The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About104-88 Ordinance "' , RECORD OF ORDINANCES , National Graphics Corp,. Cols,. O. ~ Form No, 2806-A Ordinance N 0 J..()~__~~_________ Passed______ _________nn______n_ _________19_______ AN ORDINANCE ACCEPTING THE LOWEST AND BEST BID FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE AVERY PARK CONCESSION FACILITY, AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE CITY MANAGER AND FINANCE DIRECTOR TO EXECUTE A CONTRACT GOVERNING THE CONSTRUCTION OF SAID FACILITY, AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY WHEREAS, after advertising and receiving bids for the construction of a concession facility at Avery Park; and WHEREAS, Council has determined that the lowest and best bid is from R. D. Rogers Company, Inc. in the amount of $97,258.00 (Base Bid of $92,921.00 + $3,187.00 for Alternate #2 and $1,150.00 for Alternate #3); NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Dublin, State of Ohio, 7 of the elected members concurring: Section 1. That the bid from R. D. Rogers Company, Inc. in the amount of $97,258.00 be, and hereby is, accepted. Section 2. That the City Manager and Finance Director be, and hereby are, authorized and directed to execute a contract with R. D. Rogers Company, Inc. governing the construction of a concession facility at Avery Park pursuant to the bid specifications and documents on file in the Office of Personnel and Purchasing. Section 3. That this Ordinance be, and the same hereby is, declared to be an emergency measure for the reason that said bid is valid for a limited period of time (60 days) and, for further reason that the construction process must begin as soon as possible in order to allow for usage of said facility for the Spring of 1989. Therefore, this Ordinance shall take effect and be in force immediately upon its passage. Passed this 21st day of November , 1988. ----- fI/I!;!tL Mayor - Presiding Officer , hereby certify that copies of this Ord' / . City of Dublin in accordance w:th sectio~a;;~ :;so;u~on ~ere p~st din tl ~ . 0 t e mHO RevIse Code. Attest: r'~~'/J;. ~ , lounc.l, Dublin, Ohio J~~.~ Clerk of Council Sponsor: City Manager Director of Personnel and Purchasing Director of Parks and Recreation I ~ ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT TO: Members of Dublin City Council FROM: Timothy C. Hansley, City Manager SUBJECT: Avery Park Concession Bids DATE: November 2, 1988 Report Initiated by David L. Harding, Director of Personnel and purchasing Sumnary and Action Recommended After advertising and receiving bids for a concession facility at Avery Park, said bids were opened at 2:00 P.M. on Tuesday, November 1, 1988. Attached please find the bid tabulation and Ordinance No. 104-88 accepting the lowest and best bid. You will note that the lowest bid was submitted by C. w. Construction Company, Inc. in the amount of $89,738.00 (Base Bid of $86,900.00 + $1,320.00 for Alternate #2 and $1,518.00 for Alternate #3) . Although C. w. Construction submitted the lowest bid, Staff does not recommend acceptance of said bid. Rather, Staff recommends that the bid from C. w. Construction be rejected for reasons which will be discussed in the "Analysis/Evaluation of Bids" section of this report. Staff recommends acceptance of the bid submitted by R. D. Rogers Company, Inc. in the amount of $97,258.00 (Base Bid of $92,921.00 + $3,187.00 for Alternate #2 and $1,150.00 for Alternate #3) as the lowest and best bid. (It should be noted that, as required, the Base Bid in the amount of $92,921.00 did not exceed the architect's estimate of $92,000.00 by more than 10%.) Staff further recommends that Ordinance No. 104-88 be adopted as emergency legislation for the reason that the aforementioned bid from R. D. Rogers Company, Inc. is valid for a limited period of time (60 days from the date of the bid opening) , and for further reason that the construction process must begin as soon as possible in order to allow for usage of said facility in the Spring of 1989. Issue As you are aware, the last time bids were received and opened for this project, on October 11, 1988, the lowest bid in the amount of $94,421.00 exceeded the architect's estimate of $84,000.00 by more than 