Item F5
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
Meeting Date:
October 16. 2002
Division: Public Works
Bulk Item: Yes
No -X-
Department: Engineering/Construction Management
AGENDA ITEM WORDING: Approval to reject all bids for Old Mariner's Hospital Renovation and
authorization to re-bid.
ITEM BACKGROUND: On September 12th, 2002,the bids were received for the Old Mariner's Hospital
Renovation project. McTeague Construction Co. Inc., the apparent low bidder and D. L. Porter Construction,
Inc., the high bidder, did not submit unit prices for concrete repairs, and therefore they were considered to be
non-responsive by our architect. F & L Construction, Inc., the apparent second low bidder requested and
received their bid security back after learning that they were not the low bidder and therefore, in essense,
withdrew their bid. The remaining bid was received from Hewett-Kier Construction, Inc. Recommendation was
given by the project's architect, Bender & Associates to award to the F & L Construction, Inc. prior to knowledge
of their bid withdraw!. Recommendation was given by County Attorney's office to reject all bids and re-bid the
project. Bids were as follows: McTeague Construction Co. Inc. $2,313,396.00; F & L Construction Inc.,
$2,480,000.00; Hewett-Kier Construction, Inc. $2,862,000.00; D.L. Porter Constructors, Inc., $2,898,439.00.
PREVIOUS REVELANT BOCC ACTION: This project is included in the Capital Improvements Plan. On
February 21, 2001, BOCC approved a contract with Bender & Associates Architects for design services.
CONTRACT I AGREEMENT CHANGES: NI A
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Approval as stated above.
TOTAL COST N/A
BUDGETED: Yes 1L- No
COST TO COUNTY:
REVENUE PRODUCING:
d by:
Stephanie L. C ffer, Construction Manager
-X AMOUNT PER MONTH_ Year
APPROVED BY:
DIVISION DIRECTOR APPROVAL:
Dent Pierce, Division Director
DOCUMENTATION: Included --A-
DISPOSmON:
To Follow_
Not Required
-
AGENDA ITEM # ~
Revised 2/27/01
y
f5
II
"
...J
~ ~
Ii! ~
I.L NV)
0....00
~w2::r:
2w 'v)
.... ::r: N -
U)V)~fD
~z....z
%00......
UHW~
~I-V)<
::><:E:E
CL...J< ~
I:::>Og
Ua)OOD
U<~ H
0"""'" V) a)
m~....Z
Z<O
~~..~
2w~<
::>0..<>
OODO
UDZZ
W""WW
OCOo..~
~ Ow
~ ~
~ ~
!i
II
8 8 8 8
g 0\ ~, ~
(\')
0 ~, 0\
6 co N ~
co 0\ ..0 (Y)
~, co, co, ....
(\'),
N N N N
-4A- -4A- -4A- -4A-
D
Z D D D
0
m Z Z Z
8 0 0 0
m m m
~, D D D
H H H "
m m m
0 ~ ~ ~
co It) It) It)
....
-4A-
.'
'-> '->
ti Z Z
H H
Z Z 0
~ H,
W U) 0 '->
0 CL. 1= z
0 '-> ~ '-> 0
H ::::> 1=
a) z '-> ~
H ::::> '->
Z ~ U) ::::>
0 Z ~
1= U) 0
z U)
'-> 0 '-> Z
::::> '-> CL. 0
~ w '->
CL. ~
~ w
U) ~ ::::>
Z CL. (.!)
0 0 w <
'-> 0.. ~ ~
-1 -.J
~ w u
u.. d I :E
Q)
u
'i:
~
o
2'
'Vi
o
..c
u
L.
:::I
0..
I
~
o
c
o
Z
I
(a)
.:.:.
o
-1
C
o
L.
o
..c
U)
"
c
o
VI
(a)
L.
o
+
u
s:
VI
o
~
~
+
C
(a)
VI
(a)
L.
0..
(a)
(a)
+
:t:
E
E
o
'->
"
m
....
c:
~
(a)
L.
