04-08-87 Public Works Comm Minutest
April 8, 1987
PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE
4:00 P.M.
Chairman Ruiz and Councilmen Schindler and Palmer in attendance. DPW
Hammer, Attorney Neier, Surveyor Zavodny, Construction Inspector Van Dyke,
Street Superintendent Brady, Sewer and water Superintendent Hyde, Dennis Carver,
Jim Lynch, Gary Wilkin, and Roger Hopkins of the Daily Inter Lake also present.
There was extended discussion of the AGGREGATE BIDS and how they were
written. A detailed set of minutes of that discussion is available. After
the discussion the Committee recommended awarding the bids as listed below
based upon past practice and unit prices.
Crushed Base awarded to Pack and Company.
Un-crushed Sub -base awarded to Pack and Company.
ASPHALT BID - Awarded to Pack and Company.
CURB AND SIDEWALK, PHASE I - Awarded to Sandon Construction Company.
CURB AND SIDEWALK, YEAR ENDING DECEMBER 31, 1987 - Awarded to Sandon
Construction Company.
WOODLAND PARK SID CHANGE ORDER - It has been determined that in order to "do
the job right" a portion of the street should be completely reconstructed rather
than simply patched. This is becuase the original asphalt was laid on grass
with no base. The additional cost of this extra work amounts to $22,000. The
1P biggest question was where to get the $22,000. C. Ruiz stated that the job
should be done right, even if the City had to delete eight blocks of reconstruction
somewhere else. DPW Hammer pointed out that all the blocks in the Street
Reconstruction Program were either committed or emergencies. He stated that
he did not have in his budgets $22,000 to give to this project and he didn't
know where he could get it. The Committee, having been given the power to act
at the April 6, 1987 Council meeting, approved the change order.
00
ajg
i
•
0
0
0
H
O
O
z
w
N
lD
x
,
M
~
w
I
u
Q
z
a
O
O
ti
ZT
r"
LC\
CO
zo
O
O
O
O
C)
C::)
CD
CD
y
z
O
O
LCl
U-)
W
x
O
U-)
r�
N
W
D
CO
r�
O
N
U
=
w
J
O
O
LC)
LLD
a
N
�11
LCl
O
z
za
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
N
O
O
O.
O
CD
_O
O
z
O
O
U1
N
(-D
D)
w
w
O
O
N
CO
O
O
M
O
ti
L
W
U
O
O
LC1
O
O
Ln
m
a
-:3-
Ln
O
M
O
-3'
r-f
r-I
N
ND
-::I'
L.CI
Ln
z
o
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
C.D
N
a
w
Ln
}n
Ln
N..
M
CO
r�
w
n
r-�
N
O
rl
N
O
M
Ln
LLD
-zr
N
-77
U
M
CZ
w
U
LIl
m
Ln
LCD
LC)
Lr)
LID
LLD
LCl
--�
�-I
Cb
LD
LD
M
M
Q)
CD
C/)
C/)
C/)
C/)
C/)
Z
ZCD
Z
Z
CD
CD
CD
CD
W
O
Cll
C/)
O
O
O
O
L
L
O
Q
O
O
O
O
Q)
N
O
Pq
O
O
O
O
>
>
O
E
W
O
O
Q)
Ib
N
co
(ll
(lJ
O
Lr)
Lf)
L
LJ
CD
(1)
.�
L
4 "
C/D
Cll
Cn
Q
q
Q)
>
Ca
cLl
_
tO
q
F-
W
C/)
_:I-
CD
La
M
'ti
M
'ti
.J
C�
<
=
6
Q
�
C/)
S
U
C1
Z
Of
C7
S
U
Q
C C
O (D
J -/
LID CDV) M
N
.a +n
u u
c�
April 8, 1987 PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE 4:00 P.M.
DETAILED DISCUSSION CONCERNING AGGREGATE BIDS
*See condensed version of minutes for those present.
There was active discussion before the meeting even began with the main
question being whether the City would award the bid based upon unit prices
or the delivered price. At the beginning of the tape C. Ruiz is asking this
question so that they can all start on the same wavelength.
Jim Lynch: If I can make another point, where is the City going to make
a determination as to how much rock they are actually going to have delivered.
I don't think they really know how much rock they are going to use, and how
they are going to be able to analyze that. And then if they need a big flow
of materials similar to what the City needed just two weeks ago - they had
four different companies hauling for them - so I can't see how that can be
construed as total price.
Street Supt. Brady: We willprobablywant all of our pit run delivered,
because we only have two tandem trucks and there k8 no way we can do it._...jJe
have to haul away from the excavator. If we made a mistake in the bid . .
. . Jim Lynch broke in and said that there were common carriers all over the
City that did not have the opportunity to bid this and you certainly didn't
bid it as a truck haul. There will be an awful lot of those people upset
if that is your indication. The fact that you addressed it to a successful
bidder as to putting in a ton price, I think pretty well shows what your intent
was. It is nice to come back after the fact and say that all your materials
will be hauled, but that certainly wasn't the case when you bid the job.
