. The purpose is to promote the reuse of materials and recycling. This requirement did not
seem to have a great impact on the overall project costs, except for Midwest Asphalt. Their unit
price of $15.10 per cu. yd. reflects their experience from the 1997 First Street North project. All of
the unit prices for common excavation are higher due to the hauling and rehandling requirement.
Recommendation: Remove the requirement for reuse on the project and let the contractor determine
the most cost effective method of handling the suitable granular materials excavated from the
project. This would include complete removal of the existing materials and furnishing new or
recycled material for engineered fill.
B. Remove Bituminous Pavement
Two of the three low bidders, including Hardrives, would remove the existing pavement through
milling and/or reclaiming. Therefor, they would not need the item for saw cutting bituminous
pavement. Midwest proposed to saw cut and remove the pavement, haul the bituminous material
back to their yard and replace with recycled bituminous Under Midwest's bid, this material would
not be available for trench or subgrade backfill.
C. Saw Cut Concrete Pavement
There is a minimum charge for the subcontractor to mobilize on -site to complete the saw cutting of
the concrete driveways. Due to the bid format, it was believed that the quantity was low and
required multiple trips to the project. There are no phasing requirements in the contract. However,
the bid format led them to believe this.
D. Aggregates: Stabilizing Aggregate and Class 5
Both stabilizing aggregate and the Class 5 aggregate base, were higher than estimated due to the
higher costs received from the suppliers, namely Kramer or Shelly. The costs this year are $0.50
to $1.00 (8 -12% per ton) higher than last year. One reason is the runway construction scheduled
for this year at the Mpls/St. Paul airport. The higher aggregate prices were confirmed by all three
2
contractors. This cost increase had an impact on the granular items as well as the bituminous and
concrete items.
E. Bituminous Base Course and Wear Course
The thickened bituminous base along the outside edge of the pavement did not have any significant
impact in the unit price bid for bituminous base. These prices were mostly influenced by the
increased costs of aggregates, the increase in bituminous oil again this year, as well as the standard
MnDOT quality control specification. In accordance with this specification 2340, the - contractor as
well as MnDOT are required to complete specific testing of the mix, oil, aggregates and field
densities. Typically, MnDOT completes the "owner" testing and the contractor completes the
"contractor" testing. Due to the fact that the City of Hopkins does not have any testing laboratories,
the contractor is required to cover the costs of an independent testing firm. It has taken several years
for this specification to be fully implemented by both MnDOT and the City of Hopkins. The
contractors now have some experience in the testing costs and requirements and are beginning to
reflect these costs in the unit prices.
Recommendations:
Review the testing requirements and determine whether the City of Hopkins would need to require
all of the testing at the frequency specified by MnDOT. This would be true for all municipal
projects. All state -aid projects would still need to follow the MnDOT testing procedures and
frequencies to maintain funding eligibility.
6" Concrete Driveway
All of the prime contractors were surprised by the bids received from the concrete subcontractors.
The project was deemed to have a low quantity and, thus, a higher unit price. In addition, the Class
5 aggregate base, under the driveway is incidental to the concrete driveway Thus, the increase in
aggregate costs, as noted above, is also having an influence here as well.
G. 4" PE Pipe Drain
All of the contractors indicated that the small quantity did not warrant a subcontractor to trench the
pipe with a ditch trencher. They all indicated that they would be installing the pipe with a small
backhoe. The total Length of pipe for the project was 1400 feet for Holly and 1900 feet for Preston,
for a total length of 3300'. What influenced this decision mostly was the separate bid quantities for
each street.
In addition to the quantity cost factor, the aggregate costs also had an influence. The material
specification was for course filter aggregate for the trench backfill. Consideration could be given
to fine filter aggregate due to the aggregate costs this year. This could reduce the costs of aggregate
from $10- 12/ton to $5 -6 /ton
4. General Comments
Some general comments about the project are as follows.
A. Project Scope
The overall project scope was initially believed to be a sound project and the scope was readily
interpreted from the plans. However, each contractor had a change of heart after going through the
bid schedule. Some underground subcontractors classified this job to be a `junk job" because of all
3
the small quantities, and the unit prices were influenced by this perception. The quantities shown
were perceived to not be big enough to have any economy of scale, and to spread the overhead costs.
B. General Labor Rates
All of the contractors indicated that union labor rates are raising this year by $1.00 per hour. For
this project, that caused an overall project cost increase of approximately 5 to 10 %. It was indicated
that the union contracts allow for the same labor costs increases for the next 2 to 3 years.
