Loading...
1991-085 o o o CITY OF HOPKINS Hennepin County, Minnesota RESOLUTION NO: 91-85 RESOLUTION FOR AWARD OF BID MAINSTREET RECONSTRUCTION - SUPPLY OF LIGHT POLES AND FIXTURES BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF HOPKINS, MINNESOTA, that the bid of Judd Supply Company in the amount of $144,021.00 is the lowest responsible bid (as outlined and recommended in attached Exhibits A and B) for the construction of Mainstreet, City Project 90-04G, and the Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized and directed to enter into a contract with said bidder for and on behalf of the City. Adopted this 25th day of June, 1991 ( . , EXHIBIT A o MEMORANDUM DATE: May 29, 1991 Lee Gustafson, Director of Public Works Dick Koppy, Project Manager of Mainstreet street lighting hardware selection TO: FROM: SUBJECT : During the design review process on the Mainstreet improvement project, one of the most difficult decision items was the hardware selection on street lighting. Consequently, during the bidding process several alternatives were bid to the base bid. Over the past few weeks the consultant staff and the City staff have reviewed the lighting hardware 'bids and focussed upon the 'following three bids. The hardware that was bid included 96 single street light acorn fixtures and poles, 33 double street light acorn fixtures and poles, and 20 traffic signal ,pedestal ,poles. o Davis & Associates, Low,bid of $143,510 for Steel Hardware o Judd Supply, Second low bid of $144,021 for Steel Hardware o EESCO/United Electric, Low bid of $179,390.75 for Concrete Hardware 0' , On May 15,1991 in the City, Hall Raspberry Conference Room the City's representatives. met with representatives of each of the three bidders to specifically review their products. The following people were present representing the City: Lee Gustafson, Public ~Works staff, City ..Jim Gessele~ Engineering ': Willie Meadows, Public Works 'Vern Pankratz, Public Works Jay Cain, Cain-Duse Electrical Consultants Bill Ferguson, Cain-Duse Tim Erkkila, Westwood Landscape Architect Dick Koppy, Project Manager This group of City representatives spent approximately two and one-half hours reviewing the proposed hardware from the three companies previously 'mentioned. The representatives for the bidders were allowed approximately .30 to 40 minutes to demonstrate, explain and answer questions about their 'lighting hardware. At the conclusion of the meeting, a brief critique . session was held. Later, reports were written by each of the consultants.- 'This memorandum represents a collection of the findings of each of the 'consultants, plus the opinions of the staff of the City. The following matrix illustrates the comparative differences between the hardware selections of the three bidders. ' Objectively based, the eight person reviewing committee has reviewed and agreed with the rating. The comments ~~e added where there is a,significant concern about the product at this w:~me. #..~, EXHIBIT A Memorandum to Lee Gustafson, Lighting Hardware Page 2 o ; 'Criteria Davis/Assoc. Judd Supply EESCO/United BASE *Materials Good Good + Fair + Base materials have a more pronounced sculptured appearance *strength, Weight Good Good Good :' Fair Good Fair ....i Fair Good Good *Appearance *Connection to Pole POLE *Materials - Good Good + Good + Inside of the steel pole has a K-seal resin that resists rusting *strength, Weight Fair Fair Good *Appearance Good Good Fair+ 0.' + Concrete color has not been demonstrated. *Brackets, charact~ristics of attachments Good Good Fair+ .. ~ + The manner of fabrication was described but there are concerns with the results that are projected without seeing a modeJ.. - ". ..~ .. - Minimal Minimal Fair+ + There is an opportunity for considerable damage to occur if a motor vehicle hits a concrete light. pole'. FIXTURE *Materials I ~. Good Good Good '*Ease of Maintenance Fair Good Fair '*Cross Arm for Double Fixture.Fair Good Fair *Globe and cap appearance Good Good Good o .. ", I 1 EXHIBIT A . Memorandum to Lee Gustafson, Lighting Hardware o .._" ',~' Cr1 ter1a ASSEMBLED UNIT *Appearance Page 3 Davis/AssOc. Judd SUDolv EESCO/Unite Good Good + Good ++ + ' The review committee felt this unit had the best appearance. ++ Tim Erkkila, ASLA, Westwood, commented that the concrete pole/fixture may not be an appropriate material for use on Mainstreet as an historic theme element, and that the DRC rejected the concrete hardware alternate. Life Cycle Cost + Fair Good Fair . ," . + We have reviewed the 30 year life cycle costs for the steel pole/fixtures compared to the concrete pole/fixture. o '-;>~ " . -. -- Assumptions: ' 1 . steel bases, poles and fixtures will have to be painted every 7 years. During the 30 year life cycle, 'each pole is painted,three times. 1991 painting costs by City personnel equals an estimated $160 per unit. 2. Concrete bases,' poles will not have. to be painted during the 30 year life. 3.' At the completion of the 30 year period, both installations will have equal salvage value. 4. Knockdown maintenance costs were not included in the life cycle costing. Hardware costs and maintenance costs of the replacement activ1ties, will be higher with the concrete poles . However, they will withstand a higher impact than the steel polesi, therefore, there is a potential of fewer knockdowns. 