3. Award Bids - Parking Lot Project - Keno Inn4PCity of Kalispell Public Works Department
Post Office Box 1997, Kalispell, Montana 59903-1997 - Telephone (406)758-7720, Fax (406)758-7831
REPORT TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: James C. Hansz, P.E., Director of Public Works
SUBJECT: Bids for Parking Lot Construction
MEETING DATE: May 20, 2002
BACKGROUND: The current budget includes funding for reconstruction of the parking lot on First Avenue East
just south of City Hall, and a new parking lot on the site of the old Keno Inn. The project was designed in-house
except for landscape architecture services that were provided by Sitescape Associates. The City received five valid
bids for the Parking Lot Construction Project. These are tabulated on the attached staff report. Bids ranged from
$140,706.09, from JTL Group to a high of$187,739.50 from Pack & Co. A bid from Settle Services was received
late.
On May 6, 2002, staff recommended the award of this project to JTL Group based on their low bid of
$140,706.09 but also recommended delaying the award to a later date. After discussion with the City Attorney and
the Director of Community and Economic Development a multiple award is considered to be in the best interest of
the City. It is recommended that a first award of schedules 3, 4 and 5, for construction of the Keno Inn lot, be made
immediately to JTL Group, to coordinate with work related to redevelopment activities on Second Avenue West. A
second award may be recommended later following award of bid for the Downtown Streetscape Project, presently
scheduled for June 17, 2002.
RECOMMENDATION: Award of schedules 3, 4 and 5, for construction of the Keno Inn lot, to JTL Group
ACTION REQUESTED: AT CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MAY 20 — MOTION TO AWARD SCHEDULES
3, 4 AND 5 OF THE PARKING LOT CONSTRUCTION PROJECT BID TO JTL GROUP OF KALISPELL.
FISCAL EFFECTS: Expenditures of $76,923.47 for work listed in schedules 3, 4 and 5 to construct the Keno Inn
lot.
ALTERNATIVES: As suggested by the City Council
Respectfully
Jantt4 C. Hansz, P.E.
Director of Public Works /
Attachment: Bid Tally
May 20, 2002, Parking Lot Project
��^ _ h `
Chris A. Kuukulski
City Manager
Report compiled May 15, 2002
MEMORANDUM
Date: May 15, 2002
To: James Hansz, Director of lic Works
From: Fred Zavodny,
Re: Award Bid for Keno Inn ki Construction
The bid award for the Parking Lot Construction Project was defered to a later date at the May 6,
2002 City Council Meeting. Subsequent discussions with the Community Development Director
indicated that adequate funding is available to construct the Keno Inn Lot. It is imperative that
construction of the Keno Inn Lot begin as soon as possible as the Plaza West Lot will be lost as
soon as Hampstead Partners breaks ground on their project this summer. At this time alternate
parking must be available.
The bid for the Parking Lot Construction Project included individual schedules for the various
components of each parking lot. A legal opinion was requested seeking authority to award the
schedules for the Keno Inn Lot at the May 20, 2002 Council Meeting and the schedules for the
Alano Club Lot at a later date if necessary. The legal opinion was favorable.
I am recommending that the Keno Inn Bid Schedules Numbers 3, 4 and 5 be awarded to JTL
Group in the amount of $ 76,923.47. JTL Group was the low bidder overall as well as for the
parking lots on an individual basis. The attached bid analysis includes the Contractor's bids for
each bid schedule and their total respective bids.
I have also attached a copy of the request for a legal opinion and the City Attorney's written
response.
CITY OF KALISPELL
PARKING LOTS
BID ANALYSIS
REQUEST FOR LEGAL OPINION
Date: May 7, 2002
To: Charles Harball, City tt ey
From: Fred Zavodn
Re: Bid for Parking Lot st io
The City opened bids for the construction of two downtown parking lots on April 30th. One of
the parking lots is located at the site of the former Alano Club and the other lot is located at the
site of the former Keno Inn. The bid was not awarded at the May 6th City Council Meeting due
to budgetary constraints and pending land use issues. In order to prepare a satisfactory
recommendation for the next Council Meeting the following items need to be clarified:
1. The various components of the individual parking lots were bid as separate schedules. Is it
permissible to award only the schedules for the Keno Inn Lot at the May 20th Council Meeting?