0..
u
..0
:::I
0..
(a)
..c
....
~
o
VI
L.
(a)
..0
E
(a)
:E
....
VI
C
'0 .
en"
o (a)
~~
.:.:. (a)
~ ~
..c (a)
U E
c: ._
(a) ....
(a)"
.0 C
(a) 0
> (a)
o ....
..c 0
(a)"
> (a)
O..c
-g....
" ~
(a).o
1;;"
= ~
VI 'ij
L. U
(a) (a)
" L.
:E (a)
.0 L.
(a)
c; ;:
.... ~
,.g 0
+.0
" 0
c"
o ~
2' .!!!
'c VI
8..:E
0.0
" =
\ .:0 <
" .
._ VI
~ 2'
~+:
o .~
~-
Q.,L.
o 0
U"
+ c
~~
L."
L. (a)
0"
U C
" (a)
c c..
o VI
(a) :::I
:::I U)
~ ~.
0"
VI ~
.- U
VI 'S;
..c c
.... 0
+'->
,.g..g
+ .-
~S
+:u..
L.~
(a) 0
U (a)
~+
.0 0
(a) ....
L. U)
(a) (a)
..c..c
H....
CL.
W
>-
::::>
.m
u)'
w
CL.
~
'->
~
U)
o
-1
CL.
<
'->
>..
m
"
(a)
c
(a)
c..
o
"
Q5
__I"~;:'i:
From: Hutton-Suzanne
Sent: Wednesday, September 25,20028:38 AM
To: Coffer-Stephanie
Subject: Mariner's Bid
Subsequent to my last e-mail on this subject, there were a number of conversations, with you,
with dave Koppel, with Rob Wolfe, and even with Sheriff Roth, that I have concluded, as I told the
sheriff, that if we have these many differences of opinion at this stage of the bidding, the project,
or challenges to the bid process, or both, would be fraught with problems if we go forward by
recommending an award of the bid to anyone,
Therefore, it is now my opinion that the wisest course of action would be to go out for bid all over
again, and to revise the sections and language in the RFB which gave rise to the problems this
time,
September 24, 2002
Bender & Associates
REVISED SEPTEMBER 27, 2002
ARC H ~ TEe T S p,a.
~ ec..
l' ~ -z. '1 , a '"l;.
~
Ms. Stephanie Coffer, Dir. of Planning & Constr.
Monroe County Construction Management
The Historic Gato Cigar Factory
1100 Simonton Street
Key West, FL 33040
.
~~;
~~
/t1A. ~
---
&^-
-
Re: Mariners Bid Recommendation
Dear Stephanie:
My September 16,2002, letter advised you that I considered two of the bidders, McTeague and
D. L. Porter, to be non-responsive due to their failure to include Section 00310, the
"Supplementary Bid Form for Unit Prices". My September 16th letter with its backup is attached
for reference. Following distribution of that letter, Mike McTeague protested my
recommendation for disqualification. I advised him and D. L. Porter to submit the documents I
requested of the responsive bidders. I met with Suzanne Hutton, Assistant County Attorney to
review the specifications and specifically how they relate to my September 16 determination.
Suzanne advised me at that meeting that she had determined that F&L Construction, one of the
bidders I considered responsive, had requested the return of their bid bond immediately
following the bid opening, and the purchasing office complied. Therefore F & L had withdrawn
their bid.
The specification sections that apply to my determination of non-responsive bids from McTeague
and D. L. Porter are:
ARTICLE 5
BIDDING PROCEDURE
5.1 FORM AND STYLE OF BIDS
5.1.1 The Bid Proposal shall be submitted on the forms included in Section - 00110 of
these Bidding Documents with the exception of the Bid Bond, which may be
submitted in alternate forms as described in Section 5.3.1 of these Instructions to
Bidders. Each of the forms in Section 00110 must be properly filled out,
executed, and submitted as the Bid Proposal.
