HomeMy WebLinkAbout4.k. Rejecting Bids, Biscayne Ave. Street & Utility Improvements, City Project #249 ' CITY OF ROSEMOUNT
� EXECUTIVE SUMMARY FOR ACTION
CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: March 21, 1995
AGENDA ITEM: Rejecting Bids - Biscayne Avenue Street & AGENDA SECTION:
Utility Improvements, City Project #249 Consent
PREPARED BY: Bud Osmundson AGENDA �Q,�.� � t- �
City Engineer/Public Works Director I C �a��
ATTACHMENTS: Resolution, Letters APPROVED BY;
`�----- —
Bids were received on March 3, 1995 for the referenced project. The apparent low
bidder, Richard Knutson, Incorporated, did not acknowledge the reception of Addendum
No. 2 on his bid form. The second low bidder, Ryan Contracting, hired the law firm of
Holper Welsh & Mitchell, LTD., to represent them and the attached letter was received
from that law firm. After discussion with Charlie LeFevere, the City Attorney, the City
has the option of awarding the contract to the apparent low bidder and facing some type
of restraining order from awarding, or rejecting all bids and re-bidding the project. Since
some of the improvements are necessary for the OMS facility and the position of Holper
Welsh & Mitchell is that they would obtain a restraining order from awarding the contract
and thereby holding up the construction of the project, it was determined that the City's
best interest are served by rejecting all previously submitted bids and re-bidding the
project.
We have tentatively set a bid date of April 21, 1995 to receive the bids for the project.
The attached resolution states the City Council rejecting all bids and authorizing Staff to
re-advertise for the project.
Staff recommends the adoption of the resolution as stated.
RECOMMENDED ACTION: MOTION TO ADOPT A RESOLUTION REJECTING BIDS AND
AUTHORIZING THE RE-ADVERTISEMENT OF BIDS FOR BISCAYNE AVENUE STREET &
UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS, CITY PROJECT #249.
COUNCIL ACTION:
5
CITY OF ROSEMOUNT
DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION 1995 -
A RESOWTION REJECTING BIDS AND AUTHORIZING THE
RE-ADVERTISEMENT OF BIDS FOR
BISCAYNE AVENUE STREET & UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS
CITY PROJECT #249
WHEREAS, all bids on construction of Biscayne Avenue Street & Utility Improvements are
hereby received and tabulated, and
WHEREAS, the apparent low bidder's submitted documents contained minor irregularities,
and
WHEREAS, the City's best interests are served by re-bidding City Project No. 249.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL:
1. The City Clerk shall prepare and cause to be inserted in the official City newspaper and
in the Construction Bulletin an re-advertisement for bids upon the making of such
improvements under the approved plans and specifications for the City Project #259.
2. The advertisement shall be published in each of said publications at least once not less
than three (3) weeks before the date set for opening bids, shall specify the work to
be done, shall state that bids will be publicly opened on April 21, 1995 at 10:00
o'clock a.m. at Rosemount City Hall in said City and that no bids will be considered
unless seaied and filed with the City Clerk and accompanied by a cash deposit,
cashier's check, bid bond or certified check payable to the City Clerk for five {5%)
percent of the amount of such bid.
ADOPTED this 21 st day of March, 1995.
E. B. McMenomy, Mayor
ATTEST:
Susan M. Walsh, City Clerk
Motion by: Seconded by:
Voted in favor:
Voted against:
� � HOLMES & GRAVEN
CFiARTERED
Attorot�s at Law 470 Pilifbor�Ceater.Ninaaipdis.Nioaaota SSJ02
(6IZ)337-9300 I.Au�IL i�10LLEt
ROtLaT A.ALSOP B+�IIDARA L.PO�TwOOD
6tONAiD H.BA'RY Faceimiie{612)337-9310 JAl►1iS M.S7YOM1►�i
Srsr�tr J.Buaui. , .T�es J.'t�oMson,n
IOHI7&DUN IwiAY M.WEY'f�IIN
M�Y G.Doastxs BO�L'�'�s
���.GAL� GwRY P.WtivTis
Cot�nr6 A.AEn�e wRITER'S DIRECT DiA1. DAvm L.G1W vEN(1929-t9l1)
�S��� t6121337-9215 oF COv:tsEL
Dwvm J.KEivNeDY RoBeaT C.C,utisoN
I�1�'f R-LApSON ROBERT L.DAVtD30N
CAARLFS L.LEFEVEHB WELLINGTON H.LAW
IO�'t M.LEEEVY&JR. T.JAY SALMFI'i
ROBEYT J•LINDALL
ItODEAT C.LONG
March 14, 1995
Bud Osmondson
City of Rosemount
P.O. Box 510
Rosemount, MN 55068-0510
RE: Bid Challenge by Ryan Contracting
Dear Bud:
I have received a copy of a letter to you from Mr. David Hammargren dated March 7, 1995.
Mr. Hammargren challenges the bid of RKI, the apparent low bidder, for City Project No. 249.
I understand that RKI did not acknowledge receipt of Addendum No. 3 to the specif'ications.
Addendum No. 3 had to do with soils compaction techniques. If the award were made to RKI,
the effect of a challenge to the award would depend upon whether the job as bid without
Addendum No. 3 is materially different than the job as specified with Addendum No. 3.
Hammargren takes the position that the bid affects the price and nature of performance and is
therefore materially nonresponsive to the specifications. You have indicated that there is no
significant difference in the c�st or method of compacting between the job with or without
Addendum No. 3.
If you wish to consider award of the contract to RKI, I would recommend that we meet with the
city's consulring engineers for the project and review in some detail the difference between the
job with and without Addendum No. 3.
However, you should also keep in mind the practical effect of a challenge to an award to RKI.
If the city awards the contract to RKI, Ryan could secure a temporary restraining order
preventing the ciry from entering into a contract with RKI or from proceeding with the work of
the project. Such a restraining order would be in effect until we could have a hearing on a
temporary injunction. Sometime following the temporary injunction hearing, we would receive
an order from the court. If the court ordered the injunction to continue in effect until trial, the
city could not proceed with the project. Even if the temporary restraining order were dissolved
after the temporary injunction hearing, there could easily be a delay of from several weeks to
CLL85370
RS125-3
N -
Bud Osmondson
March 14, 1995
Page 2
several months. Thus, a challenge, even though it may not ultimately be successful, can have
the practical effect of delaying the project
The city could reject all bids and re-advertise rather than ta.ke any chances with a lawsuit It is
likely that this process would tak.e less time than even a successful defense of a legal challenge,
and, of course, would save the city its legal fees.
Please let me laiow how you wish to proceed in this matter.
Very truly yours,
C��^c�..��-�.--�-
Charles L. LeFevere
CLL:c1Q
CLL85370
RS125-3
� , '
HOLPER WELSH & MITCHELL� LTD.
ATTOR\'ETS AT I.A��'
:50 PILLSBL'RT CE.\'TER
200 SOLTTH SI71'TH STREET
11I\TIEAPOLIS, :�iIA'�'ESOTA 53402
TELEPHO\E (61'�) 3:3-2200
FACSI1iILE (Fi12) 3:3-��2=
David D.Hammargca
(612)373 2212
March 7, 1995
VIA MESSENGER VIA FACSIMILE AND U.S. MAIL
Mr. Bud Osmundson Da�id F. Simons, P.E.
City Engineer Short Elliott Hendrickson, Inc.
City of Rosemount 3535 Vadnais Center Drive
2875 145th Street West St. Paul, MN 55110
Rosemount, MN 55068
Re: Biscayne Avenue Improvements
Utility and Street Construction
City Project No. 249
S.A.P. No. 208-108-01
Dear Mr. Osmundson and Mr. Simons:
I have been retained by Ryan Contracting, Inc. ("Ryan"}in connection with certain irregularities
involved in the bids submitted for the referenced Project on Friday, March 3, 1995. Richard
Knutson, Inc. ("RKI") was the apparant low bidder at $1,453,813 while Ryan was second at
$1,513,304. I have learned from Ryan's estimator, Tyler Enright, that RKI's bid was not
responsive xo the City's bid documents. Consequently, I am notifying you of Ryan's insistence
that RKI's bid be rejected and that the Project be awarded to Ryan as the lowest responsi�e
responsible bidder.
There were two "addenda" issued by the City prior to the March 3 bid letting. A revised bid
form was issued by the City to be used by all bidders and contained a space in which each bidder
was required to aclrnowledge each addendum. Addendum No. 2 contains the following express
requirement:
NOTE: Receipt of this Addendum No. 2 shall be acknowledged in the
appropriate space on Page 1 of the revised Bid Form (blue) sent with
Addendum No. L
The Addendum also states that "Bids submitted for the construction of this project shall conform
to this notice.
. � .
. '
Bud Osmundson
David F. Simons, P.E.
March 7, 1995
Page 2
The bid submitted by RKI did not contain any aclrnowledgment that RKI had received, reviewed,
understood, or considered Addendum No.2 in the formulation of its bid. Consequently, RKI's
bid is not responsive to the express requirements of the City's contract documents. It is well-
established in Minnesota that a materially non-responsive bid must be rejected. In Carl Bolander
& Sons Co. v. Cit�of Minneapolis, 451 N.W. 2d 204, 206-7 (Minn. 1990) the Court noted:
. [A] bid must conform substantially to the advertised plan and specifications.
A public authority has a "plain duty" to reject bids which have a "substantial
variance" from the plans and specifications. Coller v. Ciry of St. Paui, 223
Minn. at 385, 26 N.W. 2d at 840.
A public agency must determine responsiveness at the time of the
opening of the bid. The public entity has no authority to make any material
changes or modifications after the bid has been opened. Coller v. Cit�r of St.
Paul, 223 Minn. at 387, 26 N.W. 2d at 841. This is "to deprive or limit the.
discretion of contract making officials in the areas which are susceptible to
such abuses as fraud, favoritism, improvidence and extravagance."
Griswold v. Ramsev Countv, 242 Minn. 529, 536, 65 N.W. 2d 647, 652 -
(1954).
The bid documents also state that the City reserves the right to "waive irregularities and
infornlaiities" in the bid. This right, however, is not unlimited. See J.L. Manta. Inc. v. Braun,
393 N.W. 2d 490 (Minn. 1986). In Telephone Associates Inc. v. St. Louis Countv Board, 364
N.W. 2d 378, 382 (Minn. 1985) the Court noted:
A board may waive bid defects if public rights are not thereby prejudiced.
Public officials, however, have no authority to waive defects which affect or
destroy competitive bidding. See e.g., 64 Am. Jur. 2d, Public Works and
Contracts, §62 at p. 916. The test of whether a variance is substantial is
"whether it gives a bidder a substantial advantage or benefit not enjoyed by
other bidders." Duffv v. Village of Princeton, 240 Minn. 9, 12, 60 N.W.
2d 27, 29 (1953).
In other words, the City can waive minor informalities in a bid, but it cannot waive material
defects in the bid, A bid is "materially nanresponsive" if it varies from the bid documents in a
manner which affects price, qualiry, quantity, time or manner of performance or other things that
go to the actual determination of the amount bid. Folev Brothers, Inc. v. Marshall, 266 Minn.
259, 123 N.W. 2d 387 (1963).
� �
Bud Osmundson
David F. Simons, P.E.
March 7, 1995
Page 3
The defect in RKI's bid is a material defect that cannot be waived by the City for a number of
reasons. First, the defect affects RKI's price and its manner of performance. Addendum No. 2
deleted the specification calling for compaction by the "Ordinary Compaction Method" and
substituted the "Modified Specified Density Method" of compaction. This modification reflects
a change in the manner in which the work is to be performed. Furthermore, Mr. Enright informs
me that this change results in an increase in the time and cost required to complete the work.
RKI's failure to acknowledge this change is clearly a material nonconformity.
Second, RKI's bid defect gave it a substantial advantage over the other bidders. By improperly
completing its bid form, RKI essentially reserved the right to withdraw its bid (by claiming an
inadvertent mistake) after it had the opportunity to review the bids of the other bidders. All of
the other bidders were required to submit firm bids - RKI should not be allowed to submit an
equivocal bid which could have been withdrawn after RKI's review of the other bids on the
Project.
The Ciry has two options. It can reject all bids, readvertise and rebid the Project - a process that
will take additional time and expense. Or it can simply reject RKI's bid and award the contract
to the lowest responsible bidder - Ryan Contracting. In the event the City chooses not to reject
RKI's bid, I will immediately seek a court order enjoining the City from awarding the contract
to RKI.
Please feel free to contact me with any questions or comments regarding this matter. I would
appreciate being advised by Noon on Thursday, March 9, 1995, of the City's intentions.
Regards,
David D. Hammargre
DDH/ijw
cc: Tyler Enriaht, Ryan Contracting, Inc.
t : .
���cs ���
MOORE, COSTELLO & HART, P.L.I..P.
A PROFESSIONAL LIMITED LIA81LiTY PARTNERSHIP
ATTORIVEYS
, REPLY TO WflITER'S pIRECT OIAL NUAABER
1�ZINNEAPOLIS OFFICE (bl2)376-175�
Mazch 17, 1995
ViA TFT.FC'OPY AND irtT MAI .
Mr. Bud Osmundson
, City EngineerlPublic Works Director
City of Rosemount
� 2875 145th Street West
� Rosemount, MN 55068
' Mr. David F. Simons,P.E.
Short Elliott Hendrickson,Inc.
' 3535 Vadnais Center Drive
' St. Paul, MN 55110
Re: BISCAYNE AVENUE IMPROVEMENTS
, UTILITY AND STREET CONSTRU�TION
ROSEMOLTNT CITY PROJECT NO.: 249 S.A.P.No.208-1U8-01
. COUNCIL REVIEW: MAI�.CH 21, 1995 .
Deaz Messrs. Osmundson and Simons:
I represent Richard Knutson,Inc.("RKI")in connection with its bid submission
on the above-referenced praject("Project'�. I have reviewed attorney Dave
Hammargren's letter to both of you dated March 7, 1995 in which he claims that RKI's
bid on the Project was nonresponsive and that,therefore,the Project should be awazded to
his client, Ryan Contracting, Inc. ("Ryan"). Mr. Hammazgren further threatens to seek a
court order enjoining the awazd of the Project to RKI if the City does not comply with
Ryan's wishes. The purpose of this letter is ta respectfully state RKI's position with
respect to the public contracting process and the reasons,both factual and legal,why the
' City should reject Ryan's ciaims, forego the time consuming and costly process of
readvertising for bids, and awazd the Project contract to RKI.
It is well settled and has Iong been recognized that a public contracting authority
has the right to waive minor irregularities and informalities in a bid. The City is also
entitled to exercise its sound discretion by awazding a contract in the best interests of the
taxpayers. In fact, the City's advertisement for bids on the Project specifically reserved
140a NORWEST CENTER • 55 E. FIFTH ST. • ST. PAUL, MN 55101-1792 • TEL. {612) 227-7683 • FAX (612) 290-17T0
701 FOl1RTH AVENUE SOUTH • SUITE 1350 • MINNEAPQLIS, MN 55415-1823 • TEL, (612) 673-0148 + FAX (612) 378-1770�
.. ,
Mr. Bud Osmundson
Mr. David F. Simons,P.E. �
Mazeh 17, 1995
Page 2
this right. Mr. Hammargren's March 7, 19951etter correctly points out that bids which
aze��;�.terial�,Y nonresponsive to an advertisement, or which have a sub�t tia�,variance
from the Project plans and specifications,must be rejected. However, Ryan fails to
acknowledge that the rejection of a bid on the basis that it is"materially nonresponsive"
may�r take place where the variance is substantial in nature and where the aileged
variance, if pernutted,wouid operate to destroy the principles of competitive bidding.
The test of whether a variance is substantial is"whether it gives a bidder a substantial
advantage or benefit not enjoyed by other bidders." ��v. Village of Princeton,24Q
Minn. 9, 12, 60 N.W.2d 27,29 (1933).
Ryan's disingenuous claim that RKI's failure to acknowledge receipt of
Addendwm No. 2 on its bid form somehow afforded RKI a substan�ial advantage or
benefit over others bidders is,under the circumstances,simply without support in fact,
logic, or law. With the exception of the disgruntled bidder Ryan, it was and is reasonably
and clearly understood to all that Addenduiii No. 2 changed but only one�aspect of
� the compaction specifications to require that a bidder"compact each course uniformly by
the modified specified density method"rather than the originaily stated"ordinary
eompaction method." Contrary to Ryan's self-serving protestations,this minor change in
the specifications did not and does not in any fashion affect the quantity,time,manner of
performance,quaiity,price, or any other matter which goes into the actual determination
of the bid amount.
A close review of Part 3.02(B) of Section 02514 of the Specifications,which
addresses the placement and testing of bituminous material, clearly indicates that neither
the qt�antitv of the work nor the�of performance is affected by the addendum.
Moreover,the��in which compacrion operations are to be performed is clearly
spelled out in paragraphs 1 through 4 flf Part 3.02(B). Those provisions specifically
require that compaction be conducted with initial, secondary,and final rolling with steel-
wheeled and pneumatic tire rollet�s through continuous operation until all areas are
. compacted to the required density. Further,the�ua�litv of the work has also not been
affected or changed by Addendurn No. 2. Quality issues aze clearly tfl be determined
through the performance and passing of the acceptance testing in accordance with
MNDOT specifications, as is fully set forth in Part 3.02(Bj(6).
Because the minor change in Addendum No. 2 did not affect the quantity of the
work,the time of perforrnance for the work,the manner in which the work was to be
performed, or the final quality of the work,Ryan cannot logically argue that RKI's failure
to acknowledge Addendum No. 2 operated to affect the�rice of RKI's bid or somehow
gave RKI an unfair competitive advantage in the bid process. To the contrary,
i
.. ,
Mr. Bud Osmundson
Mr. David F. Simons, P.E. .
Mazch 17, 1995
Page 3
knowledgeable engineers and contractors understand and agree that the minor change set
forth in the addendum did in fact not have any affect in any of the ways alleged by Ryan.
Additionally,RKI's post bid investigation has established that its bituminous
subcontractor, Master Asphalt,and Master Asphalt's anticipated supplier,Commercial
Asphalt,were both aware of the existence of Addendum No. 2. Furthermore,Master
Asphalt also subrnitted a subcontract quote to Ryan. Under these circumstances,Ryan
cannot logically azgue that RKI somehow received a substantial or unfair campetitive
advantage in the submission of its bid in that both RKI and Ryan were quoted by a
bituminous subcontractor which was fully aware of the provisions of Addendum Na.2
prior to making its quotes.
Conveniently,Ryan does not fully apprise the City as to the extent ofits rights in
the public contracting process and,more irnportantly,the extent to which a public
authority's reasoned discretion in the making and awarding of a contract will be upheid
by the courts. A public body is clearly entitled to waive minor defects in a bid ifpublic
� rights are not prejudiced thereby. J. L. Manta. Inc. v. raun, 393 N.W.2d 49U,491
(Minn. 1986);�lectronics Unlimited, Inc. v. V�1,la�e of Burnsville, 182 N.W.2d 679
(Minn. 1971).
