04/18/2017 (2) - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

041017 Response to Ranger Protest — Bid 2017034 recommendation of award were emailed to all three bidders that morning (to the email addresses provided with their submitted bids). As a courtesy to bidders, Ms. Jill Williams sent a copy of the agenda item (the document you refer to as the staff report) to all three bidders immediately after it received final approval on March 27, 2017, detailing the Engineering Division's recommendation of award. The timing issue is moot, as the matter was pulled from the agenda. Addressing your statement that the County's decision that Ranger is non-responsive and non -responsible was based upon inaccurate or incomplete information, Ranger was afforded two opportunities to provide accurate and complete reference information to evaluate and verify their qualifications, as required in paragraph 3.01 of Section 00200 of the bid documents; first in Section 00456 of the bid ("Qualifications Questionnaire") and again with a Request for Clarification from the Purchasing Division dated February 27, 2017. The County Engineer, Mr. James Ennis, P.E. attempted to contact each of the 21 project references provided by Ranger in Section 00456 —Qualifications Questionnaire of their bid as SIMILAR to the FDR work detailed for the project. Several references could not be contacted at the phone numbers provided, and Mr. Ennis was only able to identify two qualifying projects. To adequately assess their qualifications specific to FDR, the Purchasing Division sent a request for clarification to each of the three bidders on February 27, 2017. Bidders were instructed to complete a form (provided) detailing their FDR project experience from the past five years, and to "ensure client references listed ... are accurate." Ranger's response to the request for clarification was received on March 2, 2017 and listed six projects as qualifying FDR experience. One Indian River County project reference was listed, but it named and provided client reference for a project that did not include FDR. In response to Ranger's statement in its Protest Supplement that the County "should have known" Ranger meant to list the CR512 from Roseland Road to Easy Street FDR project completed in 2013, it is not appropriate for the County to make assumptions regarding information provided in response to solicitations. Of the five remaining references, no contact information (contact name, phone or email, as directed) was provided for two and a third reference phone number (with no name or company listed) was not able to provide information regarding the project or Ranger. These three projects were also listed by Ranger as having been completed more than five years ago. The two final projects listed were a storage lot at Martin County's landfill and the FDR of NASA Boulevard for FDOT. While confirmed to be an FDR project, the work at Martin County's landfill is subjected to minimal traffic flow, and is not similar to a major roadway project. The County Engineer spoke with Mr. Greg Sholar in FDOT's State Material Office regarding the referenced NASA Boulevard project, and was informed that project is not considered successful due to several failure points along the corridor. Mr. Sholar indicated that after two attempts at FDR, sections of roadway remained that did not meet the FDR process specification requirements and ultimately required sections of the reclaimed roadway to be reconstructed with Full -Depth Asphalt Base. As suggested by Ranger in its Protest Supplement, Mr. James Boughnam, FDOT Resident Construction Engineer for Brevard County, was contacted by Mr. Richard B. Szpyrka, P.E., the County's Public Works Director. Mr. Boughnam described 12 failures of base material and insufficient asphalt placement. He stated FDOT required Ranger to remedy the 12 failures by use of black base alternative. Additionally, as of April 7, 2017, the County was informed there is a dispute regarding the failed areas and who is responsible for them. Thus, the County has concluded, the NASA Boulevard project was not successfully constructed. P179