DPW Hammer stated that it was the case. He went on to say that it was unfortunate
that the word "successful" got put in there, but the City Attorney said that
still does not bind us to say Item 1, 2, 3, or 4. He said that they were in
disagreement with Mr. Lynch. It is unfortunate that the word "successful"
got put in there. If the word successful was not in there it means exactly
what the intent of this bid specification was. The way it should have been
written up was to have two prices - one FOB plant and one FOB site in City
limits. We only have two tandems and everybody knows that. Most of the gravel
we buy is going to have to be delivered price. The reason we put that there,
in all honesty, was because your trucks were so high we wanted to know what
it cost for delivered prices. Jim Lynch asked whose trucks? DPW Hammer said
Lynch's trucks. He said the City tried to get a price out of him last year,
tried to pin him down to a price, and what we wanted to do in this bid was
determine what it was going to cost to the site, delivered . . . Jim Lynch
stated that the point DPW Hammer had made pointed to one thing - that he thought
my prices were very high, that kind of leads to my suspicion that since Pack's
trucks are high, throw in a price to assure that we can take a pick - if Pack
is low on the rock maybe we can get him on the haul. You have an opportunity
to haul from more carriers than just Pack, whether we are hired or not. There
are 26 truckers in this valley. DPW Hammer said the City did not go out and
bid the trucking. What we do is bid the general. What we want is the delivered
price. The City, the Public Works staff, etc would not try to pick anybody
. in particular, but rather are trying to get the best deal for the taxpayers.
Nobody is trying to eliminate or add people - we are trying to be competitive
in our bidding process. On occasion there may be a misunderstanding or a screw -up
and in this case there was one word in there that should not have been - "successful"
bidder. DPW Hammer said he would take the blame for not scratching it out.
But the bottom line is the City is trying to get the best price for the taxpayers.
DETAILED DISCUSSION RE: AGGREGATE BIDS
Public Works Committee
April 8, 1987
Page 2
Jim Lynch agreed that that was right, and if you are looking at $1.15 for the
product, and you can get several other trucking companies to haul for less,
you can have the best of both worlds by taking the product FOB plant and making
other arrangements for the haul. He said he would also like to point out that
he has had several conversations with the Public Works Department and the latest
one, he was informed by Ben Van Dyke that this matter was not even going to
be discussed because the Public Works was not ready to decide on whether or
not this material was going to be awarded at this meeting. He said he just
wanted that for the record. He said he told Ben Van Dyke that was fine but
he was still going to be at the meeting. He said it seemed to him that there
is a direction here to directing the purchase of a product to a particular
person, and for the City of Kalispell that is a very dangerous move. C. Schindler
responded that that was a very serious accusation. Jim Lynch quickly said
that he was not making an accusation. C. Schindler said that was an accustion
as far as he was concerned, and if there was no proof to back it up he wouldn't
make it. Jim Lynch said, well, it seems kind of strange when you have $-I:15,
the product is low, and again, it's a suspicion, I am just kind of curious
as to why I was informed that we weren't going to discuss this matter in the
first place. Ben Van Dyke responded that he didn't say it wouldn't be disucussed,
but that it was our intention to recommend that the bid not be awarded yet.
• C. Ruiz asked about that. He said he wanted to cut through this, that he wanted
to decide the intent of the bid and how the bidders see the intent of the City
in calling for it.
C. Ruiz, talking to DPW HAmmer, said if he was looking at most of the
uncrushed sub -base that the City is going to get to be delivered, why do we
ask for a unit price? Why not just bid a delivered price? DPW HAmmer said
the reason was that there are occasions when the City would not need delivered,
that the City would use their own trucks and drivers, depending on the location
of the job site and other factors. That is why they were split up. He said
they had figured out that morning how many trips it would take if the City
did all their own hauling, and the time factor would make jobs terribly long.
The intent was delivered. Whoever is hauling usually haul about 4 to 2 with
City trucks. What we were intending on doing was saving our trucks to haul
out the spoils - letting the other trucks do the hauling in.
There was a clarification of the different bid figures - delivered and
unit prices. There was a question of whether the Pack bid included both material
and delivery. Jim Lynch stated that the fact that there was not a unit price
there to multiply by to come up with the total and that backed up his assumption
that the City intended to make an award based on delivered material. There
was a question about the differences in bids. St. Supt. Brady said that Pack
and McElroy had read the bid differently, and for the worksheet that the committee
had before them the Public Works Department had added Pack's material and delivery
prices together. DPW Hammer said that Pack had made the same mistake and given
the delivered price as $1.70, which did not include materials. Jim Lynch agreed
that was what he had bid. Gary Wilkin (McElroy) clarified what he had bid.
_ DPW Hammer said that what Pack did was to say his unit price per ton was $1.15
then they go down to No. 3 and say they will deliver it for $1.70. If we held
them to it they would have to sell it to us for $1.70. What they meant to
put down was $2.85, but they didn't. The way the bid is written we have to
assume that he will deliver it for $1.70 - we cannot assume that $1.70 and
• DETAILED DISCUSSION RE: AGGREGATE BIDS
Public Works Committee
April 8, 1987
Page 3
$1.15 is $2.85 for the total price because he made the same mistake that he
is saying we made by putting "successful" bidder in there. McElroy and Wilkin
and LHC both put the delivery as including the materials and delivery, which
is what was asked for in the bid. C. Ruiz said that either way, regardless
of the intent, the one bid is a nickel different from the other bid. He was
corrected - 30C difference delivered. There was additional clarification of
the actual figures. C. Ruiz said you couldn't award the bid for one for the
hauling price and one for the materials price. Jim Lynch stated that was his
position - the award should be made on the unit price. C. Ruiz said that was
the way it should be awarded unless they both agreed that the whole package
should go together. Gary Wilkin said that was the way he bid it. C. Ruiz
stated again in a question that both bidders were looking at it as a package,
not the gravel where we come and get it, and the delivered price as another
one where you could win or be awarded the gravel price when we go get it and
the other guy who delivers it could be awarded that. Jim Lynch said the way
he read it and the way the` -bid -addresses the "successful" bidder, you give
a price to the City FOB your plant, and the successful bidder was instructed
to give a per ton price if they were asked to haul. The City didn't give the
number of tons that were going to be hauled, they didn't give any specifications
concerning what they required of that truck (capacity, how fast it is, etc.)
