The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink Aboutbocc.min.spec.05161983 :,w:� . , „ ,�, � ��.t�y'��y 7�;}�.�``;y K'r fo . ry x•t ; _ .,ik �xr:�; �it f''-�r��'is' :;� 'Y1'�i �� .�.,�};FwN �K; .�.,l`p. �� r-v aK:.��73�r��k.,?G�.,!��y,� Y"w'�`1�t-Y,i.4'L1�.�}y a i � �,�.1.�� t + tq(tf-�oy,q�_ 4+�. ..,�+ �{ � ��i1Mrt�_:.r�L1SIC�7fi1�:TFR1�C�eWY iNT.�h-•.'i.i�.�Fw.>1t�.J:sw.�i.i(1��:...--....�....rr ��7 - � �:.....[�I.�H�t%7�9 . � �,�)._.� . �7 � - !.,.� `:' Q P'�'� �',. ?:i.:� :4e:.; �l:�' � itf ��vr..� . �� . ,:i A: i�. � PITKIN COQNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS � �� i �) !�� PECIAI, MEETTNG �� 16 Ma , 1983 ! �_, i^�. � �� RESENT: George Madsen, Helen Klanderud, Thomas Blake, Robert W, Child �� .'-' ---------- ; _ �`" r' us The Board convened a public hearing in order to set as the Procurement ; ��y ainten- 1;,:'aance Appeals Board. County Attorney Wes Light explained to the Board that ;y;`;r�Facility 1 the issue was the Bus Maintenance Facility and the bids that were re- w�;' �,i;,; ceived. Light submitted to the record: the Mid Continent Builders � 1 �`x' letter dated 5/12/82; the Mid Continent Builders Co, letter dated ` 1,�. � �_�: � r>- 5/5/83; the Michael J. Slugocki letter dated S/11/83; the Pinkard �'�: Construction Comp. letter dated 4/21/83; the bids record; the Aspen/ Pitkin County Bus Maintenance Facility Bid Analysis. Light noted k ,g . r�`:; that under the Procurement Code of the County the Board must review �:'�.' ;:iY the concerns and decide if the appeal will be granted. Light listed ' ;� `; '`� the top three bidders in order of apparent low bid: Fischer-White , �'; � � Contractors; Pinkard Construction Co,; and Mid Continent Builders Co. �' . � ` Light indicated that the County had decided not 'to award the bid to � 1 ' �n:;, F i s c h e r-W h i t e b e c a u s e o f d e f e c t s i n t h e b i d a n d m a t e r i a l n o n-c o m p l i a n c e ki n �r�; with the bid requirements. Light explained that Mid Continent had p r�;� � f ' filed a protest against Pinkard's bid, listing four violations. Light � a.:t q;� added that tlie County had a special consulant, attorney Greg Jones, �"'��`_ �< A.,: ��"� and he agreed with Light and Transportation Grants Administrator Slugocki that the four points raised by Mid Continent were not material. Light � explained that certain defects in an application can be waived, de- ; 1 j pending on whether or not they are material to the price, quality or quanity of the job. Light informed the Board that iE they did not honor the protest by Mid Continent, that he recommended that they �,�`s make a decision on awarding the contract for general construction to- a ` day. County Manager Curt Stewart said it seemed strange to him that :�,.: 1:4�s�M� �4: �e� �• ��-'� Crnmissioners Meetinq 16 Ma 7;.� y, 1983 - 1 ';�: i':;''~�.:,.,�,a r -::.�..,;;� . y„ � if.... :..J:;J�., , � '� r- �e^- i"�'`rS�.?#zy`t`�s Y�. a �. �, ,f , �� a„' r 3�tt�L4� �+t�, s .� •} fE+`,�S �*. l,�a°Mr#�`� ��a'.r^tj �.fr...�s. 1��"� °4��n g` ..r��F�if'a� �. S1 ��:4•ti � s � f�.s`r�rc'. t � �K i w tr£`'`4`h !r+ 4�i Y. L°F � TXfi�i %' .t j kq � . .-�A.d-��.r«i:_....t�t4S:v.4azwti.....,.».�.a-3.�.�_:''��-ti?_..�,w_�..u�. t,,.��;:< r �,..r_,.�b. v . � J�. �'�+ _f�` . .. n::.,,._._ GriY_� ... _ .. .. � .. v E +i '' 1 ,�_�'�.: .- � � �f.: �-'''-�: the County reviews its own procedure with no one here to argue the • tai.� ,._ ; . �:`-•;.;-�?' other side. Light said the protestors had indicated that they would ;.. +?;`:'�'' be resent and that the had been notified y. g � '' P y personall Slu ocki r�;; rl � #:`,. � addressed each of Mid Continent Builder's charges of violation against ' £�ti'�^i �` '=�': Pinkard: 1 ❑ot statin �.-,-., ) g prices on the subcontractors form - Slugocki �,�`�y felt that this would not effect the price, quality or quantity of the �xs�•N::.: .. �":�lf".' x:'-h;:::?:. job because the County did have a lump sum bid and the list of sub- !.:a-;.:,, k��,;�:�, . t';r��;+ contractors would allow the County to check out the subcontractors. ��:- +s;:;-.<��1 � . �`'r'�" Child asked if the Count had a wa to insure the y q y �.�;`�;;;;V� y y qualit and uantit � � � � ; of the job performed by the subcontractors. Slugocki said he had looked � i into the subcontractors listed by Pinkard and he was satisfied that. -=i �� ';`=`�i they were re2iable, Madsen asked if the County insisted on differ- � i i ! ent subcontractors, could the contractor charge more money than was ' �. � �� + � ' bid and Slugocki said the contractor could appeal the request for :^�:�::_�, Z; ,c�i different subcontractors. Stewart asked what was the intent of quoting . �:�t.;, }"�'�.�::.� prices for the subcontractors and Slugocki said it was asked for on j ;j the County form. Bus Maintenance Facility Project Manager Spiro Niarhos F, �fi ''"=�"�='� said prices for subcontractors was a general condition of the County ��.:��s�.� � } ; and add=d that the contractor must perform a# least ten per cent of the :i�-�=°;,:.;j i ;A*<<';'j ' ?'��::�� job and indicated that it appeared that Pinkard would perform twenty ; ��, :.� � �, five per cent. 2) not submitting a list of Good Faith Efforts - i ��x >i _'� Slugocki noted that this affidavit had been submitted by Pinkard as ,,, � ; reguired within forty-eight hours after the bids were open. Slugocki 1 .: �_;,;,♦,,,;� added that when Mid Continent came in to get copies of the Pinkard ; ' � ..° { :� bid, a copy of this affidavit had not been given to them but in fact :�'s'".:?1 it was there. Stewart asked, of the nine bids su6mitted, how many t`' [=+-�s;�;; c;�;;,•y; ay;;::.�;•., bidders failed to submit prices for the su6contractors. Slugocki ?'�.