R2005-16 ACCEPTING THE BID AND AUTHORIZING THE AWARD OF A CONTRACT

Home Browse Search

' ' -2- ' City staff are not attempting to be punitive in bypassing Mid-States by recommending to award the bid to the second lowest bidder. There are no present staff inembers who have first hand knowledge of the circumstances of the previously mentioned litigation. It began in 1996 and had a long and troubled history. Indeed, the primary staff inembers involved in the litigation have either retired or moved out of town since settlement. In fairness to Mid-States, any construction project which goes awry is always problematic as to fault. It is sometimes unclear where any degree of fault lies, whether with the design, client instructions, contractor performance or other matters. Today it is virtually impossible to know the degree of fault which lies with Mid-States versus other potential violators (architects/engineers/city staff/others). However, because the project proved very costly and time consuming to City tax payers, staff believe it is less risky to award the bid to a contractor with whom the City has not in the past experienced these problems. City staff does not have any personal or strong feelings about this matter. If Council feels Mid-States is deserving of this contract, it is within Council's authority to award the bid to that firm. POTENTIAL OBJECTION: Mid-States General. INPUT FROM OTHER SOURCES: Strand Associates and Wendy Morthland, Corporation Counsel. STAFF REFERENCE: Keith D. Alexander, Director of Water Management, telephone 424-2863 e-mail kdalexander@decaturnet.org BUDGET/TIME IMPLICATIONS: This project consists of the following tasks to be paid by the Water Fund, Capital - Non Lake Proj ects: Work Expenditure Done By Cost Fiscal Year(s) Engineering and Strand $124,000 2004-OS Design Services Associates Construction Christy- $1,193,893 2004-OS & Foltz 2005-06 Construction Strand Not to 2004-OS & Support Associates exceed 2005-06 Services $120,000 Total $1,437,893