Moreover,the fact that Addendum No. 2 may be deemed minor in scope and that
RKI's failure to acknowledge the same may be waived as a minor defect is sup�rted by
the fact that the addendum itself does i�specifically state that a bidder's failure to
acknowiedge the addendum would automatically render a bid nonrespansive. In�t1
�olander& Sons Com�,�n���of M�nneanoli�,451 N.W.2d 2fl4,208 (Minn. 1990),
the court held that a bidder's failure to list WBE firms as required in its bid was"taken
out of the minor defect category by the plans and specifications which deemed the failure
to comply with the W/MBE participation requirements as grounds for
nonresponsiveness." Here,#he fact that no such restrictive language was included in the
bid specifications or the addendum itself is further indicative of the fact that the chan�e
called for in the addendum was de minimus and that a failure ta acknowiedge the same
may properly be waived by the City as a minor defect.
It has also been repeatedly recognized that a public authority is not required to
reject a single bid where there is a minor technical defect in the submission of the bid
which does not affect the substance of the bid or which would otherwise operate to give a
bidder an unfair competitive advantage. This right to waive"minor defects"is often
relied upon by public contracting authorities in properly electing to not reject an
otherwise appazent low responsive,responsible bid simply due to a failure to comply with
a minor technical requirement or acknowledgment in the bidding process. In Folev Bros,.
..
Mr. Bud Osmundson
Mr. David F. Sirnons,P.E. �
Mazch 17, 1995
Page 4
Iai,c v,�,�,�11,266 Minn. 259,265, 123 N.W.2d 387, (1963j,the Minnesota
Supreme Court reasoned as follows:
Mere irre�ularitv of a bid will no�,j �ti , it r.�j�ection bv a
unici a� 1 body charged with a duty of awardin,� c� ontract
�o the low�st bidder. The form of the bid,not being
embodied in the'statute, is a regulation prescribed by the
City, and failure t�technicaliy comnlv wi the form
� required will not defeat the r�i ght of the lowe�t bidder t�
� �ave the contract if. after the bids are o�,e�,it�ears there
has been a subst�ntiai com,�liance with the requirements
and he tenders himself rea�v to execute the re�,uisite
contract and fi ish re�pqnsible bondsmen or g�od
securi ,as was the fact in this case.
� [Publi�contracting laws] are intended to secure to [the
City] the contracting of the work to the lowest responsible
bidder,and mere irregulazities in the form of the hid,or
details of statement which do not in any way mislead or
injure,are not sufficient to justify the rejection of such a
bid. It is in the interest of the�.ublic that the lowest bid.
hou it be ineg ��la�r,,b�ac g�tgd, �nd.�lf n���s'�ya tha�
�he bidder have the o ortun�to cone�t an irregularitv.
while nflt ch�nging_the substance of his bid. (Emphasis
added.)
I�. at 265 (citation omitted).
Ryan also claims that RKI has unfairly placed itself in a position to recant its bid
by claiming inadvertent mistake after bid opening. However,a bidder simply does�
have the right to withdraw its bid on the basis of an alleged mistake in all circurnstances.
Rather, relief from a bid mistake is generally available�1x where it can show, among
other things,that a mistake in fact occurred and can be proven by clear, convincing,and
objective evidence,that the mistake is of a sufficiently material nature,that enforcement
of the bid would be unconscionable or would unjustly enrich the owner,that the mistake
did not result fram any negligence of the bidder, and that the mistake relates to a material
feature of the contract. �g�g�,CONSTRUCTION BRIEF�t�7$-4(Bruner,Mistakes
in Bids)(Federal Publicatians 1978). Clearly, none of those circumstanees are present
here. Had RKI attempted to recant,the City would have been in a position to reTrg RKI
�.y. e . . � . � . .
Mr. Bud Osmundson
Mr. David F. Simons, P.E. �
March 17, 1995
Page 5
to perform the contract as bid,to forfeit RKI's bid bond, or to have the confiract
performed by another contractor and hold RK.I responsible for the difference in damages.
Quite simply, it is unrealistic to argue that under these circumstances RKI would have
been in any position to ciaim a ri�ht to recant its bid following opening.
Ryan's threat to litigate and enjoin the City from awarding the contract to RKI
rings hollow in the absence of any factual or legal support of its positian. It has long
been well recognized that a public authority's decision to award a contract under
competitive bidding procedures will�be overturned unless it can be shown to be an
arbitrary, capricious,or an unreasonable exercise of power. Neils n v.Ci of St. Paul,
8$N.W.2d 853 (Minn, I958). In the proper exercise of its discretion,public bodies are
well advised and are allowed to consider the best interests of the taxpayer,the
responsibility of bidders,the timely and proper completion of the work,and other matters
in determirung the"best interests." Here,especially in this day of fiscal austerity,the
City stands to save in excess of$60,000 on a project which,if awazd is made to RKI, will
� proceed imrnediately and which will be done by a contractor which has fully
demonstrated the full extent of its responsibility to the City on prior jobs.
Whiie the City may have concern over Ryan's threats of a bid protes#lawsuit, it
must not allow Ryan's threats to result in a rejection of a11 bids where,as here,the City's
best interests aze cleariy best served by an award to RKI. While Ryan certainly would
have the right to bring a motion for injunctive relief,that proceeding would be heard and
considered by a Dakota County District Court judge within a relatively short time anct
would presumably be disposed of in favor of the City's proper exercise of discretion.
Such a proceeding, if pursued by Ryan at a11,would in all likelihood be concluded well
before the anticipated rebid date of Apri121, 1995. The City must also consider that any
� such rebid opens the potential for higher bids and for yet a further assertion of unfounded
claims by disgruntled bidders such as Ryan.
Gentiemen, given the above factual circumstances and legal support, RKI
respectfully requests that you recommend that the City Council proceed with an award to
RKI on the basis that RKI is the lowest responsive responsible bidder on the Praject, and
that such an awazd would be in the best interests of the City and its taxpayers.
.. .
Mr. Bud Osmundson
Mr. David F. Simons,P.E.
Mazch 17, 1995
Page 6
Please call with any questions.
Very truly yo
MOO ,COSTEL O & . .P.
B
Tim C. ook
:�
cc: Charles LeFevre,Esq.
Dave Hammargren,Esq.
Sheri Boyum
MPLS:1444.DOC
. . . . �x�� � � . ` . . .. .. •
� i ���j•��+"'III`�.
� �I
' ' ., s+' a��°'
� � � � � � t�,sa,. � ��5 �w�' a.a� � .
. .. . . as .,e_:,. . .
. . .. . � � ��� . - .
. � � .. �' : � , ' ` . �a-�" . . .
� . . - . ' .._ . � , rs".a�c✓w. , .,
� � . � . . ?�;:' ,' `�"s.�. .
� .. . ... . . . .. .. ._. . �.r:�'°-, .�^� � . � .
234�.3 �l �ti...x�_ _..
�i�F
� � � � �. .. :� .
� H Cempaction Operatio�u > .'
� '��� (b)� Cores �
I Compaction requirements shall be the same as those spec�fied m 6
2331.3H except when modified and supplemented by the followm Two cores shall be taken at
�.� Contractor may be required to ct
H2 Modified S r 9
_ i �����i�'��� � coring samples so that the sampie
Delete 2331.3H2 and insert the following: � distortion. The samp l es shall be c
� (a) Density Lots �ar device. All samples shall be ma
j (1) Production Rates of 1,000 Tons per Day or Greater '�` number,an�d core number or letter.
For the"modified s ified dcnsi mett�t{ `�"' the laboratory as soon as possible t�
i� {Y � handling or exposure xo heat.
compaction,detemunation of the density in the compacted
mixture shall be made on samples taken by the Contractot Cores shall not be taken withir
from each lift placed. Samples shallbe taken from random- ���e nor within 20 feet of a transv�
ly selected sites as directed by the Engineer within a lot The Engineer may a11ow recorin
representing a days production. The samples shall be taluai hus been damaged, through no faul
prior to placement of the next lift and no later than the� �e coring process or in transit to tl
working day foilowing the date of placement. If 1-day's ; �allowed for any other reason un:
production from any lift is less than 500 tons, it may� trom both the Engineer and the Bit�
combined with the next day's production of that lift to f�m �iaterials Engineer.
a lot. Acceptance will normally be made in lots equal tu : Companion cores shall be tal.en
the number of tons placed in each lift on each production as selected by the Engineer for tesan,
day.. Each lot will be divided into five sublots � This is to verify the reliability of the
approximately equal surface area. ,erve as acceptance tests. Paymen
I (2) Production Rates Less than 1,000 Tons per Day Contractor's core results as observed
For low daily production rates (less than 1,OOOy �he�e cores sent to the Deparnner
tons),the density requirement shall be based on the numb�' The core holes shall be dried,
of cores listed in the following table. Addiuonal co matenal, and the material properly c
ion cores shall be taken by the Contractor and observed��b�,V. ��•
the Department for verificarion testing. If the ave,c�e� The Contractor shall test the <
density of cores taken is less than 91 percent of max�•� Engineer.
density, the Contractor shall have the oprion to take ad�� �c� Density Requirement
tional cores to provide a minimum of 10 cores,or to
a penalty based on the results of the cores already�G�� The density sha11 be 91 percent of
Density requirements shall be as iisted below. '��ue based on the gr�d a�erage of th
��ich no individual sublot average less
i Daily Prodnetion No,of No.of �um speci�c g�'avity. T(ie maximum
La�culate the percentage density shall b
Tons Cores Companion Cores :onducted the same day the lot was
�alue shall be used for all density lau
I 300 or less 2 1 one or t�yo m�imum s ecific
" �en the P gravity�
I 301-600 4 2 moving average value (at that
:uee or more maximum specific gra��t}
I 601-1,000 6 2 �n the average of those tests alone sha
vo retests will be permitted for fail
� 1,001 or more 10 3
150
151
� , ' 4��"' �' -�>
�� ,
i,�� �� '�`°` �
k� ;
. �'F � k��..� :^#
� � � � � . � ::k� "a. �y; . � �i'�
e� 4
, . d6-�4'�+j J���I II,� �� � � , y�"�.
r'�
� � I � �� x � ��
���# !z�':,f, ,�c� x
i- i� � ,�_. �
� � , � � " �.���' � �� ��
, ;�; -:
r:.
��,�r ,�`�i` _�
�o _
�.�`3 qr>
i � qr
. . � Y �,.�. i i'� rec�" ^.
xM , e x �
. � # I � , - �S-T'
. �4.3. �. ��._ ,
. � . .a .�.�;:.�Y` .�"a.mwx�Jca.v .. .v _t eQVt�%i."!5;' .
234t).3
�
i Uperations (b) Cores
�ements shall be the same as those specified in Two cores shall be taken at random within each sublot. The �
modified and supplemented by the foliowing: Contractor may be required to chill the compacted mixture before
�ecifiett Density Method coring samples so that the samples may be removed intact without
�nd insert the following: distortion. The samples sha11 be cut nsing a 4-inch to 6-inch coring
device. All samples shall be marked with the lot number, sublot
° number,and core number or letter. The cores shali be transported to
tates of 1,000 Tons per Day or Greater the laboratory as soon as possible to prevent damage due to improper
�r the modified specified density method of handling or exposure to heat.
determinarion of the density in the compacted Cores shall not be taken within 1 foot of a lon itudinal joint or
1 be made on samples taken by the Contractor edge nor within 20 feet of a transverse oint. g I
ft placed. Samples shall be taken from random- J
sites as directed by the Engineer within a lot The Engineer may allow recoring of a sample only when the core
a days production. The samples shall be taken has been damaged, through no fault of the Contractor,either during
ement of the next lift and no later than the next �he coring process or in transit to the laboratory. Recoring will not
+ following the date of placement. If 1-day's be allowed for any other reason unless written approval is obtained
iam any lift is less than 500 tons, it may be from both the Engineer and the Bituminous Engineer or the District
ith the next day's producaon of that lift to form �Zaterials Engineer. '
ptance will normally be made in lots equal to Companion cores shall be taken at three of the coring locations �
of tons placed in each lift on each production as selected by the Engineer for tesdng at the Depaztment's laboratory.
r iot will be divided into five subiots of This is to verify the reliability of the Contractor's test resuits and to + ��
ly equal surface area. �zrve as acceptance tests. Payment factors will be based on the
2ates Less than 1,000 Tons per Day Conuactor's core results as observed by the Engineer and verified by
�r low daily producuon rates (less than 1,000 �e�cores sent to the Department's laboratory. � `
The core holes shall be dried, filled with the same type of I �
nsity requirement shall be based on the numbet material, and the material properly compacted by the next working �
ed in the foliowing table. Additional cou}pan- ,
day. �
all be taken by the Contractor and observed by �, � /
nent for verificauon testing. If the average 'I'he Contractor shall test the cores in the presence of the y '"
ores taken is less than 91 percent of maximum E�gineer. I i . �
Contractar shall have the option to take addi- �c� Density Requirement ( '
to provi de a minimum o f 1 0 co re s,o r t o a c c e p c �
The densiry sh�ii be 91 rcent of the ma�cimum specific gravity "'
ised on the results of the cores already taken. �:alue based on the grand avera e of the five sublot averages(N=10),
.�iremenu shali be as listed below. g �
`���h no individual sublot average less than 89 percent of the maxi- ��
:num specific gravity. The maximum specific gravity value used to � �� x ��
No.of No.of - calculate the percentage density shail be the average value of all tests �"�' �"'�
Cores Companion Cores .onducted the same day the lot was placed and compacted. This ��"' �
�•alue shall be used for all density lots piaced that same day. If only `
2 1 ��ne or two malcimum specific gravity vaiues were obtained that day,
�hen the moving average vaiue (at that test point) shall be used. If
4 2 :iree or more m�imum specific gravity values are obtained that day,
'ien the averaoe of those tests alone shall be used as indicated above.
6 2 Vo retests will be permitted for failing densities. ��
10 3 �
;
�
I50
i
151 �.
����
� � � �� � .
rze� ��lP v,� 3� �" �„
£ s� �*`'.�r �'.'� e�,. .'. �K �"� :a` _ 1`x,����r. '�a�
}�.�•'"" ,.,5 � ��' �._y,� .#
+" �' y �,�. . � _ .. �� ��
��
, . 'S�; ���.i..
q . .. . .;.. : .
. . �_ s�1"„ w. - , �� �
. . •tM . '�,���tytyty�il'Mr� � '.II �1
� �
... . . . �� ��I I ���
. . . �n- _��` '£����
t „ �>.. . � � . , , .
v;
,r6» r�'�.3ffi��' _� .,...'. . � 1 � _ , . . _..�.. a ,..._.,.r�W,a.w �.. ��..mL' . .c%. .
_
�
�-� �
� � �
, . �:w.
. a � .� ..S'L"k. , . � . �
� . :
� � � . r}�* ,'fr••• . .
� , . � . . . . C+: �1.�, I �... . .
+ ' IIP , � i,����i �
� . � � :���t-�.� �� ������ �� � �,� �.�� � � �
_: � �.
• lIY
- . ' _ . > 2 � �� I I I I I f } .
. 1����,��
�, �
..,.�„
, �.
.,
� � � ,. � ° .. _ � _�
2340.3
I (d) Payment ' 2340•4 BASIS OF MEASURI
Payment for compacuon of the compieted pavement will be by l� �e����of ineasnremen
I based on the percentage of maximum specific gravity obtained. ��. ��ified by the following:
I Pay factors will be determined from Table 2340-3. � p Delete 2331.4D Bitum
I TABLE 2340-3 Square Yard-Inch
I pAY I,•ACfOR.�r Fp1� _ E Contractor Testing
I MODTFIED SPEGIFIED llENSTTY`(Q�A� 'x When a pay item for Contra
I Mean of 10 Cores as % of Pav FaMor A �ract, measurement will be ba�
bituminoas nnixture used and tes
I Maximum Specific Gravitv ?3qp,5 BASIS OF PAYME\
( 91.0% or greater . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • • • • 1•� '�'�e basis of payment will be
I 90.0% to 90.9% . . . . . . . . . . . . . �'� except that payment by the Sq
. . . . . . . . . .
I89.0% to 89.9% . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.975 otherwise specified in the Contra�
I 88.0% to 88.9% . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . 0.45 be incidental to the bituminous �
. . . . . .
I87.0%to 87.9% . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . 0.925 Payment will be made on th
� Less than 87.0% . . . . . . . . . . (A) Item Na Item
� . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
I � '�-i0.501 Contractor Testing (.�
i
ILowest Mean of Any Pay Factor B '�-10.508 Type_,Wearing Co
ISublot Avera�e ��`, '_3-t(1.510 Type._Binder Cow
I 89.0% or greater . . . . . . . • • • • • • • • • 1.00 ?3�OS12 Type_Leveling Gc
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .�;:
I8$.0°lo to 88.9% . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 0.94_ '_3�30.514 Type�Base Cours�
I87.0% to 87.9% . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.� ?3�0.516 Type_.Shoulder M
I86.0%to 86.9% . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.�'� '_3d0.518 Type_Bitucninous
I 85.0%to 85.9% . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.96" Specified Pu
. . . . . . . . . . . . . _
I Less than 85.0% . . . . . . . (� '-3-�0.521 Irregular Width Pav"u
( . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. • '_3�30.549 Type_Bituminous
(A) The Engineer will determine whether the material maX .
remain in place. The pay factor for such material remaue; �OTE; If either mineral fillet
ing in place shall be 0.70 for Pay Factor A and 0.80 for Pa� bituminous mixture ir
Factor B.
�' by adding the words:
I Total Pay Factor=(Pay Factor A)X(Pay Factor B) � (A) Item No. 2340.SQ1, C
used only when the p
If specified,payment
� M B��inous Mixture Production (f.o.b. DeparUm� ��d bituminous surt
I Trucks) ........ ......... ... . . ... .. 2331.3�
The Engineer may require the Conaractor to sample 2340 mixturts
of the required Contr.
behind the paving operation. The mixture will not be subject�
Contractor density testing. �
I ri Delete 2331.3N Bituminous Mixtnres Measured by�
Square Yard-Inch
�.
152
. �
. .,�, ., . ,
-�� �
._ . ,
� .�,�� ��
� :�,� . � :
,�,r;�` �,,
, i� � �:,
� � �:G� .� � � � � �
��_ '�c R'� . � .. . . . .
. . "r+�.r . . � . '
. �'s; ' � � � .
�f I
� � � ������ �� ,.�; � � � � �
� ��:�
���: ., �,-.
�1'." �-- `
��
a.,.
�; �
� ?.,x,'"y' ,�`��- y
. � ` � 1 �
�
AFFIDAVIT OF MR. ROBERT ,�ANN�,�IAN
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
) ss.
COtJNTY OF HENNEPIN )
Mr. Robert Hannaman,upon first being duly swom upon oath,deposes and states
as follows:
1. I am the vice president of Master Asphalt Company,a bituminous
contractor which maintains its principal place of business in Maple Grove,Minnesota.
Master Asphalt has been in business for appro�mately 16 years. I have been involved in
the construction indushy for a total of approximately 12 years. During that time,I have
been involved in literally hundreds of bids on public improvernent projects. As a vice
president of and estimator for Master Asphalt,I have beeome intimately knowledgeable
of and familiar with specifications for bituminous�aving operations, including,but not
limited to, specifications regazding compaction techniques,opera.tions,and quality
testing. I am also very familiaz with the bituminous paving specifications contained in
the MN DOT Standard Specifications for Construction,which specifications are aften
incorporated into projects for local improvements.
2. In February of 1995,Master Asphalt became aware of a project involvi�g
a significant amount of bituminous paving advertised by the City of Rosemout. 'The
project calied for utility improvements and paving operations on Biscayne Avenue
("Project").