�:�,j , :�;,=a: �>S�'� said nine out of nine did not comply as far as Zisting supply•license �;� �'�'^�� numbers for the subcontractors but he felt that with the Pinkard bid �;f��'� a:;; r i %�'� the County would know exactly who they were getting as subcontractors, "��x ; just not the prices of the subcontractors. Klanderud asked about the ��,� landscaping in the Pinkard bid and Niarhos said some things that were �� ,.,.;:� `�i.��:'? incidental to the job, as opposed to critical, were not listed. K1a�derud '.=�q`�t*� questioned the earthwork and Slugocki said Pinkard would do it them- •.�\:�.:rN . �4�.+,�1 �.ss�q'.�^;n . `��'.':'� selves. 3 not submittin schedule A forms on three MBE/WBE subcon- �''`'=�;i ) 9 g�;i,: t(�•;p"l:ir,;':i � f��y.ti�.,`�l . d~ . :?:?Cortmi.ssioners Meeting 16 May, 1983 - 2 i.-,. ..,� r- - ;�='�;� � � � � r �� t 4 r 4 Tr�t�'"y u� '� ,. J;, k hJp`-,. � r s %'�y�r"flg 1��i,s a` ` i * :�r �{�.}1j,�� S 7T y4{�s's�'" �k ' trJ�ry(�r"� ..., � � .t��i-2'1L ..�i'_}�y yS i�l.'"�s � t.-�. S t �k�. M `ir W r� ri 2 :,w ,� �"�-� �'�.,�`Y��r r.i$i T ..�,. � � +i t 3 . y yy t f �<j.,T t i,;' ,� ., � :;� ... � � � i "�.�Sr._ ..:..�.�SMt,....:i; "L-.�... �,w...� ..Su..�we.:?:�,�...-da �.a..a.t'-�!�:i �:e�:�._.. ...�a�L..f��...�SL:'O�s.'r+_� r. ..._�_ � ',!-'�...� i: :I !� 1 tractors listed - Slugocki felt this didn't deal with the price, � ,r quality or quanity of the job and the requirements of the County . �� ' �'f were more strict that the Federal Government. 4) not meeting the '''" _ �' °"^" minority Business Enterprise Goal of three per cent - Slugocki said ;��`�I.� ��; . �_: ' v .. �� this was not a requirement. Pinkard had reached a four per cent goal, L3?; tj�� 1�, which is an annual goal. Light informed the Board that he and attorney t:c�;� '�'� Greg Jones agreed that the v�aiver of technicalities in the bid are at ;�._� ,.�,-; i.,>; !.:�r=' the discretion of the Board of Commissioners and if the Board deter- �4`�` �''`' mined the violations did not effect the price, quality or quanit �`s::^ Y, �� :;:' ,; they could be waived. Child moved that it was appropriate to waive e.-z- .a��_ - the four Pinkard violations as listed in the 5/12/83 letter from Mid �Y;i`3 Continent Builder Co. because they were not material to the price, 'y�`�1 quality or quanity of the job. Madsen seconded and the motion passed �'-', x�.';i ;,.j_j unanimously. Blake moved that based on that finding, the Board should R.::.�.' !:;;;:� deny the appeal by Mid Continent Builders Co. Chi2d seconded and the t 7 ,x� motion passed unanimously. Light as]ced Slugocki to discuss the basis �.,�.q for disqualifying Fischer-White. Slugocki explained that unit prices '�= h�� were required for work that was known to be needed but the amount of �:� � �._,. of work was not known, i.e. imported soil, three types of pipes and r �^'`� ` ;;?; removal of boulders. Slugocki explained that the Fischer-White bid � •rl� ��; was actually high if compared with the other eight bids relative to � �" , the unit prices (400$ higher than Pinkard and 300� higher than the • _, � average). Slugocki felt that the Fischer-White bid was imbalanced �PI t-:�:� and the subcontractors list was inadequate. He noted that Fischer- y.� �,� White made a conserative estimate for the removal of rocks on the �'°' site and because of the large amount of rocks this is no longer a ,?:1 = low bid. Niarhos added that the County had advised all contractors ��:�.'.�>:. rb; to inspect the site and the soils report before bidding. He said a j p.. site inspection revealed at least thirty cubic-yard sized boulders. ; '= Light said he and Jones raviewed the prices and agreed that the County ' Ya; ' • had grounds to disqualify Fischer-White, He aaaea that the process .�-.4 required references and through references, Fischer-White was found to have a history of bidding jobs low and coming in high with change orders. Slugocki listed some references for Fischer-White: don't � protect job site, tendency to over charge on change orders, choice Y. � f,'�Cknmissioners ldeeting 16 May, 1983 - 3 �,. y ,�.- - , -' � �1 ' I � -(@��Y "S�rY t� . ..y ` ? '�� L:_ X� � y ,.�k )ta.. �-.;��Y��r1�,�7i {�.�`.�r��'��q�f r�[.n A T��sde.r�� yfh., .�+ w,�R �r��__ g„ .' t�t, ;��1 r . t1 r � . 4 �F e �+ t r^-'� �'� t �7 ye� �K�'}"f y a�I ' � �e: � � .n� �.� 1r 3x �1�'�` < .,� r*r G !i �.�r� ....,�e-�.:..�.��_ ..:�.J�u.�s3t1.�-�.__..�_=::��'��5^..c. .Y.,..t.::��..a.a�..� _�._�_..:.?.._..._,.._ a.��k�'t� c .°..��r..�t�a�:.; a?, !;_. `,`-j s� � 1` Ji :F''.( of subcontractors poor, watch for extras, watch for change over prices, i:�:I �.: slow in performing work, Zarge punch list, turn-over of superintendents, ., • �''�: � �.= not outstanding work, some subcontractors not paying proper wages, some �!'`.. �'` i . problems with Davis Bacon wages. Nairhos explained that the County ; E �:;, requested information on jobs which would be similar to the hus main- t'� �=- �r:, tenance facility. Nairhos added that the Fischer-White bid had major i �`� areas of work where the didn't have subcontractors. Slu ocki went ' f,�� Y 9 �;, iF;ti on to say that Pinkard had been in business for twenty-one years and �� the re�eral comments had been ood, listin �,�; g g good subcontractors. He i'':- said that other contractors had good comments about Pinkard and if �._.; " the unit prices were taken into consideration, that the Pinkard bid � , was actually lower than Fischer-White. Slugocki noted that he had 4v met with UMTA and they had informally agreed with this analysis. �^r� ��-;; Klanderud moved to have Light draft a resolution and also to a�thorize a;', ' �G: the Chairman to sign the resolution listing the reasons for rejecting ! y. ; �� i�t$� the apparent low bid of Fischer-White as: non-compliance with the { ,.6,: bid requirements; unbalanced bid; reliability and responsibility. � ,�s �` Chi2d added that the next lowest bid from Pinkard was acceptable �r ��: because the defects in the bid are not material to the price, quality 1' or quantity of the job. Blake seconded the motion. Child then asked i ;e� � if approval should be contingent on the City of Aspen supplying their �- : �::a: y .. ��: share oP the funds, Financial Planner John Eldert said the City was � ` +4,;,. willing to appropriate their share oE the inoney out of their fund � .