2023 12 19 City Council Meeting Packet

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

e
xtend their bid hold period upon request, but in this case because they are assuming the cost related to 
the bid error on their part, they will not agree to an extension.   
Bas
eline has also indicated to us that after spending so much time developing two bids and with there still 
being indecision as to whether the project will be approved, they do not intend to submit a bid if the 
project is rebid.  This would be unfortunate because Baseline is the premier sport court company in this 
part of the country.  It is likely other contractors will do the same, meaning if we get a bid there would be 
less competition and a higher cost. 
C
onstruction Comparison 
Because Baseline was also the low bidder on the previous Pickleball only project and due to their expertise 
in this field of work, we asked them to compare the cost of the original project to the current  
reconstruction project.  We thought this would provide some understanding as to why  prices have 
fluctuated significantly through various iterations of these two projects.  Their comments are below: 
• The current bid yields a turnkey, tournament ready, ADA accessible facility with new tennis and
pickleball courts housed in a footprint that yields 16,366 more square feet of court playing area
compared to the original bid.  The original bid included a base bid of eight Pickleball Courts and
an alternate for eight additional Pickleball Courts.  Because six Pickleball Courts can fit on two
Tennis Courts, the eight existing tennis courts equal twenty-four Pickleball Courts and this results
in an increase of approximately 50% in court surface area
.
• B
aseline provided us with a cost per square foot comparison for the original Pickleball project
versus the current reconstruction project assuming all alternatives were accepted.  The result i s
th
e current project costing $25.87 per square foot of court playing area versus the original project
costing $44.67 per square foot.  I do not have a breakdown by bid alternate on the original project
but will provide a breakdown for the current project.  T he base bid is 80.3% of the cost of the
current project which yields a cost of $20.77 per square foot of court playing area for the base bid
only.  Alternate #1 equals 4.1% of the current project which yields a cost of $21.83 per square
foot of court playing area  when combined with the base bid .  E ither option is considerably less
than the original project concept even though there is more court playing surface area.   This is
primarily due to less earthwork, the bid der’s error, the removal of alternates no longer under
consideration such as shade structures , and less new sidewalk due to the elimination of new
facilities.  This lower cost is being achieved even with some stormwater infrastructure
replacement which was not part of the original scope which  was added to prevent water runoff
onto the court playing surface which shortens the life of the asset  in much the same way water
in
filtration shortens the life cycle of pavement on roads.
A
lso, because Baseline was the company which provided the previous estimate to crack seal and repaint 
the courts for approximately $67,000 and are the low bidder on this project, we asked them to compare 
the cheaper repairs those outlined in the bid  specification and their comments focused solely on the 
cheaper repair process.  Referencing work which could be conducted for $67,000 they stated, “In regards 
45