The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1989 08-01 CCP Special Session CITY COUNCIL AGENDA CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER SPECIAL SESSION AUGUST 1, 1989 7:00 P.M. 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Invocation 4: Resolution: a. Accepting Bid and Awarding Contract for Contract 1989 -F, Alley Improvement Project Nos. 1989 -08, 1989 -15, 1989 -16 and 1989 -17 5. Adjournment CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date 8 / 1 /89 Agenda Item Number REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: RESOLUTION ACCEPTING BID AND AWARDING CONTRACT FOR CONTRACT 1989 -F, ALLEY IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NOS. 1989 -08, 1989 -15, 1989 -16 AND 1989 -17 *********************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** DEPT. APPROVAL: **** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** * ** *B * * * * * WORKS * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** * * * * * * * ** MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION: / DATION: No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached *********************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached Yes Explanation On June 26 the City Council conducted Improvement Hearings, then ordered the improvement of four alleys. In addition, the Council approved the plans and specifications and authorized advertising for bids for these improvements. Bids for construction of these improvements were opened on July 27. Of the four bids received, the lowest bid was by Thomas and Sons Construction, Inc. in the total amount of $137,527.10. This compares to the Engineer's estimate of contract costs of $139,300. The original estimates of total project costs and of special assessment rates (as used for the improvement hearing) included the estimated contract costs plus a 30% contingency, plus engineering and administrative and legal costs, and plus capitalized interest costs. Attached are exhibits which now show estimated total costs and estimated special assessment rates based on the contract costs (using estimated contract quantities and the low bidder's unit prices) plus a 10% contingency (in lieu of the 30% contingency previously used) plus engineering, administrative, legal and capitalized interest costs. Based on these current estimates, the total "cost as bid" of alleys 1, 2 and 4 will be lower than the Engineer's estimate while the total "cost as bid" for alley 3 would be higher than the Engineer's estimate (see Exhibits E, G and H). Similarly, the estimated special assessments per parcel based on the cost as bid • would be lower than the Engineer's estimate for alleys 1, 2 and 4 and higher for alley 3 (see Exhibits F, G and H). Our analysis indicates that these variances have occurred because the low bidder generally submitted low unit prices for storm sewer construction ion and higher unit prices on g, paving radin avin and restoration costs. osts. In total, however, we believe that the total contract price Page Two July 28, 1989 is favorable. In addition, we note that the low bidder has completed numerous projects for the City. While we have experienced some difficulties with this contractor regarding management of his contracts, he must be regarded as a legally responsible contractor who is able to complete this project in accordance with the plans and specifications. Accordingly, we recommend that the low bid of Thomas and Sons Construction, Inc. be accepted and a contract awarded to that firm. Regarding the variances in our current estimate of individual project costs and special assessment rates, I recommend that the City Council simply adopt a motion stating that the final assessment rates levied for each project will not exceed the estimated rates given at the time of the improvement hearing. That action would assure all affected owners that their final assessments will not exceed the originally estimated rates. Then, upon completion of the work, when all costs are finalized, the necessary adjustments can be incorporated into the proposed assessment rolls. Council Actions Required 1. Adopt the attached resolution. 