HomeMy WebLinkAboutC.054.93009_0052 (2)were to be written in addition to the total bid itself, Fisher
said. The two items were (1) the contractor was to indicate who he
was to utilize as a flexible membrane liner manufacture and
installer, and (2) the contract was to indicate the geo-technical
engineer he planned to use on the construction testing of the
cohesive soil liner that was to be constructed as a part of this
project.
In writing in the item for the flexible membrane liner, Ground
Improvement Techniques submitted three names as opposed to one
name. The three names that were written in were all approved
flexible membrane liner manufacturers and installers. The
contractors were given a list of about five or six different liner
manufacturers that were approved as equal in the specifications.
All three of the ones submitted in GIT's bid were approved;
however, as you will notice the fourth item in that package is a
letter from Cascade indicating they felt that was an irregularity
and felt that the GIT bid should be rejected on that basis.
A bid tabulation sheet was also distributed by Mr. Fisher at
this meeting. The first two bids, Ground Improvement Techniques
and Cascade, were very close together. The third bid from Ryder
and Company was also a very close bid.
The following bids were received and recorded at the bid
opening on April 1, 1993 at 2:00 p.m., in the County Commissioners'
Meeting Room, Iredell County Government Center, 200 South Center
Street, Statesville, NC.
Cascade Company
Hickory, NC
NC Lic. ,#30891 $2,956,016.87
Crowder Construction Company
Bristol, TN
NC Lic. #2104 $4,040,716.05
Ground Improvement Techniques
Kissimmee, FL
NC Lic. #28819 $2,933,005.11
C. J. Langerfelder & Son, Inc.
Cocoa, FL
NC Lic. #03145 $3,295,400.00
Ryder and Company
St. Albans, W. Va.
NC Lic. 010022 $3,724,301.70
Mr. Fisher said at the advice of the county attorney, he had
contacted the Institute of Government and inquired if they would
consider the bid irregular under the circumstances. He spoke with
Fleming Bell and Freda Bluestein, who are both staff attorneys with
the Institute of Government, and it was their opinion that the
irregularity was very minor and felt that the board could waive
that irregularity. They indicated that that should the board
reject the low bid because of that irregularity, there may be more
justification for a law suit against the county.
Mr. Fisher said that the fifth item, which is an explanation
of the three manufacturers, GIT submitted a letter on April 2,
1993, indicating that the reason for the entry of the three
manufacturers was they were planning to utilize the first entry on
that particular item, which is SIT of North America, and because of
the way the proposal was written, Gundell and Polyflex were
identified only as "other bidders."
The prices received on this bid were below budget and staff
feels they would be remiss in not recommending to the board to
accept the bids and waive the irregularity that was created as a
result of three items being listed for the flexible membrane liner.
`APR F 1991- W7