Item C08BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
Meeting Date: August 17, 2011 Division: Administration
Bulk Item: Yes X No _ Department: Project Management
Staff Contact Person/Phone #: Jerry Barnett X4416
AGENDA ITEM WORDING: Approval to reject the lowest three bids, Edgewater Construction
Group, $1,000,400, Burke Construction Group, $1,498,000, and D.L. Porter Constructor's Inc.,
$1,620,774 for the Conch Key Fire Station Renovation and Addition project, and approval to award a
contract with the fourth lowest bidder (with local preference), Pedro Falcon Electrical Contractor's
Inc., $1,750,000 (contract to follow).
ITEM BACKGROUND: On July 21, 2011 Monroe County opened sealed bids for the Renovation
and Addition of Fire Station #17 on Conch Key. Eight (8) bids were received. The lowest bid is
determined as non -conforming for having a conflict in their written versus numerical price in their base
bid amount, inserting an alternate for an item that is a part of the base bid, and not supplying the
appropriate alternate as asked for in the bidding documents, as well as other minor non conformities.
The second lowest bidder is determined to be non -conforming for failing to submit their bid in words
and numbers as required by bid documents and for denial that "a person or entity" in the company had
been involved in litigation with the County. The third lowest bidder is determined to be non -conforming
for denying involvement in litigation with the County. Under Monroe County Code section 2-347(h),
the second and third lowest bidders were determined to have submitted bids reasonably believed to have
contained statements which were "false, misleading or omits relevant facts".
PREVIOUS RELEVANT BOCC ACTION: On March 16, 2011 the BOCC approved to solicit
proposals for the Renovation and Addition of the Conch Key Fire Station.
CONTRACT/AGREEMENT CHANGES: N/A
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Approval as stated above.
TOTAL COST: $1,750,000.00 INDIRECT COST: N/A BUDGETED: Yes X No
DIFFERENTIAL OF LOCAL PREFERENCE: Yes
COST TO COUNTY: $1,750,000.00
REVENUE PRODUCING: Yes
APPROVED BY: County Atty
DOCUMENTATION:
DISPOSITION:
Revised 7/09
SOURCE OF FUNDS: Fund 308
No X AMOUNT PER MONTH Year
OMB/Purchasing
Included X Not Required
Risk Management
AGENDA ITEM #
d
s
}
00
W
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
}
c
O
Z
O
O
O
O
N
Ln
Ln
a
6
*k
O
Z
OO
Ln
C)
^
_0
-d
J
Ln
I0
Ln Ln
�
N
0
M
N
N
+
I
+
I
+
C TA
0
L-
d 4-
C
s
W
Y
m
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
c}
=
LU
N
cs
U
Ln
Q
O
O
O
Ln
O
O
O
O
O
It
m
O
O
r-
-L3
Z
m
O
N
O
00
O
N
N
O
t}
Z a V
N
kD
N
1-
o
N
`n°,
�
T
W O Zri
,-i
N�
O
4A
-Y:)-
4-
4A-
ipr
-bor
4A
-
M�
z
aUWQ O
d
W W rl 1-1
m
0
0
o
o
�
s 3
LL, _ +-� m
Ln
Ln
Ln
Ln
Ln
Ln
U)
Ln
}
WORN
U (7 Z
ZZOm {u W
d
N
NQQ>. LL W
LL,=JJ Z
d
�
Z�Q -� O
U
Li
z
o
Q IL - W N
''"
o m
KuZ Q Q
cn
oC
j
U
y }
CL
Q Q
00
Z
oy cs
u 6
Q
di W
U
~
a
U
F-
7 U O
a L
LU
m a Z 0
a
V
�
Z
�,
rn
L d �
cn O >
O 0
IrA
H W
W
0
O
U
Z
O
a
C�
E
z
o
u
Q
Z
Z
U
Z
LU
Y0
U)
O
O
�Q
O
i-
0
L>
9) Z T
V
V
UZ
i
W
UU
DC
Z
oC
pC
6
V y v }
F-0
U
O
O
J
Q
U
W
J
1-
V
F-
�
LLL
z
F-
U)
a S
`-'
W
J
Z
O
Z
W
Z
W
=
O
U
Z
►- > o
N cs c z
FI
O
Z
pe
F-
O
~
Q
O
L� } V V
I-
Q
Z
O
Z
LL
O
d s 4- -o
'z
Z
DC
O
--
-
Q
O
W
=
O
W
I-
d a- 4-L. m
} y _ a) o
Li
w
�
w
U
0
u
y tL
zU
2
LU
~
~
a
w O
'-'
-+
U
0
�
Q
z
O
d O
vd}
M
O
a
m
w
cWn
CL
m J-1 c i iao
r-i
Conch Key Bid Fire Station
REASONS FOR REJECTION OF BIDS
Edgewater Construction Group, Inc.
