Resolution 65-11RECORD OF RESOLUTIONS
Inc. Form No. 3W C5
Resolution No
Pa.sced 20
A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE LOWEST AND
BEST BID FOR THE CITY OF DUBLIN PARKING
LOT LIGHTING RETROFIT PROJECT, AND
AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO ENTER
INTO A CONTRACT FOR SAID SERVICES.
WHEREAS, formal advertising and competitive bidding procedures have been
conducted pursuant to Section 8.04 of the Revised Charter; and
WHEREAS, Council has determined that the bid submitted by Consolidated Electrical
Distributors, Inc. in the amount of $235,000 constitutes the lowest and best bid.
NOW, TFJEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Dublin, State of
Ohio, (` of the elected members concurring, that:
Section 1 . The bid submitted by Consolidated Electrical Distributors, Inc. in the
amount of $235,000 is hereby accepted.
Section 2 . The City Manager is hereby authorized to enter into a contract with
Consolidated Electrical Distributors, Inc. for said project as specified within the bid
proposal and the City's bid documents.
Section 3 . This Resolution shall take effect and be in force upon passage in
accordance with Section 4.04(a) of the Revised Charter.
Passed this 424L day of Lf� e h .I/ . 2011
i
Mayor — . •
Attest:
Clerk of Council
65 -11
City of Dublin
Office of the City Manager
5200 Emerald Parkway • Dublin, OH 43017 -1090
Phone: 614 - 410 -4400 • Fax: 614 - 410 -4490
To: Members of Dublin City Council
From: Marsha Grigsby, City Manager
Date: December 8, 2011
Initiated By: Brian K. Ashford, Facilities Manager
Michelle L. Crandall, Director of Administrative Services
Memo
Re: Resolution 65 -11— Accepting the Lowest and Best Bid for the LED Street Light
Retrofitting Project
Summary
On November 3, 2011, two bids were opened for the parking lot lighting retrofit project. This
project will replace approximately 180 light fixtures (mostly metal halide) with more energy
efficient light- emitting diode (LED) lighting in all of the City facility parking lots that have site
lighting, including the Municipal Building, Recreation Center, the Justice and Service Centers, Fleet
Maintenance and Darree Fields. Attached is a summary of the estimated energy costs savings
associated with this project. The project is estimated to reduce energy costs by $16,000 per year.
The financial payback is conservatively estimated at 11 years.
This project will begin next spring, with most of the installation performed by City staff from
Engineering and Facilities. As with the interior lighting retrofit project, the City is partnering with
Evolved Energy Solutions, a small lighting consulting firm based in Dublin. Evolved has analyzed
each parking lot and determined the type of LED lights needed to achieve the same or, in most
cases, improved lighting levels.
Evolved Energy Solutions examined a variety of light fixtures from different manufactures before
determining that the Beta Lighting Company had fixtures that met all the City's needs without
requiring any of the current light poles to be relocated. A unique feature of the Beta LED lights is
that some of the lighting can be shielded to reduce the spread pattern. This shielding will be
utilized on light fixtures that are located close to residential areas in an effort to reduce, though
not fully eliminate, the amount of light that "spills over" into areas outside of the parking lot.
The total amount budgeted for this project is $300,000. Although the bid specified light fixtures
from the Beta Lighting Company for the reasons stated above, bidders were allowed to propose
alternative fixtures from other manufacturers. The bids received were for the Beta fixtures, and
though both were deficient to some extent, one was determined by the City's legal advisors to be
non - responsive (a summary of the legal review is attached).
Recommendation
Staff recommends accepting the bid of Consolidated Electrical Distributors, Inc. (CED) for $235,000
and authorizing the City Manager to enter into a contract with CED for this project.
Attachments: (1) Summary of estimated energy costs savings
(2) Legal Review
Plans By: City of Dublin TABULATION OF BIDS Date: November 3, 2011
Bids Opened By: Brian Ashford Light Emitting Diode Parking Lot Light Retrofitting Time: 1:30 p.m.
Bids Tabulated By: Location: 6555 Shier Rings Road
_ CONTRACTOR
RECEIPT OF
ADDENDUMS
BID BOND
GUARANTEE/
SURETY
DELINQUENT
TAX AFFIDAVIT
AFFIDAVIT OF
AUTHORITY
NON -
COLLUSION
AFFIDAVIT
SUB CONTRACTORS
EXPERIENCE
STATEMENT
SUBSTITUTIONS
BASE BID
Branch Group, Inc., DBA Rexel
$229,613.64
Consolidated Electrical
Distributors, Inc.
$235,000.09
ATTORNEY/CLIENT PRIVILEGED MEMORANDUM
ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT
NOT A PUBLIC RECORD
] SCHOTTENSTEIN
ZOMDUNN ,
MEMORANDUM
To: Marsha Grigsby, City Manager
CC: Brian Ashford, Facilities Manager
From: Steve Smith, Law Director and Rod Davisson, Esq., Schottenstein, Zox & Dunn Co., LPA
Date: December 1, 2011
Re: LED Parking and Site Lighting Bid Review
Background
Two (2) proposals were received and opened for the Light Emitting Diode Parking Light
Retrofitting Project on November 3, 2011. The Project consists of replacing certain existing
parking and site lighting fixtures with more efficient light emitting diode ( "LED ") lights. Legal
staff has reviewed all of the proposals submitted for the Project. A summary of the proposals
follows.
