|
63-13.~- '~Bids were opened today for the construction of a foundation for the high level
<br />water storage tank sE Victory Boulevard and Airline Boulevard. The following bids were received:
<br />
<br />Carter Contracting Company, [nco~pora:ted,.
<br /> Norfolk, VTginis
<br /> Thomas J. Crooks, Virginia Beach, Virginia
<br /> F A. Duke Company, Incorporated, Portsmouth, Virginia
<br /> E. T. Gresham Company, Incorporated, Norfolk, Virginia
<br />J. CarLton Hudson, Jr., Norfolk, Virgznia
<br /> Hunt Contracting Company, Incorporated, Norfolk, Virginia
<br /> R. D. Lambert & Sou,' Incorporated, Norfolk, Virginia
<br /> Luke Construction Company, Norfolk, Virginia
<br /> Malpass Construction Company, Incorporated, Norfolk, Va.
<br />~trickland Brothers, Portsmouth, Virginia
<br /> Toler Contracting Company, Incorpor~ted,:Virginta Beach,~ Va.
<br /> Van de Riet Construction Company, Norfolk, Virgin, s
<br /> Vanguard Construction Corporation, Norfolk, Virginia
<br />
<br />56,707.00
<br />
<br />88,504.00
<br />67,200.00
<br />62,653.00
<br />69,582.00
<br />75,309.00
<br />57,529.00
<br />59,760.00
<br />74,465.00
<br />65,75D.00
<br />78~87.00
<br />67,610.00
<br />75,992.00
<br />
<br /> In view of the probability of either an over-run or an under-run
<br />L~ke Construction Company, with the adjusting prices quoted therein will be in the best
<br />is the recommendation of our Consulting Engineers that the Luke Construction Company be
<br />which ~ concur.
<br />
<br />in piling, the bid of
<br />interest'of the City. It
<br />
<br /> Attached -"We have reviewed and analyzed those bids received by you on this date for the subject
<br />proposed construction. The tabulation of bids received is attache~ hereto.
<br /> In view of the probability of variance in pile lengths, the Proposal Form included
<br />adjusting prices for piles of various lengths and for reinforced concrete. The Lump Sum Bid was besed on assumed
<br />pile length of forty (40) fee~.
<br /> The four (4) low bidders with their respective bids and adjusting prices are as follows:
<br />
<br />Carter Contracting Co., Inc.
<br />
<br />R. D. Lambert and Son, inc.
<br />
<br />Luke Construction Company
<br />
<br />E. T. Gresham Co., Inc.
<br />
<br /> Adjusting Prices
<br /> Concrete Piling (Per L. F.)
<br />Bid (Per C. Y.) 20' 30' ~0' 50' 60'
<br />
<br />$56,~07.00 $40.00 $2.75 $1.84 $1.40 $2.45 $2.75
<br />57,529.00 45.00 2.50 1.67 1.26 2.32 2.48
<br />59,760.00 35.00' 1'.85 t.7g 1.60 ' 1.55 1.75
<br />62',653.00 50.00 2.0~ 1'.70 ~.33 1.30 1.60
<br />
<br /> AssumTng that ther~ may be an underrun of 25% in which instance 30-foot piles may be
<br />required, and an overrun of 25%~ in~ which instance 50-foot piles maY be requiyed, then the added project cosss
<br />would be as follows:
<br />
<br />Carter~Contracting Co., In~.:'
<br /> 449 piles z 25~ = 112 pilep
<br /> 112 x 30' ~ $.44* =
<br /> 11~ x 50' ~ $1.05'=
<br />
<br />R. D. Lambert'and Ben, Inc.:
<br /> 112 x 30' x $.41. =
<br /> 112 x 50' x $1.06.=
<br />
<br />$1,475.40
<br />5,~80.00 $7,358.40
<br />
<br />$1,377.60
<br />5,936.00 $7,313.60
<br />
<br />$ 504.00
<br />- 280.00 $ 224.00
<br />
<br />Luke Construction Company:
<br /> 112 x 30' x $.15. =
<br /> 112 x 50' x-$.05. =
<br />
<br />* Difference per foot for piles other than 40 feet long
<br />
<br /> The overrun alone is considerably more using the figure of the ~wo low bidders. In fact,
<br />if only 15% of the piles were 50 feet, rather than 40 fee~, the contract additions for the ~wo low bidders would
<br />be $3,517.$0 and $3,551.00, respectively. For the third ~ow bidder, the deduction would be $167.50. These
<br />assumed additions more than offset the $3,053.00 differential between the first and third bidder.
<br /> Excessive overruns or underruns would severely penalize the City when utilizing adjusting
<br />prices in the firs~ two low bids. Accordingly, the bid of Luke Construction Company appears ~o be in the best
<br />interest of the City and we recommend that such award be made."
<br /> (Signed: R. Kenneth Weeks) - --
<br />
<br /> Motion of Mr. Knight to concur-in the ~ec6m~endation~of
<br />without dissenting vote.
<br />
<br />the City Manager was adopted,
<br />
<br /> 63-14 - "I wish to report that I me~ with representatives of Automatic Voting b~achine
<br />Division, Rockwell Manufacturimg-Company concerning the use of voting:machines for the City of Portsmouth.
<br /> They advise me t~ t there are four sizes available. The size needed is
<br />determined by the larges~ ballot normally endountered ~as e~pressed in terms of th~ maximum number of candidates
<br />that may be chosen by a voter.
<br /> ~ The number of voters that m~y be accommodated by one machine depends upon several
<br />factors, ballot size, length of voting day, ~extent of 'peak' periods. ~11 of these ~acfors are most important;
<br />therefore, it ~ould be necessary for a survey ~o be made of Por.tsmouth ~o determin~ the number and size machine
<br />that would be needed for the City of Portsmouth. This the company will do at no cost to the City.
<br /> The approximate cosE is $1,600.00 per mschine and based on the requirements for
<br />the City of Newport News, Virginia, ii would take 45 no 50 machines. It is possible to rent the vo~ing machines
<br />from this company for one year on a trial basis a~ $150.00 per machine and the rental prlce applied re the purchase
<br />
<br />COSt.
<br />
<br />
<br />
|