CR 91-124 Central Park Field
t.,
(
"
1
\ 1 y 0 I
:M
o P K \ ~
Council Report:
91-124
~-
.
June 4, 1991
CENTRAL PARK FIELD REHABILITATION
Proposed Action.
Staff recommends adopting the fOllowing motion: "Award the contract
for Central Park Field Rehabilitation to Hartman Excavatina in the
amount of $113.512.00".
Overview.
As part of the 1988 bond referendum, a master plan for Central Park
was approved by the city Which included phasing the park improvements
over a three year period. As Council is aware, the city received a
grant from the Department of Trade and Economic Development in the
amount of $110,000 for the upgrading of Central Park. One of the
improvements .scheduled for the second year at this. park was the field
rehabilitation which includes ballfield fencing.
Bids for the field rehabilitation Were receiv~dand opened on May 23,
1991. Bid results were as follows.
BIDDER
TOTAL BID
.
R.J. Valek Construction
Hartman.Excavating
Matt Bullock Construction
G.L. contracting
Finley Bros. Ent.
Braun Turf Farms
98,874.20
113,512.00
116,772.68
122,467.60
124,060.00
127,143.12
The amount estimated for this park improvement was $99,000. staff
recommends.acceptance of the bid from Hartman Excavating based on
previous experience, reference check and the overall best interests of
the city. R.J. Valek Construction submitted the low bid of
$98,874.20.
Primary Issues to Consider.
o Is the award to Hartman Excavating. for Central Park Field
Rehabilitation in the best interest of the City?
o Is the bid of $113,512.00 a problem for the budgeted amount for
this project?
SupportinaInformation.
.
o
o
o
Analysis of Issues
'd Tabulation
tters from Westwood Professional Services, Inc. 5/29/91
Parks & Forestry
.~
.
.
;. f
Council Report: 91-125
Page 2
Analysis of Issues.
o Is the award to Hartman Excavating for Central Park Field
Rehabilitation in the best interest of the City?' '
o
Established criteria was used to evaluate references, equipment,
and past similar work of )::>othR. J., Valek and Hartman Excavating .
staff strongly feels that R.J. Valek construction has not
completed projects of this scope in the past and does not have
the required fencing experience. Furthermore, the references
provided by Valek were either .not aware of R.J. Valek
Construction or unsure if they could handle the work. It is also
doubtful if R.J. Valek Construction owns the equipment required
to perform the work in a timely and efficient manner. Staff is
recommending that the bid of R. J. Valek be not accepted and that
the bid for Central Park Field Rehabilitation be awarded to the
second low bidder, Hartman Excavating. Hartman had very good
references and has previously completed projects of this nature
in a very acceptable manner. This firm furthermore plans to use
the subcontractor Modern Fence to do all fencing on the site
instead of attempting to do it themselves as R,. J. Valek had
proposed. Modern Fence has an excellent background working on
ballfield fencing projects such as Central Park.
Is the bid of, $1.13,512.00 a problem for the budgeted amount for,
this project?
The original estimate for this project when applying for the
grant was $73,000. This estimate was revised to $99,000 as it
,became apparent that more work was necessary than originally
thought. The difference of $40,000 is partially covered by the
fact that other bids on this project have come in below estimates
as follows.
pro;ect
Estimated
Amount
Actual
Bid
Central Park Lighting
Central Park Hockey Rink
Central Park Irrigation
Central Park picnic Shelter
Engineering Costs
66,000
25,000
60,000
6,000
23.700
180,700
55,690
20,583
51,387
3,851
17.000
148,511
The $32,189 savings on other Central Park bids partially offsets the
$40,000 overage on the Central Park Field Rehabilitation bid. The
difference of $8,000 is proposed to be shared 50% 'with the grant final
payment. This would leave the city with only a $4,000 differential on
the entire Central Park project. '
.
.
.;:...,
,~
~il!:
"0 C
~ ;;J
~~e
....;o-t
~:><...
,.,..,2
~~
;0
W
...
e
~
2
"0
~
a
...