3. As an interested subcontractor,Master Asphalt reviewed the plans and
specifications regarding the Project and prepared to provide bituminous paving subquotes
to general contractors,inciuding Richazd Knutson,Inc. and Ryan Contracting. To my
knowledge, Master Asphalt's supplier, Cornmercial Asphalt,also reviewed plans and
specifications regarding the Project in connection with providing us a quote for
bituminous materials. The bituminous paving specifications contained in the Project
documents at Section 02514 are attached as Exhibit A.
4. The bituminous paving specifications make reference in several different
. locations to MN DOT Specification 23403.H.2. Among other things,the Project
specifications require that this MN DOT Specification is to be used as calcutating a basis
' for payment for compaction of the completed pavement(Section i A1(D}(3j),aze to be
used as a basis for the performance of acceptance testing(Part 3.oa��{6j,and aze to be
used in connection with"Field Quality Contral"(i'art 3.03B).
5. MN DOT Specifications 2340.3.H.2 are in fa�ct specifications which
address and define the"Modified Specified Density Methoci." A copy of MN DOT
Section 2340.3.H.2 is attached hereto as Exhibit B.
6. Prior to giving subquote proposals to general contrac#ors,both Master
Asphalt and its supplier, Commercial Asphalt,became aware of bid Addendum Na 2
� dated March 1, 1995,wluch addendum changed pazagraph 5 of Part 3.02(B)
: "Compacting 4perations"to require that each course of bi#uminous be compacted
uniformly by the"Modified Specified Density Method"rath+er than by the"Ordinary
Compaction Method"as previously specified. A copy of Bid Addendum No. 2 is
. atta.ched as Exhibit C.
7. From Master Asphalt's perspective as a bituminous paving subcontractor
and bidder,the change called for in Addendum No. 2 was simply a minor and technical
-2-
clarification of the specification in order to make the specifications read consistently, As
previously noted,the referenced MN DOT Specification 2340.3.H.2 already xequired the
Modified Speeified Density Method and therefore,Master Asphalt viewed the Addendum
No. 2 as merely clarifying that which was already required,compliance with the NIN
DOT Specifications which governed, among other things,final testing and payment and
which required the"Modified Specified Density Method."
8. In my experience and understanding,the principal difference between
"Ordinary Compaction Method"and the"Modified Specified Density Method" involv�s
the element of core testing. Both methods involve compaction with steel wheeled and
pneumatic tired rollers. The"Modified Specified Density Method"requires the use of
follow-up core testing. Because the specifications had already called for such testing,
Master Asphalt understood the bid addendurn to be a clarification in order tr�make the
specifications read consistently and to clear ug any poten#ial confusion among bidders.
Master Asphalt,through its supplier, Commercial Asphalt,had already inciuded in its
subquote computations the value of the core testing required under the MN DOT
Specifications.
� 9. The subquote of Master Asphalt,utilizing prices suppiied by its supplier,
Commercial Asphalt, included a price for test coring in the amount of 20 cents per ton.
The Project called for approximately 7,500 ton of bituminous. The cost included in
Master Asphalt's subquotes for this test eoring was$1,506.60. This cost had alread�
been computed and included in Master Asphalt subquote�riar to the receipt of
Addendum No. 2. Accordingly, Addendum No. 2 did�hiIIg to change or affect the
-3 -
F
price at which Master Asphalt quoted the bituminous paving to both Richard Knutson, �
Inc. and Ryan Contracting.
10. In my experience and understanding,the bid Addendum No. 2 was a
minor and technical bid clarification and one which did not operate to affect Master
Asphalt's pricing computations,determinations as to the manner in which bituminous �
I
paving and compaction operations would be performed,or the requirements regarding
final testing and payment for the work. The addendum also did not affect quantities,
quality,time of performance,or any other matter which, in my opinion,would have given
any bidder which did not acicnowledge the addendum an unfair campetitive advantage
over other bidders.
11. In my experience,a reletting of a project does not necessarily result in
lower bids to a public authority. Moreover,while the possibility for lower bids does
exist, it is also my experience that contractors will often attempt to rnake up the
difference in their bid prices through the assertion of change orders or through an attempt
to complete the work more quickly,thereby potentially resulting in a decrease in quality
of the final product.
12. Tlus�davit has been given at the request of Richard Knutson,Inc.
While Master Asphalt stands to be awazded a subcontract on#he Project if Richard
Knutson performs the work,Master Asphalt aiso believes that it enjoys sound business
relations with Ryan Contracting. Therefore,this Affidavit is given not with the intention
to either help or hurt one contractor or the other,but rather is to set forth,under oath,the
factual basis as to Master Asphalt's understanding and interpretation of bid Addendurn
-4-
. � I
Na 2 and Master Asphalt's belief that the atidendum did not operate to affect issues
involving quantity, quality,time of performance, manner of performance,or price of the
bituminous paving and compaction operations on the Project.
Further your Affiant sayeth not.
5t� �qTU�E �PA�� A7Cf�cl�i��
Robert Hanneman
Subscribed and sworn to before me
this day of Mazch, 1995.
Notary Public
MPLS:1470 1.DOC
- 5 -
�• �aiv yv14 �� V�)VV t�.SJ1LA Aar�yLl UUSlUU3
JSIY I o T • � 3-20-95 s ��14P� ,AICORE G05''E�..LO � NAh�-+ �
, . 01Z 42d a85E:� 6
. I'�a.Z a,a,ci.�sc�er A�p1�,t*��c�#�f that tixe�e�du�►did�t op�rsu to affr�rx irsues
invr��ving qcz�ci�,Y.c��atity;tiaa,�af p���,mauaer af Pe�ar��,Qr p�ofth�
���Y3II$�G:?�x7iiC��'1 t�,?��;3BS tbl L}!C�jCCt,
�1lI�L:C yCiL1lL'A�YB�!t�j�2!G!#.
l�,''�'�—_'�'""_'--„------- -
.!
. RQbat Hua��n
�
' 3ub�^n'b��swo:n tv bef��te 1�'�
th�� �C� c�ry srf l�i�h, 1995.
1 �,� -
. ,�
�a��,�u� �
34II'R.9:t�7Q 1,L1�(1C _
�l1.6 ktpLER
ilClfl�RY Rts;iC•AWHE+4TA
' ,h�if COtrliyN33�Oti ET,PfRES
lMMLJ�RY�t.'.�p04
y
•s-
; .
v�•e:uir� 1:�.�a rrt_. . r a�t al�C�i'L �'�.�UUS;UlL i
SECTiUN Q2524
PT.A.t�''�-MIXEL Bi'I't3.",�'I1�iL�US PAVEM�N7
QUALITY AS�SC'Ttr1I�TCE(Q1A)
(141Ai/�}UT 2340)
P.4RT 7 CEN��.AL 4. Payment Eor mixtures cont�i:ung
salva�ed mater:als shali bc the sarne
Z.Q3. SU�iN'.��,RY as for miYtures COn��nirtg s irgin
ITta�Yf3�.,.
r�- `�'r.ciipn I�C3utle5 5_ P�yr.ten# for bitu,minous used ire
1. Coztskxuctian of pav�ent cou:� drivewsys sha11 be at ;he sarn�unit
�s fr�m hnE plant-rnixe+�bi�uma- pricc for th� �tpgrepriate type of
r,r,us-a$�e$afit�::xturp« b1LWTar.4�s mi>;tua'z plaCed: No
2. I?ernon.scration of quaitry oon�aI addi#i�r,.�I comperl.�a#ion is aiitrw�d.
tzu'c�ugh��ali�y contr�!t�estiiig. 6. Bitun�inaus wallc tn�iL t�e pai� for
under SeCtiCn 0�3(7.
B- ReIat�ci 5e�vtio�s: :_ Paymertt{c►r acceptable quar�t�t,i�s a�
1. �e�tiogt 02�47-Eituminnus Z�d: �ihunin;r��;s p�va,'r�extt shall�,e at the
CQ�t- Contract Urut Pzi4� t�3 listed o�, tht
2. Seetion 02�38-A�aze�te� r Bid reum. AII ass�ated wr�rk itemS
shal2 be cons;tclered in�dent�i.
C• 1'.�cthod ef I�ieasuzemeni 8. Pa;�nent for bitum,i;,�ous �avecnent
:i_ Birarninous Mt�xture wi9 be b�sed on tile follovfing s�hed-
a. Nieeassure ea,h mixture typ� ule:
b�r weight izt tons arcept
�bly place�. It�..'�.t�. item i�,�;f
b. No dnduction for biturni-
nc�us mataria3s zn th+e mi�c- :t331.508 Typ��1 Wearun;Course
ture. Mixtuzc Tt3n
2. ��turnint+us]4iat�rial 233'I.5Z4 Type 318ase COurse
a, I�tcidental ro the bii�mi- :Vlixtura Ten
nous mi�cture.
D. Alternates
Q. �a�is ar'Fay�ex►: 1 At the Con�ac�r'�opticn,Ty-pe 32
k- iVIL`C1UTQ C�St 112CI11C�£S dCl�]t1L P.S m'Lrtu1�![tsay�t�e substitixtzd fo*7ype
a�,r�quired. 31 rnixture(zxcep�weari�ng cour�e).
�. Pa5 ment Fs�r mi�chues witri �
�arsrzali cle.-�ty ia,ez�tess af 16(3 1.02 R�ER�N�ES
pcf at the esta���,�.!�ed asphalt
��a:�tent sha2l be at 85�0 of t��.e A. Mn/L�OT 2c�i'!: Plant�iixeci Bxtumi��us
Contract 1Jnit Price. k'avErnent-Quali�j Assura�ce tQIA).
3. Payrner►; Wr coznpaction of the
carnp�eted pavem�nf shd1l be B> l�tnlZt+?T Ccv�txacter(;.erixfied Bituminc�us
subject #o the �ravisicvns of I41i�tvses dat�d June 1, 1493; (five pagea
LL��bC�T 23�0_3.H.2.�I. attached at end of��is sectfor+).
Plant-Mixed Bitumir.ous P��•erneni Quaii ,�ssur�nce{�!A}
A-RUS�M94G6.{)4 02514- 1
� �
•,�a:.c�.�r� 1b:7�A t�►.� S�;H S"i. YA!!L .r._. „� _`..._ i�lUu3;()12 �
C. MnIUUT 3139:Graded A�gzegates far 2.02 EQUIPM�N?
Eitu�inaus t�i�x�,ues.
A. Atl eqtxipmez�.t use� in produc�ib*� a:�d
J. Mn/�I'3151:Hituminous Maeeriai. pla�erlent �ha2t be in accord,ann� witt;
Mn/t7C7T 23�1.3.C.
E. Mn,'U�'",�'T�I�chraczl iVie;r�oran�uu�IVc,.
89-3SP�IE-27. $. A11 bi.t'u�i..n�us mixturBs chall be pzcxiuc2d
at a 2,�1at1�C3T Cer+ified t.?,:A glar�t.
1.fl3 SUBN�ALS
�.a3 htvc��zvro�Ttt�vs
A.- Pr�ci+.�t Data
I. �u�as�it a cop;�� r�i all aata re- A. Bitw~�ninous'_��Fatw�c�i�l
qu�zed u_�.dez Mix Proportions. 1. Th� }3erc�t�tge e�£ adaed asp'nalt
ce�r.�nt shatl cQnfor�m t� �he provi-
1.D4� PRi?jEt�'"T C�IiiDTI'iONS 5ions o�MnlUOT?3:it3-3.B.T.
�. �:tot p�aCe�ixtures witen weather or B. job:�:ux Fox�z�ula�JiN'Fj
rvadia�I c�nditicros ar�determined to 1. Provide sopy �f MnIT.XJ7''jAt,[P for
be ��.�faL•e�rab2a. th�aggr��ate sourc�for e�t zxta;-
tuxe.
S. C�tain writt�permis�ion&�t;he En- 2.' C�nYractvr Tri�i�•Iix De���
�;inee� to �lac� mixture �sft�r t�..'�ber a. I)�i�n all�es izt aCc�r3ar►ce
1�. with :1+itt!DOT 2340.3.�.2.b.,
e�ccspt as mnci�i.fied betow:
ec
_ C. $iteuninou� s,-ear m��r ttot be pl�c� b. Moc�Ei£y �3�t?.�.E.2.b.(3xg) a9
unti1399t�. ft�Iiows:
D. Tnitial and final ca�rinb adj,:stmr.xt�S {� '�he Coaitractvr sh�Il t�esign the m�x-
�over,�d und�r S�etivn U.^.�'1. tur�at an optimt�.�n asFhat:cantent at
. le�.st�:3 peroent above i3�e mirtiuiu�
rA�tT z �ROl�ucrs Iisted ir:Table 2331-7._ Test da.ta�,��11
b� submittt,�' for four ciiffer�nt c�za-
2.Q7 i�'LAT�ItIALS n�rtinn�.nf,a��rp��#r��:��,�+.�.cx*petx::t
A. A$gTe�ah': 11.Zni 1�T�331.2..�. shal!sh.ow a caniinual tha�r►ge n£void5
1. 8a;� C�uz�e - Type B, 17esign frorn 2 percxrct to 6��rcent voids. Th�
3Z8EB�G�tbY data gulrtts will alsL.be suppp�te� by
2 Niear Cours� - 'Ty�e 4,�?e,,��zt additional te5t resul�s co��sistent kith
� 41WEA5�?0"�5Y �ecif�ca��r�uu<remen�. The Can:
tractor sd�ail�esi�ate x=hich aggzeg�te
B. Bituminous ;.SateraaL- 14�n/I7pT forrnula�:�n�?YaII be�ed ts�begin tl,e
Z331.2.1�. praj2ct. The �ar.tractcyr �ay adjust
1. Peneir�rion: I2�!150. a,ixtur�;bas,��l a�aiz�loid r-sutts from
�ctuai pr�duction u;,a�g thz in#vzt�ta-
C. A3ditve� tic�re a�;a?I$bl� :ro� the four dif�erent
�:• A�,3 �nti-torsning �s�t at tr�e prdgor��n,s r_�f a�greaate subini#te�'
a-.ac�ufacrarer's reco�uster.ded and a3j�:sti��g the pruportians of the
do.�a;e rate. a�gr,'egate and tk�,e as�halt conter►t @ut
Plant-Mixed Biiumin��� Fa�er�ert Qualitv�ssurar�t�,'A�j
(}251�-2 A-R�SEM94ci8.a0
' - • •.•• o.:aa Na, sn�i. . g,r.yv4a viL
� not belaw,all�wabia rni,xvirnums)ta 3. Coordinate paver speed wikh tY�e
tac�,ct �� d�.sigr. ai���r� �-�Iues. rate of clelivery Ut th� mix to p:�-
C�es of aggre�;�re��aportions vide�unif�rrn zate of placerr�ent.
a�Lst res-a!t it�.a tni;c:-�e cC:nF�'.�'�,� 4. Co�.piete gl�cer;�nt pi e:acn course
v�*itYt Mr.i�1T 313�. A�gr£'g'�t-e Over the fi..tll c�zidt:� o: ih� se�iici�
no# inclu��.� in#,`ie s`�.ibmitt�d,m�ix each�a3_
de3i�n shali �ot be aTloiv� �,�i��-
out a ttew design�zi�z. B. Cozxa.�ac+in�Uprera#ions
1. Conduct iniria: an.d c"inal no;ling
3. MiYture L�e:�sx I'cc uirer.tcrtr� ,.� na
' �' � �t�h a st�eel-vvrLeeleci roller.
a. :�Si.xtlare �e5i.gn R��air�- 2. Canducr secondairy rolling with a
menr� sh�I1 c�anforrn ta pneumatic-tire�a rcll�•.
�fzt/�++p'T��0.3.�.2.C- 3. C�rnn•de�.ce con��actir�n as seon as
b. No mi:,'ture t,{�rifitatian
! possx`bi�a.►tter tlie nuxxure h�s bezn
; sarnpl2 i,re�uired. spread:�vi.thouE cat��undue di•r
4• N�:uciure P�du,:rion pl�.cP�:e�nt cr the znixtvre.
a. A.iixture �rodu�:tion shal� 4. t?perat� roliers c4ntir�uoL,cl}• �:ntii
be iTt 1CCOPcIes.�:� wir�t ait a��as are compacted bo the r�
Mn/�OT 2�4Q.3.E.2.d. �juired�ensity ar.cl aL�c�er mar'_Ks
2.s� StaL,�C�Q�;AI.IZY CC?ff�TTTF,OL ar�elin.linaf�d.
r 5l Campact ea�:h ceux;�uniformIy by
tne G�t't�itt3ry Ca�npac�ic�r► �tefihod
.A. All bitr.unism�s Flant t�sting pexsor�nel, u,n#il f3teze is no£ursher evidence o�
fati]itie��.and r�ui:er:ents shaiI be in ran�olidation.
- accr.rdanc�?�ith I�1:n/L�O;C 23�10.3.E.3. 6. T?crEorzn acccptance t�cin� in �:-
�r�anre��YLh Mn/�7(;7T;Z34G,3.H.�.
P��.�T 3 E7�;�C1U'TiCl�T � C. Thickness ar,d Surface Requir��s►znts
1, After cojnpaction,each cour�e shall
, 3.aT P��PA�t,��.'Tz4hT be w�ithizt I!4"oE th.e requireci thick-
ness.
A. �'rnatmerit of the Sct,r:a�� 2_ Re-�ncrve a.-�d re�lacr�any ar�As that
1. �PP�'Y biturr.ninotas tack c�at ta are not within�le.an:e.
existi�ng eur�ices inclu,�in,�e:cis�- 3. After rollin�, each stu'face Shali be
in�b�ittuir�inous or cancr�sax- freee af c�pen az�.d irpzx't s�c�o�ts.
f�c�s 3nd :c►ttue surface o'e�ch �. Each c�ur5e sha�l be smooth a:�d
cc�urse except the �r►a�surfac�. txue#o the�ia,-�neci..gra�e and�ass-
se�:tioz� witizin the folloc+r�r� tcler-
3.Q2 p�,ACEIL�E;V"'�' ances:
a. Canstruct Ieveling ccurse
A. Spre�din�C��ratio�.s wa� t3,t�5 ;�oat or the pro-
1. S�read eacM zniAtur� to the :�- pvs�d tle��ations.
quired czcss-section with an a�- tr. Sinaer ar.d wear�-� CoursE
Fraved pav�r. s•azfa4es s1:al1 ri0� *rary m�:re
�- Spread by Itanc�or moto:�zauer than I/8 i��:h from the ed�e ef
orily in az�as n�t a�ceSs:ble h�a a IO Eo�t straig�.lte�ge plaeed
gaver. parailel or pe:pendice�lar tb tna
c.�mterlix►e.
PlanhMiX�d 6itumin�u�Pav�ment Chtaif'v A55utarC� .''t,.+A
:�-ROS�M9406,00
02�14-3
. _. i
c. Transvezse skape. of ea.c�+ 3�.03 FiELD QiJALi'Z'X CON"I'�OL
stxr�ace shatl�o#vary fro�
the prt��c.sed sibpe tiy A. Atl fxeld quelity control test�artg per-
awre thar� 1!2 in,r� in 1� sc�nreei, fa:ilitfes, and xequire�;'t�nts
feet. shail be in accordanc� with ivin/D'QT
d. Thr. distance frocn she Z3�f�_3.E.3.
cent�rlir�e tcr t;-�e e�gz af
each tvuzse shall be nut B. Perf�rm compact±on t�ting of bih�ntinc►us
Zess k�tan th��pro��sed dis- ��xtur�; in accord.�r.ce tivith iVls�/�T
tance nar �reater than 3" 23�.H.2_
more than the �+ropased
�i.stance.