or anything that is normally done on a specification, so the idea there would
be if they wanted a price based on FOB the plant and they wanted the successful
bidder to give them a price per ton if they asked them to use their truck to
deliver the material. They could ask just about anybody to haul their material.
Mr. Lynch said he didn't think that Gary would have enough trucks, or himself,
or LHC to supply the City all the materials they might want in a day. For
that reason, tied in with the wording "successful bidder", I think the intent
was to award the bid FOB plant. The delivery price you could use McElroy's
trucks, they could use Pack's trucks, Marty Neuhausen's trucks, Clyde Pearson's
trucks, LHC's trucks, there's about 26 of them in the valley.
C. Ruiz asked DPW Hammer how he had seen the bid - did he intend to buy
the low bid from one and buying the delivery from another. DPW HAmmer said
no, if he had intended what Jim Lynch was suggesting he would have stated in
the bid that he was going to be in the hauling business and would find his
own truckers. He said he didn't feel it was the proper way for McElroy to
be going over to Pack's pit to haul and vice versa. He wanted to see two prices -
the basic price (the City has two tandem trucks but it is impossible to haul
all we need) and the hauling price. Jim Lynch then asked why the City had
not put a unit price for the hauling on the bid tabs. No unit is listed. He
stated again that he believed the intent of the Public Works Department was
to award the bid based on the unit price and to then further obtain a price
from the successful bidder of what his delivery price would be. Alot of things
point to that direction: separation of the bid, not establishing unit prices
on that particular item, no place to total it. It just didn't coincide with
the rest of the request for information they established the approximate tonnage
• to use, the unit price, all the way across. All those things point to the
position that that was not the intent - the intent was to award the bid on
FOB the plant site, and award various trucks for delivery. Basically to get
an idea of the cost to haul. They did that to us last year, he said - they
asked how much it was going to cost per ton to haul, and after the fact how
much per hour to haul the material.
• DETAILED DISCUSSION RE: AGGREGATE BIDS
Public Works Committee
April 8, 1987
Page 4
C. Schindler asked how that allowed the City to steer the bid in a certain
direction. Mr. Lynch replied that he didn't think it did, under those conditions.
C. Schindler responded that he didn't think so either. Mr. Lynch stated that
he wanted to apologize. He said if that is the way he came across, as accusing
C. Schindler or accusing the City, he said he apologized, saying it certainly
was not his intent.
C. Ruiz asked DPW Hammer what his recommendation was. He said it would
be to award the pit run to McElroy and Wilkin and the cushion to Pack and Company.
C. Ruiz asked him how he arrived at that and he responded by using the delivered
price. C. Ruiz said the $2.55 versus the $2.85? Yes, said DPW Hammer. C.
Ruiz then said he didn't see any point of having the plant price. Not at this
point said DPW Hammer. C. Schindler agreed there was no point if the City
intended having it all delivered. C. Palmer asked what we advertised for and
what we had done last yea-r. St. Supt. Brady said they had just gone -around '
and asked for the hourly rate on trucks and tried to pick the cheapest hourly
rate. C. Ruiz said, suppose I asked this: if we award to McElroy for $2.55
and we send LHC trucks out to McElroy's plant, and we send our trucks out,
and we send someone else's trucks like we did on the Husky job, we would pay
$1.40 then for it? Yes. DPW Hammer said that was the way we did it last year
(and this year before we had a delivered price), this year the intent was
that we awarded a delivered price ...(hard to understand tape). C. Ruiz stated
that if that were the case they would have to have the trucks available to
haul at all times. Jim Lynch said he thought that was where the problem arises -
if that was the intent. Usually in a bid like that you would set specifications
covering how much you would take in a day, what is the minimum the City is
going to require you to haul, and are you going to be able to meet that, and
everything else. I can see some real problems. C. Ruiz agreed based on the
example of how many trucks were used on Husky Street. St. Supt. Brady said
the City used A-1, Marty's, LHC, and McElroy trucks on Husky. DPW Hammer said
that situation was a little different because of trying to get it done very
quickly so the road could be reopened. C. Ruiz stated that he was very uncomfortable
in awarding on that basis, and we have always awarded on the unit price in
the past. He said that if the City was looking at mostly delivered, in fairness
to those bidding, we should have called for that. DPW Hammer said that would
cause a problem when we need just one or two tandem loads. C. Ruiz said that
was the point he was trying to make, that when we do use our trucks we have
to pay $1.40 rather than $1.15, so the 30( you saved over here you lose a quarter
of it when you go pick it up yourself. DPW Hammer said that the low bid delivered
was the way to go because they had figured out how many truck loads the City
would have, and it came out paying $5,000 to save $22,000. So actually it
is costing us more. C. Ruiz said if he looked at it from Pack and McElroy's
point it would mean that he had to have trucks available when we needed it
delivered, and he would have to program how many trucks he needed to have standing
by. DPW Hammer asked Gary Wilkin if he anticipated that to be a problem and
91 Gary responded that he didn't feel it was a problem. He said he felt he would
be delivering. He also pointed out that if the City was to send hourly trucks
they wouldn't get it for the $2.55 - you won't even be close. If the City
is hiring trucks, and you go to Pack at $1.15, and they get a load and a half,
and you are paying $40.00, you are going to be paying around $2.92. That not
legal loads. If you are hauling you should have the load delivered price -
• DETAILED DISCUSSION RE: AGGREGATE BIDS
Public works Committee
April 8, 1987
Page 5
when you are hiring trucks you are not going to get the good deal. C. Ruiz
asked how trucks were paid for when they were hired, and St. Supt. Brady responded
by the hour. He said that for awhile last year Pack had given them a different
price. Jim LYnch stated that the City hadn't liked his hourly price so he
gave them a price by the load. He said that when they hauled for the City
they usually got at least two loads an hour, in some cases where they haul
they could get three loads in an hour, like on Husky Street for example - in
which case an hourly price would be far more advantageous than a load price.