„ �.._ : c � balance to cover the cash flow needs until the bonds can be issued. � - 1 �� Light added that legally, the County had a contract with the City �'��.`,. �� A �-„;� and they do have the funds in place and they will deliver the money � {rti�, . .,.•°;; in a timely fashion. Eldert explained that the City had the money, � but they had not appropriated it. Light advised the Board that there was a fourteen day period allowed for protest after an award was � granted and because of this it would be good to make a final decision today. Eldert agreed to negotiate with the City to have them appropri- ate the funds as soon as possible. Light suggested adding to the motion that approval was continqent upon approval from UMTA. After further discussion concerning the reliability of the City and the probability ot the City appropriating the money, Klanderud moved to � call the question. Klanderud and Blake voted yes; Madsen and Child "k t�' �:-`-.i Co�miissioners* 6 Ma 19II3 - 4 � .. ��:: � ��; a.. / S- { r . l•t �('r - " o � r �7 l a- . t�` �� lk"��"��+�'�.�,7M3�,ri �C �t 'I F l��L,y��fi .'. W �-� � t4 � .-�2 � � �l} ��j!-�.,��' :'y. �' � �� ✓�1R�fi,#T ;�'�� j/ �1"-�Y $�F{� i 1�T' i•�'Y� ° r�}�f� � �� 3F �}" �V i�!a�� I �( � �I p` {�':;'+�µ��x f�'�+'t'' { � � � ) 3t.?"`��r4;,{t�A�'F' �'d`i Cr� v 41- �)Ft�,a ��.y�� i3S ?"'�r f�f c�.u,�.._�� t ��t n:a,...,,.e` .,r � °# a �`�� +' i}}d`��'�^' u !Id ci'� �5�+�'�4��+��'��R`>�, .....c, i...;:1nt. .Af1F,.,e. _ �.� � ..s,.,.,..........__�.__ . . . �,... � .. 1 1 � 5 1 f 1 ! i.:: voted no, The motion failed. Light told the Board that the basis w" ` ' upon which the County assured UMTA that we had the money was our � contract with the City. Madsen asked what would happen if Mid � ;; � Continent protested the award to Pinkard, Slugocki said they covld appeal to OMTA but UMTA has said this is a local matter so the � . Y wouZd just turn it back to the County. Klanderud, Blake and Madsen voted to approve the motion. Child voted no, The motion passed. � There-being no further business, the meeting was adjourned, s•.• .��.�.i � ; 's,� Respectfully Submitted, APPROVEb: '� . / , �, ///WC�-, c� ��-- Lo tta Banner, Clerk Geo ge adsen, Chairman ' /� , V r � ,_ i � j `� I �y. i � . � . . �.�� . , ��. � � I � I . i 1 � . � � V Coim�i.ssioners Meetin4 1G May. 1983 - 5 _,._..,_.:�.�r.«.��,,..., .,. .,.,.... ,. �.� �;:1:-:� - _ , '� , .�qe-e� f( �A 4 �r' , � h��.�+i � �.4�� s� f l � } ��ry ] ' ��yy�� '� � �1". -.r�.'T>Ax �Zr�?.33-K.''�i!)!7�n':}' 4 ��1�'�y,�( j'! .', j4 tl�%.rv�� . ��'�j,��.`��y� .>�L��i,�i � ��-'�.�e�," - �lp-+Y�ii.�,vi�"` . ! i..E>lSiR �!..ih lL a��-f:3 }'�7�� .��'t iFii; �h a 4,p� � F�A1 Y�:'�,Sa�� r� i�<[��,...AL6.i.��.i.:N'�k5:5!2f3s:uNi/R'R.fEHiLa.4Rlwtd4�fw..:'�..!:i.._ � ..a�� KJ'�w4rA�e.�u.��..t �.. a.'r�l:CK.aa�...1:} ��....J.L �... �rY � 1-'i . � •,; �t ''il ! � �F �g �;i ;: i::� . ir *'- ' l•� �?�; .. i� PITKIN COUNTY - a; BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS � � }'r 3:30 P.M. Ma 16, 1983 � SPECIAL MEETING�f� Y �� }� PRESENT: GEORGE MADSEN, TOM BLAKE, HELEN KLANDERUD, BOB CHILD ' 1; s. � �', ----------- < ��': Airport ¢,,; Bond Finance Director Tom Oken presented a Resolution authorizing _ , Boettcher & Company award of Airport 2�venue Bonds far and on behalf ' � of Pit]ci.n County for the purpose of Improving and Exten@inq the � �� Pitkin County Airport. Boettcher & Company, the best bidder��efore, : �.�� said bid being for a purchase price consisting of the principal � �y� �' amount of the bonds, accrued interest thereon from their date to �t • r` the @ate of their delivery, and a premium discount of $30,420, r_' the net effective interest rate being 8.783$, The Board deems it <�«: - necessary at this time to authorize the issuance of bonds in the �'x �r�' principal amount of $1,560,OQ0, as authorized in said bond election �% &' :;� on November 2, 1982, to provide for said airport improvements. ;� �'4:. �; Tom also mentioned that the only people who bid were people that 1 � =,,.t we interviewed. All rates are insured. At this point Tom B1ake � ��;� made a motion to approve the Airport Bond award to Boettcher & � 1:. � 4 ti Company. Helen Klanderud seconded. There being no further discussion �{� �._ . �,:a a vote was taken. All are in favor. Meeting ajourned at 3:3'7 P.M. • �': ;�, F,'i -... ,._:: it;:_�. : �"�'Second Read- �t� rr : ing, Airport ' �* Bond '�� The Board of County Commissioners reconvened, with the same members �, present, to call a Special Meeting to consider the Second Reading �?. rt on the award of the Airport Revenue Bond to Boettcher and Company. Meeting was called to order at 3:37 P.M. Tom Blake moved approval of the Airport Revenue Bond, Second Reading. Bob Child seconded. There being no further discussion, a vote was taken. Al1 are in favor. Meeting ajourned at 3:38 P.M. �' Pitkin County Commissioners 16 May 83 - 1. l�� 's,� �%� � ':"..1; :. . ' -,.:h�� ' � :��-ti'.i i�Y:4)' p{ , y ' / �11 .h,'. .. F—Y�7" l � � j� n n'�7�g.�p"� ta. ' +��y�"��d��#iF��y�1� °��' :.: �.f �. 4Y �+ :�� TiE��l!�'yy7�7� .i�i��} f Y �w+F�� 1' M �y �, � d et��.�t �� i' �'.. ."�'N ..�� ,}"'.e y . �y�, aE � '1x,�c�k .�',r. ;b(��T�� 41 ��"! �6. t � ,�T�i��s3��Va.,t�i�d.