Laserfiche WebLink
With regard to the P.W. Hearn bid which was disqualified for <br />a "no bid" on Alternate #2, Public Works Director Jim Davis <br />stressed that Alternate #2, the removal of the existing clubhouse <br />building and relocation at Donald MacDonald Park, is critical to <br />the project primarily due to the fact that a parking lot will be <br />built in its location. Before the parking lot can be built under <br />this contract, that facility must be removed. The County <br />Attorney's office concurred that the Hearn bid was incomplete for <br />writing "no bid" on Alternate #2. <br />Director Davis stated that he personally performed the <br />reference checks on the second low bidder, G & S Constructors who <br />bid all of the items, and found a history of some projects that did <br />not go smoothly according to some of the architects who worked on <br />some of those projects. One of those projects was the Ft. Pierce <br />Main Post Office (Stebbins & Scott Architects), and Mr. Stebbins <br />reported that there were approximately 45 change order requests for <br />that project that totaled between $45,000 and $50,000 which <br />resulted in a final cost that exceeded the original bid by $40,000. <br />Apparently there were some walls that were built without a <br />foundation and there were some excessive costs for some minor <br />items. Additional inspections services to monitor the work were <br />required. The project was delivered late and quality of <br />construction resulted in work being rejected and reconstructed. <br />Director Davis stated that he also communicated with some of the <br />other references the contractor provided and found there were some <br />problems with the City of Cocoa Housing Authority's Modernization <br />of the Peter Young Complex. There is a report on that on the <br />second page of the memo he wrote to Purchasing Manager Fran Boynton <br />that is part of today's backup material. <br />Director Davis confirmed that he received a copy of the <br />following letter from C & S pointing out their disagreements with <br />regard to the review of bids: <br />58 <br />CI <br />BOOK e� FAi�E fr <br />L "I I 0 7 1992 <br />