If you are looking at three loads in an hour (off the top of his head) at $1.15
per load, you are looking at $60.00/hour for that truck. You can rent a gypo
in this town for $36, and he thought the highest one was $37.50. So a hired
truck is not going to be a detriment to the City as far as the cost to haul
it. St. Supt. Brady said he didn't think he ever saw three loads an hour,
even on Husky Street. C. Palmer said obviously there has been a mistake, now
the question was what to do about it.
Attorney Neier said that if the intent of the bidding was to get a hauled
price it wouldn't be appropriate to award it on a unit price. It was advertised
as a unit price and the haul price was the second set. He said he didn't like
having everything on the table ...(hard to understand the tape) - but I don't
see any alternative but to go back, he said. Start over. But that isn't fair
because everybody knows what everybody else has bid. There was general agreement
on that.
C. Palmer asked if these were the actual estimated quantities that were
going to be used. DPW Hammer said he thought they were real close. Jim LYnch
said that last year the City estimated 100,000 tons and they actually used
8,000 of pit run. That was everything. This year it is broken up into 4"
and 6". McElroy said the City estimated 50,000 last year. Jim Lynch said
well, even if it was 50,000 - St. Supt. Brady asked if 5th Avenue West was
figured in on that.
DPW HAmmer said his original reaction would still be the same. If you
go with the delivered price, which is the cheapest price to the taxpayers,
and everyone could walk out of here happy, it looks like the pit run should
go to McElroy and Wilkin and the crushed should go to Pack. If they don't
think that's fair, then he said he didn't know. C. Ruiz said, you mean because
of the $2.55 being low on the crushed for McElroy, and the $5.35 being low
for Pack. C. Schindler stated that Pack would also get the asphalt. C. Schindler
asked Jim Lynch and Gary Wilkin how that would stand with them. Jim Lynch
said that based on the principle of the bid he would have to object to that.
He said that if they are in the bidding process we have to go that way. He
said he was faced with that all last year - bidding material and not being
able to deliver all the material, and again it looks like we're faced with
the same thing. Being low on the material and not being able to deliver all
the material for some reason. Material still coming out of his competitors
• operation. He said he thought that if the City is going to put together a
bidding process, and he said he understood the tough position it was in with
all the contractors in this city, that they are going to put out a competitive
bid, they need to go by the bid process. He said he felt there were alot of
things that point to what can be determined as to what was the intent of the
City, what the intent is after the fact, and what the intent was before.
i
• DETAILED DISCUSSION RE: AGGREGATE BIDS
Public Works Committee
April 8, 1987
Page 6
It's the way the specifications were written, it's the way the lines and the
unit prices were assembled and placed in the bid in order for the contractors
to bid it. He said his opinion was that it pointed to the fact that the intent
was to make the award on the price FOB the project, and to get a price from
that contractor, or any contractor, of how much to haul the material. He said
he wouldn't have any objections to MdElroy and Wilkin's trucks hauling out -
of his pit, or any other trucks. Looking at that you're looking at $1.15 out
of Pack's pit and if you can get a good competitive price on the haul he felt
that was in the best interests of the City. DPW Hammer asked if what he was
saying was that on all bids the low bidder should automatically get it. He
responded no. DPW Hammer said there wwere other factors involved such as delivery,
how many loads per hour, the type of material, whether it meets specifications
- and he asked Jim Lynch if his pit run met specifications. Jim Lynch said
he was not a lawyer and he was not trying to practice law, but there was good
sound legal foundation as to low bidder and what is meant by it. He agreed
there were other considerations, but he said he didn't think that the fart
that they had a delivered price on the product and the way it was established
in the bid, is one of the things that he felt must be considered.