2. Adopt a motion providing that the assessment rates to be levied for Improvement Projects 1989 -08, 1989 -15, 1989 -16 and 1989 -17 shall not exceed the Engineer's estimate of assessment rates for these projects as quoted at the June 26, 1989 improvement hearing. Exhibit A ALLEY 1 FREMONT /EMERSON FROM 55th TO 57th COST ESTIMATE AS BID Construction Cost As Bid $70,171.04 Contingency (10 %) 7,017.10 Subtotal $77,188.14 Engineering (8 %) 6,175.05 Administration (1 %) 771.88 Legal (1 %) 771.88 Capitalized Interest (10 %) 7,718.81 $92,625.76 27- Jul -89 SPASSESS:asperbid Exhibit B ALLEY 2 GIRARD /HUMBOLDT FROM 54th TO 55th COST ESTIMATE AS BID Construction Cost As Bid $29,461.59 Contingency (10 %) 2,946.16 Subtotal $32,407.75 Engineering (8 %) 2,592.62 Administration (l%) 324.08 Legal (1%) 324.08 Capitalized Interest (10 %) 3,240.78 $38,889.31 27- Jul -89 SPASSESS:asperbid Exhibit C ALLEY 3 EMERSON /FREMONT FROM 53rd TO 54th COST ESTIMATE AS BID Construction Cost As Bid $31,167.47 Contingency (10 %) 3,116.75 Subtotal $34,284.22 Engineering (8%) 2,742.74 Administration (1 %) 342.84 Legal (1%) 342.84 Capitalized Interest (10 %) 3,428.42 $41,141.06 27- Jul -89 SPASSESS:asperbid Exhibit D ALLEY 4 LAKEVIEW /TWIN LAKE AV FROM LAKEBREEZE TO LAKESIDE COST ESTIMATE AS BID Construction Cost As Bid $6,727.00 Contingency (10 %) 672.70 Subtotal $7,399.70 Engineering (8%) 591.98 Administration (1 %) 74.00 Legal (1%) 74.00 Capitalized Interest (10 %) 739.97 $8,879.65 27- Jul -89 SPASSESS:asperbid Exhibit E CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER 1989 Alley Paving Projects Estimated Cost Per Project Engineer's Estimate Cost As Bid -------------- - - - - -- ------------------- - - - - -- ------------------------ Alley Storm Alley Storm Project ( Cost Sewer Cost Sewer - - - - -- ------------------- - - - - -- ------------------------ Alley 1 $105,500.00 ($31,300)1 $92,625.76 ($29,125) Fremont Girard JAlley 2 48,700.00 (17,300)1 38,889.31 (7,667)1 JGirard /Humboldt JAlley 3 39,950.00 (16,300)1 41,141.06 (9,683) Emerson /Fremont Alley 4* 10,463.00 0 1 8,879.65 0 1 Lakeview /Twin Lake ------------------- ------------------- - - - - -- ------------------------ --------------- - - - - -- *NOTE: Alleys 1 -3 will be constructed of concrete; alley 4 will be of bituminous construction. 27- Jul -89 dfs Exhibit F CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER 1989 Alley Paving Projects Estimated Assessment Per Parcel Engineer's Estimate Cost As Bid ------- - - - - -- ------------------- - - - - -- ------------------------- J i Direct Indirect J Direct Indirect i JProject J Access Access Access Access J ------- - - - - -- ------------------- - - - - -- ------------------------- J JAlley 1 J $3,215.33 $989.33 J $2,751.70 $846.68 JFremont /Girard ( J J JAlley 2 J 1,953.78 697.78 J 1,942.72 693.83 J JGirard /Humboldt J J J JAlley 3 J 1,176.84 430.00 J 1,565.38 571.96 J JEmersonfFremont J J J JAlley 4* J 1,778.71 523.15 J 1,509.58 444.02 J JLakeview /Twin Lake J J I J J J ----------------- ------------------- - - - - -- ------------------------- --------------- - - - - -- *NOTE: Alleys 1 -3 will be constructed of concrete; alley 4 will be of bituminous construction. 27- Jul -89 dfs Exhibit G COST AS ESTIMATED FOR PUBLIC HEARING: JUNE 26, 1989 Improvement of Four Alleys (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14) (15) (16) # of COST PER PROPERTY Direct TOTAL COST - - Storm - - - NET COST - - - - 60% DIRECT COST - 40% REMAINING COST - Access # of Bituminous - - Concrete - - Sewer ACCESS Proper- Proper- Direct Indirect Direct Indirect Alley Bituminous Concrete Cost Bituminous Concrete Bituminous Concrete Bituminous Concrete ties ties Access Access Access Access Fremont /Emerson 55th to 57th 1 $79,400 $105,500 $31,300 ( $48,100 $74,200 28,860 44,520 19,240 29,680 20 30 $2,084.33 $641.33 $3,215.33 $989.33 (Fremont /Girard 54th to 55th 1 2 32,100 48,700 17,300 14,800 31,400 8,880 18,840 ( 5,920 12,560 15 18 920.89 328.89 1,953.78 697.78 Fremont /Emerson 53rd to 54th 1 3 33,100 39,950 16,300 16,800 23,650 10,080 14,190 6,720 