04/18/2017 (2) - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

time Ranger became aware of the Staff Report was by way of the Williams email and that for some unexplained reason the Staff Report which shows a date of March 27, 2017 was not sent to Ranger until three days later, even though it was in staff's possession. Ranger objects to the recommendation in the Staff Report as it is inaccurate. First, the Staff Report fails to provide any details whatsoever of the efforts it undertook or even to identify the projects' clients that were contacted, the specific responses of the clients for those projects that were contacted and what projects clients could not be reached. The Staff Report is so vague that a meaningful response cannot be framed. Staff should be required to provide sufficient details that would allow Ranger to determine the accuracy of the report. As written the report fails to provide any names, responses or additional details of the projects. First, the most significant projects successfully completed by Ranger is CR 512 (Roseland Road to Easy Street Project 1132). This project was successfully completed for Indian River Countyl That project is part of the CR 512 roadway system and directly across the median from the project which is the subject of this bidl While it is noted that it was misidentified in the Clarification, staff should have been aware of this project when it attempted to diligently verify the information. The CR 512 -Roseland to Easy Street alone should provide the best reference of Ranger's capabilities, yet, the staff report fails to mention this project by name or even the fact that Ranger has performed such work for the County. The report claims that "1 FDR project was noted by FDOT as having significant failures of the roadway and was deemed not 'successfully completed"'. Again, while the project or the individual giving the reference is not identified, it is presumed that this reference is to the NASA Boulevard Project (T5514). Ranger strongly objects to this statement as being inaccurate! The statement infers that Ranger's work was defective or resulted in failures. This is simply not the case. Ranger's work was accepted by the FDOT and it is in the process of final acceptance, without any assessments for penalties or incomplete or non -complying work. The issues with the project were not a product of Ranger's errors. The FDOT representative with intimate knowledge of the project is James Boughnam, FDOT Resident Construction Engineer for Brevard County. Upon information and belief and based upon a conversation with Mr. Boughnam of this date, Mr. Boughnam is of the view that while there were a very nominal percentages of areas which were problematic, but those issues related to the existing base (soil cement) and not to Ranger's work. Mr. Boughnam urges County staff to contact him so he can give a factually correct assessment of that project. Ranger also urges that an independent staff member be directed to contact Mr. Boughnam to confirm Ranger's understanding. Ranger submits that it has successfully completed this project and has asked for a letter from the FDOT confirming same, but it is expected that it will take a week to 10 days to obtain such correspondence. The FDOT Resident Engineer considered Ranger's worts on the NASA Boulevard Project was successfully completed, that is contrary to the statement or inference contained in the Staff report. The Bid Documents for the Project required that the bidder was to have successfully completed at least three projects similar in scope. The Staff report concluded that Ranger had not successfully completed three similar projects. The report goes on the state: "2 projects were listed with correct contact information and positive quality references". While the report does 101 Sansbury's Way; West Palm Beach, FL 33411 * Phone: (561) 793-9400 * Fax: (561) 790-4332 Mailing Address: PO Box 15065; West Palm Beach, FL 33416 * www.rangerconstrucbon.com P193