Laserfiche WebLink
jji I6''``����a� •ply, <br />u rAGC - 6 <br />Z J. BID #8038 - GIFFORD PARK IMPROVEMENTS -.TIM WRIGHT <br />CONSTRUCTION <br />The Board reviewed a Memorandum of February 3, 1998: <br />DATE: February 3, 1999 <br />TO: BOARD OF COUNTY COMIVIISSIONERS <br />THRU: James E. Chandler, County Administrator <br />H.T. "Sonny" Dean, General Services Director <br />FROM: Fran Boynton -Powell, Purchasing Manager <br />SUBJECT: Bid Award: IRC Bid #8038/Gifford Park Improvements <br />Public Works Department <br />BACKGROUND INFORMATION <br />Bid Opening Date: <br />Advertising Dates: <br />Specifications Mailed to: <br />Replies: <br />"No Bid" Response: <br />January 21, 1998 <br />Dec 22, 29, 1997, January 5, 1998 <br />Twenty -One (21) Vendors <br />Four (4) Vendors <br />None <br />VENDOR <br />BASE BID <br />ALT #1 <br />ALT #2 <br />ALT #3 <br />TOTAL BED <br />Jim wri& Const <br />$23,200.00 <br />-$800 <br />0 <br />-$600 <br />521,800.00 <br />Vero Beak F1 <br />R.D.C. General Co <br />$27,500.00 <br />0 <br />0 <br />-5678 <br />526,822.00 <br />Pt St Lucie, F1 <br />Champion Comr. <br />$27,500.76 <br />0 <br />0 <br />4100 <br />$27,400.76 <br />1 Mamma. FI <br />Watauga Co <br />537,680.00 <br />0 <br />0 <br />41,320 <br />536,360.00 <br />Titusville. Fl <br />TOTAL AMOUNT OF BID $21,800.00 <br />SOURCE OF FUNDS Park Construction Sales Tax Account <br />315-210-572-068.03 <br />ESTIMATED BUDGET $24,000.00 <br />RECOMMENDATION <br />Staff recommends that the bid be awarded to Jim Wright Construction for the base bid less the <br />deductive alternates. This contractor is the lowest, most responsive and responsible bidder <br />meeting specifications as set forth in the Invitation to Bid. (See Department Memo.) <br />In addition, staff requests authorization for the Chairman to execute the attached sample contract <br />document upon review and approval as to form by the County Attorney. <br />Commissioner Ginn objected to the portion of the contract on Page 81 of the backup <br />which indicates that the retainage is to be 10% until final completion and acceptance of the <br />Contract "except as might be modified". She believed the 10% should be retained without <br />any exceptions. <br />Sean McGuire, P.E., the contract engineer, noted that the Board could, of course, <br />change the policy but it has been standard practice to lower the retainage at some point in <br />the project. _ <br />FEBRUARY 10, 1998 <br />-22- <br />0 0 <br />