The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About4.q. Receive Bids Section 31 Trunk Sanitary Sewer Facilities, City Project #233CITY OF ROSEMOUNT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY FOR "ACTION CITY COUNCIL MEETIN DATE: October 6, 1992 AGENDA ITEM: Receive Bids/Table Award AGENDA SECTION: Section 31, 'Trunk San Sewer Facilities, Prj233 Consent PREPARED BY: laud Osmundson AGENDft City- Engineer/Assistant Public Works Director.Ild! # 4 ATTACMtENTS`: Bid Tab, Resolution APP OVE BY - On Friday, September 25, 1992 bids for the referenced project were received and rad .aloud publicly. Ten bids were received and are listed for your review on the attached bid tabulation. The low bid received is from Richard Knutson, Inc., 12505Rhode Island Avenue So., Savage, MN 55378, in the amount of $315,465.70. The engineer's estimate was $336,000 based on 1992 construction costs. Staff recommends the tabling the award of this contract until Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment for the Section 31 Sewer Diversion and MUSA expansions are approved. RECOhIlEMED ACTION: SECTION 31, TRUNK MOTION TO ADOPT A RESOLUTION RECEIVING BIDS FOR SANITARY SEWER FACILITIES, CITY PROJECT #233. COUNCIL ACTION: w 49/30!92 14:49 FAX 6 2 490 2150 @N{:I frF�R$ f ARGHIT�CiS • PjJlNNE CLIENTR�. ROSEM° SECTIO PROJECT SANITA SEH ST. PAUL 444 ROSEMOUNT Z002/004 BIDS RECEIVED FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 25, 1992 10:00 A.M. T, MN CLIENT PRQJ. NO. 233 31 TRUNK SEWER FAC. 92442 SEM PRQJ. N0. ENGINEER'S ESTIMATE RICHARD KNUTSON INC ARCON CONSTRUCTION S.M. HENTGES & EONS KENKO CONTRACTORS BARBAROSSA & sols RYAN CONTRACTING S.J. LOUIS CONSTRUCTION BROWN & CRIS NORTHDALE CONSTRUCTION WIDMER INC --PRA 70A.51 BID AMOUNT $336,000.00 $315,465.70 $335,000.16 $339,692.00 $341;907.10 $351,425.00 $365,862.50 $386,139.20 $388,343.75 $407,914.95 $415,947.50 CITY OF ROSEMOUNT DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION 1992 - A RESOLUTION RECEIVING THE BIDS FOR SECTION 31, TRUNK SANITARY SEWER FACILITIES CITY PROJECT #233 BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Rosemount, Minnesota, as follows: 1. All bids on construction of Section 31, Trunk Sanitary Sewer Facilities are hereby received and tabulated. ADOPTED this 6th day of October, 1992 ATTEST: Susan M. Walsh, City Clerk Motion by: Voted in favor: Voted against: Seconded by: E. B. McMenomy, Mayor Z RICHARD A. MOORE (1919.19911 MARVIN J. PERTZIK A. PATRICK LEIGHTON HAROLb P. FOYSCH RONALD E MARTELL* WILLIAM M. BEAOIE' DENIS L. STODDARD LARRY A HAN50N J. PATRICK PI IINKFTT JOHN M. HARENS DAVID A. KA5TCLIC PHYLL45 KARASOV CHR15 R. KA13r LLA' MALCOLM G. McDONALD MART GIULIANI STEPHFNS LLONARU W. GLEWWL' Via Telecopy Mr. Michael Miles Rosemount City Attl 1303 South Frontage Hastings, MN 55033 MOORE, COSTELLO SII MART ATTORNEYS AT LAw SAiNT PAUL OFFICE 1400 NORWLST CENTER LAST FIFTH STREET SAINT INAUL, MINNESOTA 55101-1792 t ELEPHONE 16121 227-7663 TELECOPIER 16121 290-1770 MINNEAPOLIS OFFICE* 1350 701 ntALOING 701 FOURTI I AVENUE SOUTH MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55415 -►s23 TELEr'HONE 115121 673-0148 TELLCOPWR (6121 376-17Y0 Writer's Direct Dial No. (612) 290-1757 October 6, 1992 JOHN G. PATTERSON TIMOTHY C. COOK KATHRYN A GRAVLID' MICHAEL B. ROONING BASH DEBORAH S. HALLETECK STEVEN D SNELLING ,ARA G. MATTESSICH L15A R. PERSZYK* WII I IAM F. ORME 4 REL) W. FISHER OF COUNSEL IWITN ATTORNEYS ALITNORIZLLI 10 PRACTICE LAW IN MINNVf.nTA, IOWA. WISCONSIN AND GEORGIAI Honorable City Council Members rney Rosemount City Council Road 2875 - 145th Street West Rosemount, MN 55068 Re: PUBLIC BIDDING PROCEDURES/REQUIREMENTS My Client: Arcon Construction Company Project: Section 31/Trunk Sanitary Sewer Facilities Rosemount City Project No. 233 Bid Opening Date: September 25, 1992 MC&H Fil No. 5077-3 Dear Mr. Miles an We represent various of its co letter is submitt bids and contract Sanitary Sewer Fa Arcon maintains t as a responsible On or about Hendrickson, Inc. things, included "Instructions to shall contain an whit must be fil addition, paragrz in part as follo4 Honorable