{��'� �`;':� 1 ;,� �°••+ �Y� �'i vx :,� Contract Fox :' Bond �� Tom Oken also presented a Contract between La� Edstrom & ,'� `'�•'� �'� Braymer and Pitkin County which establishes an agreement whereby the County agrees to retain Lamm Edstron & Braymer as Hond Counsel and as Special Disclosure Counsel to the County with ��''` . �� respect to the issuance and sale of the Airport Revenue Bonds � discussed in the above minutes. Bob Child made a motion to ' approve this contraat. Tom B1ake seconded. There being no �� 4. further discussion, a vote was taken. All are in £avor. Meeting � � i �- ajourned at 3:39 P.M. � ---------------- �. �'A There being no further business, Chairman George Madsen ajourned u ;� "j the meeting: 3:39 P.M. � �: --^------------- � . � : � 'Qk� Respectfully Submitted, APPROVED: , �� l Pat Belfont G, o ge adsen, Chairman + Acting Deputy Clerk & Recorder � � �:. � I_ _ � � , � � � i � . I I Pitkin County Commissioners 16 May 83 - 2. � � � I i'„ `-x"•'"r'� _. �..� 1983 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PUBLIC HEARING EXHIBITS May 16 Bus Maintenance Facility A Letter Dated May 12, 1983 from Gerald Tweeton,Mid Procurement A eal Continent Builders,to Procurement A eals Board B Letter Dated May 5, 1983 from Gerald Tweeton,Mid Continent Builders,to Procurement A eals Board C Letter Dated May 11, 1983 from Michael Slugocki, Transportation Department,to Gerald Tweeton,Mid Continent Builders D Letter Dated Apri121, 1983 from Bernard L.Dempsey,Pinkard Construction,to Board of Coun Commissioners E As en Pitkin County Bus Maintenance Facility Bid Anal sis ., , f ��, � E€ E'( ,�a ,3(.EE � +��i, ;. E E€��. f� .E, E�„j €f,:.-' 26 _ w . . . . .._,... �- ..._-�rmrri ._ Y1�WYiYiW�NWMYiriwwxw�w ,,.� J. � . . •,, . `' � o • � � ��ad ��r�� a��Q�� . �' . , . ;� 402 GRAND MESA AVENUE � i GRAND JUNCTION,COLORADO 81503 � 'E PHONE: (303) 24�-67.`,3 ' ' ii r,:r_::� c, co. co:.... . rzTJ:r.ir co. . , P,�_'>l.�.c I;car9,n�� i:' ;. . May 12, 1983 �r.�.��o EXHIBIT � . st;>>,ic�t � " F.•:h. 1;o. ' Procurement Appeal.s $oard . Pitkin County . \ ' ' S06 East rfain ' • � Aspen� CO 81611 n . . • .Re: Protest - $us Maintenance Facility - ` Aspen, CO - Bid Date 4/20/83 � . �` � Gentlemen: • • '� � On May S, 1983, our firm filed a protest with Pitkin County wherein we pointed out certain ommissions and/or irregularities in the General ConstrucL-ion Bids of . Fisher White Contractors anri Pinkard Construction Co. This action was taken ; after we persona].Zy examined a11 Bid and riBE documents subroitted by all of the j bidders on the above-referenced project. The ommisssions and/or irregularities ; Were �learly violations, by both contractors, of the Instructions to Bidders contained in the �pecifications. On May 11, 1983, we were informed by Mike Slcgocki that it is the intent of Pitkin Co'unty tc reject the bid of Fisher White and ta award the contract to Pinkard. Mr. Slugocki stated that all of the violations in Pinkard's bidding documents were being waived after determining that they were "minor" in nature. These violations include: , • • `�' 1) Not stating pricPS on the Subcontactors form as required in paragraph � = 1.OSA-7 of the specifications. � i`.; 2) Not submiL-ting a list of Good Faith Efforts as required in paragraph 1.02-4 of ttie Sgecitications (these lists were not gre�ent when we personally examined " the M13E documents on April 27, 1483). ; 3) Not submitting Schedule A forms on three r��/�a�r subcontractors listed as • required in paragraph 1.02-2 of the specifications. . ; �J �r ;, t, s • I� � I . ' i • � .''� ' I! ' . . �•i�i . � • � - � . � i ) � . ' . � 4) Not meeting the Minority Business Enterprise Goal of 3% as stated in the epecifications. ' We do not agree that the above violations are minor and request that you review them again before a final decision is rendered on our protest. Very truly yours, � l� : � MID CONTINENT BUILD�RS C0. �. �/.J.vr.a1��,u.� - l Gexald R. Tweeton . President ' g, . . �, . � � GRT/sbc � � - . �. . � _ �. . { � . �. . ,; . . .( -. �� . , . �. , •�; . i+ . . ' k i . . � . , % , b _ �, �i ' � j� . . . ;j t. ' - i; ii . . �� -° . . �; r� � � ;� • ' i . . >� i .� ,�i • '� . • � , ., � . � . j i , � � ,, a . ; . . . .. . • . ;:; f � .� �. � .� �. �id C��a��n� �u��rs Co. 402 GRAND MESA AVENUE GRAND JUNCTION,COLORADO 81503 � PNONE: (�03) 245-6753 � May 5� 1983 , �.•. � . . : .. .� J •- . «. , :.''>?.. C 1... ,.�;.� EXHIBIT sub;cct : � � Procurement Appeals Board Er.�,. No. • _ � Pitkin County �j - - 506 East Main Aspen, CO 81611 � � Re: Protest - Bus Maintenance Fac�lity f' Aspen� CO - Bid Date 4/20/83 Gentlemen: . , �, In accordance with Addendum No. 2 dated 5 April 1983, Item No. 12, "A7.9 Bid Protests", we are hereby protesting the General Construction Bids of Fischer Wiiite Contractors (Fischer White) and Pinkard Construction Co. (Pinkard) on the above referenced project. Qur protest is based upon the following: 1) Page IB-8 of the Specifications, Para 1.05A '.'Bid Forms" states: All Bidders: The Bidder's attention is especially called to the following forms which must be executed in full as required; otherwise, the Bid shall be rejected. Under this paragraph there are seven subparagraphs listed describing the forms and information required. 2) Page IB-2 of the Specifications� Para 1.02 Minority $usiness Enterprise (MBE) Requirements states "As evidence of the commitment to a goal of awarding 3' of the Gross Sum Bid to Minority owned firms and 0.2� of the Gross Sum Bid to Female owned firms, bidders must submit the following information with their bids. My bid which does not have the required information will be determined -'�� nonresponsive. Under this paragraph there are five subparagraphs listed describing the forms and information required. 3) On April 22, 1983, Gerald R. Tweeton personally examined the Bid Documents submitted by all of the General Contractors on April 20, 1983 and discovered that both Fischer tirhite and Pinkard did not fill out the column headed "Price or Prices Under Subcontract" on page 6 of the Bid Form, a form titled _ '�Subcontractors". This is in violaCion of paragraph (1) above. k) On April 27, I983, Gerald R. Tweeton and Dennis B. Andersen personally examined the rlinority �usiness Enterprise documents submitted by all of the General Contractors on April 22, 1983 and discovered that both I'ischer tJhite and Pinkard did not submit a list of "good faith efforts" or the name and ; qualifications of tlie Contractors' r1BE liaison officer. This is in violation of paragraphs. (1) and (2) above. '• 'i a ;j .