Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2011 07 11 Consent 206 Lake Jesup Reclaimed Water Augmentation ProjectCOMMISSION AGENDA ITEM 206 July 11, 2011 Meeting Killebrew, Inc. Florida Design Contractors McMahon Construction Masci Corporation Prime Construction Group Close Construction CONSENT INFORMATIONAL PUBLIC HEARING REGULAR X MGR KS /DEPT KL Authorization REQUEST: Utility Department requesting Approval to Enter into a Contract for Construction of the Lake Jesup Reclaimed Water Augmentation Project SYNOPSIS: The purpose of this item is to authorize the low bidder of Bid # ITB 005 /11/KL, Killebrew, Inc. of Lakeland, to construct the Lake Jesup Reclaimed Water Augmentation Project at a cost of $2,325,293.30. CONSIDERATIONS: The Lake Jesup Reclaimed Water Augmentation Project is needed to utilize Lake Jesup as an alternative water supply source which will allow for the future expansion of the reclaimed water distribution. The expansion of the reclaimed water distribution system will provide the ability to replace potable water irrigation with reclaimed water. Currently during peak irrigation demand periods such as we recently experienced, flows from the wastewater plants must be augmented with potable water (golf course well) to ensure our customers have a reliable supply for their irrigation needs. This project will eliminate the need to augment with potable water and also expand our supply availability so additional customers can be added. Bids for this project, ITB #005 /11/KL were opened on June 2, 2011. The results were; Lakeland, FL $2,325,293.30 Lake Park, FL $2,368,342.00 DeLand, FL $2,370,000.00 Port Orange, FL $2,560,455.55 Orlando, FL $2,588,800.00 Okeechobee, FL $2,607,234.00 The engineers construction cost estimate was $2,550,000. CPH Engineers, Inc. has reviewed the required supporting documentation and references provided by Killebrew and provided the attached Letter of Recommendation. PROJECT BASE BID CONTINGENCY TOTAL GRANT NET COST Contract A - Oak Forest $1,562,000.00 $55,258.04 $1,617,258.04 ($485,177.41) $1,132,080.63 Contract B - Lake Jesup $2,325,293.30 $116,264.67 $2,441,557.97 ($732,467.39) $1,709,090.58 Misc, (Engineering, Fees, Power, etc.) $207,850.67 $0 $207,850.67 ($62,355.20) $145,495.47 Total $4,095,143.97 $171,522.71 $4,266,666.68 ($1,280,000) $2,986,666.680 2011 07 11 Consent 206 Lake Jesup Reclaimed Water Augmentation Project City Commission — Regular Meeting July 11, 2011 Consent Agenda Item #206 Page 2 of 3 Contract A — Oak Forest Pumping and Storage is substantially complete and includes a 3 million gallon storage tank, high service pumps and electrical building. The scope for this project, Contract B — Lake Jesup Reclaimed Water Augmentation, includes; low profile 250,000 gallon storage tank, building for electrical equipment and chlorine, filters, suction pumps, high service pumps, and an access pier for the intake structure. Permits received for this project include; St. Johns River Water Management District Consumptive Use Permit, Florida Department of Environmental Protection Operations Permit, and Army Corp of Engineers Permit. City Commission DRC approval of the site plan and aesthetic review is scheduled for the July 25the City Commission meeting. The contract duration is 240 days. The agreement with SJRWMD for the 30% grant up to $1,280,000 requires construction completion by April 30, 2012. FISCAL IMPACT: The projected cost for Contract B — Lake Jesup Reclaimed Water Augmentation Project is $2,325,293.30 plus contingency. The final cost for Contract A — Oak Forest Pumping and Storage was $1,617,258.04. With the addition of other miscellaneous costs for engineering support, construction costs for power, and permit fees, and the reduction from the 30% SJRWMD grant, the final cost to the City for Contracts A and B is projected to be approximately $3,000,000 as shown below. The State Revolving Fund Loan application is complete and we expect to receive official notification