C. Palmer asked Gary Wilkin what he thought when he bid, did he think
• it was a delivered price. He said he did. Jim Lynch said he thought that
if they were going to ask him to deliver it they would know ahead of time what
it was going to cost. And if they were going to use A-l's trucks, which they
have in the past, etc., that would be an arrangement with the City. He said
he didn't have any problem with that. Pack and Company, and he said he also
felt Gary, would have a hard time servicing - the City itself does not have
an awful lot of trucks, and that was the intent. Any one contractor in the
City would have one h--- of a time supplying the City. There was nothing in
the specifications to relate that. Usually there is in a hauling contract.
You state how much -you are going to expect hauled per hour, what the minimum
the City is going to take in a day, similar to what, was done in the asphalt
bid. DPW HAmmer said the reason they had put in the unit price so that if
you got one load per hour or six loads ...(hard to understand tape). C Ruiz
said the wording at the top was, confusing. Bid Item Number 1 and Number 2,
it almost seems they are specifying separate bids. He said he didn't see why
Bid Item 1 and Bid Item 2 wouldn't stand alone, and Bid Item 3 would stand
alone. He said that legally it looked to him like Bid Item 1 - if you were
low for the 6" crushed you could win that and if someone else was low for the
4" they could win that, and someone else was low on Number 3 you could concieveably
have three different awards. But he went on to say that the two contractors
don't see it that way. One says he sees the delivered price as the final item,
and they both agree that Items 1 and 2 go together. C. Schindler stated that
LHC felt the same as Gary Wilkin about the intent of the bid. When he bid
it he felt that the delivered price was the deciding line. The Committee looked
at the bid sheets. Again there was discussion of how the numbers on the comparison
sheet were arrived at. (Public Works took the numbers directly off LHC's and
McElroy's bids, but had to ad2 togetber Pack's material and delivery to come
up with his delivered price.) It was noted that if Pack's bid were taken at
face value he would have to deliver it for $1.70 total (delivery and material).
Jim Lynch said that it also had to be considered the way it was arranged
on Item 3 - there was no quantity and no line for a total - just basically
i
DETAILED DISCUSSION RE: AGGREGATE BIDS
Public Works Committee
April 8, 1987
Page 7
a line for a unit price. He said he felt there was more to it that just the
successful bidder award.
There was some talk going on around the room, evidently concerning the
possible solutions. Attorney Neier said that if the contractors were willing
to split it down the middle there could be two contracts - if they would accept
it they would, if they won't they won't. The only thing about that is you
would be working without a contract - it isn't a legal decision on how to
do it, it is a policy decision. If they won't accept that and there is no
other equitable way to go, then you will have to rebid. That is all there
is to it. C. Schindler asked if Gary Wilkin or Jim Lynch had any solutions
of their own. They said no. Gary indicated that he didn't want to rebid.
Jim said he didn't either - and added that he didn't think anyone in the room
wanted to re -bid it.
St. Supt. Brady stated that the City had passed out the bids before the
bids were let. He said there is no question we might have goofed, but we
did give them to everybody before they were put in the paper and everone said
the bid looked fine.
• C. Ruiz asked what the volume of use was for crushed vs. un-crushed.
St. Supt. Brady answered that we use about three inches of crushed and about
12 - 16 inches of pit run (un-crushed). Jim Lynch asked if he could ask a
question . Do you figure your 50,000 tons is accurate? DPW Hammer said
that was based on the 30 blocks planned for reconstruction. Jim Lynch asked
if DPW Hammer felt very comfortable with that figure, and the response was
yes. He then asked if they would entertain the first 25 tons being purchased
from Pack and Company, and the second 25 tons from McElroy? Jim Lynch said
he wouldn't have any problem with that. Gary Wilkin said he would. Jim Lynch
said he would supply it for the price in his bid, but what Gary wanted to
do on his 25,000 would be up to him. He said that would be one way of resolving
this.
Surveyor Zavodny said that they needed to keep in mind that preceeding
this bid the City had gotten a head start this year and had already filled
in several blocks of streets with pit run, that might have been construed
to be part of the estimated tonnage on this bid. Five blocks have already
been filled with pit run. St. Supt. Brady said that gravel had all been gotten
from Pack except for a few loads one day when they wanted to use some drier
material on the top so as to get the Wonder Bread store open. Jim Lynch asked
Fred what his estimate would be as to what was going to be needed. The Surveyor
responded that it would have to be a percentage - subtract 5 blocks from 38
and get that percentage. The change in the figure would then be 40,000 tons.
Jim Lynch then changed his proposal to the City purchasing the first 20,000
tons from Pack and the next 20,000 tons from McElroy. Gary Wilkin said he
would then take the first half of the crushed and Pack could have the second
• half. Jim Lynch disagreed saying that he didn't think there was any problem
with the crushed. Gary Wilkin stated that he was low delivered price. When
Mr. Lynch disagreed Gary pointed out that if you added both bids together
he was low bidder. Jim Lynch couldn't see that. After some explanation Jim
Lynch said that the City had said it would haul all it's own crushed so the
DETAILED DISCUSSION RE; AGGREGATE BIDS
Public Works Committee
April 8, 1987
Page 8
advantage of the hauled price wouldn't be there. .Dick Brady stated that the
City would use two trucks to haul crushed.