410 Angela S treel
KeyWest,Florida33040
Telephone(305) 296-1347
Facsimile(305) 296-2727
FloridalicenseAAC002022
Ms. Stephanie Coffer
Page 2
September 24, 2002 Revised 9/27/02
5.1.2 All blanks on the Bid Form shall be filled in with ink or by typewriter.
5.1.3 Where so indicated on the Bid Form, sums shall be expressed in both words and
figures, and in a case of discrepancy between the two, the amount written in
words shall govern.
5.1.4 Any interlineation, alteration, or erasure must be initialed by the signer of the Bid.
5.1.5 All requested Alternates shall be bid. Ifno change in the Base Bid is required,
enter "No Change". Failure to comply shall constitute a non-responsive bid.
5.1.6 All requested Allowances shall be bid. Failure to comply shall constitute a non-
responsive bid.
5.1.7 All requested Owner Options shall be bid. Failure to comply shall constitute a
non-responsive bid.
Section 00310, "Supplementary Bid Form for Unit Prices", is an integral part of the bid with
required pricing that is significant to the scope of work and is useful in evaluating the bids.
However, Mike McTeague has argued that Section 5.1.1 above does not require submission of
the Supplementary Bid Form, nor is it listed in the "checklist" that is part of the Bid Form, which
states:
I have included pages 2 through 6 of the Bid Proposal which entails the Proposal Form _, the
required Bid Security _, the Non-Collusion Affidavit ----.-:> and the Lobbying and Conflict of
Interest Clause_. In addition, I have included a certified copy of Contractor's License, City
of Key West Occupational License, Insurance Checklist and an Insurance Agent's Statement.
(Check mark items above. as a reminder that they are included).
The Check List is included as a courtesy to bidders, clearly stating; "as a reminder that they are
included". Section 5.1.1. states that the bid proposal shall be submitted on the forms in Section
00110, but it does not state that those are the ~ forms to be submitted. Both 5.1.6 and 5.1.7
apply to the Supplementary Bid Form:
Ms. Stephanie Coffer
Page 3
September 24, 2002 Revised 9/27/02
5.1.6 All requested Allowances shall be bid. Failure to comply shall constitute a non-
responsive bid.
5.1.7 All requested Owner Option shall be bid. Failure to comply shall constitute a non-
re~onsive bid.
The verbiage in 5.1.6 and 5.1.7 is clear and binding. The verbiage does not allow the option of
compliance, it does not say may constitute..., it says" ....shall constitute a non-responsive bid."
The specifications also provide for additional criteria in evaluating bids.
6.3 A WARD OF CONTRACT
6.3.1 The Owner reserves the right to reject any and all Bids or any part of a bid, to
waive the right to disregard all non-conforming, non-responsive or conditional
bids.
6.3.2 In evaluating Bids, the Owner may consider the qualifications of the Bidders and
whether or not the Bids comply with the prescribed requirements in the Bid
Instruction. If requested by the Construction Manager, Bidders shall submit a
properly filled out and executed Contractor's Qualification Statement after
submission of bid, and prior to the Bid Clarification Meeting. An AlA Document
A305-1986 is to be completed for this purpose.
6.3.3 The Owner shall have the right to accept alternates. The alternates will be
accepted only in the order they are listed; alternate number one will be accepted
first, alternate number two, second, and. so on.
6.3.4 The Owner may consider the qualifications and experience of subcontractors
and/or other entities (including those who are to furnish materials, or equipment
fabricated to a special design) proposed for each of the principal portions of the
Work. Ifrequested by the Construction Manager, Bidders shall submit their
listing of subcontractors after submission of bids, and prior to the Bid
. Clarification Meeting. A Proposed Subcontractor Listing Form supplied by the
Owner is to be completed for this purpose.
