HomeMy WebLinkAbout1995-04-03 Agenda AGENDA
IOWA CITY CITY COUNCIL
SPECIAL COUNCIL ME~,~'ING- APRIL 3, 1995
8. A.M.
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
ITEM NO. 1 -
ITEM NO. 2 -
CALL TO ORDER.
ROLL CALL
CONSIDER A RESOLUTION AWARDING CONTRACT AND
AUTHORIZING MAYOR TO SIGN AND CITY CLERK TO ATTEST
CONTRACT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE WHISPERING
MEADOWS HOUSING PROJECT, #1A05PO22009.
Comment: The bid opening for this project was held March 21,
1995, and the following bids were received:
McComas-Lacina Construction 8937,782
Iowa City, Iowa
Frantz Construction
Iowa City, Iowa
9938,627
Moore Construction
Iowa City, Iowa
AI Thoma~ Construction
iowa City, Iowa
9983,950
91,033,999
Todd Hackett Construction
Muscatine, Iowa
91,096,000
Based on a review of the bid requirements established by state
law and HUD regulations, Frantz Construction Company is the
lowest responsible bidder for purposes of awarding this contract.
The McComas-Lacina Construction bid has been withdrawn and
the protest resolved.
Action:
#2 page 1
ITEM NO. 2-CONSIDER A RESOLUTION AWARDING CONTRACT AND AUTHORIZING
MAYOR TO SIGN AND CITY CLERK TO AT~.~EST CONTRACT FOR THE
CONSTRUCTION OF THE WHISPERIN~ MEADOWS HOUSING PROJECT,
#IAOSPO22009
Horow/ Moved by Lehman, seconded by Baker. Discussion.
Nov/
I would like some discussion on this. I don't know about
anybody else but this is something that ought to be discussed,
ought to be on record and particularly why we treated a single
irregularity in two different manners. So, Doug, somebody,
Linda.
Woito/ The irregularity with respect to the smaller contract is no
longer before-was no longer before Doug because it was
withdrawn.
Kubby/ It has been treated in a changed way.
Horow/ Any other discussion? Roll call-(yes). Okay, resolution
passed.
Thisrepresents only ereasonably accuratetranscription ofthelowa Ciw coun~l meeting of April3,1995.
F040395
ITEM NO. 3 -
ITEM NO. 4 -
CONSIDER A RESOLUTION AWARDING CONTRACT AND
AUTHORIZING MAYOR TO SIGN AND CITY CLERK TO ATTEST
CONTRACT FOR CONSTRUCTION OF WHISPERING MEADOWS
HOUSING PROJECT, #1AOSP022008,
Comment: The bid opening for this project was held March 21,
1995, and the following bid was received:
McComas-Lacina Construction
Iowa City, Iowa
91,451,926
Based on a review of the bid requirements established by state
law and HUD regulations, and consideration of the protest,
McComas-Lacina Construction is the lowest responsible bidder for
purposes of awarding this contract, The Protest decision
concerning this matter as well as a memo from the City Attorney
is attached,
CONSIDER A MOTION TO ADJOURN SPECIAL MEETING,
Action:
#3 page
ITEMNOo 3- CONSIDER A RESOLUTION AWARDIN~ CONTRACT ANDAUTHORIZIN~
MAYOR TO 8I~N AND CITY CLERK TO ATTEST CONTRACT FOR
CONSTRUCTION OF WHISPERING NEADOWS HOUSING PROJEOT~
#IA05P022228.
Horow/ Moved by Kubby, seconded by Lehman. Discussion.
Kubby/ Okay, so at this point our project manager
person, Doug, had said this is a responsive bid.
not at question at this point technically?
or bidding
So that is
Woito/ Going back to my memo that I sent you last week, you still
have the options, all the same options that you had before. To
accept it, to reject them, to re-bid. But Doug's
recommendation at this point is to accept the one bid on the
larger project.
Baker/ How does a re-bid affect the schedule of the project?
Boothroy/ It would affect it by at least 30 days, approximately 30
days.
Baker/ What sort of a problem is that for the project itself?
Boothroy/ Well, it would-our costs could be higher because the
products that are used in the project may increase in price
over the next 30 days. There is no assurances that we would
get any additional bidders. It is a large project. It is 20
houses and it is a month less time in which to perform under
the same conditions that we have looked at before.
Kubby/ Could it push it into next year?
Boothroy/ It is possible.
Baker/ But we were willing to do that a week ago. That was a
recommendation a week ago was to push it back.
Woito/ From Doug. My memo always left you all the options open.
Boothroy/ I didn't feel a week ago I had any choices. There are
choices now.
Nov/ Explain.
Boothroy/ Well, as I indicated in my letter, the problems-this is
the single bidder on this particular project and the flaws
that were apart of this one bid did not prejudice any of the
other bidders because there were no other bidders. And for the
four or five reasons that I have listed in my letter I felt
Thlsrepresents onlyaraasonably accurate transcription ofthelowa City coun~l meeting of April3,1995.
F040395
#3 page 2
that it was in the best public interest to proceed and I
didn't see re-bidding this project at this time to provide any
gain. Only-all I did was delay the project and possibility
increase the cost.
