4/7/1992 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

TO: Fran Boynton, Purchasing Manager FROM: James W. Davis, P. , Public Works Director SUBJECT: Review of Bids and Contractor Reference Investigation - Sandridge Golf Course Clubhouse DATE: March 25, 1992 FILE: clbhse.mar On Wednesday, March 11, 1992, at 2:00 PM the County received seven bid proposals for construction of the Sandridge Golf Course Clubhouse and accessory buildings. The bid tabulation is attached The following analysis of the bids is presented: 1. Contractor: P.W. Hearn Inc. Base Bid $596,114 The bidder failed to submit a bid price for Additive Alternate No. 2 item (removal of the existing Clubhouse). All other bidders submitted a bid for this item. A protest letter was received from G&S Contractors, Inc. requesting the County to reject the bid since the contract documents contained language requiring the bidder -to bid on all items.- The County Attorney's office has recommended that the bid be considered incomplete and be rejected. In addition, the bid by P.W. Hearn, Inc. contained an error where the bid price for construction of the Golf Course Restroom Building and Rain Shelters were transposed with the bid price for the Golf Cart Storage Building. Staff recommends this bid in the amount of $596,114(base bid) be rejected as incomplete. 2. Contractor: G&S Contractors, Inc. Base Bid $651,000 All bid items were bid and the bid is complete as submitted. Reference checks were performed by the County Public Works Director. A history of poor job superintendence, numerous contractor initiated change orders and poor construction practices were reported. For example, the design architect who monitored the construction of the City of Fort Pierce Main Post Office (Stebbins and Scott Architects) reported that there were 45 change order requests that totaled $45,000 - $ 50,000 which resulted in a final cost that exceeded the original bid by $40,000. Additional inspection services to monitor the work were required. The project was delivered late (June, 1991) and quality of construction resulted in work being rejected and reconstructed. Similar change order requests were reported from a different architectural firm on the City of Cocoa Housing Authority's Modernization of Peter Young Complex. Whereas some projects were reported as well managed, staff has concerns that selection of this contractor may not be in the best interest of the County. 56 APR 0 7 1992 BOOK-