Ms. Stephanie Coffer
Page 4
September 24,2002 Revised 9/27/02
6.3.5 The Owner may conduct such investigations as he deems necessary to assist in the
evaluation of any Bid and to establish the responsibility, qualifications, and
financial ability of the Bidders, proposed subcontractors, and other persons or
organizations to do the Work in accordance with the Contract Documents to the
Owner's satisfaction within the prescribed time. The Owner has the right to
conduct Bid Clarification Meetings with any Bidder to determine if Bidder has
bid the scope of work in its entirety. Bidder shall be required to attend Bid
Clarification Meetings, as necessary.
6.3.6 The Owner reserves the right to reject the Bid of any Bidder who does not pass
any such evaluation to their satisfaction.
6.3.7 If the Contract is awarded, it will be awarded to the Bidder whose evaluation by
the Owner shows him to be responsible and has indicated to the Owner that the
award will be in the best interest of the Project.
Additional documents were obtained from three bidders. F & L did not provide additional
documents based on the County Attorney's preliminary opinion that their bid had officially been
withdrawn. I have worked previously with both Hewett-Kier and D. L. Porter and consider both
of them to be reputable firms who will provide a good project. Although I have not previously
worked with McTeague Construction, their references are good and I believe they are a reputable
firm that will also produce a good project. They have never failed to complete a project.
Hewett-Kier was the Contractor of Record for the Harvey Government Center at the Historic
Truman School. I noted in their Contractor's Qualification Statement that they had filed suit
against Monroe County for non-payment on that project, and requested additional information.
Those documents indicate that the case was settled for $10,535, which was the amount of court
ordered restitution received by Monroe County from Bill Bibo.
The Architects estimate of construction cost was $3,410,000. Bids were originally scheduled to
be received on June 4, and postponed by Addendum several times until September 12,2002.
During this nearly five month bidding period, we witnessed a downturn in the economy and
anticipated a favorable bidding climate, but not to the extent experienced with the low end of the
bids received. The two high bids at $2,898,439 and $2,862,000 are approximately 15% below
our estimate. The low bid at $2,313,396 is approximately 32 % below our estimate, and the
spread from low to high is about 25%. Because of this discrepancy, I compared the bidders
spread sheets and noted the following: '
Ms. Stephanie Coffer
Page 5
September 24, 2002 Revised 9/27/02
McTeague Hewett-Kier D. L. Porter
General Conditions (w/out insurance) 155,380 314,022 278,189
Builders Risk:/Ins.Upgrades 34,892 39,405 85,000
Concrete Repairs/Reinforce Walls 171,174 *** 210,693 301,866
(234,396)
Insulating Concrete 62,800 43,488 88,000
Roofing (included Demo) 155,000 159,540 155,000
Cabinets 118,448 123,515 118,447
French Drains/Injection well 25,500 79,667 *
.
Site work Total 150,268 200,346 193,935
Mechanical 119,000 158,305 136,923
Plumbing 119,400 ** 83,360 119,400 **
Electrical 314,800 421,522 375,000
*
Not broken out separately, but included in site work total.
Includes underground outside building envelope.
McTeague's Summary shows $234,390 which includes 8.2% profit and overhead, but the
line item total is only $171,174.
**
***
In reviewing the line item breakdowns, McTeague's bid total shows a deduction of $36,860 for
equipment. I would expect this to be an addition. Mike McTeague has stated that this represents
equipment in subcontract bids also estimated by McTeague. In comparing the above line items,
the biggest discrepancies between McTeague's bid and the average of the other two bidders are:
General Conditions
Electrical
Site work
Subtotal
8.2% P&O
Total
$141,000
85,000
47.000
$273,000
22.000
$295,000
Ms. Stephanie Coffer
Page 6
September 24,2002 Revised 9/27/02
These three items account for almost $300,000. I have advised Mike McTeague of the above and
he has verified his bid and will stand by it as submitted.
I have not included the differences in concrete repairs because different methods and means
could account for price differences and without the unit prices requested in the Supplementary
Bid Form, a reasonable comparison is not possible. Specifically, we have gathered data from
previous projects and use those unit prices as a benchmark to evaluate the reasonableness of
those prices.
