Reso 2002-416 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Memorandum J an uary 29, 2002 Page 2 3. Remiro Sanchez, Engineer, BH&A 4. Pat Hayes, Engineer, BH&A 5. Clay Parker, Building Official, SIB 6. James Watts, P /W, SIB The first order of business was to create a chart showing the fee schedules for all items listed by each company. With two major exceptions, the cost of lining pipes and mobilization, the figures were very close. Next we went through the point system as established in the RFP. The two high scores were Southeastern Engineering and the Redland Company with 98 points and 96 points respectively. After reviewing the above figures, it was decided that only the two low bids would receive further attention. The committee went through each company list of references and picked approximately twelve (12) each which pertained to our project parameters. A questionnaire was created (attached) and those references chosen were called for background information. Most reference organizations returned our calls. Overall, both Southeastern and Redland received glowing recommendations. Also at this time I asked our contract administrator, Ms. Cecille Hayles, to conduct a background check on both companies. All information relating to each company and its officers was excellent. Both Southeastern and Redland have emerged at this point as rather evenly matched. The major line of demarcation dealt with the projected costs associated with the lining of pipes. While neither company specified what resin they would use, the $294,000 difference in bids gave rise to the need for further investigation. At this point, per the advice of the City Attorney, I called each company and requested that they forward a letter to the City specifying what resin was covered in their bid. The specifications outlined under Part V, section 431-2.1, on page 20calls for "Epoxy resin". The response letter from Southeastern/ Lanzo called for using "Epoxy Vinyl Ester" resin. The response from Redland/ AzurLx stated that they intended to use an Epoxy as stated. Based on the above outlined fmdings, it is the recommendation of the committee that the most responsive bid for this project comes from the Redland Company, Inc. .