9,460 19 22 835.98 305.45 1,176.84 430.00 Lakeview /Twin Lake Av Lakeside to Lakebreeze 4 19,086 3&,-090- 0 i9,fl90• 3P, - 8@0- I tl-,400- 1 9;608 - 12, I t y2 - 2,!M.33 - - 633 - .33 - 4,69GO%90- 4;099M � Adjusted 10,463 N/A 0 10,463 N/A 6,278 N/A 4,185 N/A ( 5 8 1,778.71 523.15 N/A N/A 27- JU1-89 dfs NOTE ON COST PER PROPERTY: 60% of the net cost is divided equally among those properties using the alley for access. SPASSESS:alleysum The remaining 40% is divided equally among all properties abutting the alley. I Exhibit y Calculation of Special Assessment Costs Improvement of Four Alleys COST AS BID (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14) (15) (16) # of COST PER PROPERTY Direct TOTAL COST - - Storm - - - NET COST - - - - 60% DIRECT COST - - 40% REMAINING COST Access # of Bituminous - - Concrete - - Sewer ACCESS Proper- Proper- Direct Indirect Direct Indirect Alley Bituminous Concrete Cost Bituminous Concrete Bituminous Concrete Bituminous Concrete ties ties Access Access Access Access Fremont /Girard 55th to 57th 0 1 N/A $92,625.76 1 29,125 N/A $63,500.76 0 $38,100.46 0 $25,400.30 20 30 $0.00 $0.00 $2,751.70 $846.68 Girard /Humboldt 54th to 55th 1 2 N/A 38,889.31 7,667 N/A 31,222.31 0.00 18,733.39 0.00 12,488.92 15 18 0.00 0.00 1,942.72 693.83 Emerson /Fremont 53rd to 54th 3 N/A 41,141.06 9,683 N/A 31,458.06 0.00 18,874.84 0.00 12,583.22 19 22 0.00 0.00 1,565.38 571.96 Lakeview /Twin Lake Av Lakeside to Lakebreeze 4 8,879.65 N/A 0 8,879.65 N/A 5,328.00 0.00 3,552.00 0.00 5 8 1,509.58 444.02 0.00 0.00 27- Jul -89 dfs NOTE ON COST PER PROPERTY: 60% of the net cost is divided equally among those properties using the alley for access. SPASSESS:alysumry The remaining 40% is divided equally among all properties abutting the alley. 1 v Member introduced the following resolution and moved . its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ACCEPTING BID AND AWARDING CONTRACT FOR CONTRACT 1989 -F, ALLEY IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NOS. 1989 -08, 1989 -15, 1989 -16 AND 1989 -17 WHEREAS, pursuant to an advertisement for bids for Improvement Project Nos. 1989 -08, 1989 -15, 1989 -16 and 1989 -17, bids were received, opened, and tabulated by the City Clerk and Engineer, on the 27th day of July, 1989. Said bids were as follows: Bidder Bid Amount Thomas and Sons Construction, Inc. $137,527.10 Progressive Contractors, Inc. 158,084.41 Arcon Construction Company 176,953.99 0 & P Contracting, Inc. 182,186.88 WHEREAS, it appears that Thomas and Sons Construction, Inc. of Rogers, Minnesota, is the lowest responsible bidder. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota: 1. The Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized and directed to enter into the attached contract with Thomas and Sons Construction, Inc, of Rogers, Minnesota in the name of the City of Brooklyn Center, for Improvement Project Nos. 1989 -08, 1989 -15, 1989 -16 and 1989 -17 according to the plans and specifications therefor approved by the City Council and on file in the office of the City Clerk. 2. The City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to return forthwith to all bidders the deposits made with their bids, except that the deposit of the successful bidder and the next lowest bidder shall be retained until a contract has been signed. 3. The estimated cost of Improvement Project Nos. 1989 -08, 1989 -15, 1989 -16 and 1989 -17 is hereby amended from $213,150 to $181,535.78. The estimated cost is comprised of the following: As Ordered As Amended Contract $154,450 $137,527.10 Contingency 23,080 13,752.71 Engineering (at 8 %) 14,530 12,102.39 Administrative (at 1 %) 1,730 1,512.80 Legal and Bonding (at 1 %) 1,730 1,512.80 Interest (at 10 %) 17.630 15,127.98 Total Estimated Cost $213,150 $181,535.78 ,r RESOLUTION NO. 4. The estimated costs to be financed will be: As Ordered As Amended Special Assessments $148,250 $127,252.78 MSA Fund (Fund Balance #2611) 64.900 54.283.00 Total $213,150 $181,535.78 Date Mayor ATTEST: Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member , and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted.