_GENERAL DOCUMENTS - C1981017 (250)

Home Browse Search

•JLL 13-1995 16:35 ROBERT DELANEY 303 945 2303 P.02 MEMO TO: Mike Long, Steve Renner, Dave Bucknern (FROM: Diane Dulaney RE: DMG Bids July 13, 1996 Fotiowing are my notes of conversations i had with two local contactors eboat work on (1)8ut6Y and(2) Mine Beach#4. The contractor I talked to about Sutey had not bid, and the contractor I talked to about#4 said ho is riot sure he will gat ttte bid documents prepared in time to meet the deadline, but he planned to bid$220,000. Sutey The contractor I talked to about the Sutey vmrk said he thought it looked like a 'quagmire,'and`too slippery a del_' Among the factors of concern, the bid document was"vaggue about how it was going to work.° At the same time, the contractor is required to past perkanance Mond, and there we pwratties for non-performance. A big concern to him was the time periods and penalty clauses. He said the contractor is in the position of having to guarantee the weather, given the job of moving 40,000 yards of dirt in a specified time period,with penalties. You can fight costs, but you cant Tight weather, he said. At that elevation, given the weather this year, ItieWs a "potential disaster" and a contractor"could go bankrupt rest quick." He said they would be intere Md in a speoific aspect of the work, namely"trenching," NA that the state is apparently not interested in receiving bids on the specific jobs. Some of the big environmental firms, who handle multiple aspects of reclamation, have a problem with distance from the site, and in this locale you can't just come in and hire people. He noted that the concept of having a single contractor to administer various sub- contracts adds a layer of adrniniskMve expense. He commented that there had been 17 firms at the pre-bid meeting, and for the limited number who did bid they probably put in a number so high that they"didn't care'about Um"risk factors.