S- Rernc,v�a.*�d recon.s#ruct all por EhiD QF SE�'T'IUN
tir�ns o£ any c4ur� not in
, comp�.ance�with th�above tt�ez-
�ances.
jD• C�ns�3r�ion joutts
1. Co�nn.pact to produce a tighdy
bond�d joir►t nteeting surface
toleranaes. �
2. Trar�sc=�rse?oin�
�. Place at rt�,ht an�es to -
c�nt�riir►Q tvl�never glace-
�ent cperataoxts are s�.u- .
- pen�i�_
h• Upon resumpaan�f�,+v�or{,
cut L�erkic�l.iy far Ehe ful� .
d�!pth of the cnurse.
3• � Y.angitucli.na!jc+in�
a. Pls�e paraLlc3 to f�tcr:ter- .
lin�e.
b. I'la�fofntS tieh.�een,fri�s
rsot ters tk�n c'+" measured
traTtSve*Sely ; h�m Iike
j�aints p:ac�u in fhe under-
I>>irig cour��.
4. i'lace �surface caur;�s to not
greater than]%x'above adjaeent
g,�tters and not greai� than
, 1�2" abe�� rnar,hole f,t�rr►es,
��ai��e baxes c+r 4tF�r F�xed struc-
tuxes.
�'+�rn•M!xe;.+gi�uminous Pa�r��ment QU�ii�y �;s;,rar.ce;LU�+
J2514_�..� .
A-F,OS�M9�406.E0
+-�+. r� vc tv� �v a.l�w . N1LII �)1.. L9�:L �V41 ,.+/li
MNIL`U i til l UMiN�.11.5 ����:67.2�?7�-5��U W .3uri C39»'��`~ 8�5b Nu .�Cl� P.02
. J�:ne 3, 1993
�=�y��'z�.�C1'�R CERTIFI�� BI�rUhil�oUs r�7x�rc�r<Es
. ���'i-�-.��1�I�4 °lan, P�j��t. .A.YI bituminvus tz;ixrurts proctucc� fc�r t!iis �ra;cc� shail
meet th� r��uireruencs cE Specific,�tior� 234U, Bitvmit�wus C�uKtity .Assurancc, �-crpt as
mod�ed ��cd s7�p�,luacn�ea by t�'�t fc�IJowing to proviae Cont;actor �Ccrti:ie� l3i:t,r.linc,us
hiixtures: . . .
��1��. T� PR�.��i.T�2�
';hc s�;pp}icr s�a1l h�v�suf:i�iE:nt iCsting f�ciJities 2nd qna'i�ed persoce�el i.-�cludi:tg C�rt.i�ied
Technsci�ns tc jr�t'f0�'til tf�� �et�UiI�d ICs25 in a tim�lj� i:��i=n�r and mt�intain � �od �LT�?i:v'
CaIttf�� �lIO?I"2Ci].
The t'anlraGtor's quaJizy co;,trvf c,r�ani�at�on, pC FFIvaiC tCSiin� �P3T2 r�present�n� th�
Contractor, xh�l1 �nclude irt3ividuals •N�;o "jave. ,;Um�licd �v�t�e �z� rec�virern$nts for �I;�
Certificatican Qi,ali{ic;��ions fc�r Certinec Tce.hni�:�ns•Un fil�wich th� L)e�r,.rt�n�ent ar�d sh�1;
hav�: pT'Oven c�p��+ili�; Qf. ger:csrrrling tha required tcst prsacc�u:cs. ,t�tty t�chl2;c;$r; •
�atf4fmin,��pCOG$5: c�nirt�f tecti�� shail bc cet'tifed as s L�vel T I3i�uminot�s Q�r{ Tester.
�ny technir�ixn �crf�zt:t�lg .nix. desi�n �alculations �nd/or actizig ii� a r�sronsr�tle cavz�i;y
ceg�rding :�ix ct�ign ��j�asts7;�nts shaiJ be eertifiet3 �s a �,.��ei I7 R;t���uinav� C��i Mix
Desi�tt�r. ��I1� COfliTilGtQ; sha'i l�ave a min:mum. of on� persc�n �sr ��vi�� nperatian -
cer±i�ed as L.�ucl !I �itumir�us Str�et 1r�s�ec.nr.
The pmce�i��rc �oi �7lant ceriifiwati;�r� is as fc�llows:
� �. :.'o.���a(ete ap���ic�i;on f�rmfre�ucsi for plant in�pcet;�:�.
�- -v�'�'^C�C A SIt� Yt;:lD G�Sl4Ck.pt�� JqCZ210AS.
3. r�=s� j�!�ri aTid te5tir� f�iGi?lt� ittSpE�tion. `!'� pc;s pla��c and t:stin� ;acilizy
insDectl�;��the Bil;�rnir�aus�'l�n±In;pectior R�port ('T'���342-01,T�02143-01�r�,us�
bc cont�;ctcd azzd signcd by th� plant ir.s�ecCOr &ttd �:;:�;m;tlQtts �3lt�rit �uihCs:Ize�
� ager,t- �y sigttir:g the L�icurninals P!ar.t Ins�,cc.:o;� F.epc:�'t, t�e riti�rr�in;���� ��I�rit
autho:izcd a�ent z�,r�e:; tc c�,t�brat�an�i maintain, ail pi�^: and lat�or�rory eq:�i���r�t
wiclliz�I?�w��]��fller�nces set fart�►in Mn.t�Q'i'S�ecifications,C�riiFicc Bitunliuous
. 1'3ant r�q��it�e��r.:s and the !2test versian�f t:�e Departmeat's �itumir,ovs h:anual.
�*. Oht�iin aF�rove�� ma: d�siga reeamm�ndat:ar.s zci�r tc� �;pdUCiSC�Zl,
T� rnainzair, ce,;ificati�;t; itlC t I3!1� ir:ust proci:ace, eest, �r.� dacur�e:�t aIi Cerlified Planc
hitumfn��;s raiy.t�;e.s in ��c�rc�;:ro�e with 1�Sn:'JO�' r�c�:�iran�►��:ts dnd Specificz:ions osi a
�t�ntit3vous ��:is,. Ti�� n;�nt r.crtification prcccdure :nust �c per±nrm�d arsn���ily. .
�+�t3vement �f a ��it�r,c ;� a nc,�� ;3c�.��,� wilt rccivirc recerci;:cation.
� Page I
�tv{:�i►i ��.i���livi_iu� ..� rr, ;�,1:C—(ty—��>3l; ,...... �... . , .�ur� u� ��.0 �:�� tvc .u��;� r :u� � �
Junc 1, :993
. �
13�C�R''C:"!C:ATI�!
• Certi�icatian o1E �. aspt�aic piar�t4sj is depr.:ec3 :c �c � pri�:lcg�. 'Tl�is privi'c�cs �ns�,y be
rcv�ked fnr f3il�rre to co�n�Iy with the r�yuired a�scir� races as��/�r at;:cr rcq�irc:r,ent, eC
CCCti�'C3fi�n. �
F'a2si�icatron t�f test rPsuls andio;yualily C�ntr�?I rec�rC�� c4n�d res�alt ;r. �r,y or aIl of
thc f�tlowing �cr�ns: - �
�� ��vr�c�.uon c�i Pla:,� t��nificatio:�. �
L�j Revocati�n o�Techr.ici.'u� Ccrti,:jcatir�n ftar indivEt�tt�l �nv;��vyd.
c) Loss af 6idd�ng prSvfledes.
� dj f�rimin�l prr.s��ation For fr�ud. •
D�ec�rii�ic2tic�n shall ac dece:min�d by ?vir�c�T's �c3ee Constructivn �noiri�'er. r� list vx
�:�r:z��.r.ies wno �ta'YQ O�cn ci�ccrtificd wiil tc masr�tained l�y Mn,'rJC►fi's �itumin4us T�irtit of
:he I�facc:ials �n� �es4�rc�Y C}�ice and by� 1viz/DOT's 4Ctttract Adrr,inistr�tivi� 4;tace.
���..�tF_TJ�:�'`.�I{�'�I r
Bicumin�us t�lixturCs sh�il 3�c c_'csign�� �ccordi.r.g ttr Z33Z.�E2�, I�.ixture �es:�n
Rcqu:r�menrs, 2s rBodfre� l�y 2340.s�c, �r�d the fo)l��ving: .
No ;��ixture ver:fc�Ztion �arri��ie: is r::quir�d_
Specificatifln 233 i.aE3bt'�;(Q) is inodi:ied c� xcaci:
"T:�c �or�.ract�r sl�aU d�sirn i:•,e .mixtt,re at ar� op:irr,urn asohali cOi:tP��� ar l��sL �.3 percenr
abov� t,c rrinii��um ,is;e�i ir� 'i aa?e 2331-1. '!'�st d�tfl shal; �c .;uor�:rtc� �o; f�ur ci:��rent
pro�oreioxts of a��r;.•�utc wirh a constan: vp,Im�m oiI c�nte:�t. The �'oz�r poi�7ts shall shcw
�. cc,ntizaal chan�e of��cid� sr�n; two percerit to si�t �ercc;tt v�iris. T13e dat# p�ir:ts w;tl alsa
be sc��pr►rced by �dd:tic�r.al tcst rese�lts co:�siste:�t �wit?: S�eci�ic�:icz requirer�nt�. The
Contract�r s;;�it �esidr:ate wh:L:� aggr��ace ic�rmulati�n sltall b� used co begin thc pru3cct.
Th� Conc���;tor r,1�y adjust m�xtures bssc.� on ait vaia resalcs ftoZ: a�tt��I ptadu.ticns �f
aggrc�ate st.a�;r1it�cd �n:3 aclj�,s�in�th� proDotiiOns qf th� a��ze�atc anu tl�e asgha t c�ntent
(riui na; be;o�� a3:t�wAh�� rn:r:�unzs) t� :a�g�: the desion �ir vvid va;ue$. Chaz�es of
a,gre�;$te }rfl�c�i��ions :;�ust res�;t it,, a caixture cemk�?yi;��u'rith ;�,+�'ni�4T 3139. A��re,�tEs
not i�t�t�.s�lc:� in th� suLm�itc•v� :nix d�si�n shai� not t�e uiivwed witi�cat a ncw t-r,ix dc�iy�.
. The r+ix c.9csi�,i° teco�7�mrnc;�?}�n .iys�ed by t�:�: De��rtr:y�;i: �v�:; or.;y Iist rrtinimvi;,
rec�vi::;men;s; b�'pnd c�a,r,� �Tc:��i(1Jila" {:vi�r��T 3::sS), rr,i�irzzLzn aspn�i� c�n:P:;is, asp:lalt
gr2��. lvi:trsnll� hlows, a�ti .�:��rc�at� saurwes. . .
"t'he :r,i�+��r- d�st�n m.ny c��rr�- ove; ye�r �e y��r �n a p:•c�jc�c.
Paye ?
MP•�iUUI �1 ��.���ir����� i�.��612--7?3-5�8tJ __ . ` .� . _ v -
. , .�un 09 94 8�S7 No .002 P.04
JuiYa ], I993
C7r� �I4 �ec•tifi�C3 pl�ttt prpj�czs let duriri� the 19� a�tu 19�3 c:ans�ruaic+n se�svn, the
C�ntracco: Sh�tl t�� yiven thc opti�n of �ro��di;1�; c»ixture dcsf�.t�.s in accnc�3�nce wit}i th�
at;C;ve r�f�r�ncec� spc:ciaf p:�v;si�:�s and tirc 7'2►_al ?vtix submittai �ck� c on a es *
�f thc �3ic��mino�x ;�lan►. Ce.�tif�cation �c.ticumer,t�tion; or � � F � IS .0 24
?`he Gcn6;�ctor it�ay e3eci t�sulim�t his�'her mix�esi�us in�ccc�rc:anc�wi�h che�tan�ard 2'34n
Qu�lity ,'t��na��;rnent S�cificati�ns and 7'ri,�l It�ix rahrr+ite�l pac�C��� �5 ("Ies�rT�bed ir1 ihe
Bitun3i;�e�us Manval (�g.A �-�43.�35 ta� Fig. J 5-��'3.435). AY�x cr�ri�icacivn sar,�plcs w�Il t��
rcquised with t?�s5 ajsti�n ir: ordor co obtai�t �pr�tovzL .
�sMP Ti�iCr ;,1'�I� 7�.5TINC � •
R�l�tlgm �tut:�bers €nr �►rt�cc,s cc,ntroi s�mpling stt�ll b� su¢plied �y Ll:� Contr�ctor. 'T`hc
CCs:�Frac:tbr s����j suppjY �PPra�+ed samale cvn�air�ers.
Thw Contr�ctor shalt �erf3r�� pr�cess c�nsrc�l s�rn�a)irg a��� tcstin; accordit�g tc� ihe
M�teri�.l.s GOr�irO? Sc�t�ule f�r 8itu,r,ir.�us Cc��struction 3�r_t7�s ft�C Qaality AssuFance
Ptt?j��ts 5}�ecification ?.34f1 e�rcept :�s inodi�;rd b�ICrw:
Ki d r,i tvfate,-��1 I23t C�,n�tra wtc��s ing
� I. f�ggrc��,�es Two p�: duy pe; m�curr �tcc;ci �r,cJuci:�g no:�-asphaItic
(Gra�c�tion�
� a�grcgr.ccs fr�:t�cr�i from zc:.yc;ie� mix. Comp�n�on s�t��uIes
taken for Sca�e mixtnres not c�nta�ning satva�e� aspha�tia
a�re��t�.
2. Aggreg�tes Tu�o per day «cr mixture bl�nd.
(°'a Crus':�r.,�j Thcn_ cnc �:pc day if sam�}� meets c�sl7in� reyuirement; ane
per �ay sar:��led bu� can� per w��k test�� if sam�l�s exce�d
requ:rer�e.^,i �y gr�•at�r iha.� c�g�t gerccnt.
3. AC 5�+;�t Checks
�I�a mr�ciifica:ians)
4. F�c�re,ctietz �tt1 Fn�r per day �;�r mixture blen� cn tt�� first d�y
Gr2d3ti�n of r�d�ezion rc� vcn�y p�
�' rnix dcs, n th,en as
iRA.i? Mixtures} neec�e� ;o con�rc�; mixtur� pzoperties �
S. �Yiix:ur� Prc�n��rties Fot�i �c:: claf �cr nzixturt bter,d os� chs �zst rl�y
r'1. ;�fax. Gravity O� �tC�LCil�r�, th�c� onc ccst �c: 1Q;7;? t�ns
�3• ?vfarsz�. �3ensicy wi:h a mirinum �f twn tczts per d�y uniCss
C. � R:: ��ids pr�t'�ctior. is less t}ian SOfl tc�n�, tEi�n one �er d�y.
Pa�� 3
.�. r�.. .rv v �r ani .7LII .71. rlLl.L �jV1U:Vlr
Mhlr4��'� �Iru�irar��s ���_:611-779-5580 Jun G9 �� �:58: Na .0�2 P .US ----
.iunc 1� 199�
Cc�m�;�.ni�n s�:,rrtp?es 5h�:Ilb�t�ket� £or St�te verificaiicn�f EonFcac::c�r's �roc�ss c��nt�ul cescs.
lvinlLc�T �ri:; t�k;, �r c��c:-v- the taking �f at least arte attc�tt qualit}� assuran•.� san�,ple p�r
day. "fhr �.udst s�rr3n1� sh�� be s�D•,t sa thnt s:�ffic,e�; anat�ri�! is Pra�:�ed far �,flrh ih�
C�Tt�r2�Ctbr's t�st Iab an� Iv17iD;�T's Q�aE�r�t Assur�.nce i,aboiatory.
'i'ti: �retr2lGit7r 5�18IJ C�+:ain onc Fint saz�p�ca af �spt��it ai a rate accc�rdin� �� c.ie mt�st
reccnt T�cP,i�i�cl Mcmaranrum �f�il� v�;s�, ch� Maier.als �r,;i��cer,
- ncu�r��•T�.ztc►y
The Cc�ncr�cl�x sha1L-
. I. Nu�nber t�st resuDt$ iri 2ccot4ance wi►h st�n�ara �.�17�.,7�J'�' �r�cecures az�d
r�co�c' on far�s supp}iPd by Mn/Dt�1'_
? F�tcsimile �li aest resuhs tc� the L7istrict n�ate:;i�ls �n�ic�N�r �G�:��rat
I�spectiun) by nflon oL the ti�y faltowing Froduction. ,
's. 'i'ake h�sit�rung ancl end �f d�f aspha?t tan!� nzeast:rern�:nts anw sup�Iy�
inf�rmatiar. on as�halc t�z�antit[es ujGd for eaclz ager��y �;t��cc�.
4. Pr4c�icie t�inJL7C3'T' wsth �:spl:alt deiivtry invaices on G dai;y l�asis. '
5. $e resfic�n�ibl� fc�r ail rcguircrrtEn�s s�eci�ied in 2��� anci those rzq•aii•ez��Gnts
t�ac:umcntecl with�n Sccti�n� 5-b�3.4CQ ar.d 5-E�93.?00 .�f thc G�it�rninou= ?+r`.�rtu:�i.
6_ Prt.vid� � clail3i �I�nt diary
• 7. Yrcvioc w�ckly scale spc* cl�ecks. .
$. P:��i�+e ��7 G.:c�gt2bl� �CCv1:P?]Fi�, S�StC�Ct? FQf c�I� C��;ifi�� m'v;zs ar�c� �:r�v�de
a �a;fy an�i fin41 �ra;eca x�zmn�f�ry �` materi�il c�t►az3�i�ics and ty��s.
�. FUCT:iSh �I: �utarn�t�d w�ig;� scatc and cnrr:put�r ge:��rased wei�h tickct, T�::,
►ick�t snail indica�c t�-e��e; :tumher, certified rr.i� �4si�n�tion, �it nu.��b�1', f�t�c!c
. id�r,}?f:ca:i;�n �nd t�:re weigh;., net w���ht, �ate 2r;d time of I�adir,O7 and sha11 ir,cludc
tl�e .crm "i�ERT'S�IED". .
"!�hG CCcCf�;;��;id�tiQT: �Hiil �e design4:;.C1 2 ceiti`:�ti t7��x ��C�r�1ri� t0 Fl�� ft��ior:i�� list:
Pa�e �
r .• w �i.o al. r��r 'GwiW vii i
, MP;/1:Ui ki11llM.lt�UJ:i T�l�nl�'•-Y79-55$C� .�un 0�3 Y4 �S=�K NC► .UU1 t''.C;b .
:un� Z. 1993
2�1ix �
�si �;iott" ���r.e��tc Marshati P�rce^t �
f�].--r175I�b 6 P� �tzc Blcw, rushin
� A 75 lOQ
61--•B75�C)C� 6I g 75 I�IQ
4 I--A 75C7a 41 A 75 � 7(1
4I--A75�J,5,5 �l A 7� Sy
- ��--�so�;o 41 A . �� 7a
4i--��oos� �� � so- - s.�
4i—B75C17c� 4� r3 7s .7fl
41--E�75t?i5 S1 )3 7� $�
4�-•8500�5 4I 3 . S� S5
42-•A73�J?� 42 A rys ��4
a2--A75055 42 A �� S;
42--�St3U7U 4� . � SU �fl.