REXEL BID
Our review of the Rexel proposal revealed significant problems. Rexel failed to sign its bid, .
and failed to submit a declaration of material assistance, personal property tax affidavit, an
affidavit of authority, and workers compensation certificate, non - collusion affidavit, and
w2�955911 1
Bid as Read
Bidder
Bid as Read
Over ( +) or Under (-
)Budget
Branch Group, Inc. DBA Rexel
$229,613.64
-23%
Consolidated Electrical
$235,000.09
-22%
Distributors
REXEL BID
Our review of the Rexel proposal revealed significant problems. Rexel failed to sign its bid, .
and failed to submit a declaration of material assistance, personal property tax affidavit, an
affidavit of authority, and workers compensation certificate, non - collusion affidavit, and
w2�955911 1
ATTORNEY/CLIENT PRIVILEGED MEMORANDUM
ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT
NOT A PUBLIC RECORD
bidder's qualification statement, all of which are fundamental requirements of the solicitation
of proposals. The omission of the non - collusion affidavit and failure to sign the bid prevent
Dublin from considering Rexel's proposal because it was not responsive to the solicitation —and
without the executed bid, it is likely that Dublin cannot bind Rexel to its bid.
CED BID
A review of the Consolidated Electrical Distributors ( "CED ") proposal revealed minor issues
of the kind that may be waived or corrected without creating any competitive advantage for
CED vis -a -vis the other bidder. Most notably, CED improperly completed the bid bond form.
Ohio case law supports Dublin's ability to accept CED's Proposal, as the Courts have
explained, "not every variation from the instructions or specifications will destroy the
competitive character of the bid." Cleveland Const., Inc. v. Ohio Dept. of Adm. Serv., 121 Ohio
App.3d 372, 700 N.E.2d 54 (Ohio App. 10 Dist., 1997).
Dublin's Instructions to bidders required that the completed bond form "[S]hall be for the
full amount of the bid which is the total of all sums bid, including all add alternates with no
deduction for any deduct alternates." CED submitted the bond for 10% of the project value.
Dublin set forth in its Bid Documents that "2.16(6) The Owner reserves the right to reject any,
part of any, or all Bids and to waive any informalities and irregularities. The Bidder expressly
acknowledges this right of the Owner to reject any or all Bids or to reject any incomplete or
irregular Bid. The Owner will award a single contract for each of the Bid packages listed above,
unless it determines to reject one or more Bid packages. Bidders must furnish all information
requested. Failure to do so may result in disqualification of the Bid."
In order to subvert the competitive process the City would have to accept a Proposal in
which "variations from the instructions or specifications must be substantial, and to be
substantial, it must affect the amount of the bid and must give the bidder an advantage or
benefit not allowed to other bidders." Cleveland Const., Inc. v. Ohio Dept. of Adm. Serv., 121
Ohio App.3d 372, 700 N.E.2d 54 (Ohio App. 10 Dist., 1997)(Emphasis Added).
[H2w8559.1 I
2
ATTORNEY/CLIENT PRIVILEGED MEMORANDUM
ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT
NOT A PUBLIC RECORD
It is doubtful that CED has been afforded a competitive advantage because of the bond
form mistake. As you know, the purpose of the bid bond is to afford the City some protection
should it award the contract to a bidder only to have that bidder refuse to execute the contract.
In this instance, the city has not yet awarded the contract and the City has the opportunity to
collect a properly completed performance bond from CED.
In fact, in an analogous case finding in favor of not rejecting the contractor, the court
reasoned, "The purpose of a bid bond is to guarantee the entering into of a contract and the
giving of a bond for the performance of the work by the successful bidder. That is the purpose
of the bid bond, and the record shows that the contracts in question have been signed by [the
Contractor], and that bond for the completion of the work has been furnished by [the
Contractor]. It is only because of the plaintiff bringing this suit that the city has delayed signing
the contracts in question. Altschul v. City of Springfield, 48 Ohio App. 356, 193 N.E. 788, Ohio
App. 1933 (June 27, 1933).
Moreover, in the Smith & Johnson Constr. Co. case, "The trial court found that the 'failure to
execute the proper bid bond is likewise not fatal to the awarding of this contract to Scurlock.'
(Magistrate's decision, at 4.) The court found that, upon award of the contract to Scurlock and
its subsequent posting of the contract bonds required by R.C. 5525.16, the purpose of the bid
bond had been fulfilled and the question of competitive advantage with regard to the bond was
rendered moot. (Trial court decision, at 7 -8.) This court agrees that the purpose of the 'bid
bond' was fulfilled upon Scurlock's acceptance of the contract and posting of the performance
and payment bonds pursuant to R.C. 5525.16. The question of a defective bond is therefore
moot, and this court will not address the matter of the Scurlock bid bond. Smith & Johnson
Constr. Co. v. Ohio Dept. of Tronsp., 134 Ohio App.3d 521, 731 N.E.2d 720, (Ohio App. 10 Dist.,
1998).
In contrast to Rexel's failure to execute its bid form and, amongst other things, provide a
non - collusion affidavit, the CED errors are minor and their correction will not give CED a
competitive advantage.
[H2w8559.1 I
3
ATTORNEY/CLIENT PRIVILEGED MEMORANDUM
ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT
NOT A PUBLIC RECORD
Recommendation
Rexel's failures require the City to reject its bid as not responsive to the bid solicitation.
The City may award to CED presuming that CED corrects its minor deficiencies and submits a
suitable performance bond.
[H2w8559.1 I
4