Laserfiche WebLink
BOOK 80 FADE 215 <br />1. IRC Bid 90-84 -- Membrane Expansion for R.O. Water Plant <br />The Board reviewed the following memo dated 5/30/90: <br />DATE: JUNE 1, 1990 <br />TO: HONORABLE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS <br />THRU: JAMES E. CHANDLER <br />COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR <br />FROM: H.T. "SONNY" DEAN, DIRECTO <br />DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL SERVICES <br />SUBJECT: MEMBRANE EXPANSION FOR RO WATER PLANT <br />INDIAN RIVER COUNTY BID NUMBER 90-84 <br />CORRECTION TO CONTRACT PRICE <br />The subject bid is to be awarded on the basis of a present worth <br />evaluation of the process system being offered by each contractor. <br />In the case of Inscho-Kirlin it is $3,765,334.00. ' However, the <br />actual contract amount is $3,210,000.00. <br />Therefore, staff's recommendation is to award a Contract to <br />Inscho-Kirlin for an amount not to exceed $3,210,000.00. <br />Commissioner Scurlock explained that we bid this particular <br />item twice, and there has been an objection filed by Butler <br />Construction in reference to the recommended award of the low bid <br />based on the fact that they believe that Inscho-Kirlin submitted <br />two bids, which they feel is specifically prohibited. After <br />meeting on this issue with Bill McCain of Utilities, it is the <br />opinion of Attorney Vitunac, Director Pinto and himself that it <br />was one bid with an alternate, not two bids, and the <br />recommendation is to go with the base bi.d. He understood that <br />someone from Butler was going to be in attendance this morning, <br />which is why he asked that this item be pulled for discussion. <br />Utilities Director Terry Pinto added that this type of bid <br />is somewhat complicated. It is based on a present work value <br />bid, which means we not only take the cost of the actual con- <br />struction, but figure in the operating cost values over the life <br />term of the equipment that we are putting in. We look at both <br />16 <br />