� :f i ' . i ..z --__ _..--..--. . . ... ...-•-- � , r•�.:, � . ' � r � i � ,I '-•� 5) We realize that the county reserves the right to waive minor informa].ities in • awarding the contract; however, the violations in paragraphs (3) and (4) above are not minor and, as they were bidding requirements, cannot be remedied after ; the fact. i :; We are filing this protest within 14 days aftier discovering the facts and � circumstances upon which this protest is based. t Very truly yours, . MID CONTINENT BULDERS C0. ' . � ��/G�� . Gerald R. Tweeton President • • GRT/sbc ;. . . _ . i; �,; • �; � . � . t , , : � e i : • . ' . :� � ! � � �. � : . . � '? , �� i `+ :; � , � 3 _I � :� � j� �_ .. i ; pe��tin Cmc.an��j i t 506 east main stree� ; espen� colorado 6'1C�11 r��i_:'i1 ( �'^, C:(':.:.i'Z�:, 1 i'�P.�.'i C0. � � May 11, 1983 r:-�-?�.. t:,-:r°-•.. - - ;.t�;.ts . _ .� EXHIBIT S�:bjcct : � � Gerald Ztaeeton Mid-Continent BuildeYS r7-}�• Iio. : � / _ 3 402 Grand Mesa Ave. Grand Junction CO 81503. Dear Mr. Tweeton: • This is in resporise to your letter of May� S, 1983, protesting "The General Construction Bids of Fischer-t•lhite Contractors and Pinkard Construction Co...." ' � i I have reviewed the ctetails of your protest. Please be advised that Piticin County has rejected Fischer-ldhite's bid on grounds other t�:an ; those stated in your protest. Pitkin County intends to award the • Contract to Pinkard Construction Co. , waivin� the informality noted '� in Paragraph No. 3 of your protest, The allegation contained in "�' Paragr.aph �4 as to Pinkard Construction is erroneous. • �'? I have also enclosed the material you requested in our phone , conversation of May 11, 1983. ; Sincerely, � � � Hich�l J. Zu ocki �� ' 8 . Transportation Grands Administrator • • � ' i MTS:sb . � Le.�-,.,,,� ...f-=�-,�.�—"��-� ��,.;e•.y,.;� i . .�'. � . � � . . . , G�..:�,.�.,�.,� ��g� �'-� � ,; � �; j � . . � i . 3 . . _ .. . ... . . ._ . . . � t.,r� � 1 Pinkard Construction Company t075 South Yukon Stroot.Post 0/flco Box 26227.Lakowood,Colorado E10226.(30319D8-4555 i� April 21, 1983 �•,�%�'� ' ' _ • r.,,,,� . �� EXHIBI't' • Pitkin County Board of Commissioners ' �V � Pitkin County Courthouse . sIlu'01' ' - - 3 • � 506 East l�la i n Street ,-;.r,. iio. : ' Aspen, Colorado 81611 � Attention: Mike Slugocki Re: Aspen/Pitkin County Bus Maintenance Facility Gentlemen: With reference to our responsibility to encourage MBE and WBE partici- pation in the bidding process for the above referenced project, ti�e are enc�l6sing here��rith "Minority Business Enterprise Form A - Schedule of . Minority & Female Particlpation" listfng the lo�i subcontractfl rs ti,�hich � we used in the preparation of our bid and who meet the stipulated re- quirements. We have asked each of these firms to submit their proof • directly to your office (Schedule A - Information for Determination • MQE/WBE Elgibility). � � In our attempt to meet the goals, we used the .following method: � � 1. We attended the pre-bid canference. . 2. We advertised in the Oaily Journal in the MBE-IJBE solicitation � page, which is sent to all affected subcontractors throughout ' � the several state area. 3. We did follow up advertising in the bidders column of the same newspaper. 4. We made phone and letter contact with many subcontractors and ' suppliers encouraging their bid. 5. Received and considered many bids from MBE and WBE firms that w�re not competitive enough to be used�in our bid. • � Mr. James W. Pinkard, Jr. is the EEO officer for our company and the one . to make contact with for further information on this subject. He can be reached at our main office. Thank you for your consideration of our firm fQr your construction . .' • needs. Yery truly yours, PINt�A CONSTRUCTION C0. ' r.v�-✓�� / Be�nard L. Dempsey � .� . Vice President � BLD/kf Enclosure • �! �, •t: ` t� � � .• i'i •1 � �� t �j �i! ,�;i,.� ,'� �a � J'� '), 1= � ��i '� 'i �ti r 7� f.. ? \� ru r ;,-! � J� �r'_ �� Y `� �i' � � �� -� ,� . �� -� n i J ' a-� r, :. ; t� �, ► �; � � - ;�.., �� ►�� , f�, 2 :� .� �,, �� n�! � F' � > C°' � �u �� j� �„ �'r fir � ��; � �! EXHIBR � � � � � V p d '� o" t � :1=� . �� F :`: t� o x n. + 1�1 _ �,. �r �� — —' =�� J��p, �V.1 .ra. ..J� c1 J?° r „ ]�s 'U ) '� � t V �^ ` � JJ 3ti �1\ �J� v� • ` �1 � `�j .�r.. �J �� O ,,,�� a, 3*� . v �' � U ,� � ri 7 J) 1'O R M, M fO U f d'f �� g � � � � � � � ° � y � � 1 1 �( .-( :.( �f -G �C �ScTii•dule oE A1 Ccr.n�t•c�: � � � � _„( ,{ J ..� � Scl�edulc ot UniC I'ricc5 � , ' .r( --� ..-( --� -( � --� "1. -� lii.d ltond �� ^C --C -{ � --� --� • "< -< ►-C SubconCractors Lisl• _j? ^-� � -;t � --� � -( -'C -{ •...( QualificaCion Sl•ateinenC � ,,,{ ,...( ,.{ -{ .-.( ..{• .d .�( Contractors Ccrtifi.caric��: .; � � „� � . ,,.� ,� �( ,:..( ,.{ Bi.dders Represeneaeion .-C --� r•C --4 ^{ . ^-� '� -� -"Z Addendum i 4� �C -.{ _...� � Ji -�C --'� -� Addendum 2 y�i' ,..� �,( � � r[ ,1( � --C -+� AddenJum 3 .Ef Ti Z, Z_ Z- -< Z. -C � Z- MBr �;. �i � � jj �" , p � � � � Alt. Ol t � .a. � g i: � 1 � � � Q °� � De-Icing SysCem {! (j'' � `� �.'.' - � g1 p �`i { '� _' �� g nir. 02� . �;, O J � i p � g �j � O Heat Recovery System �i O (`� �7 . ,�,, p .� .Q .� . �; - .j� R •ao � CP �Q p � p � Alt. �t3 �I� �,, �' Q Q Q OO 17 }� p Air Curtain Uoor :I V V V U �� v n. n � - � ^ .� �' �� 6 N nir. �4 4 � .v .�s � �•� � . O � p p � � � � Vertical Planar !ti'indows D p M(� 6•'� � ' V � V h V �/ "• � � ,�. � '' � � � s L � � Alt. li5 �l � v � � R g g � � _ l:educed Pus Stora�e ?rea i _ c- ts o .. D �_ � ,}, � � s .�. o �• � , � ,U .�. � .J , I � p :ll 'n�.t. A6 � A g p 8 .