Please refer to the first page of the Bid Form.
2. If the schedules for the Keno Inn Lot are awarded at the May 20th Council Meeting can the
remainder of the schedules for the Alano Club Lot be awarded within sixty days after the day of
the bid opening? Please refer to Article 16 of the Instructions to Bidders.
JTL Group ( formerly A-1 Paving ) is the low bidder overall as well as for the parking lots
individually. Please refer to the attached Bid Analysis.
Hampstead Partners are scheduled to break ground on their project this summer. As soon as the
Hampstead construction begins the existing parking in the Plaza West Lot will be lost and
alternate parking must be available. Therefore construction of the Keno Inn Lot must begin as
soon as possible. If appropriate, the recommendation to award the schedules associated with the
Keno Inn Lot must be delivered to Theresa no later than May 15th. Therefore a response would
be appreciated by May 14th. Thanks.
City Attorney
Charles A. Hathall
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
RE:
May 14, 2002
City of Kalispell
Office of City Attorney
312. First Avenue East
P.O. Box 1997
Kalispell, MT 59903.1997
Fred Zavodny, Public Works
Charlie Harball City Attorney UJ
Bid on Parking Lot Construction
Tel 406.758.7708
Fax 406.758.7771
charball@halispell...
I have reviewed your request for an opinion as well as Title 18 Chapter 4 of the MCA and the
ARM's at 2.5.602.
ISSUES YOU PRESENTED
Is it permissible to award only the schedules for the Keno Inn Lot at the May 20th Council
Meeting ? If the schedules for the Keno Inn Lot are awarded at the May 20th Council Meeting, can
the remainder of the schedules for the Alano Club Lot be awarded within 60 days after the day of
the bid opening?
My understanding of the situation is as follows:
We have scheduled various parking lots in a single proposal for bid. Funding on all schedules
is not yet fully secured. We do have adequate funding currently to fund the Keno Inn Lot which
will need to be placed into service as soon as possible. JTL Group is the low bidder on all
scheduled work. Are we operating within our legal parameters of the bid process to award the
Keno Inn Lot now and the balance of the schedules within the next 60 days after bid opening?
Although the statutes don't directly address this issue, MCA 18-4-303(5) states, "Bids must
be unconditionally accepted without alteration or correction, except as authorized in this chapter. "
Chapter 4 refers various places to the Administrative Code for clarification or amplification. At
ARM 2.5.602(13) COMPETITIVE SEALED PROPOSAL it is stated, "Multiple award contracts
are allowable if determined to be in the best interest of the state."
Multiple parties are not involved in this award, but splitting the performance times of the
schedules for purpose of conforming to the availability of funding would seem to fit within the
definition of a multiple award contract. It would be in the best interest of the City that the Keno
Inn Schedule be awarded to JTL Group first and the balance awarded to JTL Group when the
funds become available [within 60 days of the bid opening].
2.5.602 COMPETITIVE SEALED PROPOSAL
(1) "Competitive sealed proposal" is a procurement option allowing the award to be
based upon an evaluation process using stated criteria to arrive at a contract that will be the most
advantageous to the state.
(2) Competitive sealed proposals, solicited through a request for proposals may be
practical when one or more of the following conditions exist:
(a) the contract needs to be other than a fixed -price type; (b) oral or written discussions
may need to be conducted with offerors concerning technical and price aspects of their proposal;
a
(b) oral or written discussions may need to be conducted with offerors concerning
technical and price aspects of their proposal;
(c) offerors may need to be afforded the opportunity to revise their proposal, including
prices;
(d) award may need to be based upon a comparative evaluation as stated in the request for
proposals of differing price, quality, and contractual factors in order to determine the most
advantageous offering to the state. Quality factors include technical and performance capability
and the content of the technical proposal; or
(e) price will only be one of several criteria considered in determining an award, if
evaluated at all.