Kubby/ So the information that wasn't given at the time the bid was
received on the specific forms, was that information available
on- It was my understanding that there was another form that
that information was on that if the information was different,
the information on this other form took precedent. Is that
true?
Boothroy/ Well, no, that is not true. But at the meeting I held
with the bidder in this particular they provided a completed
bid form which indicated the subcontractors which I indicated
they are all local subcontractors. They are also using a
minority subcontractor which I think is a positive and that is
information I did not have the last time we met. And is also
deficient regarding the bidding progess.
Nov/
My concern here is that we have possibly been setting
precedence. If we say to someone your subcontractors must be
on the bid as you submit it and then they do not submit it and
we say you are missing this information. Do we have to then do
that in all future bids and allow everybody to do it that way?
Woito/ No. There is enough language in the contract that gives the
city discretion and to use sound business judgement and sound
policy making judgement. I mean the way the contracts are
written, they are not masters of clarity as you know and I
discussed, but the way we try to write them is to give the
city the most options to protect the city's interests and
financial concerns as possible.
Kubby/ So if the exact same situation happens again and we say no,
by saying yes today, does that give somebody power to say that
we aren't being fair?
Woito/ No because the individual circumstances will be different in
each case. These are very unusual circumstances. For one thing
just to have one bidder.
Lehman/ That is really the key here. There is only one bid.
Horow/ Well, I understand where Naomi is coming from. However, in
this particular situation there is no compelling reason that
I can see that we would not award this at this point as long
as, as she mentions, does not set a precedence. That the next
time that there is only one bidder and there is some
irregularity that we then (can't hear).
Thisrepresents only a reasonably accurate transcription ofthelowa City council meeting of April3, 1995.
F04039§
#3 page 3
Nov/ We have in the past rejected a single bidder.
Kubby/ But the square footage cost is less than the project above
it. That is the only reason I can rationalize acting (can't
hear). This one has only one bidder. Because I don't have this
kind of situation where you have two similar projects.
Woito/ And completing 20 houses in one construction season is going
to require a lot of people and I don't know that other people
in the community have that capability. The contractors may
dispute me but from what I have seen in 17 years.
Nov/ May I have some assurance, out loud, that our bidding process
will be modified so that this may not happen again?
Kubby/ You can't insure that someone won't-
Nov/ No, that we will not be put in the position of accepting
something-
Woito/ I can't assure you that. I mean, as I said, our little
Contract Compliance Review Committee is already-we have
already gathered them together and we are going to start
meeting to review some of the documents. There are some
inconsistencies. But-
Boothroy/ I think there is always potential for dispute even with
the strongest language.
Woito/ I mean this is a unusual circumstance. I hope it doesn't
happen again. At least not during my tenure.
Baker/ See, my problem is last week we said this was not a
responsible bid and now we are calling it a responsible bid.
Woito/ I did not say that. Doug said that, I did not. I said-
Baker/ I am not saying anybody said it-
Woito/ I said that-
Horow/ (Can't hear).
Baker/ This is literally described as a responsible bid now.
Lehman/ Larry, I think it is a responsible bid in that it is the
only bid. Had the first bid not been withdrawn, then I don't
think you could say this was responsible.
Baker/ I am talking about the item #3 where this was the only bid.
Thisrepresents only areasonably eccurate transcription oftholowa City council meeting of April3,1995,
F040395
#3 page 4
Lehman/ Right. When taken with the other bid then I think this was
a responsible bid. On the other project, by withdrawing that
bid which was deficient, we now have the same deficiency but
we have not other bids. We haven't said it is not legitimate
here and it is here. Which I think we would have had he not
withdrawn.
Baker/ This is what is called a razor hair split.
Nov/ Absolutely.
Woito/ But we lawyers are trained to try and find results and this
is a result. You may choose to go for it or to reject it.
Horow/ But I think you have to have a compelling reason.
Woito/ It is certainly your call. It is your call.
Baker/ (Can't hear).
Horow/ But I don't see that.
Kubby/ I see your point. I want to get the project and I want to
get the houses built so I will support it.
Baker/ That is the thing that is driving this is to get it done.
Kubby/ I think we are finding ways to rationalize how to get it
done in legitimate ways. I am not saying that is a necessary
bad thing. We found a way to make it happen.
Woito/ And that isn't necessarily bad.
Baker/ But I want to make sure it is clear that in the future that
if these same sort of technical deficiencies show up-
Horow/ That this is not a precedence.
Kubby/ The other thing that helps is that with the first bid when
there were multiple bidders, we did-Well, we didn't deem
anything because it was withdrawn. But it would not have been
accepted.
Baker/ The thing that is the out for us all here is the fact that
the first one was withdrawn.
Kubby/ Right, that is the only way that this solution could have
come.
Horow/ Okay, let's go on this. Roll call-
Thisrepresents only areasonably accurate trans=iptlon ofthelowa City council meeting of Apd13,1995.
F040395
#3 page 5
Kubby/ Well, the other thing that Steve brought up the other night
when we talked about this is that these are all local people
and it is amazing to have such big projects and to have local
people with a lot of local subs at the same time. So, it is
good for the community as well.
Horow/ Roll call- The resolution is adopted 5-1, Baker voting no.
f
Thls represents only a reasonably accurate trsnscription of the Iowa City council meeting of April 3, 1995.
F040395