Laserfiche WebLink
r-KUI'1 SHVHUt H44W SHVHUt I U 17 r'.UZO <br /> MCR/Coat Basin 07/20/95 Pape 2 <br /> program, this represents per acre costs between 4.4 and 7.9 times the rates estimated <br /> (presuming the higher rate employed hydroseeding and the lower rate employs drill <br /> seeding). It should be noted that the apparent low bidder for the Mine#3 project had <br /> the lowest bid for the overall project, and the highest overall bid for the revegetation. <br /> This is a strong argument for specialty tasks and separate bids for revegetation. It <br /> should be noted that even the lowest revegetation bids on a cost per acre basis ranged <br /> from 1.1 to 3.0 times the rates estimated by CDMG. <br /> A similar trend is evident in the bids received for Mine #4. The apparent low bidder <br /> overall was 35 percent higher for revegetation costs per acre than the lowest bidder for <br /> revegetation costs. As with the other projects, the apparent low bidder projected <br /> revegetation costs per acre that were between 1.25 and 2.9 times that projected by the <br /> Division. <br /> Mid-Continent Resources received a bid from Mr. Boyd Arnold, a revegetation <br /> contractor and successful bidder in many State revegetation contracts for revegetation <br /> work in 1994. Mr. Arnold bid$33,000 to complete revegetation as approved in the <br /> permit, on 90 acres of the permit area. His bid, on a cost per acre basis, was <br /> $366.67. Coincidentally, his bid included seed cost. Comparing Mr. Arnold's bid to <br /> that estimated by the CDMG cost estimating program, the difference was less than 3 <br /> percent. Interestingly, this appears to independently validate the values obtained from <br /> the estimating program. <br /> I am further concerned by the apparent indifference on the part of the staff with regard <br /> to the discrepancies outlined above. If the staff of the Division were truly interested in <br /> obtaining the most for their reclamation dollar, one would surmise that they would <br /> evaluate these very issues, and come to the conclusion I did, that the contractors are <br /> padding certain tasks within their bids. This could be easily overcome on the part of <br /> CDMG by requiring specialty tasks and bidding. Of course this would require more <br /> work on the part of the staff, and cooperation between CDMG, MCR, and the <br /> knowledgeable consultants working with MCR. The ultimate goal of obtaining high <br /> quality reclamation for the least possible price would be realized for all. <br />