As a side note, the specifications require builders risk for "the value of the completed project." I
suspect that both Hewett-Kier and McTeague priced builders risk for the value of their
construction contract and not the "value of the completed project". You should clarify the intent
with Risk Management.
Summary
My recommendation is made with consideration given to all of the above, my September 16,
2002 correspondence, and is summarized as follows:
1. The specifications require me to deem the bids from McTeague and D. L. Porter as non-
responsive. My interpretation of the specifications is that only the B.O.C.C. can waive
this item.
2. My determination that these two bids are non-responsive is consistent with my previous
actions on several past projects, most notable, the Gato Building.
3. F & L Construction has withdrawn their bid, and although they claim this was not their
intent, the Assistant County Attorney has advised me that their bid is invalid.
4. The project is substantially under the Architect's estimate and within budget.
5. All of the bids are public record and rebidding the project with no changes will result in
an unfair bidding climate, and the potential of having sub-contractors pressured to cut
prices leading to possible construction problems.
6. This current bidding phase has taken six months, from mid-April to mid-October.
Rebidding the project will require re-advertising and must include a pre-bid conference
for new bidders to have an equal playing field. Assuming that we advertise the first
weekend of November, and allowing for the Thanksgiving/Christmas holiday season,
bids can be received in early to mid-January and a recommendation brought to the
B.O.C.C. in mid-February, an additional four month delay with a total bidding period of
ten months.
Ms. Stephanie Coffer
Page 7
September 24,2002 Revised 9/27/02
7. Although Mike McTeague has confIrmed his bid and I believe he is an honorable man
who will endeavor to fulfIll his obligations, I have some concerns that areas of his bid are
insufficiently funded, especially for subcontracts where he will have less control over
performance than he has when utilizing his own forces.
8. (9/27/02) All of the above has been discussed with the County Attorney, who has
reviewed the issue with various County employees. Given the lack of consensus,
Suzanne Hutton recommends rebidding.
(9/27/02) Recommendation:
Based on and with consideration to all of the above, I concur with the County Attorney's opinion
and recommend rebidding.
Alternatives:
The Board of County Commissioners has several options:
1. Throw out all bids and re-advertise the project.
2. Waive the requirement for the Supplementary Bid Form, make a determination that
McTeague is the qualifIed responsive low bidder, and award to McTeague.
3 . Award the Contract to Hewett Kier as the only responsive bidder for the base bid amount
of $2,862,000.
4. Take any other action they deem appropriate, based on public input at the October 16,
2002 public hearing, including awarding to D. L. Porter, who was the third bidder, should
they deem it to be in the best interest of Monroe County.
Please call if you have any questions. I have forwarded this recommendation to the four bidders
to allow them the opportunity to respond or challenge this recommendation, and to allow them
time to prepare for the B.O.C.C. meeting if they so choose.
Sincerely, ~
- ~er, Architect ------.-1
cc: Dent Pierce
Suzanne Hutton, Assistant County Attorney
Mike McTeague
Jim Hewett
Gary Loer
Julio Batista
September 16, 2002
"Bender 6' Associates
Ms. Stephanie Coffer, Dir. of Planning & Constr.
Monroe County Construction Management
The Historic Gato Cigar Factory
1100 Simonton Street
Key West, FL 33040
ARC H II TEe T S p.a.
RE: Mariner's Bid Review
Dear Stephanie,
I have reviewed the bids for Mariner's and have determined that the bids submitted by McTeague
Construction and D.L. Porter are non-responsive in that they did not include the required
"Supplementary Bid Form For Unit Prices" Specification Section 00310. This is a substantial
error in that the project includes a $25,000 allowance for "unforseen concrete repairs" and these
unit prices are to be used to determine a potential credit or additional charge to the Owner for
concrete repairs less than or beyond those identified as "Base Bid".
This is a similar situation to the bidding for the Gato Building and I have attached a copy of that
bid recommendation for your use. The Gato Building was awarded to Lodge Construction, who
eventually walked off the job. Because of those events, the B.O.C.C. directed, in a public
meeting, that future bid awards consider bidders' financial solvency, ability to perform,
thoroughness of their bids, and evidence that bidders have allowed sufficient funding to complete
the project.
