Laserfiche WebLink
DATE: November 21, 1989 <br />TO: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS <br />THRU: James E. Chandler, County Administrator <br />H.T. "Sonny" Dean, Director <br />Department of General S <br />FROM: Dominick L. MascolManager <br />Division of Purchasing <br />SUBJ: IRC BID#89-93/GIFF'ORD AREA SEWER PROTECT <br />BACKGROUND: <br />The Subject Bid for Gifford Area Sewer Project was properly <br />advertised and Eleven (11) Invitations to bid were sent out. <br />On Sept. 6, 1989, bids were received. Wo (2) vendors submitted <br />proposals for the commodity. <br />ANALYSIS: <br />Staff has reviewed the submittal to ascertain adherence to <br />" specifications. JoBear, Inc. was the low bidder that net all <br />all requirements. Original contract will be sent to chairman <br />•.upon receipt of executed copies from contractor. <br />r• -:+ - FUNDING: <br />Monies for this'project� will cbthe*'from the original <br />FHA Loan for this project. <br />`,1 RECOMMENDATION: <br />Staff reconmends the Award of a fixed contract for $141,089.00 <br />to the low bidder JoBear, Inc., for the subject commodity. <br />Commissioner Scurlock had no significant problem with the <br />recommendation except for the fact that there were only two <br />bidders, and he wondered if someone from Utilities had a reason <br />for that since on a recent project we had about 15 that were <br />interested and underground utilities are usually pretty <br />competitive; although, this is a small contract. <br />Utilities Director Pinto believed the reason is that it is <br />not general construction, it is rehabilitation. The first time <br />we went out for bid, there was only one that was interested and <br />they were way high; so, we put it out again. Apparently not many <br />are interested in rehab work. <br />Commissioners Eggert and Bowman did not feel this bid has <br />5 <br />DEC 5 1989 <br />POO( 78 i s E. 519 <br />