after the Board's August meeting with Commission action occurring in RECOMMENDATION: 2011 07 11 Consent 206 Lake Jesup Reclaimed Water Augmentation Project City Commission — Regular Meeting July 11, 2011 Consent Agenda Item #206 Page 3 of 3 September. In the mean time, we have requested a Letter to Incur Costs which they have agree to provide. All costs are to be borne by the Utility Enterprise Fund. COMMUNICATION EFFORTS: This Agenda Item Has Been Electronically Forwarded To The Mayor And City Commission, City Manager, City Attorney /Staff, And All eAlert /eCitizen Recipients; And Is Available On The City's Website, LaserFiche, And The City's Server. Additionally, Portions Of This Agenda Item Are Typed Verbatim On The Respective Meeting Agenda Which Has Also Been Electronically Forwarded To The Individuals Noted Above; And Which Is Also Available On The City's Website, LaserFiche, And The City's Server; Has Been Sent To City Staff, Media/Press Representatives Who Have Requested Agendas /Agenda Item Information, Homeowner's Associations/Representatives On File With The City, And All Individuals Who Have Requested Such Information; And Has Been Posted Outside City Hall; Posted Inside City Hall With Additional Copies Available For The General Public; And Posted At Five (5) Different Locations Around The City. This Agenda Item Is Also Available To Any New Individual Requestors. City Staff Is Always Willing To Discuss This Or Any Agenda Item With Any Interested Individuals. Staff recommends that the Commission authorize an Agreement with Killebrew, Inc. of Lakeland, to construct the Lake Jesup Reclaimed Water Augmentation Project at a cost of $2,325,293.30 plus a 5% contingency payable from the Utility Enterprise Fund and authorize the City Manager and City Attorney to prepare and execute any and all applicable documents. ATTACHMENTS: 1. CPH Recommendation of Award (8 pages) June 10, 2011 Kipton Lockcuff, P.E. Public Works/Utilities Director City of Winter Springs 1126 East State Road 434 Winter Springs, FL 32708 Subject: Lake Jesup Reclaimed Water Augmentation Facility Bid No. (TB 005/11 IKL — Recommendation of Award CPH Project No. W04141 Dear Kip: Attached is the Bid Tabulation for the subject project. We found no mathematical errors in the bids or bid tabulation. CPH has reviewed the bids and the references for Killebrew, Inc. as apparent low bidder on the subject project based on the Base Bid. All references were positive. We have also performed reference checks on the second and third low bidders, Florida Design Contractors and McMahan Construction, respectively. Attached are the Reference Checklists for the three low bidders. Killebrew, Inc. possesses both a General Contractor's and an Underground Contractor's license. Killebrew, Inc. has submitted all other required documents as listed in Section 00200, Paragraph 1.17. CPH finds all the documentation in order. See attached Information Checklists. Killebrew, Inc. meets all the requirements of the Contract Documents. Therefore, CPH Engineers recommends award of this project to Killebrew, Inc. in the amount of $2,325273,30. If you have any questions regarding the above and/or would like to meet to discuss them, please contact me. Thank you. Sincerely, CPH ENGINEERS, INC. William C. Goucher, RE. Sr. Project Manager 1117 East Robinson Street Orlando, Florida 32801 Phone: 407.425.0452 Fax: 407.648.1036 www.cphengineers.com Engineers • Surveyors Architects (AA26000926) Planners • Landscape Architects • Environmental Scientists • Construction Management • Design/Build BID ITEM DESCRIPTION UNIT QUANTITY ENGINEERING ESTIMATE Killebrew, Inc, Florida Design McMahan Construction UNIT PRICE EXTENDED , UNIT PRIC EXTENDED UNIT PRICE EXTENDED UNIT PRICE EXTENDED 1 Mobilization/Demobilization 1 LS 1 $115,000.00 $115,000 00 49,475.00 $49 475 00 $200.000.00 $20000000 $200,000.00 $200, 00 00 2 Lake Jesup Reclaimed Water Augmentation Facility LS 1 $2,408,700.00 $2,40 00 $2,245,818.30 $2245,818 .30 $2,138,342.00 $2, 138 342 00 $2,140,000.00 $2,140,000 00 3 Permit Fee Allowance LS 1 $2000000 $20,000,00 $20,000.00 $20,000 00 $2000000 $20,000.00 $2000000 $20,000 00 $10,000 0 Testing Allowance LS 1 $10,000 OD $10,000 00 $10,000,00 $10,000 OD $2,588,800.00 $10,000 OD $10,000.00 $10,000 00 TOTAL BASE BID $2,553,700.00 $2,325,293.30 $2 368,34200 ADDITIVE ALTERNATE $ 2370000.00 1 Amiad Microfiber Filter No.1 LS 1 $217,900.00 $217,900,0 ADDITIVE ALTERNATE $200,000 0 $217.855.00 $217,855 00 TOTALS $2 77b 355 55 $2,788,800 0 $°, 25,089 00 1 Amiad Microfiber Filter No,1 LS 1 $257,300.00 $257.300 00 $203,000.00 $203,000 00 $211,175,00 $211,175 00 $225,000.00 $225,000.00 TOTALS $2,811 000 00 $2,528,2Q3 30 $2,57q517 00 $2,595 000 00 BID ITEM DESCRIPTION UNIT QUANTITY Masci Corporation Prime Construction Group Close Construction UNIT PRICE EXTENDED UNIT PRICE EXTENDED UNIT PRICE EXTENDED 1 Mobilization/Demobilization LS 1 $195,555.55 $200,000,00 $200,000.00 $200,000 00 $200 000 00 2 Lake Jesup Reclaimed Water Augmentation Facility LS 1 $2,334,900.00 $2.334.900 00 $2,358,800.00 $2,358,800 0 $2,377,234.00 $2,3 7,234 Of.J 3 Permit Fee Allowance LS 1 $20,000.00 $20,000 00 $20,000.00 $200000S $20,000.00 $200000S 4 Testing Allowance LS 1 $10,000.00 $10,000 00 $10,000.00 $10,000,0 $10,000.00 $10,000 0 TOTAL BASE BID $2 560,455.5 $2,588,800.00 $2,607,234_00 ADDITIVE ALTERNATE 1 Amiad Microfiber Filter No.1 LS 1 $217,900.00 $217,900,0 $200,000,00 $200,000 0 $217.855.00 $217,855 00 TOTALS $2 77b 355 55 $2,788,800 0 $°, 25,089 00 CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS LAKE JESUP RECLAIMED WATER AUGMENTATION FACILITY BID NO. ITB 005/11/KL Item Reference for: Killebrew, Inc. No. 1 No. 2 No. Project Name 1 Sludge Dewatering Stations Auburndale Water Plant, Gapway Rd FM, Old Berkle RD WM Pro.ect R 54 Utility System Improvements P Owner Polk County Utilities City of Auburndale Polk County Utilities Contact Tim Todd John Dickson Tim Todd & Mark Addison Address 1011 Jim Keene Blvd., Winter Haven, 33880 215 Main St., Auburndale, FL 33823 1011 Jim Keene Blvd., Winter Haven, 33880 Phone Number 863- 298 -4100 863 -965 -5511 863 -298 -4100 Original Contract Change Orders Final Contract $1,273,416 $1,710,257 $6,467,632 Completed on Schedule /Date September 2010 February 2008 June 2009 Pro ect Description n Sludge dewatering stations (bldgs., electrical, concrete slabs, piping), work & . radin 0 14,500 LF of 12" & 18" WM & FM and water plant work (bldg., � g., chemical feed, well pumps Dual meter connections, booster pur p; 40,000 LF of °' — 3" FM, WM, RCWM pipelines, etc. Comments 1. How was their quality of work? ❖ Excellent 2. Did they Contractor do most of the work or did the subcontract a lot of it? Electrical, concrete 3. Was the job finished on schedule? •:• Yes 4. Were they generally cooperative? • :• Yes 5. Did they constantly request "extras" to the contract? • :• Owner Requested 6. Were there any financial claims for unpaid bills through the subcontractors? •: No 7. Were pay request in accordance with work completed? .: Yes 8. Who was the Superintendent and did he do a good job? •: Chuck Eisenhower; yes 9. What is the overall evaluation of the company? • :• 11 on a scale of 1-10. •: NOTE: Killebrew holds their annual contract for construction services 1. How was their quality of work? • :- Very Good 2. Did they Contractor do most of the work or did the subcontract a lot of it? ❖ Maybe directional bore 3. Was the job finished on schedule? -:• Yes 4. Were they generally cooperative? • :• Yes 5. Did they constantly request "extras" to the contract? • • No 6. Were there any financial claims for unpaid bills through the subcontractors? ❖ No 7. Were pay request in accordance with work completed? -:• Yes 8. Who was the Superintendent and did he do a good job? ❖ James Dickerson, PM; yes (didn't remember Superintendent) 9. What is the overall evaluation of the company? • Very Good 1. How was their quality of work? *• Excellent 2. Did they Contractor