Options and Recommendations
A. Accept Bids
In order to accept the bids with the low bidder of Hardrive Inc., the unit price error Within Hardrive's
bid would have to be addressed If this option is pursued, we recommend having the City Attorney
review the ramifications of this procedure and make an opinion. The second low bidder will need
to be contacted and asked whether he would have any objections to correcting the bid error in the
low bid.
In the event that the unit price error is ruled in favor of the City, the bids can be accepted. In order
to reduce the construction costs, the following items could be addressed and revised costs negotiated
with the contractor. Please note however, we may not have the opportunity to discuss project
revisions until after the contract is awarded This procedure will need to be discussed with the city
attorney.
✓ Requirement for reuse of on site materials.
✓ Material requirements for the stabilization aggregate as well as the pipe drain .
✓ Testing requirements for the bituminous pavement.
B. Reject All Bids, Rebid This Year
The second option is to reject all bids and rebid the project. If this option is chosen, consideration
should be given to having a single bid tabulation to combine all quantities of the same bid items.
This may not have the same impact now, after the initial bids, with the same project scope.
With rebidding the project, the following items would be addressed in light of the aggregate and
bituminous testing costs:
✓ Requirement for reuse of on site materials.
✓ Material requirements for the stabilization aggregate as well as the pipe drain .
✓ Testing requirements for the bituminous pavement.
Assuming the unit price error is acceptable, our recommendation is to accept the bids and negotiate a revised
costs for the stabilization aggregate as well as the pipe drains with the contractor. As noted in this report,
the majority of the price increases are due to the labor rate increase for all of the trade unions as well as the
aggregate material costs increase. These factors will have the same impact on the rebid. Therefore, the
desired costs savings could be achieved through negotiations rather than rebidding the project at a later date.
The fmal construction costs cannot be acquired at this time without meeting with the contractor. We can
meet with the contractor as soon as the city attorney has indicated that it is proper for us to initiate this
contact.
4
This concludes our review of the bids, and your options for proceeding ahead with this project. After you
have had an opportunity to review this information, please call and we can discuss you comments.
Sincerely,
BOLTON & MENK, INC.
Ronald A. Roetzel, r
Project Manager
cc: Jim Gessele, City of Hopkins
eYt yam. . �+t.�:y y ' J:..� ytty ;��{ y �{ x�xy
:.i : �C)y,, ,r v .' �' :s.: ,,:.: : „s:b::�x:Pu't'X �k:F i t
.;.;.:[:,,:. : >•<. m',. "✓.,�Gd::,� >w :.,:.:o. .�:> .c..,,�.. > s >q:.::r ::�•:::,..,. -c .:: ..
C:�; a '::y: °VG[':�:..
a . ; ....: �
: .:. ...... ?`:S _'j`:F " �.
Feasibility
Low Bidder
Total
Difference =
Difference by
Quantities +
Difference by
Bid Prices
Assessment
Rate
$51.03
$55.90
$4.87 =
$1.75 +
$3.12
♦�
e
(x
u:o.p: co... >..._. ,<x: w:::n
�
.q. ..:.: o.ao > %o�...
s.: .o
a. o 5" . ,'.
Feasibility
Low Bidder
Total
Difference =
Difference by
Quantities +
Difference by
Bid Prices
Assessment
Rate
$53.32
$55.08
$1.76 =
($1.34) +
$3.10
BOLTON 8- MINK,
Consulting Engineers & Surveyors
1515 East Highway 13 • Burnsville, MN 55337 -6857
Phone (612) 890 -0509 • FAX (612) 890 -8065
March 31, 1998
Mr. Jim Gessele
Engineering Supervisor
1010 1st Street South
Hopkins, MN 55343
RE: 1998 Street and Utility Improvements
Assessment Analysis
BMI Project Nos. TC97.0168
Dear Mr. Gessele:
I NC_
As you requested, we have done a comparison of the feasibility and low bidder assessment rates in order to
determine how increased unit prices and changes in bid item quantities may have contributed to the overall
increase between the two assessment rates. The following table is a summary of our fmdings:
The "difference influenced by quantity changes" is calculated as the assessable amount of the Engineer's
Final Estimate including contingencies minus the Engineer's Feasibility Estimate including contingencies.