DPW Hammer stated that the City had used pit run out of both the pits
in question and suggested that perhaps the bid should not be awarded until
a test could be made to see if the pit run met specifications. Jim Lynch -
said that was in the specifications - and either the person delivers the product
according to specifications or there is a whole other process for determining
a penalty or whatever the case may be for that item. He didn't feel it should
enter in at this point. He also stated that he felt it would be a great expense
to the City of Kalispell to test a pit, particularly on a pit run product,
because pits are large and it would probably require 20 samples in each pit,
which could get very expensive. DPW Hammer said they would just have to run
them according to the SBM's. Jim Lynch said they couldn't do that because
they were talking pit run. If it was gradation material he agreed that could
be done.. He said they would have to grid the pit' -and test every ten or"tZenty
feet. C. Palmer spoke too softly to be heard on the tape. He said he had
a real problem when the City calls for a bid and the people come in in good
faith, and the amounts of the bid are not called for . . . he suggested that
as a matter of compromise one company get the first 15,000 tons, and the other
get the next 15,000 tons, and so on. There was some discussion again about
• houw the bids were read. Jim Lynch said he thought that both he and Gary
Wilkin had walked out of City Hall (after the opening) thinking that he (Pack
& Co.) was low. Gary Wilkin said he though he was low bid. C. Ruiz asked
Gary Wilkin if he thought he got the bid because he was low for the delivered
price. Gary agreed.
C. Schindler said that if they took C. Palmer's suggestion, and he was
LHC, he would be very upset. If you are going to divy it up between the bidders
you should divy it up between all three. He said they needed to just make
up their minds if they wanted to go by delivered price or pit price. DPW
Hammer stated that if they did that his recommendation would be to give the
pit run to McElroy as the lowest delivered price, and the crushed to Pack.
That would be in the best interest of the taxpayers. C. Schindler said he
couldn't see dividing it up because it was not in the bid and one of the two
bidders would feel like they were being stepped on. There was some discussion
about how to do this. DPW Hammer said again that the cheapest price to the
taxpayers would be to award the pit run bid to McElroy and the crushed to
Pack & Company. Jim Lynch said that if they went back to what has already
been said, the City said they were going to haul all of their own crushed
rock, so he didn't feel that they could even consider the delivered price,
and that takes it back to the intent in the beginning. If it was the intent
of the City to haul all their own, why did they have a delivered price in
there in the first place? It isn't consistent as to their reasoning for setting
up the bids. C. Schindler asked Butch Woolard, from LHC, who had stopped
by the meeting, how he had read the bid? He responded that he and Gary Wilkin
• had read it the same, and that he had called the City Attorney to verify it.
Glen had said that it was material and delivery. Attorney Neier said he didn't
know that was in the bid, but he told him to put down the total amount of
the hauling, plus the unit price, and multiply it out and give us a bottom
line price of what it was going to cost us. He stated that he didn't see
DETAILED DISCUSSION RE: AGGREGATE BIDS
Public Works Committee
April 8, 1987
Page 9
how it was laid out, but he felt that the Council wanted to see the bottom
line. St. Supt. Brady said he thought the City had a choice of whether they
went delivered or undelivered, that they could take their pick.
C. Schindler said he felt he could understand what the intention was
but the problem is that it was not spelled out in black and white. He said
he could also see the bidders misconception of the intent. Jim Lynch said
he also called the City Public Works before the bid opening and Ken Hammer
was not available and he talked to Ben Van Dyke, and he didn't know how to
answer it. He was referred to Ardie and he stated that he did ask if she
knew what they were doing and whether they were going to award the bid based
on the FOB delivery site, and then what the product was going to cost the
City per ton to haul it. In fairness to Ardie, he said, he felt she didn't
really understand totally, but he thought she agreed - he said his impression
was that she assumed they were going to award it based on the FOB price at
the plant. Ardie spoke up and stated that she ham also told him that she -
was not sure, and Jim Lynch agreed that she had said that.
C. Ruiz stated that if you took each item as a separate bid item... and
proceeded to go through the bid that way, picking out the low bids. Jim Lynch
stated that they were going to create another problem here because the City
• did not bid a hauling contract and there would be alot of haulers in the City
that would say, Hey, wait a minute - that is a supply bid and now you are
basing it on the hauling without giving us an opportunity to bid. C. Ruiz
said they could bid it and go buy it. Someone said they could bid it less.
C. Schindler stated that was why he felt they should go by a delivered price.
There was some discussion of what could take place with.the independent haulers.
C. Ruiz stated that concievably, if the City advertised a delivered price,
and he had a fleet of ten trucks, he could go to those guys (McElroy and Pack)
and ask what they would sell him 50,000 tons of material for, and he could
get the best price there, and figure his truck price and get the bid. Jim
Lynch said he could have done that - that just opens up a lot of things.