10%. Therefore, the decision was made to once again seek bids. Bid Notices were then advertised in October, 1988 and the bids were received and opened on November 1, 1988. Since this project has already been delayed, time is now a critical factor which must be considered. With the time frame for the completion of this project set at 120 days from Contract Notice to Proceed, construction must soon start in order for the project to be completed in time for usage of this facility in the Spring of 1989. Hence, as previously noted, Staff recommends that Ordinance No. 104-88 be adopted as emergency legislation. J Administrative Report Page Two Analysis/Evaluation of Bids As advertised in the Bid Notice, bids were opened at 2:00 P.M. on Tuesday, November 1, 1988. As reflected in the attached bid tabulation, the City received bids from the following companies: * C. w. Construction, Inc. * R. D. Rogers Company, Inc. * Whetstone Construction Company * Construction One, Inc. * Paul Vlack Company, Inc. As stated previously, the lowest bid was submitted by C. w. Construction, Inc; however, said bid has not been recommended for acceptance. As part of the evalua- tion process, references were requested from the two lowest bidders (C. w. Construction and R. D. Rogers) . References were requested relative to construction projects most recently completed by, or presently in the process of being completed, by both companies. During the reference checks, Staff determined that one of the references supplied by C. w. Construction was very dissatisfied with the work performed by C. w. Construction on a recently constructed building. Said reference indicated that he would not give C. w. Construction a good recommendation. Staff has established that said reference is a credible source and Staff has every reason to believe that the recommendation obtained from said source is valid. Based upon this negative recommendation, Staff has a valid reason to doubt the responsibility and reliability of C. w. Construction's performance. Hence, as previously noted, Staff recommends that the bid from C. w. Construction be rejected. On the other hand, however, the references submitted by R. D. Rogers Company, Inc. all reported very favorable recommendations regarding R. D. Rogers' performance relative to their projects. The following is a brief summary of bid prices requested by the project bid documents. The Bid Form requested a base bid which included a separate price for materials and a separate price for labor. In addition, the Bid Form requested prices for three alternates: A. Alternate #1 provides for the installation of standard toilet fixtures instead of steel fixtures as contained in the base bid. Alternate #1 would save the City money, if selected. (The parentheses enclosing the price shown under the Alternate #1 column on the bid tabulation indicate that if selected, that amount should be deducted from the base bid.) B. Alternate #2 provides for a 4" concrete slab, associated excavation, and a 6" gravel base in a certain area next to the concession facility. C. Alternate #3 provides a 2 1/2" asphaltic concrete slab, associated excavation, and a 6" gravel base in an area extending from the pathway leading to the concession facility. ". Administrative Report Page Three As previously noted, Staff recommends acceptance of the base bid from R. D. Rogers plus Alternates #2 and #3. Staff does not recommend acceptance of Alternate #1. Alternate #1, although it would result in a $900.00 savings, would involve instal- lation of standard fixtures instead of steel fixtures as contained in the base bid. Staff does not recommend the installation of standard fixtures. Conclusion Based upon the aforementioned results of the evaluation process, Staff believes that the lowest and best bid is from R. D. Rogers Company, Inc. and recommends that, in the best interest of the City, said bid in the amount of $97,258.00 be accepted. DLH:fmu . "- AVERY PARK / NORTH CONCESSION DUBLIN, OHIO BID RECORD NOVEMBER 1,1988 2:00 PM EST CONTRACTORS BASE BID ALT. NO.1 ALT. NO.2 ALT. NO.3 REMARKS CONSTRUCTION ONE, INC 3045 E. 5TH AVE. tOO/;OO, ~ ( .z~ OO~) ~ "50!:!' l~~ 0 ~ COLUMBUS, OHIO 43219 WILLIAM M. PAlTON CO.,INC. P.O. BOX 28165 ( ) COLUMBUS, OHIO 43228 ED ROSS CONSTRUCTION CO. P.O. BOX 190 ( ) WESTERVfLLE, OHIO FUNCTIONAL DEVELOPMENT, INC 300 CRAMER CREEK CT. ( ) DUBLIN, OHIO 43017 - J. & M. BENNElT CO. 210 S. GLENWOOD AVE ( ) COLUMBUS, OHIO 43223 R. D. ROGERS COS., INC. 1Z- e,ZI ~ ,. ?J I ~1 ~ II~O~ 1251 E. BROAD STREET ( t:tOO ) COLUMBUS, OHIO 43215 C. W. CONSTRUCTION, INC. -- ,-- I 5063 HENDRON ROAD 8~.'lt)Q ~ (?400~ i-=3ZQ ~ 1{)1~'! GROVEPORT, OHIO 43125 WHETSTONE CONSTRUCTION CC III .