CR 96-114 Award Meadowbrook Sanitary Lift StationJuly 15, 1996
1 v
Council Report 96 -114
5
0 p K ` N
AWARD CONTRACT FOR MEADOWBROOK SANITARY LIFT STATION, LIFT
STATION #5
PROJECT #96 -02
1
Proposed Action.
Staff recommends adoption of the following motion: Move that Council reject bids
received and direct staff to review project options, as recommended by consulting
engineer.
Overview.
Bids were opened on Sanitary Lift Station #5 Replacement on Friday, July 12 at
10:00 a.m. - two bids were received. The low bid of $280,850 was 33% above the
engineer's estimate of $210,362. The City's consulting engineer, Short, Elliott,
Hendrickson, Inc. (SEH) believes the major factor impacting the bids is a non-
competitive bid climate. Additionally, they feel the very tight working conditions may
have also inflated bid amounts. SEH, Inc. recommends rejecting the bids and has
identified several cost - saving options (described in the attached letter) for the City to
consider prior to readvertising.
•
Primary Issues to Consider.
• What is the impact of rejecting bids and readvertising for Spring, 1997
construction?
The City would be required to use the existing lift station another 9 months. This
is acceptable if project costs are lowered to the budgeted amount, or closer to the
budgeted amount. There would be some additional cost to readvertise the project.
However, this cost would be small in comparison to the possible bid savings.
• Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends Council reject bids. This will give staff time to evaluate
options to lower project cost. Staff would then return to Council at a future Council
Meeting for permission to proceed with the recommended course of action.
Supporting Information
• S letter with bid tabulation
Steven J. Stadler, Director Of Public Works
JUL -15 -1996 12:21 FROM SEH -MPLS
SSEH
July 15, 1996
Steve Stadler
Director of Public Works
City of Hopkins
1010 1st Street
Hopkins, Minnesota 55343 -7573
Dear Steve:
Enclosed is the tabulation of the bids received for this project on Friday, July 12, 1996. Both bids are
over the engineer's estimate. A third bid was received from Lametti & Sons, Inc. three minutes after
• the time established for receipt of bids. It was not opened.
The impact of the low bid amount on the total project budget is as follows:
SHORT ELLIOTT
HENDRICKSON INC.
Low Bid Amount
Stucco Exterior Add Alternate
Pump Package
Pump Controls Package
Soil Boring and Testing
Forcemain Televising
Design and Construction Engineering
Less MCES Construction Reimbursement
Less MCES Engineering and Administrative Reimbursement
Permit Fees and Expenses, and Contingencies
Total Budget as Bid
The budget in the capital improvements program for engineering and construction for this project was
$280,000. Our estimate upon completion of the design matched that total project cost estimate. The
higher than expected bids would push the budget for the total project cost almost 15 percent higher
than the original budget to $320,000.
The major factor impacting the bids is that the bidding climate was not as competitive as it could have
been because many of the contractors who do this type of work are busy working on or bidding on
• other projects. One of the bidders indicated that eight other lift stations were currently advertised for
bids. One of the bidders obtained plans and bid on the project only after encouragement by our office
sr PAUL, MN
TO 9391381 P.02
5 909 BAKER ROAD. SUITE590, MINNETONKA, MN 55345 812 9314501 FAX 612 931.1168
ARCHITECTURE • ENGINEERING • ENVIRONMENTAL • TRANSPORTATION
ST CLOUD, MN
RE: Hopkins, Minnesota
Sanitary Sewer Lift Station No. 5
Replacement
City Project No. 96 -02
SEH No. A- HOPKN9601.00
$280,850.00
2,000.00
9,755.40
6,574.30
3,000.00
524.00
36,930.00
- 22,900.00
- 4,122.00
7388.30
$320,000.00
CHIPPEWA FALLS, WI
MADISON, WI
JUL -15 -1996 12:21 FROM SEH -MPLS
Steve Stadler
July 15, 1996
Page 2
during the latter stages of the bidding period.