� �j �j � •Flcr.ib].e Shect RooEing � (� � � -� -�� 6' A Ui�it Price� � • � -,n( 0��, ;, ' Item Ul , . n � � l7 -A •�' `�`�o -�' a ^� � � . - p \ )�7 � g ' � O ll.nit Pr.ice. . ` • •+( Item 02 t'; � � F I � A - - N . - -- _ � O (� n O � � A- pnit Prices ,� .{ „� IL•em 07 �--------- , i.1 -n ,� co � 'Uni.r. Pri.acs � V1 � ,�� \ N s . r � zCem Ob ' �� 1� � 'n t "'D � � � � �►' \ a`rl Unil Pricca , ,� �� n ►� 7Cc•in NS .. + � N .,.-� � .--- .�-- `— '• �!� 'J � \d r�...� � SJ 111 �p "� t1n1.1: 1`t-�c.r.n ! � '� � 0.1 Il:rin afi . � ' , 11 �' ' . 'r . � . - j�r:r.� n� co, i;o:..:.,�z�s pITIt.T.It CO• ,..j i + p�,l,l;_c IIe" ��"{�B� • nu;.o � � Sul�joct. : , i T . . . L:"Sl. 1.0. f . � � i � ASPEN/PITKIN COUNTY BUS MAINTENANCE FACILITY . ' BID ANALYSIS . � . � . ; i i , . . f ; -- � ;� . ,i i . 1 • �: . i . , . Prepared by County staff ; . ; f 1 i � . BUS r1AINT�NANC� rACILITY i SELECTION CRIT�RIA � ' Advertisement For Bid The Award (if any Award is made) will be made as provided in the Instructions to Bidders. The Award shall be made to the lowest reliable and responsible bidder, provided that, if the County believes � that the public interest will be best served by accepting ather than the lowest bid, it shall have the auChority to accept the bid that will best service the public inCerest. Instructions to Bidders 1.01 General , . G. Each prospective bidder is advised that the bid prices for the several items of the work must not be improgerly balanced and any bid which the County considers detrimental to its interests may be rejected. J. The County reserves the right to waive minor informalities in awarding the contract. i 1.04 Bidding Procedures (Typical of Adv. for Bid) � ; ` . . �. -.- � . � ; � ' ` � � ' ., BUS PtAINT�NANCE T'ACILITY • PITKIN COUNTY PROCUIt�MIsNT CODE Article 3, 3-202 (5) Bid Acceptance and Evalnation Bids shall be evaluated based on the requirements set forth in . � the Invitation for Bids,. . .no criteria may be used in bid � evaluation that are not set forth in the inviEation for bids. i (6) Correction or 4lithdrawal of Bids; Cancellation of Awards ' After bid opening no changes in bid prices or other provisions I of bids prejudicial to the interest of the County or fair � � competition shall be permitted. I (7) Award The contract shall be awarded with reasonable promptness by written notice to the lotaest responsible and responsive bidder • whose bid meets the requirements and criteria set forth in � the Invitation for Bids. Article 4, 4-102 � (1) Authority . ; i The same officer (,County ?rtanager or Dept. Head), after consultation � with �the County Attorney, shall have authority to suspend a person ! � from consideration for award of contracts if there is probable ' • cause for debarment. ; , (2) Causes for Debarment or Suspension ' (d) (ii) A recent record of failure to perform or of unsatisfactory � performance in accordance with the terms o� one or more contracts; (e) Any other cause the County Manager or Dept. Head determined to . be so serious and compelling as to affect responsibility as a County • contractor. .� BUS MAINTENANC� FACILITY UMTA CIRCULAR G220.1A 16. Selection Procedures B (2) Awards shall be made only to responsible contractors that � possess the potential ability to perform successfully � � under the terms and conditions of a proposed procurement. i Consideration shall be given to such matters as contractors • i integrity, compliance with public policy, record of past � performance, and financial and technical resources. � ; 17. Method of Procurement I B (2) (e) Any or all bids may be rejected when there are sound I documetited business reasons in the best interest of the program. ' . , �i i� I ' :; i: - ; i __ i . � . . • . i E i � I ' � BUS MAINT�NANCG FACILITY $ID ANALYSIS COMPAI3Y: Fischer-White Contractors, Inc. Bid Form - Complete, no irregularities • Schedule of Alternates - Complete I Schedule of Unit Prices - Complete but very high as compared to all other • bids (improperly balanced) Experience & Qualifications - Complete Contractors Certification - Improperly executed Subcontractor List - Incomplete (areas of work to be performed, prices) Bid Bond - Complete, no irregnlarities ' Bidders Representation - Complete Major areas of Subcontractor Work is not listed. By not indicating subcontractors for the categories of earthwork, concrete, pavi.ng, structural steel, siding and insulation and glazing. [de are to assume they will perform this work with their own forces, if not, they have � misrepresented their bid. (See phone canversation.) i i • � . � ' . � __ �._ BUS '.�fAINTENANC� FACILITY � REFERENC� CII�CK COMPANY: Fischer-White FIRM CALLED: State of Colorado 866-3861 PROJECT: State Services Building - 2.48 Piil. . CONTACT: Art Coutcher COMMENTS: They do not protect �ob site. Housekeeping is poor. Lack attention to general conditions. � Tendency to over charge on change orders. Choice of subcontractors is poor. . . Art would not give a recommendation, but they are capable of doing the Tdork. i . - ' � i • BUS MAINTGNANCE FACILITY REFERENCE CII�CIC COMPANY: Fischer-�Jhite FIRM CALL�D: State of Colorado , � PROJECT: State Services Building - 2.4s r�ii. � • CONTACT: A1 Levine Dept. of Administration COt�NTS: On change orders - specific prfces are difficult to get. Watch the extras. Watch for delay and cost because of change orders. Reliable. � i � I - • I ' -- I • . i i - I i I . i � � ' I , . � � ( � . I i BUS MAINT�NANCE FACILITY REF�RENCE CHECK COMPANY: Fischer-White FtRM CALLED: ARIX, Architects 243-7569 ' PROJECTS: Holy Cross HQ Bldg. - 1.9 Mil. State Services Bldg. - 2.48 Mil. Mesa View Elementary - 2.24 Piil. CONTACT: Frank Preuss • Contract Administration, 21 years experience CONiMENTS: Has dealt with Fischer-White on three projects. Slow in performing work. . Large punch list, slow response. i Turn-overs