AG 2001 08 20 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Alternate 2 - [$2,421) AlternaTe 4 - {$633) Alternate 5 - ($245,925} Alternate 6 - N/A 148 Alternates 1, 3 - N/A BID TABULATION ~D Pd~PORT (SINGLE PRIME) CONTRACTOR Alternate 2 - ($187,000} Alternate 3 - ($106,000) Alternate 4 - {$7,500) Alternate 5 Alternate 2 - ($320,000) Alternate 3 - ($98,500) Alternate 5 - ADDENOA LICENSE BID RBC BASE 4280 Yes 5% K X X $18,509,000 38867 Yes 5% x X X $17,141,430 BASS BID WITH ACCEPTED ALTERNATES $18,270,500 The Alternates were as follows: *Alternate No. *Alternate No. Alternate No. Alternate NO. Livestock *Alternate No. *Alternate No. Add asphalt paving to gravel parking areas Delete telescoping bleachers Delete steel trellis in front of small arena Delete 1/3 of the gas fired radiant heaters in the 5: Delete theatrical lighting 6: Provide Siemens building automation system * Recom~ended by Staff for acceptance Mr. William H. Gammon, Attorney with Moore & Van Allen, PLLC, reviewed a bid protest he had filed on behalf of the Charlotte office of the Beers Construction Group, Inc., for the Exposition Park project. Be discussed events associated with the bid opening on July 10, 2001, and stated the County had improperly rejected both the multi-prime and single prime bids by Beers. During his presentation, Mr. Garamon addressed the following issues: (1) the alleged inaccuracy of the clock in the bid opening room (Co~unissioners' Meeting Room), resulting in the late submission of the Beers multi-prime bid at 2:00 p.m.; {2) the failure by County staff to return the Beers multi-prime bid after the County determined it was a late bid; and (3) the rejection of the Beers single prime bid at 3:00 p.m. due to the lack of a bid bond, which was contained in the multi-prime bid that was not returned to the company. According to Mr. Gammon, the County would be in line to save a significant amount of money if the Beers bid had been accepted and the contract awarded to Beers. Since this was not done, Mr. Gam~o~ stated the Board should reject all bids and re-bid the project. Mr. Clifton also discussed the events associated with the bid opening on July 10. Be explained the architectural firm handled the bid process and MS. Pam Dubois, Assistant Finance Director, handled the bid opening. Mr. Clifton addressed issues concerning the clock and the s~bmission of bids by both Beers and the other companies at the bid opening. Be stated staff had been in direct contact during the time between 2:00 p.m. and 3:00 p.m. with the County Attorney and Ms. Frayda Bluestein of the Institute of Government a~d that actions taken concerning the Beers bid were in accordance with the legal opinions prouided at that time. Further, Mr. Clifton advised that the County rejected the single prime bid by Beers as it was submitted openly to Ms. Oubois and was not in an envelope as required. He pointed out that the County is required to follow the guidelines established by State law in receiving bids. Finally, he recommended that the Board reject all bids and direct staff to re-bid the project. Mr. Hartsell discussed the bid procedures established by the North Carolina General Statutes and the designation of a specific clock in determining the time for the submission of bids.