.��--P.St��SS 4� A 50 55
` �2--I3ZSCi?Q �? j's ?5 7�
• 42--B'75055 �Z � . 75 � $s
4?..T�St)t}�:Q �2 g 50 7{�
. 42-•fi�fIt7S5 � <? $ SO 55
31--�'tiSdC►C�Cs 31 ,A �fl Q{�
_ 3Y—ssaa�o 3� � s� eo
33--CSIIOQ�� 31 C SQ ��
32--ASt]Qf:C 3� A 50 0�
_ . 3�..�3yUCOC 3� ' B 50 � �
3;--050:1�t3 3? C �Q (�C
..CQUr5E (VSIF, ST�r. LV, $I, Br'3, E1'C.)
�`��t�; r�.:. a��itiur,xa ltttcr is ��Qed ro the abC�vc r„ix ticsignatior�s ;a iden;ify
�c:,�tra!ian �;rad:s:
,��.�itai �n�tretion l�rad�
h � AC��S•I�{}
`•` A^ IxJ•I50
Z Ar' 2Q�-300
C�n;y n:ie� �.,r ee::}� r;�iv: .�esi�r'�:tiott s�t�;', be in effect a: a:�; time.
:�I;.s:�;res tls;na c;ift�rent �:�ryctr�t��n gra�Ies shall5� recc�rde:t on ti�e s:u:7e can,rvl ctiar�3.:f
�l! ot;.er Ir,i•���r^ tie,ig.�a�iQn inform^*aon is ider.:ical. llata on m�xcz�rvs rcpreser,ci:;;vt�rious
rourses (W�, �`,�, ��� gB, Et,;.) shal! 6c �1�tie� �n ►he same cr,�,�roi chart w�te;: t::e 1t�ixtL:e
• rc�uirWm�:�u zr: thc same.
P��;e �
. _ :t. . . . . . . . . .
._ ._. '�: . J . 4 1�:
tt . . �� . . . � . . � . � . . � . � � . � �� . . . '�.ss�s�.4r���J,��2�.�,���� ���.`ti` � .
r - � � . � . . .. � � � . . �_1"'�L�� s yi',:� � �7�� .
� ; . � . . . . � � � � � � . . � i ia'pl r } .; t +� i'j^� .
x • ° �1 fi+snqx�ti�n{Jpneasis�.v {b) Crx�q * .f�,��y�1�ti��3`�' 'R i.'.
, Ct,a�uc;txin requa�nc��s 56ai!6c tt�sescne as�Sxa�c spa�il"GA i+t 'IYvo c��e3a11 5a tdun et :m�dom uitti��e�� aliint. 'it�r. ', c ". -` y��,lg�,;•�';,.
a a: � 23�[.3FI caeqTt wFcn nK�.rwd and�icaoeai�vt by iha ioiloving: (�rb�ct��res be d iu sltiU the� �.v t�� ��K� �-<A„
� « +. Y Y �'�*��� .a�rrp�c�ed misAs� bdore �
.< < ' tt2. b;�xi;�x!S�ceiAcd Ua�ily t+tcit�od axin��unpies wa ttwt tke ae���tcs �eay Ar,temrw d M�;;x�suUy»ut � �f�+lL.��`+��+ ��:��
tt aae x
� �� �:-� Iaeletc 23'iS.:tH2 surl i�set�t�Is Shcmuing tlisbrlfa�. 'fhb s�unpic�t�etl 6eart aang a 4-iacit le 45.ench carin� :, -+r��`.'�� � ���.��
e �
? : 3• : dawia Ait ewmples shoN be rnaAced ah� d�e )d nwmhar se�lut ,`. � t:`-!s '
t-k� �� � � �� ��at+j T.db . . . � �.� 4 ,..� �= iµiy t .
� manb�r.and wre esurl�er rr lctia. '1'he cons�Fiail he nmsporta3 to '{�: .�1'� -�
r
� .�,�_ � ' {l) Pracluctica�Ratm c�l[ t,tl(]0'Cuaa per Dny ur Greatar Ifie)ahoc�tary ns sat�n az pawihfe.t��p/�a�i dimp�dne to'�t : � r.,r�s�'♦►4 ,
�} . . � . {^�' "b" �"'S�� � � f� Y Y��.Y, �
�': � ^.�'
� y�, iiar t�e mvlifie�! �prcified dcaslty mcthud af hutiltieX a w�posu�+�ta he�t '. � �. r Y r
t .� co�s:��actiwt.iiekxnitvi�cn�ihc cl��ity in the cm�puc�ed C.+_iss stnti nt�t he tsten�4ihia i t�wt o(a Aoo �t�cL�i crd w� '� ..����'�
� c ' mistare sb�8 be nrack on san! eR tai�n d�c Contt9cAar � � - � �'` �j
3 �, i� nY alpe rrx within 2fl lest c�f a 1c�n:vsr,�j�+i�i� � .�; wx .. �
o a � ' - frnm tach I!C g6+c�f. Snsn�l7t si�a0 bc iakca F��tttra�odlvsr 'tlie fi�g'+neer aa}��JIoNr�e.u�tlag of r sampte asi�wfien the um .� �rYi`i�.
� �. � c' !y erla;icd titcs ws d'rccwd by t1+T Engineer sviU►in a bt h�bcea clemU�.d�n„:gb no faulr af il�e C,au►r�ckn,riNur<luirt �+. ��`��`
�; j` �- rc}'+t�cats�s ct:ys pr�lon. 'itx:sernp�s�sheU t�e� � 1� '� �*�r C,�[� �
fie cod� tflcer,x�r in d�ux:+.t ta�a ia -1
'' pria hi pts�x�nai af C�c qwtt(ift m�+I no lata i'�an ifx uext �P �ntiM�e. Arr.r�;,aring x3)rqt �,!• �:{
�``�, �.� I�e atlacrod hx�n a:her rraw�r�nleas vr;�ten r at is ab�ed '`''�,�
� ��' wor�:ag dey fi�limv�rq;c�aace oF yk�er.c�c. Tt t aey°a y �'o++ � a
v,,,,. :�; t �t fmn boih the Fnginar and thc IIituniiaryas f�ie�oa tn tbe llistrit � ��� r7%
,. ...-. �ccslutiiw!'rul►!wiy tit2 iK beess tl��5iX)ttu+.�it aay he e ;fi'},
a
,�I ;�,� u s m t+i n e�i T r,�t t h e n e x t d u y'a p t c�c l s c t i v�e o f f h n t i f t t o f r a r n ��';���' ''' '�` .�'.
s °. � = a lef. Aca�ass wdl t�os�malty be wde in tob�cyyal tv �%a"��caaci s6ail be�kt»at tl��ac uf it?s cung lucatitx� , �w'�-�
1 ���= � [�!�DIli1F�t'OF Iftl3�I9C{XJ HI[9CIi jF!Ri C.dC1i�1['1(411[�1pD �s sclat�ed b+�tf+e 33�g"e�Pot tt�ting at ibe Dcparhneeu's i;ixer:3oty. �7f.� d��,l j,i � .
�.: } iiaJ. � !ot wi11 tc divi�led inio iive subkxa c�,` 11i�ia b vdify�r al"tabdity oF tie�t'natra�aor's tsst r�sl�s and tu ����;rr'•€
'� ��` s�qu�ims�lY equat�rFace aea. ' ea�e ac ecsxpiuioe tea!r. !*a,}�r�nt fa�trrcf w:l( bc isa.�t1 on I�e ` >r ,� .�k=
1 }" 3 «�.:;
' (Z) Pnw�uc�i+m�u1m t�aas�lrn 1„tXiO Ta►s aer Usy Catba�krr's ar�xeselra us at�savaf ty�be +E.�gi»ocr md aesiRed Fy 'r � � '7�'�� ,x� ('��
� , - . tbe dvca oprw 0enc w thc Dqaerp�enCu iAboia�sry. r,� ' � ,�,
i�ar {uw dsip y�riw�ostia�ratts(k�3 �m 1�M70 ef .. -y��x� ".y�p, �.• ��:
�� -� ��` C�nsj,thc�1coR�ty rsy�isc�cst aialt 50 6�uc!o�tlNs��raebar 7'he a►n holcs ehali b' c�cad, fi�rJ with ihe saane typc of ��, ,.�;r�a�{:�3'.;; �
* '-� of cores Nstril m t!re i�i:krwisay_,tn�Je. !►ci�iti�na!e�oar�- �e�rial,mJ tl�e m�t��iet ptopr�ly et�n+noceed!�y t�s mji wcr}�a8 ."�a��'�t, �j
6 $ �
'' "-� ian cmes�nll bc eaken by+be Coeau.�ai aad absarvr.d h9 �. � �y'•`�:+'�,�r'`��h:
H Tbe C:c�nuactrit sb+�ii test tbe c�aut�c id t�c + �n
� y�f ils� i�e�r�eni for verii'ec�dm! testeep„ Gf th� a•xn�qe Ft�sCnu c�f We 5�}
ec � ��.
�� ' �,.;1 � uC��r nF norc taken is ir.ss�rf�e�41�ea:cat c�z�azinum ���• � � �� '��r;-'����.��'i
' ,i= tlr,s9ty.@�c Csmlr+uar st,all heve t�is�pei�n ro rake�r1Ai- {rj �h�p�ty Iteq�it+anat! „ �'j� „-!y.o x �'�
� � ";�;� aic�tl cyu�t�p�ci�ic a�nia�irtmne ut'li'i Ca�x,.ot�rr actxpi a7►e ck�suy.Mu hc 9��:++m.�ot�wc r�uv:s��. �,�c �.�'3<'-��? "1_ �`:
c
� ,�;`' a p�u t t y k�.sr�[ � t�e n�uits ni'?he cxx�a l a.�d y I��cn.' '�' ' 8�*ftY ��r ,��r z r
r�i n e b�u x 2 on t h c�d��ge o!tha rvs e�blot avrxa=ez tM�ltn, � ,n ci. < r ��t.
�::`� prnxity mqt+iranenis sYalt be aa lis�erl belcrcv. . teith na ir�divistual suLhri avc+'a t les.s tbm 64 ,, ����-.Jr, :
� t�ra�e�ct the maani- ,.
+ ,,�.: ;r�m speoiFc�tarity. The ma.ci�rn+n�a..i8r.gratity vdar»�sd kr , �+�► �i�. .
speo' ri
� [i�g i'troducli�+c I+fe.af Nn�,e�i o�ulate d,e perceetage drnRi�y eba[t he tl�avsrsga value af alt u�te �.e+�� �' " �
: °�� � __ �.T�►q+ _w ('.ores_ Ga�u(pu►�o�Cucet�' tr�dodtti thr-efsame d�p dtc ltai w�4 plaoad ��d a�acled. TttLs �� `�-��"W�.r;'� ` `�
u -- -- - � fdue shall 6e s�fora2l ekn�ity Fo�Qleced A�st�e ciyy. lfcnly E �y , , `
.�.__^. . __ �._ '.
� � 3Mt c�leas 2 t ans nr tuo�immn r{+�i6c�rwvity ralsee�r.cre obt�iintr}tF.at�y, ' �- ?�r�'� ,, � `,r y •;
� _-----_.._.____.� . �••
' _ � • � . thr.rnnvh�o��e v�1ue{at flml ts�,t 'at�skai! Mc�aad. U t ;��, ,,... � ; ,�
>y � � ___ _301-bi�[2_. _. _ _ 4 __. _ ..�— -- ��2Qs.sw�ressrxiw�usp�eific.,�oau9trxit+n�me.a6t�isr.t.auat.da�,-. 7�.s�K� F:;, -
_ __.____.. • �
---- ----__
..._ _. _ — � �dsa a�+of ti�e�r.ijia Sto�shali!�asxt ea itai�.a�#at+rwc. �
r �. _. � � _�, . -�=
�.-`� &: titlf i f�lD ti 2 - „�r:� �t r'.
''' — -- - N�re�s14 wilt 6e,}rrniteod for fa3i3nS de�sities. �, : 3:�
� —____.. .._. --• de
' - � I,I1D1 cx�nrc IB 3 � y,r � "
'� � .
, `` �#,'� K
l • � � d'J�x�t i!' .
. f'Y'F i I �l��
ti'
! '!"'�': . . _ �'{�..�r�" . _ . , . .
�'�� I�Z �t'JT� :� *
. , ' S•.fi`�{ . � •�
�. ' .� S. 1 .- ' . . '.
f'.Y n� { J
,� �r l.A�1: 1. . .
.
' :'�'� ' � . : .��:'M. w .�� �!. vy y _, {'� . . � ' . .
, + . . . ..Y �: •.� � ,i�t. !�• �V t.��� � � � '
..' . .� 8. f ' .
�
•
-� ' � '.«. .._ ..�
-a:�',: �r�.'.r"r`.ti��" ._ /,.?,�.�('.� i, arw�., . . e .
� .. .. . e%� . . .. _ • . �- ' - . ... . rtY.iA?��f' . '�� . . . +��. s.,'",�`� -
_...,., ,. .. �c� .�i. rni:i. �v1��v L
_ ...�. �_�.
D4CL�PviE.�t'i'OQ9t11
Ab ENU 'M Nt� �
B�scA�av����rRc�v�Nr�rrs
�,i'TILITY.pND STRE�"�'Ct3NS?RI3�"it3N
ROS�Mt�UN2',�VIiNNESf3TA
CYTY PRt7]ECT NO.249
S.A.P.NC?.7p8-20l3-Ox
S�I-�NO.A-it�SE!'v13406A0
MARCH 1,1y95
BIL�D�RS an ih4 Abave named Projc.�ar�r�ereby noti�t�d that the f4llowz�shaIl�e app�nded tc,
take precwd�-.ce over anQ �orne part of tt�e origin� plan5 and sFeci:&�a�ans and con�r�ct
d.ceumer►t�� dated Fsbruarv 7; 1995 for Sai�i prt�j�.-f. Bids submitt�fr�r "rre cor�-trvCtion oF this
�roject Sh�LI.ec�n.fozm.tc t}uc�totice.
. IVO?i�: Receigt of txtis Addendum N�.�shzll be aclmo�vled,�ed in tl;c apprvpriate spac�
oxz Y'ag�x of the revi�Qd Bi��orm fblv.t)�ent with Adden�um;�tl. 1
� _ 1- Section�2514 of the 1'rojpct 1Tanual_
- a. Par#�3,02�,Cnrr:pactin;g pperativns
belate gzagxaph 5 in its entirety and subsiitute the�'o;la*,�ing in it�place:
�. Compa�:;ea.:h course unifo�xnty by the.*dlocif;fizd Speaned Denstty
1vlethod.
Sho Eiliott�iendricksun��tc.
_ -���� ,
� ��
David�.$imon�,P.E.
0(1�01 -7�
�x �
�
� � � Cl TY O F RO S�E M O U N T � z8�5-`�TMt"a eet West � �
P.O.Bax 510
Ever thin s Comin U ROSe1710U►12'!! Rosemount,nn�v
Y 9� g P 55Q68-0510
Phone:612-423-4411
fax:612-423-5203
Af�davit of Mailed and Posted Hearing Notice
REZONING PETITION FOR VACANT PROPERTY
18.5 ACRES BETWEEN 145TH ST. W, DODD BLVD, SL SHANNON PKWY
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
COUNTY OF DAKOTA � ss
CITY OF ROSEMOUNT �
Susan M. Walsh, being first duly sworn, deposes and says:
I am a United States citizen and xhe duly qualified Clerk of the City of Rosemount,
Minnesota.
On March 3, 1995, acting on behalf of the said City, I posted at the City Hall, 2875
145th Street West, and deposited in the United States Post Office, Rosemount,
Minnesota, a copy of the attached notice of a Public Hearing for consideration of a
rezoning petition to rezone vacant property located between 145th Street West, Dodd
Boulevard, and Shannon Parkway, enclosed in sealed envelopes,with postage thereon fully
prepaid, addressed to the pezsons listed on the attached listings at the addresses listed with
the'vr names. ,
There is delivery service by United States Mail between the place ofmailing and the places
so addressed. _
� ' ,
��
� Su an M. Wals
City Clerk
City of Rosemount
' Da�Cota County, Minnesota
�
Subscribed and sworn to before me this�-`day o , 95.
� ,
L t � � , t.t.i
otary Public
MDfiAtiY--PIINIC-
o�itoorrAt����
a�.,�,..w�s�.
. ... � �. . . . . . . .�.Printed ar mcYcted paper .
� containing 3�
pos(-cmwmer meren>�
CITY HALL
::� C 1 TY O F RO S E M O U N T Z8�5-,45�h St��t WeSt
P.O.Box 510
Rosemoun4 MN
Everything's Coming Up Rosemount!! 55oba-o5io
P�b�C N�l.1Ce Phone:612-423•4411
fax:612-�3Z3-5203
REZONING PETITTON
Concerning 18.5 acres of vacant land located
between 145th Street West, Dodd Boulevard, and Shannon Parkway
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:
NOTICE IS HEREBY C IVEN, the Plazuung Commission and the City Council of the City of
Rosemount will hold public hearings to consider the item listed below beginnuig with the Planning
Commission on TuesdaX, March 14, 1995 in the Council Chambezs of the City Hall, 2875 145th
Street West,beginning at 6:30 p.m., or as soon thereafter as possible.
On Tuesday, March 21, 1995 beginnulg at 8:00 p.m., or as soon thereafter as possible, the City
Council will hold a public hearing in the Council Chambers to consider the item listed below. The
Planning Commission is an advisory body that will make a recommendation to the City Council
which has the authority to take action on the rezoning petition. The Public Hearing listed below
pertains to undeveloped property located between Shannon Parkwav, 145th Street West, and Dodd
Boulevard described as:
Two parcels both lying in Section 30, Township 115, Range 19, and legally described as follows:
The east 440 feet of the West Half of the Southeast Quarter (Wl/a of the SEl/4) lying north of County
Road No. 42 (Now Dodd Boulevazd) except the north 379.50 feet; and
The West Half of the Southeast Quarter (W'/2 of SE'/a) lying north of County Road Na 42 (Now Dodd
Boulevazd) except the east 440 feet and except beginning at the northwest corner North 89D 48M 59S
East 432.35 feet South 1D OM 55S West 593 feet South 89D 48M 59S West 410.02 feet to east line of
Broaback 2nd Addition North 1 D OM 55S East along east line 282.46 feet to northeast corner of Outlot
1, Broback 2nd Addition South 89D 45M 7S West along north line of Outlot I I9.72 feet to west line of
West Half of Southeast Quarter (W'/z of SE'/a) North OD 31M 57S East 310.51 feet to beginning subject
to street easement except part platted as Limerick Way.
The purpose of these hearings are to consider an amendment to Ordinance B - City of Rosemount Zoning
Ordinance for the purpose of rezoning undeveloped land as follows:
1 I.16 acres of land rezoned from R-3 Multiple Family Residendal to R-2 Single Family Attached
Residential; and
7.35 acres of land rezoned from AG Agriculture to R 2 Single Family Attached Residential.