The "difference influenced by higher bid prices" is the remainder of the "total difference ". By assuming
similar unit prices between the feasibility quantities and the final estimate quantities, we are able to
determine which quantity adjustments had the greatest influence on the overall costs of the assessments.
Using this approach, we discovered that the higher bid prices are fairly consistent between Preston Lane and
Holly Road, adding on average, $3.11 to the feasibility assessment rate.
MANKATO, MN FAIRMONT, MN SLEEPY EYE, MN BURNSVILLE, MN AMES, IA LIBERTY, MO
An Equal Opportunity Employer
Those bid items whose quantity adjustments have the most influence on the Preston Lane assessment rate
include Subgrade Excavation, Stabilizing Aggregate, 6" Concrete Driveway Apron/ Pavement, and Concrete
Cross Gutter. Between the feasibility and final design phases of the project, there was much discussion
regarding the interpretation of the Braun's soils report. The latest conclusions led us to increase the Subgrade
Excavation and associated Stabilizing Aggregate items. The increase in concrete item quantities hinges on
the discovery of additional concrete, rather than bituminous, driveways and the necessity of a cross gutter
along the church parking lot at the intersection of Preston Lane and Interlachen Road.
An analysis of Holly Road actually reveals a reduction in the assessment rate due to changes in the bid item
quantities, but unfortunately not enough to offset the higher bid prices. The adjusted bid item which has the
most influence on this reduction is Common Excavation. This quantity changed as a result of modifications
to the road's proposed profile.
If you have any questions regarding this analysis or would require any additional information to include in
your council report, don't hesitate to call.
Sincerely yours,
BOLTON & MENK,, A INC /
1 4Ac,tn,_ 4 C 7v4444,_
Marcus A. Thomas
Project Engineer
cc: Steve Stadler, City of Hopkins
JERRE A. MILLER
JEREMY S. STEINER*
WYNN CURTISS
Real Property Law Specialist certified
by the Minnesota State By Association
Jim Gessele
City of Hopkins
VESELY, MILLER & STEINER, P.A.
PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
400 NORWEST BANK BUILDING
1011 FIRST STREET SOUTH
HOPKINS, MINNESOTA 55343
March 26, 1998
Re: 1998 Street and Utility Improvement Contract
Dear Jim:
You have asked me to review an analysis by Bolton & Menk, Inc.
JOSEPH C. VESELY (1905 -1989)
612- 938 -7635
FAX 612 - 938 -7670
The specific concern raised in its' analysis was whether the unit price shown on Line 7 of Page 7 for
removal of concrete pavement should be interpreted as a figure of $800.00 or $8.00. The second
item on Page 14, Line 4 was an arithmetical error caused when filling in the amount by multiplying
$23.00 a unit price times a quantity of 310.
With respect to the item on Page 7, the bid reflects a unit price of $800 times a quantity of 120
totaling $960.00. The error is the lack of a decimal point between the 8 and the following 0 which
if multiplied as such would create an amount of $96,000.00 instead of $960.00. The question then
is whether this bid item is to be considered as a bid to remove each square yard of concrete for
$800.00 rather than $8.00 making a difference of approximately $95,000.00 in the bid.
The second concern on Page 14 of the bid is an incorrect multiplication of $23.00 times 310 units
which would be $7130.00 rather than the amount written in of $17,678.00.
In both instances an arithmetical error has occurred. With regard to the alleged error on Page 7,
regardless of a lack of a decimal point in the unit price, it is inconceivable that it could be construed
as a number other than $8.00. To support this the amount is correctly shown as $960.00. For this
reason, the lack of a decimal point is inconsequential and of no effect to the total of the bid package
and may be disregarded.
The alleged error on Page 14 is a little different in that the preparer of the bid incorrectly multiplied
the unit price bid of $23.00 times 310 units by inserting $17,678.00 in the amount column rather
than $7,130.00. It is impossible to tell how the preparer calculated the larger number since it bears
no relationship to the unit price of $23.00 times 310 units.
Jim Gesselle
March 26, 1998
Page 2
Instructions to bidders contained in the project manual in Paragraph 1.16A state that discrepancies
in multiplication of work units and price units will be resolved in favor of unit prices. It further
states that discrepancies between indicated sums of any column of numbers and the correct sum will
be resolved in favor of the correct sum.
This language alone gives the City sufficient authority to resolve both errors in favor of the
appropriate and obvious amounts. Thus, the correction on Page 7 should stand as $960.00 in the
amount column.
