03/10/2015 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

,` Alternatives In considering this matter, the County has a number of alternatives. Those alternatives include: 1. Hold TSI accountable to the contract bid price of $78,500 to complete the Head Island channel restoration work, irrespective of the unforeseen need (and cost) for off-site dredged material disposal; 2. Approve TSI's change order proposal and substantially increase the funding scope of the Head Island restoration project; 3. Terminate the County's contract with TSI with payment for work performed, and discontinue any additional work, effectively ending the overall project; 4. Terminate the County's contract with TSI with payment for work performed, and issue an RFP for completion of the job with off-site disposal of dredged material, with completion costs to be determined. Under this alternative, the County would need to require the HOA to commit to allowing use of (private) subdivision roads for land-based removal of fill. In addition, the County could determine its cost-sharing level now by setting a cap for its share of the contribution to the project (a typical maximum local match is 50%) and require the HOA to commit to covering additional project costs. Short of the HOA meeting use of roads or additional funding commitments, the County could refrain from issuing an RFP, effectively ending the overall project. Regarding the alternatives, the County could take the position that TSI had sufficient opportunity in making its bid to determine that there is insufficient uplands on—site for disposal of dredged material. That being said, the extent (or lack thereof) of upland disposal areas on-site was not fully known until an on-site meeting with ACOE staff after the bid award and project mobilization. Staff's finding is that the work TSI has completed (i.e., herbicide basil bark treatment of exotics on the entire Head Island perimeter dike and clearing of the breach and channel areas) was done competently and has the public benefit of exotics eradication from publicly -owned conservation land. For those reasons, staff believes it is appropriate to pay TSI for work performed. TSI's cost estimate for completion of the channel restoration with off-site disposal of material, however, is untenable under the project budget and, therefore, the contract with TSI warrants termination without TSI conducting further work under the contract. For the reasons described herein, staffs position is that the County should terminate the contract with TSI with payment for worked performed. The payment to TSI for worked performed, accounting for a demobilization cost of $5,000 (completion of bid item Task 1) is $31,499. Staff also believes it is appropriate for the County to set a County spending cap, say 50% of overall costs not to exceed $115,000, and issue an RFP to solicit bids for completion of the project. If the HOA is not willing or able to commit to use of the roads and to fund additional costs beyond the County's 50% / $115,000 cap, then the project could be effectively ended. Under the scenario that the County agrees pay TSI for work performed and proceeds to issue an RFP for completion of the project at the estimated cost of $127,000, following is a revised table of overall project costs (assuming the County sets a 50% / $115,000 cap on County funding towards the project, and the HOA funds the additional remainder). 4 173