Persons wishing to comment on xhis issue are invited to attend and be heard at the Tuesdav, March
14, 1995 Planning Commission Meeting at 6:30 p.m. or at the Tuesday, March 21, 1995 City
Council Meeting at 8:00 p.m. Formal written comments will also be accepted prior to the meeting
date. Please forward all comments and inquiries to the Planning Division of the Community
Development Department.
Dated this 2nd day of March, 1995.
S an M. Walsh, ty Clerk
Ci�y of Rosemount
Dakota County, Minnesota
� ������:���
onrainma JO
�n.n��onw r.r.m...
346742501001 346742601002 346742502001
GREGORY P SCHMITZ TROY M &CINDY K BOECKMAN ANDREW G PAPALEO
3853144TH ST W 3825 144TH ST W 3859 144TH ST W
ROSEMOUNT MN 55068-4031 F10SEMOUNT MN 55068 ROSEMOUNT MN 55068-4031
346742503001 346742602002 346742506002
RANDALL L BLATTNER KEVIN T&CINDY S TUCKER THOMAS F&SANDRA A BARTON
NANCY MCGREW-BLATTNER 3815 144TH ST W 3900144TH ST W
3861 144TH ST W ROSEMOUNT MN 55068-4031 ROSEMOUNT MN 55068-4049
ROSEMOUNT MN 55068-4031
346742507002 346742505002 346742603002
DALE M &KATHLEEN M PEDERSEN DANIEL J &STACY S ZIMMER MICHAEL&ELIZABETH HUKKA
3920144TH ST W 3886 144TH ST W 3805144TH ST W
ROSEMOUNT MN 55068-4049 ROSEMOUNT MN 55068-4049 AOSEMOUNT MN 55068-4031
346742508002 346742504002 346742511002
MARKOS CHOULIARIS ROBERT A&JUNE C KORTHAUER PRESTON A&TAMRA J LARSON
ATHANASIA BRAUN 3880 144TH ST W 14487 CRESCENT CIR
14490 CRESCENT CIR ROSEMOUNT MN 55068-4049 ROSEMOUNT MN 55068-4052
ROSEMOUNT MN 55068-4052
346742503002 346742604001 346742510002
ROBERT D &BECKY L OBERLE JOHN O Iii &CATHY J THORSON LINH QUANG PHAM
3872 144TH ST W 3790 144TH ST W KATHY NGO
ROSEMOUNT MN 55068-4049 ROSEMOUNT MN 55068 14493 CRESCENT CIR
ROSEMOUNT MN 55068-4052
346742502002 346742509002 346742501002
CHRISTOPHER S NELSON ANITA MARIUCCI RANDY T&CYNTHIA L MICKE
CHRISTINE R NELSON 14494 CRESCENT CIR 3850144TH ST W
3856 144TH ST W ROSEMOUNT MN 55068-4052 ROSEMOUNT MN 55068-4049
ROSEMOUNT MN 55068-4049
346742601001 346742602001 346742603001
NICOLE M OLSON DAVID A&PAMELA G SCHIPPER WILLIAM J 8�DEBRA A HANSEN
3830 144TH ST W 3820144TH ST 3810144TH ST W
ROSEMOUNT MN 55068-4049 ROSEMOUNT MN 55068-4049 ROSEMOUNT MN 55068-4049
340301001586 �
340301001280 340301001680
ROSEMOUNT COMM HOUSING ROSEWOOD MANOR RICHARD L 8�EMMET CARROLL
3810 145TH ST W %TYCON MANAGEMENT 4485 OAK CHASE �N
ROSEMOUNT MN 55068-4116 321 UNIVERSITY AVE SE ST PAU�MN 55123-1814
MINNEAPOLIS MN 55414-1713
346750001001 341735001001 346750002001
LIMERICK WAY LLC CIMARRON VILLAGE TWNHS LTD PT LIMERICK WAY LLC
464 LINCOLN AV S %STEVEN SCOTT MGMT INC 464 LINCOLN AV S
ST PAUL MN 55102 5402 PARKDALE DR SUITE 200 ST PAUL MN 55102
ST LOUIS PARK MN 55416
346750003001 340301001686 340301001380
LIMERICK WAYLLC ROSEWOOD MANOR REATTA PASS INC
464 LINCOLN AV S 321 UNIVERSITY AVE SE %DAVID STEWART
ST PAUL MN 55102 MINNEAPOLIS MN 55414-1713 100 5TH ST S, SUITE 1250
MINNEAPOUS MN 55402-1216
340301001688 346750004001 340301001087
LARRY M&CHERI L PELZEL LIMERICK WAY LLC M W JOHNSON CONST INC
14619 DODD BLVD 464 UNCOLN AV S BOX 24389
ROSEMOUNT MN 55068 ST PAUL MN 55102 APPLE VALLEY MN 55124
341520103005 344530001001 341520104005
RONALD JACKELS LIMERICK WAY TOWNHOUSE PTNS JOYCE M LEE
14584 DAHOMEY AV W P O BOX 88 14598 DAHOMEY AVE W
ROSEMOUNT MN 55068-4101 ROSEMOUNT MN 55068-0088 ROSEMOUNT MN 55068-4101
341520901006 341520105005 341520110004
KEVIN L MILLER VERNON D &SHARRON B FO�VEN CURTIS A&JOANN WATKINS
3685146TH ST W 14620 DAHOMEY AVE W 14625 DAHOMEY AVE W
ROSEMOUNT MN 55068-4237 ROSEMOUNT MN 55068-4161 ROSEMOUNT MN 55068-4160
341520901001 341520106005 341520109004
ROLLAN L&GRACE O HOKE JAMES C JR &SALLY OMAN RONALD E &KATHRYN A KARGES
14655 CIMARRON AVE 14646 DAHOMEY AVE W 14655 DAHOMEY AVE
ROSEMOUNT MN 55068 ROSEMOUNT MN 55068-4161 ROSEMOUNT MN 55068-4160
340301001075 341520901002 341520107005
HUBERT&CLARA UITDENBOGERD tINDA J MUELLER RICHARD &JEANETTE MACHO
14676 DODD BLVD 3684146TH ST W 14660 DAHOMEY AVE W
ROSEMOUNT MN 55068 ROSEMOUNT MN 55068-4238 ROSEMOUNT MN 55068-4161
341520108004 341520902001 341520001003
JAMES E &LYNETTE J PATiNELL WILLIAM L AVERILL DAVID A&TAMARA M HIDALGO
14675 DAHOMEY AVE W 14673 CIMARRON AVE 14678 DAHOMEY AVE S
ROSEMOUNT MN 55068-4160 ROSEMOUNT MN 55068-4285 ROSEMOUNT MN 55068-4161
341640304001 341520002002 34t520911002
WILLIAM J 8�TERESA.1 HUEBNER WESLEY&JOAN HASBROUCK STEVEN R &SUSAN M REISDORF
3795 147TH ST W 14685 DAHOMEY AVE W 3705147TH ST W
ROSEMOUNT MN 55068-4293 ROSEMOUNT MN 55068-4160 ROSEMOUNT MN 55068-4225
341520903001 341640303001 341520002003
ERIC P REKSTAD DOUGLAS A&JULIE A CaRAGE JEANNE M BAILEY
2680 125TH ST W 3815 147TH ST W 14686 DAHOMEY ST
ROSEMOUNT MN 55d68 ROSEMOUNT MN 55068-4572 ROSEMOUNT MN 55068-4161
341520003002 341640302001 341520904001
RONALD J 8�DARLENE V LEE CLIFFORD D &DIANA C FEIOCK BEATRICE SAMAS
14699 DAHOMEY 3835 147TH ST W 14709 CIMMARON AVE
ROSEMOUNT MN 55068-4160 ROSEMOUNT MN 55068-4572 ROSEMOUNT MN 55068-4285
341520003003 34164030t001 341640301003
JUDITH A DYSON JOHNNY E &DONNA J MARTINEZ MICHAEL C FREDRICKSON
14692 DAHOMEY AVE 3855 147TH ST W 14714 COLORADO AVE
ROSEMOUNT MN 55068-4181 ROSEMOUNT MN 55068-4572 ROSEMOUNT MN 55068
341640114001 341520004003 341520006003
KEITH A&SANDRA L HOLM RONALD &DOLORES K OTTERDAHL ROSE M&ELAINE RATZLAFF
3875147TH ST W 14696 DAHOMEY AVE W 4076 147TH ST W
ROSEMOUNT MN 55068-4572 ROSEMOUNT MN 55068-4161 ROSEMOUNT MN 55068-4536
341640113001 341640301002 341520005003
SCOTT A REES DANIEL K&CHRISTINE CHELSTROM CALVIN G&CONSTANCE DRAKE
3885 147TH ST W 14717 COLORADO AV 14698 DAHOMEY AVE W
ROSEMOUNT MN 55068-4572 ROSEMOUNT MN 55068-4570 ROSEMOUNT MN 55068-4161
341640112001 341640201002 341640111001
CRAIG J &JEANNJE M SEPPALA KEVIN L&SONYA R JOHNSON W�LLIAM F B BUNCH
3901 147TH ST W 14678 COVINGTON AVE JULIE ANN BRUNNER-BUNCH
ROSEMOUNT MN 55068-4533 ROSEMOUNT MN 55068-4565 3915 147TH ST W
ROSEMOUNT MN 55068-4533
341640110001 341520009003 341640201001
ROGER W&HELEN T SCHMIDT RUTH FAGERWOLD CAROL J KIRCHNER
3929 147TH ST W 14770 DALLARA AVE W 14777 COVINGTON AVE
ROSEMOUNT MN 55068-4533 ROSEMOUNT MN 55068-4502 ROSEMOUNT MN 55068-4568
340301003052 341520010003 340301001052
JANET R OSTER WILLIAM C SMITH GLEN O&CAROL HAUGEN
14793 DODD BLVD 14782 DALLARA AVE 14785 DODD BLVD
ROSEMOUNT MN 55068-4529 ROSEMOUNT MN 55068 ROSEMOUNT MN 55068-4529
341640109001 341640108001 341640101003
THOMAS F&PATTI J JEFFREY VIRGtNA L BERG GARY M &KAREN L HAGEN
3945 147TH ST W 3955 147TH ST W 14786 CRANDALL AVE
ROSEMOUNT MN 55068-4533 ROSEMOUNT MN 55068-4533 ROSEMOUNT MN 55068-4571
341520011103 341520011003 341640107001
JANELL R JOHNSON JANET R OSTER KORY M&LYNNE E HALTERMAN
14790 DALLARA AVE W 14793 DODD BLVD 14785 CRESTVIEW AVE
ROSEMOUNT MN 55068-4502 ROSEMOUNT MN 55068-4529 ROSEMOUNT MN 55068-4507
341640202001 341640101002 340301002052
STEVEN E FORSTNER RANDY A&LORI A WENDOLEK THOMAS&SHARON PIEKARSKI
FRANKE BELOR-FORSTNER 14791 CRANDALL AVE 14800 DODD B�VD
14783 COVINGTON AVE ROSEMOUNT MN 55068-4531 ROSEMOUNT MN 55068-4507
ROSEMOUNT MN 55068-4568
341640106001 341640121002 341640102002
STEVEN D &RENEA A PARKS GERALD L&MARILYN E SAKALA DEMPSEY G&DEBORAH"BROWN
14805 CRESNIEW AVE 3966 147TH ST W 14805 CRANDALL AVE
ROSEMOUNT MN 55068-4558 ROSEMOUNT MN 55068-4552 ROSEMOUNT MN 55068-4531
341520501002 341640105001
MICHAEL A&SHARON BROBACK BARBARA A OTTE �
15021 OAKLAND AVE 14823 CRESTVIEW AVE
BURNSVILLE MN 55337-5199 ROSEMOUNT MN 55068-4558
� �
�
�
�
�� �.7
�
�
�
��
��
� �
��
�
MEMO
TO: Council Members
FROM: Doug Litterer, Civil Engineer
DATE: March 21, 1995
RE: Update to Item No.4k
Rejecting Bids, Biscayne Ave.Street�Utilities Improvement,City Project 249
The low bidder, Richard Knutson fncorporated, has hired the law firm of Moore, Costello
& Hart, P.L.L.P. to represent them and the attached letters and Affidavits were received
from that law firm. Tim Cook is with Moore, Costello & Hart, P.L.L.P. �
After discussions with Charlie LeFevere, the City Attorney, staff still recommends the
adoption of the resolution as stated.
biseynl.wpd
SENT BY� i 3—lY—yb i 4��ZNM i�UUKt GUSICLW a nnR� i vic wc� J6VVrR c
� '
� MOORE, COSTELLO & HART, P.L.L.P. �
A Pao�es�owu.Lu�r�tr�aiuTv Pumueass►+� ''
ATTORNEY8
AEPLY TO Wii17'EA'B DIRECT 01I�L NUMBERI
Mrnrrr�o�zs or�cE ��r�}���-z�s�
March 17, 1995
�,TFI FCOPY AIVf�U.S. 1V�A7_i-
Mr.Bud Osmundson
City Engineer/Public Works Duector
City of Rosemount
2875 145th S�reet West
Rosemaunt,MN 55068
Mr. David F. Simons,P.E.
Short Elliott Hendrickson,Ina
3535 Vs�dnais Center Drive
S� Paul,MN SS11Q
Re: BISCAYNE AVENUE INtPR��tF,,1V�NTS
U'TII,ITY AND STREET CONSTRUCTION
RQS�MOUNT CTTY PROSECT NO.:249 S.A.P,No.20$-108-01
-- ------------------------------ ....----- ------
COUNCIL REVIEW: MARCH 21, 1995
bea�r Messrs. Osmundson aad Simons:
I represent ltichard Knutson,Inc. {"RKI"�in connection with its bid submission
on the above-referenced project("Project"}. I have r�viewed attorney Dave
Hammarg�ren's letter to both of you dated March 7, 1995 in which he claims that RKI's
bid on the Project was nonresponsive and that,therefore,the Pmject should be awarded to
his client,Ryan Contractiug,Inc. {"Ryaa'�. Mr.Hammargren further threate,ns to seek a
court order emjaining the award of the Project to RK3 if the City does not comply with
Ryan's wishes.The purpose of this letter is to respectfully state RKI's position with
respe�t to the public contracting process and the zeasans,both factual and legal,why the
' claims fore o the time consumin and costl rocess af
an s Y
Ci should re'ect R , g P
tY ] Y g
rradvertising for bids, and awazd the Project con�act to RKT.
It is wcll settled and has long bccn rccognized that a public contracting authority
has the right to waive minor lrregularities a.nd.informaliues in a bid. The City is also
entitled to exercise its sound discretion by awardi.ng a contract in the best interests of the
taxpayers. In fact,tha City's advertisement for bids on the Project specifically reserved
14pQ N�RWH8T CENTER • 6a E. FfFTH S7. • ST. PAUL, MN bb101-1]9Z • THL. t81�) 227•T083 • FAX (81�) 290-1770
701 FOURTht AVflNt7� &OIJTN • 6UIT� 1350 � MlNNEAPOLi9, MN 66416-1843 • TEL. (8i2j 873-0148 • FAX (612) 378-77T0
SENT BY� � 3-17-95 ; 4�52PM ��OORE COSTELLO & HARi 1 612 423 5203�# 3
Mr.Bud Osmundson
Mr.David�. Simons,P.E.
March 17, 1995
Page 2
this right Mr.Hammargren's March 7, 19951etter coaectly points out that bids which
are B��y nonresponsive to aa advertisement,or wluch have a�b�nti 1 v�r��nce
from the Project plans and specificgtions,must be rejected. However, Rysn fails to
aclmawledge that the rejection of a bid on the basis that it is"materially nonresponsxve"
may�y take place where the variance is subsl�tial in nature and where the alleged
variance, if permitted,would operate to destroy the principles of competitive biddi.ng.
The test af whether a variance is substantial is"whether it gives a bidder a 9ubstantial
advantage ar benefit not�njoyed by ather bidders." D��,ff'y v.V'��e of Pri�ceton, 240
Minn. 9, 12,60 N.W.2d 27,29(1933).
Ryaa's disingenuous claim that RKI's failure to acl�owledge receipt of
Addendum Na. 2 on its bic�form samehaw afforded RKI a substantiat advantage or
benefit over others bidders is,under the circumstanCts, simply without support in fact,
Iogic, or law. With the�xception of the disg�vnntled bidder Ryan, it was aud is reasonably
and clearly understaad t�all that Addendum No. 2 changed but only one�iuQr aspect of
the compaction specifications to requize that a bidder"compact each caurse uniformly by
the modified specified density method"rather than the originally stated"ordinary
compaction method." Conuary to Ryan's self-serving protes�tazions,this minar change in.
the specificataons did not and does not in any fashian affect the quantity,time,manner of
perforn�aace,quality,price, or any other matter which goes into the actual determination
of the bid amount
A close review of Part 3,02(B) of 5ection 02514 of the Specifications, whieh
addresses the placement and testing of bituminous material,clearly indicates that neither
the�of the work nor the�of perfo�mance is affected by the addendum.
Moreover,the�,r in which compaction operations are to'be performed is clearly
spelled out in paragraphs 1 through 4 of Part 3.02(B), Those pmvisions specifically
require that compaction be conducted with initial,secondary,and final rolling with steel-
wheeled and pneumatic tire rollers through c�atinuous operation until all areas are
compacttd to thc rcquircd dcnsity. Ftnthcr,the��,y of th�work has also not�een
affected or changed by Addendum No. 2. Quality issues are clearly to be determined
through the performanee and passing of the acceptance testing in accordance with
iVIl�TDOT specifications,as is fully set forth in Part 3.02(B)(6).
Because the minor change in Addendum No. 2 did not affect the quantity of the
work,the time of performance for the work,the manner in which the wark was to be
performed,or the�al quality o£the work, Ryan cannot logically argue that RI�I's failure
tn aclrnawledge Addeadur�No. 2 operated to affact the�g of RKI's bid or somehow
gave RKI an unfair competitive advantage in the bid process. To the contrary,
. . .........._. .. _. .. . . ....�. ...- -._._..... . ... ...
; 3-1T-95 � 4�53PM ;MOOftE �u������ � .....
�tNT BY�
Nlr.Bud Osmwndsun
iVir.David F. Simons,P.E.
Msrch I7, 1995
Page 3
tracwrs unders�an�and agree that the minor chauge set
knowledgeable eagiuQeers and con of the ways alleged by RY�•
�d�fact not have any affect in anY
forth u1 the addendum ' ation has established that its bituminous
� st bid investig }�,t s aaticipated supPl��� Commerci�l
Additionally►� g p° t��,d Master AsP ' Master
yubcontractor,Mastcr.A.sphal of Addendum No.2. Furtb.ermore Ces,Ryan
p,�p}�t,were both aware o£the existence �. Under these circumstan etitive
,�Sphalt also submstted a sub�an��t quate�RY were uoted by a
' �,� atgue that RKI samehow received a sub�staati�or�q comp
c�uunot logsc Y
advant�$e in th��b�gsion o f i ts b i d i n t h a t�b�Q f�e provisians o f A d d e n d u�N°. 2
bitumin.Qus subcon t ta C t o r w h ic h was fi�Y
pxior to mal�ing its q u o t e s.
does not fully aPPrise the CitY as t°�e extent of its rights in.
