2023 12 19 City Council Meeting Packet

Unverified text extraction. Check the original page for numbers, names, and layout.

 
TO:  Deb Wallace, City Manager 
FROM:  Kevin L. Helms, Project Manager 
Cc:  Ben Burchfield, Public Works Director 
  Matt Siniard, Parks and Recreation Director 
  Mike Keith, Finance Director 
DATE:  December 14, 2023 
SUBJECT: Ingleside Court Reconstruction Project 
 
Bid Analysis 
The purpose for putting this item on the agenda after originally planning to defer it to next month is due 
to the bid specifications  only requiring bidders to submit a bid bond holding their bid thirty -days, as 
compared to many of our projects which require a sixty-day period.  The bid bond require s bidders to 
honor their bid for a specified period of time or forfeit the bond ed amount to the City as compensation  
for costs associated with having to choose another bidder or rebid a project.   
 
Rebidding a project is not a good practice unless the scope of the project changes substantially because 
contractors often choose not to bid a second time due to everyone knowing the original set of bid 
numbers which often results in less competition and higher prices.  In the case of this bid, the scope has 
been transformed into maintenance of an existing facility with a minor modification to part of the complex 
to allow for a new use.  Therefore, rebidding it after the original scope for a new Pickleball only facility 
was not an issue  due to significant differences between the projects .  However, re -bidding this project 
without any changes just because we missed the award deadline would likely result in fewer bids and a 
higher cost. 
 
There is an additional factor regarding the low bid which makes it even more urgent to award the current 
low bid if the project is going to be approved.  As is allowed by law when there is a question about the 
validity of a bid, we requested a detailed breakdown of the line items from the apparent low bidder.  This 
led us to realize the bidder inadvertently included some portions of the electrical work in the lighting 
alternative rather than the base bid where it should have been .  As a result, their base bid is between 
$40,000 and $50,000 less than it would be had these items been properly divided between the two 
portions of the bid .  While Baseline is the low bidder under any combination of alternatives, this is the 
reason their base bid is a good bit lower than the range of the other bidders and their lighting alternative 
bid is the highest of all the bidders.  We have discussed this with Baseline and they hav e indicated they 
plan to honor the bid if it is awarded within the thirty day timeframe.  Sometimes a bidder will voluntarily  
44