Furthermore, in Paragraph 4 of the Proposal section, it states that at bid opening time only totals will
be read but that a comparison of bids will be based on the correct summation of item totals obtained
from the unit prices that were bid. These particular paragraphs in the project manual give the City
sufficient authority to either disregard or correct arithmetical errors, thus permitting adjustment on
Page 14 of the Hardrives bid proposal to properly reflect the sum of $7,130.00 on Line 4.
I have been unable to find any cases involving readily ascertainable arithmetical errors. However,
the general rule concerning bid variations is that a bid must be rejected in those cases where there
is substantial variance between the bid and the plans and specifications prepared by the City upon
which the bids are based [Coller v City of St. Paul, 26 Northwestern 2nd 835 (1947)]. The test as
to whether a variance is a material one is whether a bidder gains a substantial advantage over other
bidders. If there is a material departure in any bid from city specifications that result in a benefit to
the successful bidder not provided to remaining bidders, then the bid must be rejected.
Applying the law to the facts presented here, there appears to be little or no doubt that the absence
of a decimal point on Page 7 does not reach the level of a material or a substantial variance and may
be disregarded.
The incorrect amount in the amount column on Page 14 is more complicated, but it is my opinion
that although there is a multiplication error in the amount column, the incorrection may be
disregarded because (i) the amount is wrong on its face, and (ii) a simple multiplication of the unit
price times the number of units is the appropriate and obvious amount.
On the basis of the cases I have read and applying the law to the facts presented in this matter, I
believe the errors may be disregarded in that they are minor, insubstantial and do not give rise to an
undue advantage in favor of the bidder in question.
JAM/so
c: \file\hopkins \gesseleltr
Si
Assume consultant fee for overall project without contingency
Assume total low construction bid without contingency
Assume Preston Lane reconstruction bid without contingency
Assume Holly Road reconstruction bid without contingency
Presto Lane Engineering
Const. Bid ($119,972.05) ± total bid ($500,136.90) = 0.24 (24 %)
Engineering cost therefore = $84,750 x 24% = $20,340.00
Holly Road Engineering
Const. Bid (89,935.35) _ total bid ($500,136.90) = 0.18 (18 %)
Engineering cost therefore = $84,750 x 18% = $15,255.00
Preston Lane Assessments
Const. Bid $119,972.05
Engineering 20,340.00
Admin. /legal @ 6% of const. 7 198.32
Total $147,510.37
70% share assessed per City policy = $103,257.92
Assessable footage = 1847.19 feet
Assessment rate = 103.257.92 = $55.90/ff
1,847.19
HOIly Road Assessments
Const. Bid
Engineering
Admin. /legal @ 6% of const.
Total
70% share assessed per City policy =
Assessable footage = 1405.32 feet
Assessment rate = 77.405.03 = $55.08/ff
1,405.32
Assessment Worksheet
Interlachen Park Street Improvements
$ 89,935.35
15,255.00
5 396.65
$110,587.00
$ 77,405.03
$ 84,750.00
$500,136.90
$119,972.05
$ 89,935.35
1 1301 Preston Lane 19- 117 -21 41 0014 90.00 90.00 $55.90 $5,031.00
2 1311 Preston Lane 19- 117 -21 41 0015 85.00 85.00 $55.90 $4,751.50
3 1319 Preston Lane 19- 117 -21 41 0016 85.00 85.00 $55.90 $4,751.50
4 1325 Preston Lane 19- 117 -21 41 0017 80.00 80.00 $55.90 $4,472.00
5 1401 Preston Lane 19- 117 -21 41 0018 80.20 80.20 $55.90 $4,483.18
6 1409 Preston Lane 19- 117 -21 41 0019 80.70 80.70 $55.90 $4,511.13
7 1417 Preston Lane 19- 117 -21 41 0020 80.70 80.70 $55.90 $4,511.13
8 1425 Preston Lane 19- 117 -21 41 0021 80.70 80.70 $55.90 $4,511.13
9 1501 Preston Lane 19- 117 -21 41 0022 80.70 80.70 $55.90 $4,511.13