ConvenientlY�R3'� more impox'tzwtlY�tlic�ent to which a public
rocess aad, ��a��g o��contract will be upheld
tbe public contra�ting P ublic
auth.oriry'�reasoned discretion in the makin.g 93 N.W.2d�90, 491
lic body is clearlY entitl�d t°`Na�ve mino3r defects in a bid if p
by the courts. A pub T T �,r4.,rA Yn v_Hir�l,
rights are not preJ
udiced thereby. 182 N.W.2d 679
��n. 1986);.
(Minn. 1971}.
t tbat Addendum No.2 may be deem�d minar in seope artnd�that
Mareover,the fac be waived as a maszor defect is supp
�,g���e� �i�owledge the same may ecificallY s�8�`t a bidder's failure ta
the fact that���d�d�l��lf does n9S�P render a bid nonxesponslve. In�Il
would automaticallY 1990),
�awledge the addendum. ���yq,451 N.W.2d 2Q�,748 (Minn•
's failute to list WBE fums�s required in its bid was"taken
the court held that a bidder b the pla�s and BP�ifications which deemed the failure
out of the minor defect category Y ments as grounds for
1 with the WfMBE Aart�cipation require e was included in the
to eomp Y » gere,the fact that no such restrictive languag
aonresponsiveness, cative of the fact that the chanSe
at�d that a failure to acknowledgc the satue
bid specificauQ�s or the addendum itself is further indi
called for in the �V�by�e Ci�or defec�
maY PT°Pezly be �d to
�a public authentY is A°t req
It has also been repeatedly r�o�d ,
� reject a single bid wher
e there is a minar techYucal defcct in.the submissioz�e�e to g ve a
or defects" is often
'ch does not Peffect the substance of the bid��T i��wa°e`�`m nerwise o
w�" etitive advanta8e• T� �' to nat reject an
bidder an unfa�COmP ��orities in proPerly electin8
relied upon by publi�contraoting �ible bid simplY due to �£ailure to comp1Y��
otherwise app�nt low responsive,zespo rocess. In
a minor tecbnical retlu�ement or aclaaowledgment in the biddinS p
_.. , , . , . ..
' 3-�7'95 � 4:54PM ;MOORE COSTELLO & HARi
� 1 612 423 5203;# 5
Mx.Bud Osautmdson
Mr.David F. Simons,P.E.
March I7, 1995
Page q
266 Minn. 259, 265, 123 N.W.�d 387
SuPreme Court reasoned as followg: ^
°— (1963),the Mj13ueSQtB
IQthe lowecr h;,�.�o... �e�o� o��e bid, IIot be1�1
embodied in the stat�,ite, is a regulation prescribed by the
City, and�•�to techf�i a11
rea �i omni �
ri�h af�h_P t,,.z .� ,
t 1r�nPr rn
+ -�]1[�S ���Tl. 1t �r,aera rn,�,.9
&4Iltract na �rn;sh re on4ible bnnr;a,,,p
�—�.�..�,�aa thP �a,.+f„ .���$�
,
[Public contracting 1aa,5� a�.e�rended ro secure to
City).the contracting of the work to the lowest [�e
bidder, �nd mere irregularities in the form of th bPd�sib�e
dctaiis of stateinent whi
ch da not in any way mislead or
�J�, are nat sufficient to 'us '
bid. J �q the rejection����a
� gr b $ � d , n
rtt�nthr t0 CO t
.
��£Cl.� ' (�IRj)�519
Id. at 26S(ratation omitted},
Ryaa also cla,ims that
by�l�ug it�advez�teat mi ��'���y pl�e�itself in a position to recant its bid
have tbe ���er bid openina, However, a bidder simply does,q�
right to withdra.w irs bid on the basis of an al.leged mistake in all •
���', � relief from s bid mistake Is generally av�Iable v wg
other ttungs,that a mi ���stances.
ab�ective avidence,that�the mistake is��and can be �` ere it can show,�mong
of the bid would be uncanscionable or wo p�ven by clear, convincing, �d
of a suffi�ient1y materia1 na
�d�J�IY enrich the owner�a�e�orcement
did not result from any negligence of the bidder , that the mistake
feuture of ti�e contract. � ' �d�hat the mistake r,elates#o a material
in Bids)(P'ed�ra� publications�978 ,
here. H� ) ClcarlY,none of those circ �S���er,�Yltst�kes�
RKI attempted to recant, the Ciiy would have been ' �s�nces are present
�$position to rea ,ir �
S�NT BY• + ��l���y� � 4•�4r� ��UURG VVJIGLLV a nnn, � vic �cv �LVV�� v
Mr. Bud OsmundsoII
Mr. David F. 3imons,P.E.
March 17, 1995
Page 5
to perform the con�ract as bid,w forfeit RKI's bid bond,or to have the contract
performed by another cantractor and hold RKI responsible for the difference in damages.
Quite simply,it is unrealistic ta argue that under these circumstances RKI would have
been in any position to cisim a right to recant its bid follawiag apening.
Ryan's threat to litigate and enjoin the City from awardi.ng the contzact to RKI
rings hollow in the absence of any factuat or legal support of its position. It laas long
been well recognized that a public authority's decision to awazd a contract under
competitive bidding procedvres will n�be overturned unless it can be shown to be an
arbitrary, capricious,or an unreasonable exercise of power. Neilsen v_ Cit^,nf Ct. PaL,
88 N.W.2d 853 (Minsi. 195$). In the proper exercise of its discretion,public badies are
well advised and are allowed to consider the best interests of the taxpayer,the
responsibility of bidders,the timely and proper completion of the wark, and other matters
in determining the"best interests:' Here, especially in thia day of fiscal austerity,the
City stands to save in excess of$60,000 on a project which,if award is made to RKI,will
proceed immediately and which will be done by a contractor which has fully
demonstraxed the full extent of its responsibility to the City an prior jabs.
While tkte City may ha.v�concern ovex Ryan,'s threats af a bid pratest lawsuit,it
must not allow Ryan's threats to result in a rejection of all bids where, as here,the City's
best interests are clearly best served by an award ta RKI. While Ryan certainly would
have the right to bring a motion for injunctive relief,that proceeding would be heazd and
considered by a Dakota County District Court judge within a relatively short time and
wvuld presumably be cliapc��ed v�i�a�avc�r��lh�City's proper exercise of discretion.
Such a proceeding, if pursued by Ryan at all,would in all likeli.hood be concluded well
before the anticipated rebid date of Apri121, 1995. The City must also consider that any
such rebid o�ens the patential for higher bids and for yet a furthex assrrtion of unfounded
claims by disgruntled bidders such as Ryan.
Gentlemen,given the above factual circumstanccs aad legal support,RKI
respectfully requests that you recommend that th�e City Council proce�d with an award to
RKI on the basis that RKt is the lowest responsive responsible bidder on the Project, and
that such an award would be in the best interests of the City and its taxpayers.
• SENT BY� � 3-17-95 � 4�55PM �MOORE COSTELLO & HARi 1 612 423 5203�� 7
Mr.Bud Osmundson
Mr.David F. Simons,P.E. �
March 17, 1995
Page 6
Please call with any ques�tions.
VerY trulY yo
MOO ,COS 4& . .P.
B
T' C. aok
.lmf
cc: Cbarles LeFevre,Esq.
Dave Hammargren,Esq.
Sheri.Boyum
11�LS:1444.DOC
5ENT 8Y� � 3-Z1-y� � n�u�Hm �muunt �U�ICLLV � nhR� � v �c �c� ������ c
� M�ORE, Cl7STELLC? & 1-iART� P.L.L.P.
A PROFESSIONAL UMREQ LIABIUTY PAATNfJiSHIP
ATTOAN@Y$
qEPI.Y TO VVRITER'8 DlP1ECT OIAL NUMB�R
NUTfNEAPOLIS OFFICE (6l2) 376-1757
March 20, 1995
VIA'T'�'L.EGbPY AND U.S. MAIL
Mr.Bud Osmundson
City Engineer/Public Works Dire�tor
City o�Rosemount
2875 145th Street West
Rosemount,MN 55068
Mr. David F. Si.mons,P.E.
Short Elliott Hendrickson,Inc.
3535 Vadnais Center Drive
St.Paul,MN 55110
- Re: BISCAYNE AVENUE IMPROVEMENTS
UTILITY AN�.7 STREET CaNSTRUCTI4N
. ROSEMOUNT CITY PROJECTNO.: 249 S.A.P.Na 208-108-Oi
��� ��� ����� ����� ����.���� r��`��r.r�r r r� r r r.r��� � . .
COLTNCIL REVIEQV: MAR.CH 21, I995
Dcar Mcssrs. Osmundsan and Simons:
This will follow•up on my letter to each of you fxom last Friday,March 17, 1995.
In further investigating this matter,I havc learned tiiat the Bid Addendum No. 2 was a
clarifying addendum designed to elimi.nate any potentiai confusion ar ambiguity in the
original specifications. The original specificatioas,through incorporation of MN DOT
Standard Highway Specificatioa Section 2340.3.H.2,already required compaction by
way of the"Modifled Speci.$ed Density Method." Ricbard Knutson,Inc.'s bitiiminous
subcontractor,Master Asphalt,and its supplier,Commercial Asphalt,were awate of this
ambiguity and had already anticipated-the"Madified Specified Density Mcthod"in its
subquates to both Richard Knutson.Inc. and Ryan Contracting.
I am transmitting and enclosing to each of you supporting Affidavits of Sheri
$oyum, Grant Boimcr, and Mastex Asphalt'a Robert Hanneman in furthcr suppart of
Richard Knutson,Inc.'s position that the pro3ect should properly be awarded to lticb.srd
Knutson,Inc.on the basis of having submitted the low responsive,responsible bid on the
proj�ct. In light of the potential for further delays and increased costs which may be
1404 NORWEBT CENTER • 98 H. F1pTH $7. • 8T. PAUL, MN b6101-1742 • TEL. (814} QQ7-TQ89 • FAX (814} 280-7770
701 FOURTH AVENUE 80UTH • SUITE 1360 • MINNEAP4l.l9, MN b3413-18�3 • T��• 181s) 87�-Oid9 • FAX (Al2) 378-t710
SENT 8Y� + 3-21-95 � 8�04AM �MOORE COSTELLO & HARi 1 612 423 5203+# 3
Mr.Bud Osmundsan
Mr.David F. Simons,P.Eo
March 20, 1995
Page 2
associated with the rebid process,it is our sincere hape that you will recommend to the
City Council that the project proceed by way of a notice of intent to award the project tQ
my clien�
As you la�ow,it is my hope to make a short presentation before the City Council
regarding my client's position tamozxow evening. 5hould you have any questions,please
give me a call.
Very tzvl ,
� ORE,CD L4 �L�.RT,P.L.L.P.
imo y C. Cook
:Imf
cc: Charles I.eFevre,Esq.
Dave Hammargren,Esq.
Sheri Bayum '
tvrnLs:iaa�.noc
� s '7.► �t�Qj,J aJrixt"� YL�:s�.� .
ps. �'a� s���� I � �
SENT BY� � 3-21-95 + 8�04AM +�OORE COSTELLO & NARi 1 b11 �1� 5zu�;� �
AF AVTT OF MR.RO$ERT�IANIYAMAL�t
STATE OF 1��NNESOTA )
)ss•
COLrNTY'4F H�,fiTNEPIN }
Mr.Robert Hannaman,upon fsrst txing duly sworn upon oath, depases and states
as fallows:
1. I am the vice presxdent of Master Aspbalt Company, a bituminous
contractar which main.tain�s its pri.ncipal place of busizaess in Maple Grove,Minnesota.
Master Asphalt has been in business for appzoximately 16 years. i have been involved in
the construction industry for a total of approximately 12 years. Dtuing that time,I have
been iavolved in literally huudreds of bids on public unprovement projects. As a vice
president o£and estimatar for D�taster Asphalt,I hava become intimately knowledgeabie
of and familiar with speciuFications for bituminous paving operations,includ'zng, but not
limited to, specifications regarding compaction techniques,ogeratians,and quatity
testing. I am also very familiar with the bituminaus paving specifications contained in
#k►e MN DOT Stanci�ard Speeifications for Cons�niction,which specificatiams are often
incorparaied into projects for loc,�l impsovements.
2. In February of 1995,Ivlaster Asphalt became awar�of a project involving
a significant amount of bituminous paving advertised by the City of Rosemout. The
project called for utility improvements and paving operations on Biscay2u Aveaue
("project"). •
3. As au interested subcontractor,Master Asphalt reviewed the plans and
specifications regarding the Praject and prcpared to provide bxtuminous paving subquotes
��.�.�.��.�..... ... .. .r.. . ..:��•�.. . .. . .... ���.��.�...�����.�.. . .. . �..� .. n• - .�. �.. ..�. • � . , . . . . .
SENT BY� � 3-21-95 � 8�05AM �MOORE C05TELL0 & HAR� 1 612 423 5203�# 5
to gen�xral contiracto�rs,iacludiag ltichard Knutson,Inc.and Ryan Contracting. Ta my
knowiedge,Master Asphalt's suppliez, Commercial Asphalt,also reviewed plans and
speci$cations regarduig the Proj�ct in canneation with providing us a quotc for
bituminous materials. The bituminous pavi.ng specifications contained in the Project
documeirts at Section 02514 are att�ched as Exhibit A.
4. The bituminous paving specificatiens malce reference in sevcral differcnt
locations to NIN DOT Specification2340.3.H.2. Among other things,the Project
� - specifications require that this MN DOT Specification is to be used as calculating a basis
for payment far wmpaction of the completed pavement(Section 1,01(L�)(3)), ar�to be
used as a basis for the performance of acceptance testing(Part 3.Q2(B)(6), and are to be
used in connection with"Field Quality Control"(Part 3.03B).
5. MN DOT Specifications 2340.3.H.2 are in fact specifications which
address and define the"Modified Specified Density Method." A copy of 1�IN DOT
Section 2340.3.H.2 is attached hereta as Fxhibit B.
6. Pr.�or to giviug subquote praposals to geaeral contracters,both Master
A$phalt and its supplier, �ommercial Asphalt,became aware of bid Addendum No. �
dated March �, 1995,which addenduzn changed paragraph 5 of Part 3.02(B)
"Compacting Operations"to require that each course of bituminous be compacted
wai£ozmly by tl�e"Modified Specified Density 1vlethad"rather than by the"Ordi.nary
Compaction Method"as previously specified. A copy of Bid Addendum No.2 is
attaalied as Exhibit C.
7. From Master Asphalt's perspective as a bituriunous paving subcontractor
and bidder,the cbange called far in Addendum Na.2 was simply a�mi.nar and technical
-2-
. ... _ . . .._.... . ..... . ... ., ._. . . . .. .. T _.. .. . _... .. ..
SENT 8Y� ; 3-21-95 ► 8�05AM ;MUUKt GU51tLW � hHK� � o �c 4c� �cu3►ri o
clarification of the specification in order to make the specifications read cansistently. As
preyiously noted,the referenced MN DOT Specification 2340.3.H.2 alrcady requircd thc
Modified Specified Densiry Methad and therefore,Master Asphalt viewed the Addendum '�
No.2 as merely clarifying that which was already required,campliance with the MN
DOT Specifications which governed,among other things,final testing and paYment and
wbich required the"Modified Specified Density Methad."
8. III my CxpCiiCnCC Siid underst8nding,the pri.ncipal difference between
"Ordi.nary Compaction Methad" and the"Modified Sgecified Density Method" involves
the element of core testing. Both methods involve copapaction with steel wheeled and
pneumatic tired rallers. The"hiodified Specified Density Method"requires the use of
follow-up core testi�ng. Because the sPecifications had already called fox such testing,
Mastcr Asphalt understaod the bid¢tddendum ta be a clarification in order to matce the
apecifications read cox�sistently and to clear up any potential canfusion among bidders.
Ma,stex Asphalt,thr�ugh its supplier, Comm�rcial Asphalt,had already iucluded in its
subquote computations the value of the core testing required under the MN DOT
3pecificatians.
9. The subquote of Master Asphalt,utiii9in prices supplied by its supplier,
Commercial Asphalt,included a price for test coring in the�mout�t of 20 cents per ton.
'�'he Project called�or approximately 7,500 ton of bituminous. The cost included in
Master Asphalt's subquates for this test coring was$1,SOb.60. This cost had�
been computed and included in Master Asphalt subquote�j,QI to the receipt of
Addendum No.2. Accordingly,Addendum No.2 did��1iIIL ta ohange or affect the
-3-
SENT BY� ; 3-21-95 � 8�06AM �MOORE COSTELLO & HARi 1 612 423 5203�# 7
price at wtuch Master Asphatt quoted the bituminous pavin�to both Richard Knutson,
Inc. and Ryan Coatra�eting.
I0. In my experience aad understanding,the bid Addendum No. 2 was a
minor aad techaical bid clarificatiun and one which did not operate to affeat Master
Asphalt's pricing computatians,determinations ss to the maaaer in which bituminous
paving and compaction operations would be per£ormed, or thc rcquircments regarding
final testing and payment for the warlc. The addendum also did not affect quan.tities,
quality,time of performanc�, or any other matter which,in my opuuon,would have given
any bidder which did not aclrnowiedge the addendum an unfair competitive advantage
aver other bidders.
11. In my experience, a reletting of a project does not necessaxily result in
lower bids ta a public autlwrity. N�oreaver,while the possibility far lower bids does
exist, it is also my exper�ience t3iat contractors will often attempt to make up the
difference in thezr bid prices through the assertian of change arders or thraugh an attempt
to camplete the work more quickly,thereby potentially resulting in a decrease in quality
of the final product.
l2. This Affidavit ha�been given at the request of Richard K�nutson,Inc.
Wlule Master Asphalt stands to be awardcd a subcontract on the Pz�oject if Richard
Knutson performs the work,Master Asphalt alsa believes that it enjoys souud business
relatians with Ryan Contracting. Therefore,this Affdavit is given not with the intention
to either help or hurt ana contractor or the other,but rather is to set forth,under aath, the
factual basis as to Master Asphalt's understanding and interpretation of bid Addendum
-4 -
SENT BY� � 3-21-95 ; 6�06AM ;MOORE GU51tLLU & hAKi � oi� 4L3 ozua,� a
No. 2 and Master Asphalt's belief that the addendwa did not ope�ratc to affect issues
involving quarnity,qualitY,time of pesformance,manner of p�cformance.ar price of the
bituminous paving and compaction operations on the�je��
Fc�rtl�er your Affiant sayeth aot
Robert Hanneman
5ubscribed and sworn ta before me
this day of March, 1995.
Notary Puhlic
n�i.s:ta�o i.Doc
_S _
..:_ .. . . .._._ .. . . ._ .. ......._ , . . . .,. , . . . .. . . . � . .
SENT BY;, �, _ ' 3 ,���c-458t�=1�'MMOO�OST�7EL.0�H�iAf�+ 1 Otx ��� d899i�t 4. � .
No�Z a�d M�tcr�t'�bettl�'t�t tiLe�d��t opat�e to afGent i�s
itiwtvio��4+.q�iit�.�mfpufo��o�'pa�o�,orp�afth�e
!�'a Pa"Tr�aad carsPt�ttcm ape��ti�ons oa�tbs ptt�jo�L
P�+urywr A��t�h�ct,
#�c Heaa�man
�
. $�ibc$and 9�tOm t0 bEfotar s�1w �'�
� Z+� dl�y af I�Sa�srh, 1�43.
I �►,�.�,� •
� �
�� `-
�,�����
. �
C�E�Li.C. RfCL�ei�
' +�O�Mtl�AiADM F�FI�
• iMMil�e�►ss.�poo
.j.