C. Ruiz asked what the Committee wanted to do. C. Schindler asked why
they couldn't just rebid the delivery portion of the bid. C. Ruiz said that
if they rebid it, it would be up to the Public Works Department how they wanted
to do that. If they want a delivered price they can ask for that, or just
a unit price, they can ask for that. St. Supt. Brady asked if they should
only have bid the delivery on pit run. DPW Hammer said the problem appeared
to him to be that they should have had the words "extended price" instead
of lump sum, even though they are not held to that quantity, so that all the
bidders were bidding on the same thing. And the word "successful" should
not have been there. Just those two minor changes. C. Ruiz said he assumed,
when the subject of rebidding came up again, that if they didn't want to they
didn't need to call for bids, but could just go out and call up the supplier
and tell them what was needed. He said that to him the bidding process was
• to guarantee a committed lower price. C. Schindler stated that the "successful
bidder" could be read another way, also: that if you are the successful bidder
you wouldn't be hauling anyone else's except your own. DPW Hammer said that
Attorney Neier had said that the "successful" bidder hadn't been a problem
for him - C. Schindler felt that if the word "successful" wasn't there they
would have a bigger problem than they already had. He felt the "successful"
DETAILED DISCUSSION RE: AGGREGATE BIDS
Public Works Committee
April 8, 1987
Page 10
clarified it. Jim Lynch then asked what they determined the successful bidder
on? Low bid. Jim Lynch said low bid on the FOB price. He said to tie that
in with the fact that the bid sheets did not have units on delivered price,
didn't have total columns, while the other items had the estimated quantities.
DPW Hammer asked that if they rebid would they have to go back to Council
to get approval to go out for bids? Attorney Neier said they were having
a council meeting in five minutes. C. Schindler said he wished they could
come up with a more amiable agreement, because that wasn't fair to everybody.
He asked if Gary Wilkin would have a problem if they City split everything
they bought between the two? Gary responded that he did't see how it could
be done. Jim Lynch said there would be alot of finger pointing - and the
next thing you know he and Gary would be hiring someone to park outside of
their gates to write it all down. Attorney Neier said there would be no way
to write a contract that way. DPW Hammer asked how about the Public Works
Department coming up with a recommendation ...(can't understand the tape)':
Surveyor Zavodny pointed out the need for materials to be available without
further delays.
C. Palmer pointed out that the City is not obligated to use the bidder
to haul - but can use other haulers. Ardie asked if that meant that Pack's
bid for delivered was $1.70, including materials, because that was what the
41 specs said? DPW Hammer said, yes, that is what he bid - $1.70. The specs
say "shall include". Pack wrote in there $1.70. Gary Wilkin said, that's
a good price! Jim Lynch said that if they were going to make that conclusion
you have to draw all the lines across - put in unit prices and a total column -
he said he thought there was a very good reason why you could end up with
two different thinkings in that respect. There was some general discussion
all over the room.
C. Palmer said he didn't like it, but his recommendation was to award
the bid to Pack all the way through. There was continued discussion of the
meaning of the bids. C. Ruiz stated that past practice had been unit price.
DPW Hammer said that was why he had tried to change it to delivered price,
because of problems that occured last year. C. Schindler stated that next
year, if they wanted delivered price, they should open it to every trucker
in the valley. C. Ruiz asked if there was a motion. It was seconded. DPW
Hammer asked if this motion was based on if the aggregate met specifications,
and C. Ruiz agreed that it had to be. That is in the bid. That is automatic.
DPW Hammer asked what happened if it didn't meet specifications. Gary Wilkin
stated that if Pack's aggregate didn't meet specification and the City came
to him, there was nothing in the bid that said he had to sell his for what
he had bid. Everyone agreed that was true.
Curb and Sidewalk bids were quickly explained by Surveyor Zavodny and
the Committee awarded the bid to low bidder Sandon Construction. C. Palmer
• brought up the problems on Center Street and the fact that they were because
of the machine. It was agreed that he would also have to meet specifications,
and if they did not the Public Works Department would be back telling the
Committee about it.
0
i
O
O
O
O
z
N
LO
w
M
O
w
N
-T
r-1
rl
~
w
I
U
Q
-
a
O
O
z:r
r\
F
z
U1
00
ti
r-i
o
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
N
z
O
O
Ln
U'l
-
w
x
O
M
I�
N
w
LO
00
I\
O
r
N
U
=
w
J
O
O
Ln
M
p
N
I\
Ln
O
z
oz
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
N
O
-O
O
O
O
O
O
z
O
O
Ln
N
LO
-:r
Ol
w
x
O
O
r�
.--I
OO
O
O
0
O
�
L
W
U
O
O
Ln
O
O
U(1
a
�
�
Ln
O
M
CD O
_-r
r-I
rl
N
M
-,:7
Ln
m
zo
CD
CZ)
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
z
O
O
O
O
CD
L.O
N
10
^
x
I\
N
O
rl
(V
O
M
`L
U'%
Ln
?
N
�'
rH
Y
.-I
U
cu
D_
w
U
a
m
Ln
Ln
Ln
m
m
m
- Ln
Ln
r-1
r-I
00
LO
LO
M1
M
m
co
—1
ti
N
PM
I`h
M
Ln
r-I
rl
Ln
C/)
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
O
O
O
O
O
W
QJ
QJ
Cn
O
O
O
O
L
L
O
Q
O
O
O
O
QJ
Q)
O
O
O
O
O
>
>
O
CO
O
O
(D
•.
CO
N
00
Q)
W
QJ
(D
L
+-+
C/)
QJ
(n
Q
Q
N
Q
>.
F]
-
-O
W
Cj
..
