Laserfiche WebLink
~r HOR Engineering, Inc. Suite 1400 Telephone: <br /> of No;th Carolina 128 S, Tryon Street 704 338-1800 <br />~.. Charlotte, North Carolina <br />~' 28202,5001 <br /> <br /> Octobe~ 3, 1989 00187-02¥018(DS)0 <br /> <br /> Mr. Mike Ruffln <br /> County Manager <br /> Cabarrus County <br /> P. O. Box <br /> Concord, NC 28025 <br /> <br /> Re: Coddle Creek Reservoir <br /> NC 136 Bridge and Roadway <br /> Subsurface Geotechnical Exploration <br /> HDR Project No. 187-24-18 <br /> <br /> Dear Mike: <br /> <br /> In response to our September 6, 1989, request for proposals for <br /> subsurface geotechnical exploration for the NC 136 Bridge and Roadway <br /> project, we received a proposal from Froehling & Robertson, Inc. (F&R)~ <br /> and Westinghouse Environmental and Geotechnical Services, Inc., (formerly <br /> S&ME, Inc.). Copies of both proposals are attached for your review and <br /> information. <br /> <br /> Also attached is a two-page spreadsheet comparison on a fee basis of <br /> both proposals. Although both firms received the same RFP and scope of <br /> work, the level of detail of estimated work to be done varied consider- <br /> ably between the two proposals. The Westinghouse proposal listed a much <br /> more detailed scope of work with estimated man-hours than did the F&R <br /> proposal, The attached spreadsheet uses the detail of the Westinghouse <br /> proposal for the format, including the item description and estimated <br /> quantities. <br /> <br /> The amounts under the headings, "Col. l" and Col. 2" are the amounts <br /> listed in each respective proposal. There is a dramatic difference <br /> between the two amounts, especially in the roadway portion. As you can <br /> see on page 2, F&R's total was less than half of the Westinghouse <br /> proposal. <br /> <br /> It was obvious to us in reviewing the two proposals that Westinghouse <br /> had estimated a much greater level of effort than did F&R. For that <br /> reason, another comparison was made in "Col. 3" which used F&R's fee <br /> schedule and Westinghouse's level of effort. It is interesting to note <br /> that, when each firms' fee schedule is applied to the same number of <br /> man-hours, boring depths, etc., there is very little difference in the <br /> total fee--$31;01S.O0 for Westinghouse and $27,7~7.50 for F&R. As noted <br /> on page 2, F&R's proposal did not have unit prices for all the line <br /> items, and, in those cases, Westinghouse~s unit prices were used in this <br /> comparison. <br /> <br /> 0 <br /> <br /> <br />