5ENT BY� ; 3-21-95 � 9�07AM ;MOORE COSTELLO & HARi 1 612 423 5203►#10
AFj�AVIT OF SHERI BOYLTM
STATE OF 1��1NESOTA )
) ss.
COUN'I'Y OF SCQTT )
Sheri Boyum,upan first bei.ng duly�worn upon oath, deposes and states as
fallows:
1. I am a corpvrate vice presideat for R.ichard Knutson,Tnc. {"RKI"), a
general cantractor located in Savage,Mi.nnesota. I have been corporate vice president
since January of 2995. Prior to that time,I was corporate treasurer for RKI and hav�been
emplayed by RKI and associated with the construction industry since 1982.
2. On Friday,Mar�h 3, I99S,RKI submitted a sealed competitive bid ta the
Ci#y of Rasemount,Miaaesota for certain utility and street constxuction wark identified
as the Biscayne Avenue Improvements, City Prolect No. 249, S.A.P.No.208-108-1
("Projec�'�. A.t bid opeuing,RKI's bid of�1,453,713.81 was determined to be the low
responsive bid submitted by a responsible bidder. The bid tabulatians ranged from RKI's
low bid of$1,453,713.81 to a high bid of$I,892,Sd1.62. A total o�ten bids were
submitted. The second l�w bid was submitted by Ryan Contracting in the amount of
$1,513,304.85.
3. RKI's low responsive bid was over$200,Q00 below the engineer's
estinaate,which as I understsnd was $I,64b,787.�4. Following bid opening, it was
brought to my atten�ion that kKI's bid failed to properly acknowledge receipt of bid
Addendum No. 2, which addendum made a minor technical change in the section of the
Pmject specifications addressing"Compaction Operations." Thereatter,I discussed the
SENT BY� � 3-21-95 � 8�07AM ;MOORE COSTELLO & HAR� 1 612 423 5203;#11,
situation with the City's Project Fngin�r and Public Works Maaager,Mr. Bud
Osmuadson,and on several separate occasions with the City's Consulting Engineer,
Mr.David Simons. Based an these discussions,it was my understanding that the City did
not feel that RKI's failure to acknowledge receipt of Addendwn No.Z in any affeated the
scope of the work,RKI's obligations with respect to porformancc of thc samc,and,most
imporkantly,dzd not operate to give RKI a biddi.ng or otherwise campetitive advaatage
over othex bidders. Moreover,it is my further understanding that Addendum No. 2 wss
issued predominantly as a clarification to make#he specifications regd consi�tently with
several oth.er refer�nces to the"Specified Method af Compaction,"as contained in the
original specificaiion.
4. RKI's bid included a subquote from its bituminou�suboantractor,�Iaster
Asphalt. It is my understantling that both Master Asphalt and its supplier, Commercial
Asphalt,were aware of Addendum�l'o. 2 and tl�at Master Asphalt had already intended to
include full consideration of the same in submitting its subquate price to RKI. It ia alsa
my undcrstanding tbat Master Asphalt madc a subcontract quotation to Ryan Contracting,
which quote also included the fiill cansxderatian due the clarification called far in
Addendum No. 2. Therefore,RKI did not and could not have received any competiuve
pricing advantage over Ryan Contracting through the clarifying addendum.
5, i�yan Contracting has takzn thc p�sition that RKI had aa unfair
oompotitive advantago booause o£�ts fv.uilure to praperly acknow�odge Addendum Na. 2.
All persons,other tha.n Ryan Contracting,agree that the minor clarif cation in the bid
addendum did�have any appreciable affect on the manner of perfarmance,the quaiity
o£work, comt��ct pr�ce,the time of pzr€ormance,or contract quantities. Moreover,
� -� _
� 3_2�_g5 � 8:08AM +MOORE C05Tt��u � nnn
5ENT BY�
Ityan's azgumcat that"R�I
could withd�aw its bid claiminS a mis��incorrec� RKI
��wi,tJo,dr�w its bid,and,even if it so desired,it is my understanding
ha,s not attem.p uize RKt ta
tha,t the City wauld be in a position tu default RKI on its bid bond,to req �
t or to hold RKI resPans�ble for the differenc�b�e���g bid and
perfarm the contrac ,
the price of the work c�arged by a repla�cement contra��r.
b_ Accoxdin$
to the City's consultin8 en8ineer,Dave Sunons,the porhon af
- to bituminous Pati'in'g�$10,000 to$11,0001Q���
gyan's bid pertainin8
, • ame work. If Ryan's arg��nt were true,it would logica].l.y
portian af RKI s bzd for the s
' bifi.vmixious�'v°rk would have been bid at a significantlY lower number,
fallow that RI�I s
�er a,ctually submitted. T'�s is ye�t fi�i�r evidence of the
rather than the bi8ber num
's ositio�that ItKI had an unfair competitive advantage ixi the
fallacy a£Ryan p
bituminous pozcion of its bid.
I erfonned wark fox the City and has e�tablished itself
7, gK,I has previous y P
as a competent,quali$ed,anci resA
onsible cantractor. RKI stan.ds ready,v��8��able
to roceed with petforming�e��Ject for the City as saon as possible.
P
8.
It has bern�Y�P������t on accasions where publ�c authoritiss
'ect all bids and readvertise,such a decision does not necessarily Sua���e
choose to re�
' rices on the nle�g. Moreover,the reletting process can also result�n
lower b�d p �e claimed
• ed claim activitY on a project as contractors seek to recovex through
xacreas
k" rocess that margin Which they may have sacrificed during a rebid.
"extra wor p
e Ci s h o u l d p r a p erl y proceed with an award of the Projec t con tr a c t t o
4. 'Th t5'
d wo u l d b��n.�e best interests of the City,woul�d be cansistent wi t h
R K J. S u c h a x�a w a x would result in a
�e rinciples of the public competi�ve biddin$process,snd
P
. -3 -
J����• nr� ' 3'Z�'95 � 9�08AM �MOORE COSTELLO & HAR�
1 �12 423 5203�#13
considcrabIc savi.ngs to the City taxpaYas and allow the Pmject to AI'oceed ia relativel
�c�c fashian.
Y
10. Tbis A�davit is givea ia support af RKI•s positian that it is
entitled to the
ProJecr aud rhat Ryan Cont���s•�laim are simply the��cpected result of a dis
�nmtled
bidder.
Further your affiant sa.yeth not.
Sheri Boyum
Subscribed and swom to before me this
�Y af March, 1995.
Nc�tary Public
11R'I.5:1466.DQG�210•16
. _4_
SENT BY� � 3-21-95 + 8�09AM �MOORE COSTELLO & HARi 1 612 423 52U�i�14
STATE OF M}�1NESOTA )
�SS.
cvurr-r�oF scorr ) .
1Vir. Crrant Boisner,upon first being duly sworn upon oath,deposes and states as
follows: , •
� 1. T am presently employed as an estimator far Richard Knutson,Inc.
("RKI'�, a general contractor located in Savage,Minnesota. I have been employed by
RKI siace 3arivary of 1995.
2. Prior to employmeat with RKI,I was ezaployed as an estimator with
Sarenson Brathers,a heavy highway contractar. I have been associated wxth the
constructian industry for approxinnately 13 years,and have tPu years of experienc@ in
project estimating. I have a bachelor's degree in construction management from Mankato
State Univezsity.
3. In the public contracting bidding process,it is not unusual for ownexs ta
issue addenda to bid specifieations whieh may ehange many d�ferent aspects of a projcct.
Such addenda may be majar in scope and may significantly affect the quantity af
materials,the quality of work,the time of performance,the manner of performance, or
the price af a bid. Other bid addenda may be mi.nor or t�chnical in nature,having no or
minimal impact on the calcuiation of a bid price. Such amendments are aften designed to
clarify a�abiguities which may otherwise exist in the specificatiens.
4. RI�I submitted a bid to the City of Rosemount("City")for utility and
street construction improvements to$iscayne Avenue, City Project No. 249, S.A.F.Na
SENT BY� + 3-21-95 � 8�09AM ;MOORE C05TELL0 & HAR� 1 612 423 5203�#15
208-108-01 ("Project'�. �n Marc$3, 1995,RKI's bid in the amount of$1,453,8U.85
was read as the low responsive,respansible bid submitted. RKI's bid was approximately
S60,000.00 less thaa the bid of the next law bidder,Ryan Con�acting.
5. Following bid op�ning,I leatned that Ryan Contracting was challenging
RKI's bid on the basis that RKI had failed to acknowledge receipt of a bid Addendum
No. 2,wliich clarified a minar and technical provision in the specifications dealing with
"compaction operations"of the bituminous road surface. Following a review of both the
original $pecification regardi.ng compaction,and the addendum, it is my opinion and
belief that the chauge had na impact whatsoever on RKI's overall contract price,that
RKI's failure ta acl�nwledge the addendum did not operate ta give RKI any bidding
advantage,much less a substantial advaatage, over Ryan Contracting or aay other bidder,
and that the addendum merely clarified and made consistent provisions which were found
elsewhere in the specifzcations.
6. The addendum provided that paragraph 5 of Part 3.02(B), Compacting
Operations, as found in Section 02514 af the Project Specifications,be changed to�1�t�
para8raph 5 in its entirety. That ParagraPh initially stated es follows:
Compact each course uniformly by the Ordinary
Compaction Methad until there is no further evidence of
consolidation.
Addendum No. 2��the following new language for paragraph 5:
Compact each course uniformly by the Modified Specified '�
Density Method. '
7. It is my understanding that under both the"Ordinary Compaction
Method"and tho"Modificd Spccificd Dcnsity Mcthod,"bitununous matcrial is
-2 -
SENT BY� � 3-21-95 ; 8�10AM �MOORE COSTELLO & HARi 1 611 423 52U����b
compa,cted by the use of steel wheeled rollers and pneumatic tire rollers. The Modified
Specified Density Method requires the testixig af the atat�erial ta ensure that sufficieni I
compaction has been achieved. A clear rcaciing of the Project Specifications i.ndicates I!,
tbat performance acceptance testing ia accardance with�T DOT Specificatian Section '
2340.3.�.2 was alxeady required (Sectaon 3.028(6})and that payment for campaction of
the completed pavement was also subject to the provisians af MN DQT Specification
Section 2340.3.H.2.(d}. (Section 1.O1D(3). Additionally,there aze other references to
this VIl�1 DOT compaction standard in the specifications,thereby clearly indicati.ng and
r�quiring that eompaction optrations on the Project aircaciy had to bc performed under
the"Modified Specified Density Method"withaut need for the clarifying addendum.
Accordingly,RKI and its bituminous subcantractor,M�st�r Asphalt, interpreted the
Addcndum No. 2 as a clazifieatian to bidderg to ensure that biddrss understood that the
bituminous work, specifieally compaction,had to�ass eertain MN DOT testing
requirements and that payment would be based upon the succe�sful passing of such tests.
8. $id Addendum No. 2 was faxed to RKI,to the best of my recollection, on
the marning of 1rlarch 2, 1995, on the day prior to bids. Due to the improper handling of
that bid addendum within.RKI's affice,RKI failed to acknowledge receipt af the same
on its bid.
9. RKI's bitunuuous subcontractor,Master Asphalt,was aware of bid
Addcndum No.2 and included considerati.on of the same in quoting its subcontract pric�
to RKI. As I un.dersta.nd,Master Asphalt also included consideration of bid Addendum
No.2,to the extent that such consideration was necessary at all, in presenting a subquote
to Ryan Cantracting.
-3 -
SENT BY� � 3-Z1-95 � 8�10AM �MOORE C05TELL0 & HAR-► 1 612 423 5203;#17
10. RKI maintains that its failure to acl�owledga bid Addeadum No.2 did
nQt afford it any material or substantial conapetitive advantage over Ryan Contracting or
any other biddex and that the addendum's putpose and scope was a minor technical
clari.fication whicb did nat affect issues pertaining to quentity or worlt,time of
porform�nce,manner of performance,quality o£work,or final contract pricc.
1�. Bid Addendum No. 2 does�state that aay failure to aclmowledge
receipt of bid Addendum I�Ta. 2 wauld result in a rejection of a bid as being
nonrasponsive. Ia my ea�perience,most bid addenda which operate to have a substantial
impact on a project cantai.n explicit language advisin;a bidder that a failure to
acknowledge receipt of an addendum would automatically result in a rejection of its bid. �
I2, RI�maintaias that it is the low responsive,responsible bidder on the
project and stands ready to fully perfarm the project for the City.
13. This a£fidavit is given in support af RKI's pasition that the pro,�eot be
awarded ta RKI on the basis that it submitted ttae lowest responsive bid and that such an
awazd would b�in the best interests of the City.
Further your affiant sayeth not.
Grant Boisncr
Subscribed and sworn to before me
this tiay of March, 1995.
Notary Public
-4-
-.r - •....... ..�...�«.... .. . . ...._.__..'_' ..._.�... .+.r-•_' • ' • . . . . . .
SENT BY�_. _ ; 3-21.95 � 8,�11AM �MOORE COSTELLO &_HAR�,_ .,_,1 812.423 ,5203��19
.. - ,-_... :,:�'. ... .:�. .... . ._. . .. . . ; , ' '
4' 9EKT 9w � � ; a-�o—�� ; �.,oa� �Mn0A6 CCSTEI.LQ � ���� et2a�o�a�a.� � .
. 1
,
,
I
f �
� ��thet i�l�fft�o�o�oicao�►i�dp�d��t No.�dtd
ia,� �
�� ,n�y mate�t ot�t�1 C������ti�Qt
�,y c�r i�idcie��ad that tha idderidttm'�pnrpoa�an�ecags w■�e s m�aar irc�C�l
,
�s�w�a�d3e nat,�eat�a�g�c�a+�so q��r ar�va�r.ti�e o�
p�r�xtna�,mena�c of�meace,qualit;i of wa�os�!a��p��.
t
Z�i H�d Addaadt�m Nc.2'dc�x nC1�ta t�t�}t feilw't+�ac�mOVlr���
I
reo.Lpt���dd�►d�ura�+a�ww�ld.�tsatt ies a rejedda�a of a bdd a�boia�t
� moat faid edc�mda�ich c�persto ts�hsv�a ribet�adat
sLarsaspa�i'w• �my'� .
u�et,4��i�of C�t�a��=���a��'�t�fh�iitrn to
n�yc��w3;o�gs reaair�t af�w��esdtsm wa�t��$'�i�u�zx��tltm Cf#ts bid.
� t�l, �m�#�t3ut it i�'t�e low��.re�cna�hle biclda an thc
I
�to0�it�ads ro�dy to�►pr.rlbrs�s t�e prq�ec�fbz+3Ls tSty.
,.,
�i�3�. T$i1�d�it�ivm ia aupgort af RKt'�position thet thc pm,�oat lx �
•�wetrdes��io RKI oa�t�ic b��utt it aub�i�p�d th�lawest re�po�iv4'bd�and t�et�an .
.�
aweud�ttid b�im t�o bost�ea�st�af'tb��ity .
.i
:Pt�nher paar���� �
. � � ' l�r i�:. �
'j C�B�
�
9sbxr�-�d�ad ew»sa�a be�m� .
�S „�'t c�ay oflViu�2s�1�93. ' ��
. , ^ ���
�
�tocars _b�ia
I
�
: :I
, 'I
� �
,�
;
�' -4-
�
. . �Y. _��.,,,..�,�.i.,�...-..� . . ..�.�.. . ...�.. . ..r..„. _ �... �.' : ' .. ' .
.,� . ... . � . . ..._.. _. .. .� .. . ... ... . ..�_... . ... ... _ . .. .
TO: Mayor, City Council
FROM: Richard Pearson, Assistant Planner
DAT'E: March 21, 1995
RE: Additional items related to item #5, the Public Hearing for the proposed
rezoning of land between Dodd Blvd., Shannon Pkwy and 145th St. W.
The letter presented to the Planning Commission last week by Mr. Carroll is atta.ched.
Community Development Staff discussed these and other issues with Mr. Carroll earlier
today. The letter was intended to be included with the regular packet, but was inadvertently
omitted. Staff regrets any inconvenience that may have resulted.
The other issues will be identified at the presentaxion this evening at the public hearing. A
modification to the recommended action will be presented at that time.
.
:
March 14, 1995
Chair
Advisory Planning Commission
City of Rosemount
2875 - 145th Street West
P.O. Box 510
Rosemount, NIl�T 55068-0510
Dear Sir/Madam:
I am writing on behalf oi the owners of approx�mately 14 acres
located between 145th Street West and Dodd Boulevard and adjacent
to Shannon Parkway in Rosemount. Tom Carroll, my nephew, and I
met with the City Administrator and also Ron Wasmund, the
Community Development Director, about two weeks ago concerning
the proposal of the City of Rase�nount to down-zone the property
owned by the Carroll Partnership and me from R-3 zoning to R-2
zoning, and changing a portion of the property from Agricultural
zoning to R-2 . This letter is being submitted on behalf of the
owners to the Planning Commission which will be meeting at its
regular meeting on March 14, 1995 and the following are some
comments that we, as owners, want to present to the Planning
Commission me*nbers for their consideration:
1 . To the best of our knowledge, approximately 3 . 66 acres is
currently zoned Ag�icultural rather than R-3, according to
the drawing that we received from the City. Also, the
southwesterly corner at the Intersection of Shannon Parkway
and Dodd Boulevard, south of Limerick Way consisting of
about 3 acres, to the best of our knowledge, also is
Agricultural rather than R-3 .
2. One of the drawings that we received indicates the southwest
corner may be used as a future City fire station site. It
is our opinion that that parcel should not be revised in its
zoning at the presznt time without a commitment from the
City concerning the future use. We would also assume that
if it is used for a fire station site, that the zoning would
be of a public utility type rather than a residential R-2
zone category.
3 . The drawing we received provides for two storm water holding
ponds along the south line adjacent to Dodd Boulevard. Our
_ •
Advisory Planninq Commission
March 14, 1995
Fage 2
understanding is that these ponds would contain sufficient
capacity to hold all of the storn water from the entire
site, including the 8 acres to the east, not owned by us.
Because of the topography of the property, it does not seem
practical to run the water from the northerly portion of the
site into either of the ponds since the normal flow of the
water would be to the north and also, the land in the center
is higher.
4 . In addition, it is ou= opinion that the 14 acres owned by us
should not be required to donate virtually all of the
ponding area required for the entire site which clearly
would reduce the sale value of our parcel, and should be
proportioned equall y between the 8 acres to the east and our
land. .
5. We were tol.d that the City desires to develop the land with
no greater than an R-2 density, but there is no developer
nor specific user for the property at the present time_
Therefore, it appears to be premature and although we will
certainly cooperate with the City and any proposed developer
to ensure a reasonable density, we object at the present
time to the rezoning as proposed.
6. There are other issues that need to be reviewed including
the potential for .a change in the market value for real
estate purposes with the revision from aqricultural to R-2,
and the impact upon the green acres real estate tax
provision.
On the basis of the information in this letter, we are requesting
the Advisory Planning Commission withhold action on our property '
until further research of the issues that are described above
have taken place and further, that negotiations take place with a
developer for the proposal as it is being laid out.
Thank you for your consideration and if we can supply any further
information, please let us know.
Very truly yours,
�.�- ---_`\
�rl
Richard Carroll }
;