City Council Minutes 1987 05 05 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

05/05/87 Services for the Treated Water Storage Tank Project subject to Boulder County Commissioner's affirmative review of the Special Review Use Site Application. Phare stated that the difference in the cost of the two proposals (KKBNA, $68,600; and Rocky Moun- tain Consultants, $128,997) for professional engineering services for this project is "clearly a different level oi: effort anticipated in order to complete the project and bring that tank on line. Some of the major differences in how the two firms approached it was the level of inspection services anticipated during the construction of the tank and pipeline. The RMC: proposal had approximately twice the manhours devoi:ed to that. The RMC proposal was also more detailed in their soils analysis and it was also proposing to complete corrosion analysis, corrosion system clesign and corrosion system testing based on their experience on the 60" Mar- shall waterline acid they felt that thats critical in that area." "T'he Public Works' opinion is that the RMC proposal reflects more accurately the effort of work, completeness, etc., that we anti- cipate that this i:ype of project should have." Szymanski asked about the RFP's that Public Works designed for solicsiting proposals. Phare explained that they RFP was a two page proposal that identified in broad terms the level of effort and the scope of work that was needed for this project. Essentially, it asked of the bidders, "tell me what needs to be done." Phare stated that although the Public Works Department knows generally of what needs to be done, i.e., a specific tank situ, a specific point for distribution, a submission of a proposal is really only subject to a company's professional interpretation of what needs to be done in order to complete the project. In trying to analyze why there was such a difference in the two proposals, Phare stated that RMC anticipated the need for construction inspec- tion and identified and called for twice the amount of manhour;s than did KKBNA. RMC's identi- fied need for construction inspection has a cap - not to exceed price - and could fall below that which was bid. Phare stated that in working with Homart, KKBNA is certainly familiaz• with the area, but given the work that RMC has done for the City, they clearly have an "inside track as to the existing system, 5