City Council Members: rcon Construction, Inc. ("Arcon11) in connection with truction and public contract related matters. This on Arcon's behalf for your consideration regarding yard for Section 31/City of Rosemount ("City") Trunk lities, Rosemount City Project No. 233 ("Project"). t it submitted the lowest responsive bid and therefore, dder, should be awarded the Project contract. eptember 1, 1992, the Project Engineer, Short Elliott ("SEH'I), issued a Project Manual which, among other n advertisement for bids. Paragraph 12.6 of the idder" section specifically provided that "[t)he Bid cknowledgement of receipt of all Addenda (the numbers of ed in on the Bid Form)." (Emphasis added). In h 17.1 of the "Instructions to Bidder" section provided "Owner eserves the right to reject any or all Bids, i eluding without limitation, the right to reie t anv or all nonconforming, nonresRm ana to reiec Mr. Michael Miles Honorable Council Page 2 October 6, 1992 the Bi d would n to make the Bid unquali fails t criteri the rig rs of any Bidder if Owner believes that it t be in the best interests of the Project an award to that Bidder, whether because is not responsive or the Bidder is ied or of doubtful financial ability or meet any other pertinent standard or established by Owner. Owner also reserves t to waive all informalities not involving price ime or cha contras terms wit (Emphasis added). es in the Work and to negotiate the Successful Bidder. * * *" On or about eptember 21, 1992, SEH issued Addendum No. 1 for the Project, which adendum again specifically instructed bidders that "[r]eceipt of [th ] addendum shall be acknowledged in the appropriate space on the Bid orm." (Emphasis added). The addendum revised specifications fo the class of pipe to be utilized on the Project and, as such, involved ch nges in the work and pricing on the Project. Following bi opening on September 25, 1992, SEH determined that Arcon's bid in th amount of $335,000.16 was in conformance with all bid solicitation requ cements, including a proper acknowledgement as to receipt of Bid Ad endum No. 1. In addition, SEH found that the bid submitted by Rich rd Knutson, Inc. ("Knutson") in the amount of $315,465.70 failed to contain any acknowledgement as to receipt of Bid Addendum No. 1 as expressly required by the bid solicitation. SEH referred the bids and issue regarding Knutson's bid responsiveness to the City's attorney for evaluation. The Project specifications expressly reserved to the City the right to reject any and all bids, to waive irregularities and informalities therein, and to a and the contract in the best interests of the City. However, this rigit to waive informalities and irregularities specifically and ambiguously a tends only to those informalities or irregularities not involving ricetime or changes in the work. (See paragraph 17.1 of the Project Manual, " nstructions to Bidders.') Because Bid Addendum No. 1 in fact involved a change in the work, specifically the class of pipe to be utilized on certM n aspects of the Project, and because that specification change also affected pricing, the City cannot waive Knutson's nonresponsive bid as a mere informality or irregularity. To do otherwise would be in violation of public contracting principles and would impermissibly afford Knutson an unfair competitive advantage not enjoyed by Arcon or any other bidders who submitted bids in strict compliance with the Project specifications. Under the Minesota Uniform Municipal Contracting Law, all municipal contracts over $15,000 must be received by sealed bids solicited by a Mr. Michael Miles Honorable Council Page 3 October 6, 1992 public notice "in governing contrac Minn. Stat. Secti bid must conform specifications. reject bids which specifications. N.W.2d 835, 840 authorities may w to waive defects Associates vs. St test of whether a substantial advan citing Duffy vs. Here, the Cit responsiveness at authority to make opened, nor may it after bid opening. requirements are d contract -making of abuses as fraud, f Ramsey County, 242 Here, Knutsor to the receipt of unfair competitive other Project bide