-s-~~ ~ 4650 INDIANOLA AVENUE (~60 7 ~oo !:!. l~~~ COLUMBUS, OHIO 43214 SCHERL - WILSON CONSTRUCT ON ------,- 1------- 2007 SURREY ROAD ( ) BLACKLlCK, OHIO 43004 BENADUM CONSTRUCTION CO., NC. 2323 W. 5TH AVENUE ( ) COLUMBUS, OHIO 43204 PAUL VLACK CO., INC. - 410 W. WATERLOO STREET '1'1 7~ ~ ( z-400 ~ ~ZUO~ lid CANAL WINCHESTER, OH 43110 I $()O- I . EMENS, HURD, KEGLl':R & RITTER CO., L.I~ .,(\.. ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELORS AT LAW JOHN 1". ALLEVATO ANN L, COLUSSI TIMOTHY J. BATTAGLIA CAPITOL SOUARE DANIEL E. FOX JACK A. BJERKE WILLIAM A. FULLMER JOHN p, BRODY SUITE 1800 DONALD W. GREGORY WILLIAM J, BROWN GENE W. HOLLIKER STEPHEN E. CHAPPELEAR R, KEVIN KERNS J. RICHARD EMENS 6S EAST STATE STREET MARIE APPLEBY McKENNA LAWRENCE 1". FEHELEY ANN M. O'CONNELL JOHN L. GRAY COLU M BUS. OH 10 4321 S MICHAEL G. O'KANE ALLEN L. HANDLAN ---- HERBERT M. RICHARDSON III EDWARD C. HERTENSTEIN STEVEN R. RUSSI THOMAS W. HILL TELEPHONE: (614) 462-5400 KARL W. SCHEDLER DWIGHT I. HURD RICHARD W. SCHUERMANN, JR. CHARLES J. KEGLER ROBERT G. SCHULER LARRY J. McCLATCHEY TELECOPIER: 464-2634 MICHAEL E, SCOLIERE JOHN C. McDONALD S. MARTlJN STEGER SAMUEL C. RANDAZZO CABLE: LAW EHKR GEORGIA VLAHOS ~~'t;~~'p~'J~~~R~'lN TELEX: 24667 I - . -VI N L. SYKES ROBERT D. MAROTTA iN R. THOMAS RONALD L. MASON rlN B. TINGLEY November 15, 1988 s. NOEL MELVIN LVIN D. WEINSTEIN WILLIAM W. MILLIGAN "TRICE E. WOLPER JOSEPH M. MILLIOUS 'NNE K. WOODRUFF COUNSEL ':HAEL E. ZATEZALO ~ : ''": . , "; Stephen J. Smith, Esquire VIA BAND DELIVERY City of Dublin Law Director 5354 Cemetery Road Hilliard, Ohio 43026 Re: C W Construction Co./Avery Park Dear Steve: As you know, this office represents CW Construction Co. , an Ohio corporation in good standing. CW is a certified MBE wholly owned by Paul Tate, its pres ide'n t,. 'and has done general contracting work in Central Ohio for the last eight years. Mr. Tate has over 27 years experience in the construction industry. During this time, CW has never been terminated, never been declared in default or walked off a job. At the present time, ~ there are no unresolved legal claims pending against CW, by owners or otherwise. As you know, CW is fully bonded on this project, a sure sign that its surety has full confidence that it is a responsible bidder based upon CW's track record and financial statements. As you also know, the bid documents (section 5.3.1) require the owner to award the contract to the "lowest responsible bidder." As there is no argument that CW submitted the low bid by approximately $6,000, the only issue is whether CW is a responsible contractor. I would suggest to you that CW's excellent track record outlined above illustrates that CW is "responsible" under any reasonable definition of the term. It has been brought to my attention (although I have not yet received any documentation to support this allegation) that Mr. Harding's reservations concerning CW's responsibility stem from the recent job that CW performed for Franklin county at the Engineer's location on Dublin Road. It is my understanding that these concerns arose because CW was "liened" on that job. The only entity that filed a lien on that job was a subcontractor by the name of Cheugh & Schlegal - no other liens were filed. ... EMENS. HURD. KEGLER Be RITTER CO., L.~A. ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELORS AT LAW Stephen J. Smith, Esquire City of Dublin Law Director November 15, 1988 Page Two This occurred because of bona fide construction disputes with Cheugh & Schlegal, not because of any financial inability of CW to pay any amounts legitimately owed. In fact, these disputes have been resolved and the lien released. I suggest to you that if every time a contractor experienced a mechanic's lien he were declared "irresponsible," there would rarely be a responsible bidder on any project. I was also informed tha~Mr~ Hardtng had reservations about the quality of work done on the aforementioned project. As there has been no specifics made available to us, there is no way my cl ient can respond in deta il. Nevertheless, suff ice it to say that Franklin County would not be paying for the work on this project (as they have) if it failed to comply with the plans and spec i fica tions. Indeed, Frankl in Coun ty has awarded another project to CW (Data Processing jOb) after experiencing CW's work on the Engineer's job. This provides further evidence that the County still considers CW to be responsible. I invite you, Mr. Harding or any of the City's representatives to verify any of the statements contained in this letter. My client and I will'. aI"so answer any reasonable inquiries concerning CW's responsibility that you or the City may have. As I have explained to you, we are dealing with much more than a $80,000 job here - to find CW not responsible on this project would have devastating effects on its reputation locally, all without good reason. I hope that you will share this letter with Dublin City Council and staff so that they can better understand the consequences of their action on the award of this contract. J;e y truly yours, !vP77l Donald W. G~g Y DWG/pah cc: Paul Tate .. . E~IENS, HURD, KEGLER & RITTER CO., L.~ ......\. ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELORS AT LAW JOHN F. ALLEVATO ANN L. COLUssl TIMOTHY J. BATTAGLIA CAPITOL SQUARE DANIEL E. FOX JACK A. BJERKE WILLIAM A. FULLMER JOHN P. BRODY SUITE 1800 DONALD W. GREGORY WILLIAM J. BROWN GENE W, HOLLlKER STEPHEN E. CHAPPELEAR R. KEVIN KERNS J. RICHARD EMENS 65 EAST STATE STREET MARIE APPLEBY McKENNA LAWRENCE F. FEHELEY ANN M. O'CONNELL JOHN L. GRAY COLUMBUS, OHIO 43215 MICHAEL G. O'KANE ALLEN L. HANDLAN HERBERT M. RICHARDSON III EDWARD C. HERTENSTEIN -~---- STEVEN R. RUSSI THOMAS W. HILL KARL W. SCHEDLER DWIGHT I. HURD TELEPHONE: (614) 462-5400 RICHARD W. SCHUERMANN, JR. CHARLES J. KEGLER ROBERT G. SCHULER LARRY J, McCLATCHEY TELECOPIER: 464-2634 MICHAEL E, SCOLIERE JOHN C, McDONALD S. MARTIJN STEGER SAMUEL C. RANDAZZO CABLE: LAW EHKR GEORGIA VLAHOS ~~~~~'p~IJ~~'lR~'lN TELEX: 24667 I - 'I N L. SYKES ROBERT D. MAROTTA ~N R. THOMAS RONALD L. MASON ~N B. TINGLEY November 15, 1988 S. NOEL MELVIN :"VIN D. WEINSTEIN WILLIAM W. MILLIGAN 'TRICE E. WOLPER JOSEPH M. MILLIOUS ANNE K. WOODRUFF COUNSEL MICHAEL E. ZATEZALO ~. .~ ,,., . , ., Stephen J. Smith, Esquire VIA HAND DELIVERY City of Dublin Law Director 5354 Cemetery Road Hilliard, Ohio 43026 Re: C W Construction Co./Avery Park Dear Steve: As you know, this office represents CW Construction Co. , an Ohio corporation in good standing. CW is a certified MBE wholly owned by Paul Tate, its pre sid e'n t ,. 'a n d has done general contracting work in Central Ohio for the last eight years. Mr. Tate has over 27 years experience in the construction industry. During this time, CW has never been terminated, never been declared in default or walked off a job. At the present time, there are no unresolved legal claims pending against CW, by owners or otherwise. As you know, CW is fully bonded on this project, a sure sign that its surety has full confidence that it is a responsible bidder based upon CW's track record and financial statements. As you also know, the bid documents (section 5.3.1) require the owner to award the contract to the "lowest responsible bidder." As there is no argument that CW submitted the low bid by approximately $6,000, the only issue is whether CW is a responsible contractor. I would suggest to you that CW's excellent track record outlined above illustrates that CW is "responsible" under any reasonable definition of the term. It has been brought to my attention (although I have not yet received any documentation to support this allegation) that Mr. Harding's reservations concerning CW's responsibility stem from the recent job that CW performed for Franklin county at the Engineer's location on Dublin Road. It is my understanding that these concerns arose because CW was "liened" on that job. The only entity that filed a lien on that job was a subcontractor by the name of Cheugh & Schlegal - no other liens were filed. ~. EMENS. HURD. KEGLER Be RITTER CO.. L.I?A. ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELORS AT LAW Stephen J. Smith, Esquire City of Dublin Law Director November 15, 1988 Page Two This occur-r-ed because of bona fide constr-uction disputes with Cheugh & Schlegal, not because of any financial inability of CW to pay any amounts legitimately owed. In fact, these disputes have been r-esolved and the lien r-eleased. I suggest to you that if ever-y time a contr-actor- exper-ienced a mechanic's lien he wer-e declar-ed "ir-r-esponsible," ther-e would r-arely be a r-esponsible bidder on any pr-oject. I was also infor-med tha't" Mr ~ Ha~drng had reservations about the quality of work done on the aforementioned project. As there has been no specifics made available to us, ther-e is no way my client can r-espond in detail. Nevertheless, suffice it to say that Franklin County would not be paying for- the work on this project (as they have) if it failed to comply with the plans and specifications. Indeed, Franklin County has awarded another project to CW (Data Processing jOb) after experiencing CW's work on the Engineer's job. This provides further evidence that the County still considers CW to be responsible. I invite you, Mr. Harding or any of the City's representatives to verify any of the statements contained in this letter. My client and I will" also answer any reasonable inquir-ies concerning CW's responsibility that you or the City may have. As I have explained to you, we are dealing with much more than a $80,000 jOb here - to find CW not responsible on this project would have devastating effects on its reputation locally, all without good reason. I hope that you will shar-e this letter with Dublin City Council and staff so that they can better understand the consequences of their action on the award of this contract. ~ truly yours, Iv']:; Donald W. G eg y DWq/pah cc: Paul Tate , MEMORANDUM TO: Members of Dublin City Council FROM: Timothy C. Hansley, City Manager I<~ SUBJECT: Avery Park Concession Bids - ( Addendum to Recommendation for Acceptance DATE: November IS, 1988 BY: David L. Harding, Director of Personnel & Purchasing As you are aware, and as noted in the administrative staff report dated November 2, 1988 regarding the Avery Park Concession bid process, C. w. Construction, Inc. has not been recommended as the lowest and best bidder. As noted in said report, as part of the bid evaluation process, Staff checked references on the two lowest bidders. In checking the references provided by C. w. Construction, Staff determined that one reference in particular was dissatisfied with C. W. Construction's performance and could not give them a good recommendation. Staff determined, from speaking with this reference, that C. W. Construction had several liens filed against them by sub-contrac- tors for non-payment of bills, that the reference was dissatisfied with the quality of the workmanship exhibited by C. W. Construction and their sub-contractors, and that the reference was dissatisfied with the construc- tion administration/management exhibited by C. w. Construction. As previously mentioned, Staff also checked the references provided by the second lowest bidder (R. D. Rogers Company). In the process of checking said references, Staff determined that said references reported favorable recom- mendations. Said references reported that R. D. Rogers performed extremely well, finished earlier than scheduled, and that they (references) were happy and satisfied with the performance of R. D. Rogers. One of these references stated that, before hiring R. D. Rogers, they had done an extensive search to obtain information regarding R. D. Rogers and could find nothing negative about the company. Therefore, based upon information obtained through the reference check phase of the evaluation process, Staff recommended acceptance of the bid from R. D. Rogers. Although not noted in the aforementioned administrative report, Mr. Dana McDaniel, Management Assistant, and Mr. David L. Harding, Director of Person- nel & Purchasing personally inspected the construction project of the afore- mentioned negative reference on Monday, November 7, 1988, to verify that the