do most of the work or did the subcontract a lot of it? • • No 3. Was the job finished on schedule? •:• No- due to Traffic Division 4. Were they generally cooperative? • • Yes 5. Did they constantly request "extras" to the contract? • • Owner Requested 6. Were there any financial claims for unpaid bills through the subcontractors? • • No 7. Were pay request in accordance with work completed? •: Ues 8. Who was the Superintendent and did he do a good job? 4 Bruce Harrell & Jimmy McCormick; yes 9. What is the overall evaluation of the company? ❖ 11 on a scale of 1-10 REFERENCE CHECKLIST KLIST CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS LAKE JESUP RECLAIMED WATER AUGMENTATION FACILITY Item Reference for: Florida Design Contractors, Inc. No. 2 No. 3 No. 1 Project Name Nanofiltration WTP Membrane Control Bldg. Village of Tequesta WTP 3.6 Water Treatment Plant Membrane Upgrades Owner City of Dania Beach Village of Tequesta City of LaBelle Contact Ron Dare, CDM Constructors Bill Reese, ARCADIS, Inc. Tim Taylor, Applied Technology & Management Address 2300 Maitland Ctr Pkwy, Ste 300, Maitland, FL 2801 Vista Pkwy, West Palm Beach, FL 411 Pablo Ave., Jacksonville, FL Phone Number 407-660-6395 561-697-7069 904-249-8009 Original Contract Change Orders Final Contract $676,475 $2,300,604 $967,005 Completed on Schedule/Date On-Going - 75% Complete June 2011 2010 Project Description Install mechanical systems for 2.0 MGD Nanofiltration WTP; HDPE 12" & 10" WM Construct third reverse osmosis train (1.2 MGD) in existing 3.6 MGD R.O. plant Construct Nanofiltration membranes in existing WTP; submersible pump station, etc. Comments 1. How was their quality of work? • Good 2. Did they Contractor do most of the work or did the subcontract a lot of it? No subcontracts 3. Was the job finished on schedule? •:• Currently on schedule 4. Were they generally cooperative? •:. Yes 5. Did they constantly request "extras" to the contract? •:. Reasonable 6. Were there any financial claims for unpaid bills through the subcontractors? -:. N/A 7. Were pay request in accordance with work completed? •:• Yes 8. Who was the Superintendent and did he do a good job? • Greg Williams, PM & Jay Bright; yes 9. What is the overall evaluation of the company? • Good - have invited them to bid on upcoming projects. • NOTE: They work four 10-hr days/week which Owner is not happy about 1. How was their quality of work? •:• Good 2. Did they Contractor do most of the work or did the subcontract a lot of it •:. Electrical, instrumentation 3. Was the job finished on schedule? •• No - just a couple weeks late 4. Were they generally cooperative? •:. Yes 5. Did they constantly request "extras" to the contract? • No 6. Were there any financial claims for unpaid bills through the subcontractors? • No 7. Were pay request in accordance with work completed? •:. Yes 8. Who was the Superintendent and did he do a good job? •• Randy Garvin; yes 9. What is the overall evaluation of the company? • Good - have worked with them on other projects 1. How was their quality of work? •• Excellent 2. Did they Contractor do most of the work or did the subcontract a lot of it? -:. Painting, masonry, electrical 3. Was the job finished on schedule? t:. Yes 4. Were they generally cooperative? • Yes, very 5. Did they constantly request "extras" to the contract? .:. Owner Requested 6. Were there any financial claims for unpaid bills through the subcontractors? •:• No 7. Were pay request in accordance with work completed? •:- Yes 8. Who was the Superintendent and did he do a good job? •• Jon Phibeck; yes 9. What is the overall evaluation of the company? •• Great to work with - went above and beyond REFERENCE CHECKLIST CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS LAKE JESUP RECLAIMED WATER AUGMENTATION FACILITY N Seminole Regional Recl Water & Surface ALI me ntati on System — Ph 1 City of Sanford PauI Moore 407-688-5106 Project Name Owner Contact Address Phone Number Original Contract Change