TO 9391381 P.03
Review of the bids reveals that several bid items are significantly over the engineer's estimate. The
most significant deviation from the engineer's estimate is for the bid on the control and generator
building. Based on discussions with the contractors after the bid, it would appear that the difficulties
of construction in a very tight site are reflected in this bid item. The site is just large enough to
construct the new lift station and the control and generator building prior to demolition of the existing
lift station. There is very little maneuvering room on site. Trees immediately adjacent to the lift station
easement make additional easement of little value to the contractor. The impact of the tight working
conditions may have been underestimated.
It would appear that the City has several alternatives available at this point:
1. Adjust the budget for the project, accept the bids, and award the project to MC Magney
Construction. MC Maguey is familiar with this type of work and is currently working on a
similar project for the City of Hopkins.
2. Reject the bids and immediately rebid the project for late fall construction. The theory would
be that more bidders would be interested in the project during a different timeframe. It is
doubtful that sufficiently competitive bids will be received over the next few months.
3. Reject the bids and rebid the same project this winter for a spring construction start.
Contractors like to get their first project of the spring construction period lined up in the
winter so they know they have work for their people. This may be the way to get the most
interest in this project.
4. Reject the bids and redesign the project to make use of the existing lift station structure It
has been the desire of the public works staff to have a totally new lift station constructed
followed by demolition of the old lift station. The belief was that the cost would be no
greater than the cost of converting the existing lift station into a submersible lift station. A
new lift station would likely be a tenet product than a renovated lift station. however, based
on the bids received, it may be desirable to reexamine those assumptions. A redesigned lift
station could be rebid in the winter for spring construction.
5. Reject the bids and rebid the project as designed against a renovated lift station. This
alternative has the advantage of determining in fact which method of replacement of Lift
Station No. 5 is most cost - effective.
Any cost savings which might be realized as a result of alternatives 4 or 5 would be partially offset
by additional design and administrative costs. Alternatives 2 and 3 would incur only minor
administrative costs.
Other issues and their status are as follows:
1. The conditional use permit process that the City of Saint Louis Park is requiting of this
project prior to issuance of a building permit should be complete after the August 5, 1996,
Saint Louis Park City Council meeting. Based on feedback from city staff, we do not
JUL -15 -1996 12:22 FROM SEH -MPLS
Steve Stadler
July 15, 1996
Page 3
TO 9391381 P.04
anticipate any difficulties as long as the City of Hopkins agrees to a stucco exterior.
2. The Minneapolis Park Board anticipates completion of processing of their pemrit for this
project at the July 22 Park Board meeting. The Park Board is asking for additional
landscaping, including some vines on the south face of the building. We are still in
discussion with them on this issue as we do not feel there is enough room on the site for
additional plantings. When the trees proposed on the current site plan are mature, it is
questionable whether any of the golfers would even be able to see the building. The Park
Board will also be requesting that the decorative limestone landscaping material, the
modular block retaining wall, and the building faces all have compatible (probably tan)
colors.
3. Other permits should be issued shortly.
4. The easement that the City of Hopkins obtained in 1948, which has been quit claimed in
favor of the Metropolitan Council Environmental Services (MCES), has an expiration date
of December 31, 1997. The Minneapolis Park Board has begun the process of extending the
duration of that easement. They have indicated a reluctance to convert the easement to a
permanent easement.
5. The MCES has indicated verbally (through Jim Roth) that they would be agreeable with
award of the bids as received. In addition, they will begin the process of relinquishing their
easement rights on this site other than as necessary to own and maintain the metering
station.
We recommend that the bids be rejected. We further recommend that you and your staff further
consider alternatives 3-5.
We are available to assist you in advancement of this project as you deem appropriate.
Sincerely,
el R. Boxru, P.