In keeping with the B.O.C.C. directive and by copy of this letter, I am requesting the two
responsive bidders, F&L construction and Hewett-Kier construction to provide the following
documents:
1. Contractor's Qualification Statement, AlA Document A305, along with the required financial
statements and other supporting documents.
2. A line item bid breakdown. The Specifications contain unique insurance requirements. The
bid breakdown should include those costs and the following as a minimum.
General Conditions: (Insurance costs for Builder's Risk broken out separately)
Site Work
Selective Demolition
Asphalt Paving and Grading
Storm Drainage System
Landscape Work
Concrete Repairs
Lightweight Insulating Concrete
Unit Masonry
Metals
Carpentry
Roofing (Broken down for roof demolition, roofing materials and labor. Six
410 Ao&ela Street
KeyWest, Florida 3 3040
Telepbooe(305) 296-1347
Facsimile (05) 296-2727
Plo, Idll L Ie In 1I.1i1 COO:J O:J:J
systems were speCltled and no requested substitutions during bidding
received prior approval. The roofing materials price should also state
which of the six specified systems will be used)
Doors and Frames
Windows and Glazing
Storm Shutters
Finishes
Specialties
Mechanical
Plumbing
ElectricaI
3. A complete subcontractor listing with the following trades listed as a minimum.
Site Work and Grading
Paving
Concrete and Concrete Repairs
Masonry
Roofing
Carpentry
Metal Studs and Drywall
Mechanical
Plumbing
Electrical
The deadline for the October 16,2002 B.O.C.C. agenda is October 2,2002. Therefore, I am
requesting that F&L and Hewett-Kier have the above documents in my office not later than
Tuesday, September 24, 2002. I will have my recommendation to you by 3 :00 PM on Monday,
September 30,2002, allowing you two full days to prepare the agenda item. Please adVise me if
you need more time.
I recognize that your recommendation mayor may not coincide with mine and that the B.O.C.C.
may take action that differs from either of our recommendations. Therefore, I have blocked out
October 16, 2002 to attend the B.O.C.C. meeting at the Harvey Government Center in Key
West.
Please call if you have any questions or comments. I have copied all four bidders for their
information.
Sincecely, _ ~
~~ ~
Bert L. Bender, Architect
BLB/ddk
Enclosure
cc: Dave Koppel
Mike McTeague
F&L Construction
Jim Hewett, Hewett-Kier
Gary Loer, D.L. Porter
July 17, 1999
Mr. Steve Piazza
Construction Management
51 O~ College Road
Key West, FL 33040
RE: Gato Building Bids
Dear Steve,
copy
I have reviewed the bids for the Gato Building and have determined that the bid submitted by
Pedro Falcon is non-responsive in that he did not include the required "Supplementary Bid Fonn
For Unit Prices" Specification Section 00310. This is a substantial error in that the project
includes a $20,000 allowance for "unforseen concrete repairs" and these unit prices are to be used
to determine a potential credit 'or additional charge to the Owner for concrete repairs less than or
beyond those identified as "Base Bid".
Therefore, it is my determination that Lodge Construction is the lowest responsive bidder. I
recommend accepting the base bid and deductive alternate numbers 1, 2, 4, and 7, for a combined
bid price of$4,350,000. This bid price is detennined as follows:
Base Bid
Alternate # 1 (Deduct wood flooring @ first floor and substitute quarry tile)
Alternate #2 (Substitute wire glass for "Firelite")
Alternate #4 (Delete aluminum fencing @ south & east)
Alternate #7 ((Deduct permit fees)
Alternate #8 (Substitute carpet for wood @ 2nd floor)
TOTAL BID PRICE
Please call if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
COPY
Bert L. Bender, Architect
BLB/ddk
$4,553,000
(7,000)
(78,000)
(12,000)
(106,000)
(16,000)
$4,334,000