1. The alternate, which is for a substitution of the pressure injected grout augers with cast
in place augers, was not bid as required by the bid documents.
2. An alternate (not requested by the bid documents) was placed in their bid for items
required in the base bid.
3. Discrepancy between dollar bid in word vs. numerical. Written amount prevails; One
million four hundred dollars ($1,000,400.00). Their numbers bid was $1,400,000.00.
4. The respondent did not supply any details of ongoing litigation with the firm.
Burke Construction Group, Inc.
1. The respondent did not furnish their bid in numbers as required by the bid documents.
The bid document states, "The Base Bid shall be furnished below in words and
numbers."
2. On page 00110-2 of the bid documents the respondent answered question E, c. with the
response "NO".
The question is, "Has the person or entity, within the last five (5) years, been a party to any
law suits or arbitration with regard to contract for services, goods or construction services
similar to those requested in the specifications with private or public entities?"
The owners of Burke Construction Group, Inc. were previously principals and or officers of
The Tower Group, Inc. which was involved in a law suit with Monroe County less than five
(5) years ago.
3. On page 00110-2 of the bid documents the respondent answered question E, d. with the
response "NO".
The question is, "Has the person or entity ever initiated litigation against the County or
been sued by the County in connection with a contract to provide services, goods or
construction services?"
The owners of the Burke Construction Group, Inc. were previously principals and or officers
of The Tower Group Inc. which did initiate litigation with the County and was countersued
by the County, Case #CAK071428.
Monroe County Code section 2-347(h), (5), h states: "Any information requested by the
county department involved in soliciting the bids .................... The County Attorney is
directed to investigate any prior entities or associates of the person submitting the bid in
order to determine if the inquiries enumerated in subsection (h) (5)a-h of this section,
should be applied to any of the business entities or associates involved in the person's prior
business associates. If the department, OMB director, county attorney have a reasonable
belief that any information furnished by the bidder is false, misleading or omits relevant
facts, the OMB director and department are directed to investigate .................... If after the
bids are received, it is discovered that a bidder misrepresented or omitted information
required by this section (h), then his bid is automatically disqualified ....................
D.L. Porter Constructors, Inc.
1. On page 00110-2 of the bid documents the respondent answered question E, c with the
response "No".
The question is, "Has the person or entity, within the last five (5) years, been a party to any
law suits or arbitration with regard to contract for services, goods or construction services
similar to those requested in the specifications with private or public entities?"
D.L. Porter Constructors, Inc. was involved in a lawsuit with Monroe County. The suit was
concluded less than five (5) years ago.
2. On page 00110-2 of the bid documents the respondent answered question E, d with the
response "No".
The question is, "Has the person or entity ever initiated litigation against the County or
been sued by the County in connection with a contract to provide services, goods or
construction services?"
D.L. Porter Constructors, Inc. was sued by the County over issues with the Gato Building,
Case #CAK03915.
Monroe County Code section 2-347(h), (5), h states: "Any information requested by the
county department involved in soliciting the bids .................... The County Attorney is
directed to investigate any prior entities or associates of the person submitting the bid in
order to determine if the inquiries enumerated in subsection (h) (5)a-h of this section,
should be applied to any of the business entities or associates involved in the person's prior
business associates. If the department, OMB director, county attorney have a reasonable
belief that any information furnished by the bidder is false, misleading or omits relevant
facts, the OMB director and department are directed to investigate .................... If after the
bids are received, it is discovered that a bidder misrepresented or omitted information
required by this section (h), then his bid is automatically disqualified . ..................."