_GENERAL DOCUMENTS - C1981017 (250)

Home Browse Search

TTiursday,July 20, 1995 09:21:48 PM Greg Lewicki and Asociates Page 2 of 5 3) The RFP states that all ditches except the Spring Conveyance Ditch will be lined. This requirement is in direct contradiction to Technical Revision 25, which was only approved after extensive scrutiny and modification by the Division and myself: The only ditches which were specified to be lined under TR 25 were: a)Collection Ditch 48 and b) the Sutev_ Diversion. The lower portion of Collection Ditch 93 should also be lined. 4) Although it is realized that the work season is normally short and that work must be done promptly, the unmovable lime deadline of 50 days to complete the work after notification to proceed is a problem. In this time frame, the contractor must mobilize all equipment and complete the work in a year when excessive rainfall and wet conditions have been common. The contract calling for penalties and other recourse for non-completion makes honest contractors extremely nervous. This is probably a main reason for receiving only 2 bids out of 17 original interested parties. It is also partly responsible for the fact that the these two bids were much higher in cost than expected. Any contractor submitting a bid is going to "cover himself' for these clauses and potential problems with meeting the deadlines. I believe that if the dead]ine•'penalty/weather problem could be worked out, the bids would be much more reasonable. 5) Task 3 requires that 5 acres of the old refuse pile be topsoiled to a depth of 12 inches. Permit requirements indicate that 3 acres should be re-done to a depth of 6 inches. 5) Inspection of the two bids received shows some interesting items. First, although 22 acres of revegetation is a major part of the contract, neither of the two include any equipment for this work in their lists. Second, the losing bidder made a huge calculation error on his revegetation costs: 22 acres @ $1050 per acre = $2310. This raises questions about the ability to the contractor to perform revegetation, something that they may not have done in the past. 6) The requirement that one contractor be responsible for all work at each site is not the most efficient. In fact, it is poor. According to this method, if three separate contractors win the contracts for the Sutey Pile, Mine #3 and Mine #4, then each contractor must mobilize his own earthwork equipment and vegetation equipment. Since Mines 43 and #4 have relatively small areas, mobilizing equipment specifically for revegetation of these areas is very inefficient. It would be much better if separate contracts were awarded for earthwork and revegetation for all three areas combined. In this manner, earthwork contractors would only be bidding on work they know best (earthwork). This is also true of the revegetation work. Also, large savings would be realized in mobilization demobilization. One look at the cost for this item in the bids shows how much savings could be obtained ($10,000 to $25,000) per site. This is of course dependent upon the work being completed in one construction season with one set of equipment for earthwork and one for revegetation. It is probably too late to do this in 1995.