Project Manager
ymb
c: Jim Roth, MCES
Enclosure
t+WORneROC OPICNCOI1b0X7CUMgIps,EC W?D
1
1
Lt
Engineer's Estimate
MC Mammy Construction
ITEM
UWr
ESTIMATED
QUANTITY
UNIT PRICE
TOTAL
AMOUNT
UNIT PRICE
TOTAL COST
Crider Construction
2
3
4
5
6
7
$
B
10
11
1
1 2
13
14
15
18
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
1127
23
20
30
31
32
33
34
35
30
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
TRAFFIC C
TRAFFIC C ONTROL
BUILDING DEMOLITION
REMOVE CONC. SIDEWALK
REMOVE CONC, CURB AND GLITTER
SAWCUT CONC. PAVEMENT
REMOVE CONC. PAVEMENT
SAWCUT BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT
REMOVE BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT
REMOVE AND REPLACE RCP STORM SEWER
ABANDON EXISTING FORCEMAIN
CLEARING
GRUBBING
SILT FENCE, PREASSEMBLED
SITE GRADING
REMOVE UNDERGROUND FUEL TANK
AGGREGATE BASE, CLASS 5 (100% CRUSHED)
TYPE 41A BIT. WEARING COURSE MIXTURE
4' CONCRETE BASE
4' CONC
CONCRETE WALK
6" CONCRETE DRIVEWAY
CONC. CURB AND GUTTER, DES, 9618
18' DIP, 01., 53 SANITARY SEWER
CONNECT TO EXISTING MANHOLE
WET PIT SEWAGE PUMPING STATION
VALVE VAULT
METER VAULT
6" DIP. CLASS 53 FORCEMAIN
CONNECT TO REHABILITATED FORCEMAIN
CLEAN EXISTING 10" C.I.P.
10' NOMINAL C.I.P.P.
BYPASS PUMPING
REINSTALL FENCE
REINSTALL PEDESTRIAN GATE
REINSTALL VEHICLE GATE
WIRE FENCE
SODDING
2 112' REDMOND LINDEN
8' BALSAM FIR
3'HIGHBUSHCRA4BERRY
LIMESTONE ROCK MULCH
PLASTIC EDGER
LANDSCAPE FABRIC
CONTROL ANO GENERATOR BUILDING
MODULAR BLOCK RETAINING WALL,
MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT
ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT
INSTALL METER R.T.U. ENCLOSURE WJCONC, PAD
ELEC 1
' CAL FO MCES METE 849 STATON
TOTAL ESTIMATED COST
LS,
L.S.
LS.
S.F.
LF,
LF,
S.F.
LF.
S.F.
L.F.
EACH
EACH
EACH
LF,
LS.
L.S.
UV
IN-SY
1N•37
S.F.
S.F.
L.F.
L.
EACH
LS.
L.S.
L.S.
LF.
EACH
LF.
1,F.•0
LS.
L.S.
L S.
LS,
LF.
L.S.
L.S,
EACH
EACH
TON
LF.
$.Y
LS.
LS.
LS.
L.S.
'S•
$
1.0
1.0
1.0
495.0
30.0
85,0
750.0
85.0
750.0
24.0
1,0
1.0
1.0
200,0
1.0
1.0
1015.0
355.0
870.0
360.0
100.0
30.0
45,0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
80.0
1.0
430,0
1.0
1,0
1.0
1,0
20.0
1.0
2.0
3,0
5.0
2.5
80.0
22.0
1.0
200.0
1.0
1.0 1.0
1,0
37,400.00
$1,500.00
515,000.00
40.40
52.00
35,00
54.00
32.00
30.50
530.00
$10100.00 00
325010
$100.00
$4.00
$5,000.00
$1,000.00
32.00
32.50
35.00
52.00
33.00
512,00
3100,00
31,000.00
540,000.00
$5,000,00
$4,000,00
350.00
31,000.00
53.00
360'00
33,000.00
3500,00
3500.00
3800,00
320.00
42;000.00
3300,00
5260.00
535.00
365,00
$2.00
31.75
512,000.00
$20.00
810,000.00
333,300.00
$1.000.00
00 00
37,400,00
51.500.00
515.000.00
3198.00
560.00
$425.00
33,000.00
$170,00
3375.00
230.00
$100,00
3250.00
5100.00
5900,00
55,000.00
$1,000.00
32,030.00
3887.50
33,350.00
5720,00
3300.00
3360.00
54500,00
$1,000.00
340,000,00
$5,000.00
34,000.00
$3,00000
51,000,00
31.280.00
334,400.00
33.000.00
$600,00
5500.00
$800.00
5400.00
$2,000.00
3690,00
3780.00
4175.00
3182.50
5160.00
838.50
$12,000.00
54,000.00
310,000.00
333,300.00
$1,000.00
33 700.00
5210,381.50
I
26,000.00
3,000.00
5,000,00
1.00
10.00
9.00
200
4,00
1.00
50.00
1,000,00
600.00
1,200.00
4,00
5.50000
3,500.00
2.00
8.00
8.00
3.00
5.00
10,00
200.00
1,000.00
35,000.00
15,000.00
14,500.00
60.00
1,200.00
9.00
62.00
4,00000.