...
c
o
"0
12
~
i;f
'<
N
~
'"
~
\
19
fl
~ "F P ~ ~ ? 1'" !"
l" {') ~ :" l" ;-' l" !'"' !" ;"
~ ~ ~ ~ '~ ~ I .., c! ~ .. N ;;; .., ..,
... ai H ~, 8;;;
~ :z ;0 .. ~ . .. ~ . ~' ~[;
H ,., .... tt .... tt .... i!,:;jb
g H H ~ :z 3: ,11lO i!i ., :r
... ~ i!$ ~ m en ;0 '" - ~ "'IlOH ~..,
r l:l ~ g ~H~ ~...~ . ... "" . ... ""
... ;} ;0 S! ~ :J m N m~
w !;; i ~ '" 0 ~ a ~ '" r '" r
... I i. Cl ~ ~ ... "'jg ~. jg .. Cl III .. 0 III
0 i!$ 3, ~~ It .., ::; It..,::;
.. : .... r :;:m il ~
H ~ --~r: -~E:
... a F ... .. .... .., ~ w ~
;0 - .... ,:z :T ~ . ..
H .... r "0 ~ F r ... :z ...:z
n -:;, ~ ~ a B r ~'" ilii'"
-:;, IlO ! I m ~ ~ g : g ~~ ~~
5' i!' ..,0 ....0
IlO ... IlO IlO
.... .... ~ :I
.... ~ ~ ~ ~ ~, 0 ... ...
:J "0
~ !'
....
III r .~ l" n n n :r g 2 r ~ ~ r r c
;.: ;.: ;.: ;.: ;0 in in :z
:" ;< ;< .., ...
'" -I
~ ~ N :::J ~a
.~ .... ~ g: ~
g: ~ N 13 ~ ~
01 0 P !" l" !" !"
8 8 8 8 8 8 8 .0 0 8 8 C) 0 0 8 ~.
0 0 0 0 0
N W W W
~ ~ '" ~ 8 0 ~ g:
~ N ~ .... .... l" ~ :" P 0
~ 8 8 is 8 8 0 8 0 0 IS 8 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
.... ~', ~ :::J ;;; .... w
w i ~ ~ N .. '" W
lfl ~ t;i ~ ~ .... ~ ~ N g: g:
N 13 13 p p
0 0 8 8 8 8 8 8 0 8 0 8 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
N N "
8 t:l !d ~ lJl w i!l!i!
.... .... 01 '" P g: '" f;l:j
N .... ;-' ;oJ l" :" !" P 0
8 2l 8 ~ 8. is IS 8 8 IS ~ 8 0 0 0
Ul 0 0 0
~ ~ ~ ~ .... !!i ~ ~ ~ N ~ '" N N ~~
!3) !l} ~ '" '" .... w w
l!l l!l '" '" '" l!l
p l" !" P
~ 8 8 8 8 8 8 0 8 0 cO lS 0 0 0 - 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
N i w "
2! ...' .. ~ l:;l '" i!l!i!
.... .... ~ u: :" ? l" l!l ~ :" !1l N ~ f;l:j
IS is 8 i:: is IS 8 0 0 IS at 0 .... :0 '"
0 0 0 lfl UI Ul
~ ~ N W u; W W
S .... ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ' ~ III ~ :1 'g ~ ~~
.. N 'F
l'" Ul ;-' !"
N 8 8 '8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 ..-J 8 IS '" '"
lfl Ul
.
. ~ " .
~ N '!!i &1 ~~
.... ~ iD ~ f;l:j
~ N !" !" l" l" :" l" 01
u: 8 8 ~ IS ~ .... 0 0 0 'g 0 0 8 0
Ul 0 0 0 0 0 0
.... N ~ ~ \ ~
en ~ .. Ul ;;; t:l .. .... i ~~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ !::l ~ '" .... '"
~ 0 0 ~ '" P
l" P P P 01 I"
ill 8 8 8 8 8 0 0 0 0 0 ill 0 0 0 0 mr
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
'.. E ~ "
:g ~ '" ~ ;oc
~ ~ ....'"
.... .... ~ p 0 8 a ... .. f;l:j
N 0 '" p P l" l"
8 IS 8 ill 8 ~ '" 0 8 ;,. IG 8 0 0 0
0 0 Ul Ul 0 0 0
N ii N :::J ~
~ ~ i ~ 01 N ~ ~ ~ ... .. "-1
!3 5i IS ~ '" N ..: ..: ~~
?i l!l p: ~
8 8 8 8 8 p 8 'l" l"
8 8 0 8 0 8 8 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
~ .... w ~ r ~ .~
~ N ~ ? .. '" l" !'i :" :" (;)
8 8 8 ~ 8 8 8 8 IS t:. w
Ul
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ N ~ N W W ~ ~
i!1 ~ ~ IS ~ ~ ....