on Supt. for Holy Cross building (3) . ; Have a habit of leaving loose ends. f Citation on OSHA violations at State Services building (possible). . They sub-contract most of the work. � Hard to work with. ` . . �, . i. i' , i I, I� � BUS 24AINTENANCE FACILITY REFER�NC� CI��CK COMPANY: Fischer-[•Ihite FIRM CALL�D: City of Greeley 353-6123 PROJECTS: Greeley Sr. Center - 1.368 Mil. � Greeley Bus Maintenance - 2.25 Mil. CONTACT: riike Bobinski C01�4ENTS: Re: Davis Bacon Dept. of Labor Review indicated that some of the subcontractors were not paying proper wage rates. Minor violations, possibly just an oversight. No comments on performance. i ' � i ' ` . i BUS MAINTENANCE FACILITY REFERENCE CH�CK COMPANY: Fischer-j,Thite FIRM CALLF.D: City of Greeley 353-b123 , PROJECTS: Greeley Sr. Center � 1.368 Mil. � Greeley Bus Maintenance � 2.25 l�Iil. CONTACT: Barb Huner ' Asst. Director o� �ublic t+loxks COMMENTS: Some of the work was barely acceptable. Some problems with Davis-Bacon wages. They could have been better organized. . ' They did not have adequate supervision. Their work is not outstanding. No comment on recomnendation. � . ; i — � I ' ! � 1 i � ' . . i . � � I I � I . . I � � I 1 BUS MAINTENANCE FACILITY COMPANY: Fischer-White FINANCIAL REF�RENCE ; United Bank of Denver � 1740 Broadway i Denver CO � 861-8811 . ' Ray Jones _ � - I i Good Customer - i Not quite as strong as Pinkard $500,000 unsecured line of credit low 6 figure checking act3vity No C.D.'s , � i ; . i i i ' � � . , � ' � --- - ' BUS MAINTENNJCE FACILITY SUBCONTRACfOR VERIFICATION COMPANY: Fischer-t�hite Spoke with Margie who referred me to Tom Henshell, �ro�ect Administrator. Asked Tom: "You do not indicate subcontractors for the categories o£ earthwork,concrete, paving, structural steel, siding and insulation and glazing, do you intend to perform this work with your own forces." His Reply: "No, we sub that work." He then asked me to repeat the categories, upon doing so he said they would perform the following wi.th their own forces: Concrete foundation & tilt-up Earthwork Carpentry " Subcontract the following: Paving Flatwork Structural Steel Siding & insulation Glazing � Tilt-up erection • BUS ttAINTENANCE FACILITY VERIFICATION OF ZNCORPORATION COMPANY: Fischer-White Contractors, Inc. Year of incorporation 3-10-7b Colorado Corporation � ! In good standing . � Agent: Timothy L. White • + 315 Perry St. � Castle Rock CO i i . I I 4 $US MAINTENANC� FACILITY BID ANALYSIS COMPANY: Pinkard Construction Co. Bid Form - Complete, no irregularities Schedale of Alternates - Complete Schedule of Unit Prices - Complete ' Subcontractors List - Incomplete (no prices) Experience & Qualifications - Complete Contractors Certification - Complete Bidders Representation - Complete Bid Bond - Complete (Attested to, no Corp. SeaZ) + l�iajor areas of subcontractor work �is listed. By not indicating sub-contractors for the categories of earthwork and concrete, we are to assume they will perform this work with their own forces. (see phone conversation) BUS MAINT�NANC� FACILITY � • REFERENC� CHECK COMPANY: Pinkard Construction Co. FIRM CALLED: NBI, Inc., Boulder CO 444-57Z0 • . j PROJECT: NBI Business Campus . ' ' CONTACT: Joe Connally COP�lENTS: No negative comments Good supervision Well organized Very professional Would Highly recommend. Pinkard completed on time. �� Safety conscious No problems with change orders. � � I $250,000 SF/3 bldgs. � Precast, multilevel t BUS MAINTF.NANCF. FACILITY � • REFERENCE CEiECK OOMPANY: Pinkard Construction Co. FIRM CALLED: Intermountain Rura1 Electric Assn. - Denver - 688-3100 ' POR7ECTS: fleadquarters Building - 3.08 Mil. � • Sedalia CO District Office Facility - .445 Mil. Conifer CO CONTACT: John Pope Assistant General Manager COMMENTS: Very good contractor. Have used good subs. ' Excellent to work with. Would use them again. . Low bidders on hoth projects. Completed on time. Happy with change orders. Quality of work is very good. Highly recommends. • BUS MAINTENANCE FACILITY VERIFTCATION OF INCORPORATION i COMPAI3Y: Pinkard Construction Co. Year of Incorporation 3-30-62 Colorado Corporation In Good standing Agent: James W. Pinkard • 1075 So. Yukon St. Lakewood CO 80266 � , BUS MAINTENANCE FACILITY � � COMPANY: Pinkard Construction REFERENCE T0: United Bank of Denver 1740 Broadway Denver . 861-8811 �, Ray Jones ' Comments on Financial responsibility: Strong customer 3 million unsecured line of credit $2,120,000 in C.D.s ' excellent repvtation well organized i . 1 � � i • t � � • . � BUS MAINTENANCE FACILITY SUBCONTRACTOR VERIFICATION COMPANY: Pinkard Construction Co. ' Spoke with James Pinkard, President. Asked Mr. Pinkard why there was no subcontractor listed for earthwork or concrete. He replied that they normally do that work themselyes, and intended to do such in conjunction with this project. He mentioned that his firm had built the 2�fontview Presbyterian Church ' which had a considerable amount o.f intricate concrete work, He ! personally supervised. , i � � � � � � . . 1 � ; � , - � � � � ; � . f � A � � � � � I � BUS MAINTENANCE FACILITY COMPANY: Pinkard Construction Co. SURETY The American Insurance Co. . � Newark NJ . LOCAL ATTORNEY-IN FACT The Talbert Corp. Denver CO 839-1773 Contact: Carol Bronder ' Comments: i Bond amount $3,417,000 includes all adds ' � They will bond for this amount ' I $12,000,000 largest bond to date ; $35,000,000 performance capabil.ity (bonding) i Steady growth ; One of their best clients � I No Claims Against � Bond Well run organization ; i ' � ' ! . i i ~ � i � � i BUS MAINTENANCE FACILITY . BID AAIALYSIS COMPANY: Mid-Continent Builders Co. Bid Form - Complete, no irregularities � Schedule of Alternates - Complete Schedule of Unit Prices - Complete (supplemented bid form) this was an alteration Subcontractors List - Complete (multiple list) Bidders Representation - Complete ; Bid Bond - Complete Contractors Certification - Complete � Experience & Qualification - Complete • i By supplementing the bid form they qualify their bid. ; By indicating more than one subcontractor for major work listed {either/or) we assume they are uncertain of who to use or are allowing themselves the opportunity to continue bidding between the two subcontractors. This seems to give unfair advantage to Mid-Continent. ' � , � i ' � � i BUS MAINTENANCE FACILITY RET�R�NCE CHIsCK COMPA.'