5. In all annual cost calculations over the 30 year life expectancy period an 8% interest rate, the same as that for the assessments on Mainstreet has been used. ., 6. Annual Cost $ 12',080 $ 12,080 . $ o The initial cost of the units bid by the three bidders must be balanceq by the initial cost versus the cost of money over the 30 year period at an 8% interest rate. This annual cost calculation is shown below: $ $ 12,040 o $ 170 o Annual Cost .~. r ~; EXHIBIT A Memorandum to Lee Gustafson, Lighting Hardware ,0 Criteria Davis/Assoc. Installations that can be reviewed by interested parties located in Minnesota -Farmington Page 4 Judd Supply EESCO/Unite -Edenburgh Apts in Edina, 77th st. and Xerxes ~Riverplace in Minneapolis -City of Rochester CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION: Based upon a total review by a diversified review committee representing the City of each of the lighting units proposed by the bidders listed above/ it is recommended, that the unit bid by Judd Supply Company be purchased and installed. Because of the magnitude of the purchase and the importance of the hardware selection on the success of the Mainstreet, it is suggested that the lighting supplier be required to supply a prototype of the polel fixutre unit pri'or to the final award of contract by the City Council. This 'is scheduled for June ,25th. The significant conclusions supporting the recommendation are as follows: 1. The ilES@8,'8fli.ila&i sternberg pole/fixture has the best appearance as judged by the review committee. This finding is based on hardware . esthetics and on the historic theme that was fundamental in the design 0.. . decision to proceed with a unified "low level" street light system thru qut the length of the project. 2. Maintenance efforts on the fixture appear to be less on the Sternberg proposal than on the other two fixtures proposed by the competitors. 3. Double fixture units have a better appearance with the type of cross arms available than in the other two units. ' 4. Maintenance costs over 30 -years based upon life cycle costing are higher with the steel poles than the concrete poles. However/,the concrete pole initial cost is approximately $35,000 more than the steel pole costs. The value of this initial cost over 30 years exactly balances the additional maintenance costs. s. Bids for the Type "B" and "B1" lighting assemblies and the signal pedestals are summarized below. The signal pedestals could be selected separately based upon the bidding specifications. However/ based upon the ~~esire to be as consistent as possible throughout the project, this is not recommended. Type "B" and "B1" lighting units Judd Supply $134,601 ' $ 9/420 $144,021 Signal Pedestals Qotal Davis & Assoc EESCO/United $137,310 $ 6,200 $143,510 $167/790.75 $ 11,600 $179,390.75 .ft-.,' , EXHIBIT B CITY OF HOPKINS o MEMORANDUM~ DATE: June 4, 1991 TO: steve Mielke, City Manager FROM: Lee Gustafson, Public Works Director SUBJECT: street Lighting Selection for Mainstreet Project "Last month during a discussion' of the MainstreetProject, Council was informed that staff would be reviewing the street lighting bids and products for this project. This review process began on May' 15 when staff'and'the project manager met with representatives of each of the three bidqers for the main purpose of reviewing their products. The two primary issues that were considered during the review were the aesthatics and maintenatnce characteristics of each product. Secondary conce~ns in the review 'process were the brackets and electrical connections of each p~le. 0, The Public Works department and project manager have basically completed the review process, and have determined that it would be in the best interest oft~e city to award the street lighting contract to the second low bidder; Judd Supply. Detailed reasoning as to our recommendation is inclUded in the attached memorandum from Dick Koppy to Lee Gustafson. The street lighting contract for Mainstreet is scheduled to be awarded on June 25, 1991. It:is imperative that the bid be awarded at this meeting so that the successful bidder can ,immediately order the street lighting products. Products such as these take many weeks to deliver" and as suph a delay in ~is bid award would be critical if it is the City'S hope of having t:he street lights, installed and painted prior to winter. since this June 25th bid award. is very critica1.to the Mainstreet.project, I would request 'that a copy of this memorandum and attacfunents be made a part of ,the June 7 up~ate in order to inform Council of our intent to recommend awarding. the street lighting contract to the second low bidder., Therefore, if Council has any concerns with regard to,this bid'award, ,staff will~ave amp1e time to provide Council with the information they request prior to the ~consideration of these bids. Please note in the attached memorandum that it is staff's intent to require the apparent successful bidder, Judd Supply, to produce a prototype of their street light that Council can review on June 25. ~t;~!:is~.furthermore=',~our:' in:t~1;:9!-9J . requ.~s~ i(~t41pro~~type :~f.~~~I;,~~ .,!~d~ . ~apply '.r: O~'-Tuesd":Y'.l'i:5~~~ ~~~~:;;~i5;~~'t!<;l:f~ ~~j e.~i.9~S~~<3:~e.},~:Z;:~<;,~~Y~~'t~Y~4~~~~~ ',;' fou)orr.::the''''fCouncJ.r;~w~th....regard:'to~,.thJ.s:..,bJ.d: ,award": ., ." .~'-"',~ ,.,' .0 ..i' '. ' ."," ,.,'. -.' , ", "-:~,"'l-""""':'. """"".'