10 1509 Preston Lane 19- 117 -21 41 0023 80.11 80.11 $55.90 $4,478.15
11 1517 Preston Lane 19- 117 -21 41 0024 100.34 100.34 $55.90 $5,609.01
12 29 Ashley Road 19- 117 -21 41 0033 80.00 80.00 $55.90 $4,472.00
13 1310 Preston Lane 19- 117 -21 41 0032 80.00 80.00 $55.90 $4,472.00
14 1318 Preston Lane 19- 117 -21 41 0031 80.00 80.00 $55.90 $4,472.00
15 1326 Preston Lane 19 -117 -21 41 0030 80.00 80.00 $55.90 $4,472.00
16 1402 Preston Lane 19- 117 -21 41 0029 80.20 80.20 $55.90 $4,483.18
17 1410 Preston Lane 19- 117 -21 41 0028 80.60 80.60 $55.90 $4,505.54
18 1418 Preston Lane 19 -117 -21 41 0027 80.70 80.70 $55.90 $4,511.13
19 1428 Preston Lane 19- 117 -21 41 0026 90.50 90.50 $55.90 $5,058.95
20 6 InterlachenRoad 19 -117 -2141 0025 271.74 271.74 $55.90 $15,190.27
Project 97 -12 Preliminary Assessment xis 4/1/98
Final Assessment Roll
Project 97 -12: Street Improvements
1,847.19 $103,257.93
1 200 Holly Road
2 212 Holly Road
3 220 Holly Road
4 234 Holly Road
5 248 Holly Road
6 254 Holly Road
7 262 Holly Road
8 201 Holly Road
9 209 Holly Road
10 217 Holly Road
11 225 Holly Road
12 235 Holly Road
13 241 Holly Road
14 255 Holly Road
15 265 Holly Road
Project 97 -12 Preliminary Assessment.xls 4/1/98
Project 97 -12: Street Improvements
Erorit `:
Otita0.::: Foot
19 -117 -21 0090 80.00 80.00 $55.08 $4,406.40
19- 117 -2144 0089 120.00 120.00 $55.08 $6,609.60
19 -117 -2144 0088 80.00 80.00 $55.08 $4,406.40
19- 117 -2144 0087 120.00 120.00 $55.08 $6,609.60
19 -117 -2144 0086 84.00 84.00 $55.08 $4,626.72
19- 117 -2144 0085 113.46 113.46 $55.08 $6,249.38
30- 117 -21 11 0007 105.00 105.00 $55.08 $5,783.40
19 -117 -2144 0064 80.00 80.00 $55.08 $4,406.40
19- 117 -21 44 0065 80.00 80.00 $55.08 $4,406.40
19- 117 -21 44 0066 80.00 80.00 $55.08 $4,406.40
19 -117 -2144 0067 80.00 80.00 $55.08 $4,406.40
19- 117 -21 44 0068 100.00 100.00 $55.08 $5,508.00
19- 117 -2144 0069 90.00 90.00 $55.08 $4,957.20
19- 117 -2144 0070 112.86 112.86 $55.08 $6,216.33
30- 117 -2111 0005 80.00 80.00 $55.08 $4,406.40
1,405.32 $77,405.03
CITY OF HOPKINS
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO. 98-18
RESOLUTION FOR HEARING ON PROPOSED ASSESSMENTS
INTERLACHEN PARK STREET IMPROVEMENTS, PROJECT 97 -12
WHEREAS, the Engineering Superintendent has prepared an assessment roll for Interlachen
Park Street Improvements, Project 97 -12, and
WHEREAS, the City Clerk has notified the Council that such proposed assessments have been
completed and filed in her office for public inspection,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
HOPKINS, MINNESOTA:
Attest:
1. A hearing shall be held on the 5 day of May, 1998, at the City Hall at 7:30 P.M. to pass upon
such proposed assessments and at such time and place all persons owning property affected by
such improvements will be given an opportunity to be heard with reference to such assessment.
2. The City Clerk is hereby directed to cause a notice of hearing on the proposed assessments to
be published in the official newspaper at least two weeks prior to the hearing and to mail
notices to the owners of all property affected by said assessments.
3. The notice of hearing shall state the date, time and place of hearing, the general nature of the
improvement, the area to be assessed, the total cost of each of such improvements, and that the
proposed assessment roll is on file with the clerk and that written or oral objections will be
considered.
4. The portion of the cost to be assessed against benefited property owners is declared to be
$180,662.96.
5. Assessments shall be payable in annual installments extending over a period of 10 years and
shall bear interest at a rate of 8 per cent per annum.
Adopted by the City Council of Hopkins, Minnesota, this 7 day of April, 1998.
Terry Obermaier, City Clerk
By:
Charles D. Redepenning, Mayor