Laserfiche WebLink
Box 9:2 fAu 2,94 <br />We believe the quantities, .as we now compute them are significantly <br />different and significantly affect the scope of work that the <br />County's interest is best served by re -bidding this contract in the <br />minimum bid time allowed by law. We have discussed this with the <br />County attorney and that office is in agreement. No other bid <br />irregularities were observed. <br />ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS <br />Alternative 1: <br />Direct Staff to re -advertise the project for bids. <br />Alternative 2: <br />Award the Contract for Hid No. 40-64 to Ranger Construction. <br />RECOMMENDATION AND FUNDING <br />Staff recommends Alternative No. 1. <br />Lengthy debate ensued on whether to put this project out for <br />rebid, and Attorney Vitunac advised that these three firms were the <br />only ones interested in the original bidding. <br />Peter Malcomb, vice president of Martin Paving, urged the <br />Board to limit the rebid to the three companies that bid it <br />initially, rather than allowing other firms to come in, review the <br />numbers that are there, and submit a lower bid. <br />Attorney Vitunac advised that it is not necessary to run an ad <br />on this if it is just limited to the three firms. All three must <br />have notice, but only representatives from two firms are here <br />today. The third firm must be notified. <br />County Engineer Roger Cain stated that a certified letter will <br />be sent to the third firm. <br />41 <br />