�TY: Mid-Continent Builders FIR?4 CALLED: Heyerhaeuser Corrigated Box, Omaha NB (402) 331-5100 � � PROJECT: Plant for above company - 2.0 Mil. , • CONTACT: Q.H. Porter, Manager ,I �� COAQIENTS: Spoke with Jim Nelson - Q.H. Porter left in 1978. Nelson has never heard of Mid-Continent Builders. Heyerhaeuser had a firm called Hicks & Ttaeeton construct an addition to their corrigated bos plant which Nelson valued at $1,000,000. The addition consisted of 3 walls added to their existing building with a roof. Weyerhaeuser did their own mechanical. Nelson had no comment on their performance. The only comment was: Their bookkeeping left something to be desired. Note: Gerald P. Tweeton is listed as the President of Mid-Continent Builders. ' �,. BUS MAINT�NA.'�CE FACILITY REF�R�NC� CFI�CK ' COMPAPIY: Mid-Continent Builders �TRM CALLED: Southwest Petroleum Omaha NB (402) 455-4050 CONTACT: Howard McCollister • � CONASENTS: '� McCollister was out of town, I spoke with his secretary, she never heard of Mid-Continent. Referred to Marty Fassero (Office Manager). He has been with Southwest Petroleum since 1977, he never heard of Mid-Continent. Referred to Quinton McCabe in Overland Park (913) 383-5000 (Kansas) He never heard of Mid-Continent. Howard McCollister Comments: , The work done on their building was remodeling, no site work, no major structural. Firm called Hicks-Tt�eeton was C.M. Completed on time. • Financed by owner (owner naid subs direct) . Completed in 1976 He has known Gerald Ztaeeton for 10 years He considers him competent No comment on 2iid-Continent Builders . \ BUS Mt1INTENANCE FACILITY R�FER�NCE CHECK COMPANY: Mid-Continent Builders ' FIRM CALLED: Delta Montrose Electric Assn. PROJECT: Industrial Building - 1.1 Mil. • � CONTACT: Ward Armstrong COI+IhIENTS: ' From the Midwest Paid attention to detail Fine 3 ob . Within budget Completed project within schedule Will use them again. Project consisted of a metal frame building with metal exterior. • � The Delta Montrose Electric Assn. did all the site improvements prior to building construction. � ' 4 � . BUS MAINTENANCE FACILITY � I COMPA��1Y: Mid-Continent Builders E SURETY CHECK Firm Called: LaMar-Mu2ock-Condon Co. Des Moines, Iowa � • Contact: Mel Hrubetz (515) 244-0166 Agent for: United Fire & Casualty Co. • �I Cedar Rapids, Iowa �� Contact: Joyce Rasmussen � Amount of Bond: $3,464,900 � . 4 � Been with this surety since 197� ! . Largest bond to date - $2,20Q,OQ0 t ' . Not aware of any claims $4,000,000 bonding capacity • f Moved to Colorado in 1980 � ' ' They are bonded as a corporation � . Veri�ied by Mel Hrubetz 4-29-83 i � � t k . - � . E � E . ' � • � . n 1 � . • M� � . � . � ; i ---- •--.. _._..._._. - --__._...------ -- --------___ ----_ _ _ ---__ __ .. ._ ... ___ .. - ------------ .. } . BUS MAINTENANCE FACILITX COMPANY: Mid-Continent Builders � FINANCIAL CHECK � Firm Called: IntraWest Bank of Grand Junction 243-1611 Contact: Joanne (Credit Dept.) • , • Ttao checking accounts: one opened Nov. '82 - average daily balance � in the mid 5 figure rante (00,000). The other opened Dec. '82 - �'' i average daily balance in the high 4 figure range (0,000). � i No outstanding loans No CD's No savings No line of credit ' Note: This information was given to me by Joanne after my initial call for information. She could not finc� their account information ' at first and had to look for it. Initial response was they they did not have an account with IntraWest. This would seem to indicate � . little bank activity by Mid-Continent. ; . . : � • • I ' ( � I . f • � ' i � � . . ' � t . . � � i i ] .+ ,� � � 3 ;, �f 4 _.. ...._... . . .. .. ... ._ . . _ . . .._. .._ . . . _. . � BUS MAINTENANCE FACILITY VERIFICATION OF INCORPORATION COMPANY: Mid-Continent Builders FIRM CALLED: Secretary of State (Nebraska) (402) 471-4074 � ' CORPORATIONS: � Year of incorporation 2-23-72 '� In good standing '� Have not paid tax for 1983, they were due January 1, 1983 '- � Delinquent April 15 �� If they are not paid by April 29, 1983 they wi11 probably be dissolved. President - Gerald R. Tweeton 5-2-83 Nebraska Barb ' Have not paid 1983 taxes. Computer is not up to date. Call to confirm F�iday May 13. :; . i . # i f I � . i � i . y �+ . � e ' • s . 1 � t i , : � r � . � , i s • . 4 ; { . � 1 � 7 1 7 � BUS MAINTENANCE FACILITY COST COMPARISON OF TII� T[JO LOTJ�ST BIDS � � Aescription Fischer-idhite Pinkard Base Bid $3,230,000 $3,304,000 De-icing Sys. 29,000 29,900 � Heat Recavery 17,500 � , 17,700 Air Curtain 10,500 9,900 • TOTAI. $3,287,000 $3,361,500 t Unclassified Exc. $ 25.00/cy $ 5.50/cy Rock Excavation 200.Q0/cy 39.00/cy i! Imported Fill 15.00/cy 15.00/cy 12" D.I.P. 80.00/lf 28.00/lf � 8" D.I.P. 60.00/lf 19.00/lf 6" D.I.P. 45.00/lf 17.00/lf If we assume the following: 30,000 cy of excavation of which 2� is oversized (one cy and larger, • rock excavation) 300 cy of unclassified excavation in conjunction with rock excavation. Ttiese assumptions are based on field investigations made at the site and consultation with local geologists, earthwork contractors and personal experience Rock Excavation (600 ey) $ 120,000 $ 23,400 Unclassified Ex. (300 cy) 7,500 1,650 ?� TOTALS ' $ 127,500 $ 25,Q50 TOTAL BID $3,287,000 $3,361,500 ; TOTAL .ANTICIPATED . , ROCK EXCAVATION $ 127,500 $ 25,050 1 1 TOTAL A.vTICIPATED COST $3,414,500 $3,386,550 . � i i f . � i � i , . - � ..