104-88 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