800.00
200.00
500,00
20.00
2,000.00
250.00
300.00
250.00
100.00
2.00
5.00
40,000,00
1200
5,000.00
44,000.00
2,00 0.00
5 500,00
328,000.00
$3,000.00
$5.000.00
3495.00
5300.00
3765.00
31,500.00
5340,00
5200,00
81,200,00
31.000.00
$600.00
81.200.00
$800,00
55,500.00
33,500.00
$2,030.00
$2,130.00
45,360.00
81,080,00
$500.00
330000
30.000.00
31,00000
535,00000
$15,000.00
$14,500.00
53,600.00
31,20000
53,870.00
522,360,00
54,000.00
3800.00
3200.00
350000
8400.00
$2,000.00
$500.00
5900.00
$1,250.00
5250.00
516000
3110,00
540.000.00
52,400.00
55,000.00
$44,000.00
52.000.00
'.6 500,00
5230,650,00
, UNTr PRICE
16800.00
2,090.00
16.94000
0.60
4.00
4,80
1.20
3.60
0.40
42.50
150.00
300.00
300.00
2.80
2,02000
4,640.00
4.00
17,60
23.20
4.30
17.40
563.00
731,00
71,14000
16.160.00
16.630.00
43.00
1.700,00
9.30
59.00
8.600.00
930.00
230,00
35000
12.00
1,800.00
175.00
230.00
160.00
100.00
2.00
3,00
43,70000
12,110.00
46,400.00
1,16000
2 9 �0 00
TOTAL COST
318,800.00
$2,090.00
316,940.00
3297.00
$120.00
$408.00
5900.00
5306,00
5300.00
31,020.00
515000
5300.00
$300,00
5560.00
82,020.00
34,640.00
54,000.00
*0.246.00
$51,044.00
3430.00
552200
$26,335.00
5731.00
371,140.00
316,160.00
$18,930.00
32.560.00
31,700.00
53,009.00
525,370.00
30600.00
5930.00
3230.00
3350,00
3240.00
$1,600.00
335000
$690.00
$800,00
5250.00
5160.00
543,700.00
L
$2,1000.00
$40400.00
$ 000.00
32 00000
0965,180.00
Saniialy Sewer Lift Station No. 5 Replacement
Hopkins, Minnesota
July 12, 1996
No. A•H0PKN98o1,00
JUL - 15 - 1996 12:22 FROM SEH -MPLS
BID TABULATION
TO 9391381 P,05
TOTAL P.05
BIDDER
5%
BID BOND
BID AMOUNT
Lametti & Sons
,, 1-6
GHT Construction
MC Magney Construction
Zg °, tom.
Rice Lake Contracting
Municipal Builders
J &D Enterprises
Gridor Construction
34.3 1jO
s
cSEN
Client: City of Hopkins
Project: Lift Station No. 5 Replacement
City Project No. 96 -02
SEH No.: A- HOPKN9601.00
BIDS RECEIVED
Date: 7/12/96