position where it it discovers that comparison to the on the job. In of intentionally or i its mistakes shoul reaffirm its bid c Addendum, and whil of its bid as subs substantial compet stated cannot and bidding arena. (S 451 N.W.2d 204 (Mi to determine respa apparent successfu required rendered rs the manner and subject to the requirements of the law s by the particular municipality or class thereof." n 471.345 (subd. 3). Under public bidding principles, a n all substantial respects to the advertised plan and public contracting authority has "a plain duty" to have a "substantial variance" from the plans and oller vs. City of St. Paul, 223 Minn. 376, 385, 26 947). Courts have recognized that while public ive certain minor bid defects, they "have no authority hich affect or destroy competitive bidding." Telephone Louis County, 364 N.W.2d 378, 382 (Minn. 1985). The variance is substantial is "whether it gives a bidder a age or benefit not enjoyed by other bidders." Id., illage.of Princeton, 60 N.W.2d 27, 29 (Minn. 1953). must determine the extent of Knutson's bid ,he time of the opening of the bid. The City has no .ny material changes or modifications after the bid has allow Knutson to acknowledge receipt of the addendum Coller, at 387, 26 N.W.2d, at 841. These strict signed "to deprive or limit the discretion of A cials in the areas which are susceptible to such ,voritism, improvidence and extravagance." Griswold vs. Minn. 529, 536, 65 N.W.2d 647, 652 (1954). 's refusal or failure to include an acknowledgement as Bid Addendum No. 1 on its Bid Form has given it an advantage or benefit not enjoyed by Arcon or any of the ars. Specifically, Knutson has placed itself in a can recant its bid if, following bid opening and review, it had made a "losing bid," i.e. its bid was too low in Dther bidders and it would run the risk of losing money her words, Knutson's bid omission, whether made nadvertently, permits it to avoid the consequences of I it so choose, While Knutson may ultimately decide to r attempt to belatedly acknowledge receipt of the e Knutson may agree to be bound to the City by the terms itted, such a situation would afford Knutson the precise itive advantage which Minnesota courts have repeatedly should not be allowed to stand in the competitive :e, e,_., C_ Bollander & Sons vs. City of Minneapolis, in. 1990) (held that contract officer had no authority isiveness of bids following bid opening and that I bidders failure to specify woman -owned business as )id materially nonresponsive). Mr. Michael Miles Honorable Council Page 4 October 6, 1992 While Arcon i favoritism is beii issue is the conte bidding process. and impartially ai equal opportuniti4 appearance of imps all costs. Only contracting author competitive biddii public authoritie: workmanship for tl Members oes not suggest or imply that collusion, fraud or g extended to Knutson in this particular case, the key nuing preservation of the integrity of the competitive It is essential that this process be conducted fairly d on a level playing field. The process must provide s to all bidding participants and must ensure that the oprieties, inequities or unfair advantages be avoided at hrough strict adherence to these principles will public ities be repeatedly assured of having full and vigorous g by a number of responsible bidders so as to allow and its taxpayers to obtain quality materials and e lowest available prices. For each of the foregoing reasons, Arcon respectfully submits that Knutson`s bid must be rejected as being nonresponsive and that the Project should be awarded to Arcon on the basis that it is the lowest responsive, responsible bidder. Arcon looks forward to a sound working relationship with the City and its Project engineer and a successful completion of the Project at the earliest possible time. Should you hve any questions, you may contact the undersigned at 290-1757 or Mr. D vid Baum with Arcon at 1-679-2244. Youpt" very ;truly, ,RE, COSTELLO & "'ART/--) ' Timothy C Cook TCC/l r (-I-- cc: Arcon Construction, Inc. (via telecopy) Mr. David Simons/Short Elliott Hendrickson, Inc. (via telecopy)