recommendation provided by said reference was accurate and contained merit and substance. At that time, Mr. Harding and Mr. McDaniel also inspected documents from the project file. (The project in question is a new building constructed to house a variety of technical functions associated with the operation of a governmental agency.) The following is a brief point by point summary of their findings: . . Members of Dublin City Council Page Two November IS, 1988 * Exterior doors do not fit properly - light can be seen coming through from the outside and cold air can be felt. (Has not been corrected.) * Drainage slope was not initially installed around garage doors on exterior. (Has been corrected.) * Paint has been slopped on one garage door. (Has not been corrected.) * Roof was not constructed with the proper uniform slope. (Does not appear to be correctable.) * Bad patchwork on cement blocks on interior wall near roof. (Does not appear to be correctable.) * Uneven joints on interior cement block walls. (Does not appear to be correctable.) * Unfilled joints on interior cement block walls. (Has not been corrected.) * Bad blockwork around garage doors - light can be seen coming through from outside. (Has not been corrected.) * Interior b1ockwork in one area was so bad it had been taken out twice and reconstructed. * Picture from file showed bad blockwork on 12 inch, sub-surface, exterior wall-blocks were not flush with one another over most of the surface on vertical plane. (Does not appear to have been correctable.) * One section of exterior blockwork was so bad, it had to be torn out twice and reconstructed. * At one point in the process, the cement block contractor was removed from the project. * Roof penetrations were not installed, and when roofing sub-contrac- tor arrived to install roof, roofer had to install penetrations himself. (This should have been done before roofer was called in for his phase of the project.) * Bad concrete work on exterior steps - do not meet City of Columbus code for tread length and riser height. (Has not been corrected.) * When concrete floor was being poured, cement trucks drove over compacted base material and left ruts. Would not have re-compacted base had it not been for close supervision of the reference. Members of Dublin City Council , Page Three November 14, 1988 * Bad landscaping on exterior of building. A drainage swale was to be constructed to carry water away from building. Contractor dug up side of embankment and piled soil close to building. (Has not been corrected.) * Bad clean-up job when leaving project. * Two separate liens were filed by the same sub-contractor (steel sub-contractor). One was filed in early spring of 1988 and was later settled. One was filed in mid-summer of 1988 and, as of the date of this inspection, reference had not received a release indicating settlement. * Lien was filed by a tool rental company (Has been settled.) * Notice of lien and affidavit filed by concrete sub-contractor for non-payment of bills in the amount of $ls,987. (Has been settled.) * Another sub-contractor notified reference on 5-27-88 that two invoices had not been paid by C. w. Construction. One invoice was dated 1-ls-88 and was for $I,300, the other was dated 11-2s-87 and was for $640. (Has been settled.) * Reference commented that C. w. Construction and their sub-contrac- tors required frequent and close supervision during the construc- tion process; that C. W. Construction's construction administra- tion/management appeared to be poor; that repeatedly, problems were brought to the attention of C. W. Construction, promises were made to correct said problems within established time frames, but few promises were kept or deadlines met; and that, despite what C. W. Construction may claim, the project is still not complete (Projected completion date was June 1988.) In conclusion, based upon the information, facts, evidence etc. available to me at this point in time, I see no legitimate reason to modify my recommenda- tion regarding bid acceptance. In my judgement, C. W. Construction is not the lowest and best, or lowest responsible bidder, and acceptance of said bid from C. W. Construction would not be in the best interest of the City of Dublin. DLH/mc