(3) The request for proposals must be prepared in accordance with ARM 2.5.601(2)
through (4) and must also include:
(a) a statement that discussions may be conducted with one or more offerors who submit
proposals, but that proposals may be accepted and a contract issued without such discussions;
and
(b) the criteria that will be used to evaluate the proposals.
(4) Facsimile transmission of a proposal is only acceptable on an exception basis with
prior approval of the procurement officer.
(5) Proposals shall be time -stamped upon receipt and held in a secure place by an
employee of the agency until the established time.
(6) After the time established for receipt of proposals, a procurement officer shall open
the proposals and inspect the proposals for material not available for public inspection pursuant
to 18-4-304 and 18-4-308, MCA. The procurement officer will remove this material and then
make the remainder of the proposal available for public inspection. Offerors submitting a
proposal containing a claim to shield confidential information pursuant to 184-304 (4) (a), (b)
and (d), MCA, must include a statement that attests to the offeror's acceptance of the legal and
financial responsibility for defending the claim. In addition, any claim to shield trade secret
material must be made by an offeror's legal counsel using the affidavit form prescribed by the
division.
(7) For the purpose of conducting discussions, proposals shall be initially classified as:
(a) responsive; or
(b) non -responsive.
(i) Proposals may be found non -responsive any time during the evaluation process if:
(A) any of the required information is not provided;
(B) the submitted price is found to be excessive or inadequate as measured by criteria
stated in the request for proposals; or
(C) the proposal is not within the plans and specifications described and required in the
request for proposal.
(ii) Non -responsive proposals will be eliminated from further consideration.
(8) Discussions may be held with one or more offerors to:
(a) promote understanding of the state's requirements and the offerors' proposals; and
(b) facilitate arriving at a contract that will be most advantageous to the state taking into
consideration all factors set forth in the request for proposals.
(c) Discussions may include oral presentations, interviews, demonstrations, responses
to specific questions, modifications, and negotiations.
(d) At the discretion of the procurement officer, one or more offerors may be provided an
opportunity to submit a best and final offer if additional information is required in order to reach
a final decision. Unless the request for proposals so states, a best and final offer may not be
requested from the offeror(s) on price alone.
(9) References and the credit and financial responsibility of the offerors may be verified
as appropriate.
(10) The evaluation shall be based on the evaluation criteria set forth in the request for
proposals. The evaluators shall exercise discretion in assigning points or value to a proposal,
which involves a judgmental assessment of the evaluation criteria. The award must be made to
the responsive and responsible offeror whose proposal best meets the evaluation criteria.
(11) The department reserves the right to negotiate with one or more offerors for the
award of a contract that is most advantageous to the state. The department reserves the right to
award a contract without negotiations or to reject any or all proposals.
(12) Interested parties are responsible for making their own arrangements to make copies
of proposal materials.
(13) Multiple award contracts are allowable if determined to be in the best interest of the
state.
(History: Sec. 18-4221 MCA; IMP, Sec. 18-4-304 MCA; NEW, 1983 MAR P. 1916, Eff.
12/30/83; AMD, 1985 MAR p. 244, Eff. 3/15/85; AMD, 1987 MAR p. 1961, Eff. 10/30/87;
AMD, 1987 MAR p. 2144, Eff. 11/28/87; NOD, 1990 MAR p. 1770, Eff. 9/14/90; AM D, 1995
MAR p. 1788, Eff. 9/15/95; AMD, 1997 MAR p. 193, Eff. 1/28/97; AMD, 1997 MAR p. 1816,
Eff. 10/7/97; AMD, 2000 MAR p. 65, Eff. 2/l/00.)