<;! 0
0 l'" P 0 P
~ 8 8 8 8 0 8 8 0 0 8 l::l 0 0 0 8
C) 0 0 C) 0 0
s;
i
~
;J
i!$
<i-.
i-
I
i!$
I
~
~
~
i
=1
~
~
~
..,
H
:z
S
~
~
ro
f-
~
~
-" ;.~
.
.
.
,.' $' ,
r
':"
Westwood Professional Services. Inc.
May 29, 1991
14180 Trunk Hwy, 5
Eden Prairie, MN 55344
612-937.5150
FAX 612.937-5822
Mr. RayVogtman, Parks Supt.
City of Hopkins
Public Works Building
Hopkins, MN 55343
RE: Central Park Field Rehabilitation (Project 90-10)
Dear Ray,
. I have checked the references provided by R.J. Valek Construction and Hartman
Excavating, Inc. Valek's provided four (4) references. I called all four and
received responses from the four. Hartman's provided eight (8) references. I
called all eight and received responses from seven.
My comments are as follows:
R.J. Valek Construction - Low Bidder at $98.874.20
We have some reservations regarding R.J. Valek's experience and performance
record. We would like a contractor that has the equipment in hand, has done/
completed comparable projects ,and has the comparable experience required for a
project like Central Park Rehabilitation.
The responses from Valek's references were not convincing that they could
handle the work.
You will note they will be constructing the chain link fencing and backstops
themselves.
We are troubled by the deficiencies that are becoming apparent and seem to
exist with Valek's.
Hartman Excavatinq - 2nd Low Bidder at $113.512.00
Hartman's references check out well. Hartman Excavating has a long and
reputable "track record." They have shown and demonstrate that they are
qualified to perform and provide a good finished product.
They have constructed/completed parks and recreation projects coupled with
considerable golf course work that definitely applies to the athletic field
rehabilitation at Central Park.
Westwood Professional Serv~ces, -Inc. is an e~ual opp~rtunitV employer.
.
,.
... i:- ~ -i
'.
.",
For-specific responses and commeI1:ts, please call me.. The-ultimate decision
should be made by the City.
Sincerely, .'
WESTWOOD PROFESSIONAL SERVICES, INC.
. .~tlW.... !51n~.
Gordon P. Anderson
-. Enclosures
-.
:",
.
...
.
.
.
.'''' .'i
r'lA'(-29-1'3'31 15: 2'3 FF:m'l i.dESTlAICiClD F'FDF. ~::;C:F\.1 ICE'::,
r'J. [; 1 OJ.
WestWood Professional Services. Inc.
'1'0:'
FROM:
tlA'n:
RE:
Ray vogf:man
Gordon Anc:ierson
May 29, 1991
Referen<;:e Cheek
I have talked to:
TiJ
1:;:3'3 1 :;81
'"
......
(
14180 irunK I-twy. 5
Ed~n Pr:!l,rh~. MN 55344
612-937-$1$0
- Modern Fence CO.
Randy Kleve
Modern Fence
5566 peterson aoad
White Bear Township
Phone: 426-4097
'.,
.....
""
"..
"
These are the completed municipal/athletic field p~6j~cts with r~~es he
has from 1989 and 1990. He does have the experiencee in fencing and
backstops, these look good!
19.90
1.
2.
3.
mi
4.
" 5.
6.
~
Savage
Little Canada
WOodbury
Shoreview
Onive.::sity of
Minnesota
St. Paul Campus
White Bear Lake
P'acilit:z
. ~Qntact
Community Park
4 Softball Fields
Tsnnis Courts-Double
City of Savage
or
wall j' E:bert;~
Cont.t'actoi;'s
735-0715
~ioneer park
4 Softball Fields
Tennis Court~-Ooubl~
t.:~rry Wacke::-
Sanders & Assoc.
221-0401
or
Buck Blacktop
Ojihway PaX'k.
4 Sof~ball Fields
1 Basel'>>llTield
1 Batting Ca9's
City of woodbury
Bob Klatt
?a~k.s & 'Rec.
739-5972
City of Shorevlew Parks'
3 Softball Fields
1 Baseball 'Field
tennis Courts 12 -
6 Ooub1es
City of Shoreviaw
Tennis Courts 6
(3 over 3)
lI'.arv Severso:::.
625-0761
Lakewood Hills
9 Softball Fields
Ron Peltier.
~.~S.ff"It",.I~ ....I'ttwll~:tfl'if'r~.