Orders Final Contract Comments Item Completed on Schedule/Date Project Description CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS LAKE JESUP RECLAIMED WATER AUGMENTATION FACILITY $3,204,000 2008 Cast-in-place concrete influent structure to include installation of (2) 4.0 MGD ACTIFLOW treatment units, flow metering systems, etc. 1. How was their quality of work? •. Fine • Did they Contractor do most of the work or did the subcontract a lot of it? Electrical 3. Was the job finished on schedule? •. Yes 4. Were they generally cooperative? •• Yes 5. Did they constantly request "extras" to the contract? •• Owner Requested 6. Were there any financial claims for unpaid bills through the subcontractors? • No 7. Were pay request in accordance with work completed? • Yes 8. Who was the Superintendent and did he do a good job? • Didn't remember 9. What is the overall evaluation of the company? •. Very Good — have worked with them on past projects and would work with again REFERENCE CHECKLIST 2011 New headworks str biological treatment chlorine contact cha 1. How was their •• Very Good . Did they Contra did the subcont •• Concrete, elect 3. Was the job fint •. No- mfg. issue 4. Were they gen • Very 5. Did they consta contract? •• Justified 6. Were there any bills through th No Were pay requ work completed • Yes 8. Who was the S do a good job? •• Donny Ramsey 9. What is the ove company? •• Very Good — on worked with 7. 0 struct new WTP and 4 new 16-inch water ply wells; 1.3 MG ground storage tank; 185 aerator w12 Hp exhaust blower, etc. How was their quality of work? Very Good Did they Contractor do most of the work or did the subcontract a lot of it? Electrical, Crom tank, paving, site work Was the job finished on schedule? No — due to County delays Were they generally cooperative? Yes Did they constantly request "extras" to the contract? Owner Requested Were there any financial claims for unpaid bills through the subcontractors? No Were pay request in accordance with work completed? Yes Who was the Superintendent and did he do a good job? Dean Kellogg & Donny Ramsey; yes What is the overall evaluation of the company? Very Good Information |m� Checklist Submittals ` Received -- Comments Yes No Incomplete N/A N/A Responsive Items per Contract Docummerts(1 Bid Form 00410) -- — ( Receipt ofAddenduma 1 & 2 (1.02 Bid Amounts vv�hUn�sPr�eoU�3) ){ --- Signatures for Bindi Bid (1.05) Instructions to Bidders (Section 00200) (1.15.B.1.b) Notarized Power-Of-Attorney 1.15.B.1z)Bid BkdBondForm^ X (1,15.B.1.d) Florida Trench Safety ActSiahament(8eotion 00430 ) I!1 Addition (1): List of Recent Jobs References X Furnished upon request NOTE: (1) Submittal of all Responsive items is required with the bid. Checklist Responsive Items per Contract Documents (1) Bid Form (Section 00410) (1) Receipt of Addendums 1 & 2 (1.02, A.2) (2) Bid Amounts with Units Prices (1.03) (3) Signatures for Binding Bid (1.06) Instructions to Bidders (Section 00200) (1,15.B.1.b) Notarized Power-Of-Attorney (1 .15.B.1.c) Bid Security" Bid Bond Form (00420) (1.15.B.1.d) Florida Trench Safety Act Statement (Section 00430) In Addition (1): List of Recent Jobs References Information for: Florida Design Contractors NOTE: (1) Submittal of all Responsive items is required with the bid. Submittals Received with Bid Yes No Incomplete N/A X X Comments Upon Request Information for: McMahan Construction Co. Checklist Submittals Received with Bid Comments Yes No Incomplete N/A Responsive Items per Contract Documents (1) BA Form (Section 00410) (1) Receipt of Addendums 1 & 2 (1.02, A.2) X (2) Bid Amounts with Units Prices (1.03) X (3) Signatures for Binding Bid (1.06) X Instructions to Bidders (Section 00200) .(1 .15.B 1,b) Notarized Power-Of-Attorney X (1.15.B.1.c) Bid Security" Bid Bond Form (00420) (1 .15.B.1.d) Florida Trench Safety Act Statement (Section 00430) In Addition (1): List of Recent Jobs References X Upon Request NOTE: (1) Submittal of all Responsive items is required with the bid.