.�
FU
Ln
�
LD
Cq
W
M
•-I
M
�
�
2
d
Z
Of
N
C C
O O
CD ti
O M
N r-I
EA fPr
II II
N
n
011
ST-0012-87
PROPOSAL FOR CRUSHED BASE
Items 1 and 2 listed below shall include the cost of loading into
Citv trucks of the material indicated in the Specifications.Bid
Items 3 and 4 shall include the cost of the successful bidder to haul
the material to the job site within the City of Kalispell. The
material shall be in accordance with the attached specifications.
Bid
Estimated
Unit
Total
Item
Description
Unit
Quantity
Price
Amount
1
3/4" Minus
Tons
8,000
$
3_b7�7'
$ Ic=C
2
1/2" Minus
Tons
2,000
$
?i_C.}
$ , Bpi
3
The above 3/4"
minus delivered
to job site _ -
Tons
$
/, 70
$ _
4
The above 1/2"
_.
minus delivered
to job site
Tons
$ /, 70
$
This proposal shall be in effect until December 31, 1987, or the end
of the 1987 construction season, whichever is the latest date.
The City reserves the right to accept or reject any or all bids.
The City reserves the right to increase or decrease individual quantities
without a change in the unit prices bid for any single item. Payment
will be made for actual quantities delivered. Where tonnage is the unit,
the successful bidder shall furnish weight tickets to the City, on which
the correct tonnage is shown for each load.
The successful bidder will be required to furnish a performance bond in
the amount of $1,500 for a period of one year after date of award.
If material cannot be furnished when needed by the City of Kalispell,
the City reserves the right to purchase the material from another vendor.
The undersigned hereby agrees to furnish aggregates in accordance with
the conditions in the above Proposal.
F"SECURITY
.1,� ANC. DATE:
BTITLE:B
Ll
ST-0012-87
PROPOSAL FOR CRUSHED BASE
Items I and 2 listed below shall include the cost of loading into
City trucks of the material indicated in the Specifications. Bid
Items 3 and 4 shall include the cost of the successful bidder to haul
the material to the job site within the City of Kalispell. The
material shall be in accordance with the attached specifications.
Bid
Estimated
Unit
Total
Item
Description
Unit
Quantity
Price
Amount
1
3/4" Minus
Tons
8,000
$
c
$ 3D-',Ijoa
2
1/2" Minus
Tons
2,000
$
j}' °
$ ," 0060
3
The above 3/4"
minus delivered
Go
to job site
Tons
$
jos
$G %Op
4
The above 1/2"
minus delivered
to job site
Tons
$
This proposal shall be in effect until December 31, 1987, or the end
of the 1987 construction season, whichever is the latest date.
The City reserves the right to accept or reject any or all bids.
The City reserves the right to increase or decrease individual quantities
without a change in the unit prices bid for any single item. Payment
will be made for actual quantities delivered. Where tonnage is the unit,
the successful bidder shall furnish weight tickets to the City, on which
the correct tonnage is shown for each load.
The successful bidder will be required to furnish a performance bond in
the amount of $1,500 for a period of one year after date of award.
If material cannot be furnished when needed by the City of Kalispell,
the City reserves the right to purchase the material from another vendor.
The undersigned hereby agrees to furnish aggregates in accordance with
the conditions in the above Proposal.
FIRM: /LING (.IiZc;..� y W. /�S DATE: `1411. 7
BY: _4=7 ill TITLE:
BID SECURITY FURNISHED:
ST-0012-87
PROPOSAL FOR CRUSHED BASE
Items 1 and 2 listed below shall include the cost of loading into
City trucks of the material indicated in the Specifications.- Bid
Items 3 and 4 shall include the cost of the successful bidder to haul
the material to the job site within the City of Kalispell. The _
material shall be in accordance with the attached specifications.
Bid
Estimated
Unit
Total
Item
Description
Unit
Quantity
Price
Amount
1
3/4" Minus
Tons
8,000
$ 3.86
$
30,880
2
1/2" Minus
Tons
2,000
$ 4.22
$
8,440
3
The above 3/4"
minus delivered
_
to job site
Tons
$ 6.21
$
49,680
4
The above 1/2"
minus delivered
to job site
Tons
$ 6.56
$
13,120
COST
OF MATERIAL
AND DELIVERY
This
proposal shall be in
effect
until December
31, 1987,
or
the end
• of the
1987 construction
season,
whichever is the
latest
date.
The City reserves the right to accept or reject any or all bids.
The City reserves the right to increase or decrease individual quantities
without a change in the unit prices bid for any single item. Payment
will be made for actual quantities delivered. Where tonnage is the unit,
the successful bidder shall furnish weight tickets to the City, on which
the correct tonnage is shown for each load.
The successful bidder will be required to furnish a performance bond in
0he amount of $1,500.for a period of one year after date of awnr� .d.0'46t��/
,'eiaef- w.%7Neli��' in'fc; -`rIrna/ (704'1r4CV- tU+-//I,/I 'fPiIGO�C'4.y5 Q-F7`P^-R-eJtt.�Cf�CeKL�
fIf material cannot be furbished when needed by the City of Kalispell,
the City reserves the right to purchase the material from another vendor.
The undersigned hereby agrees to furnish aggregates in accordance with
the conditions in the above Proposal.
FIRM: LHC, INCORPORATED
DATE: 4/6/87
BY�%
/ �
�i
Construction
TITLE: Superintendent
e
l.E. Butc Woolard
ce, hr�� t-dtt ct�j
BID SECURITY FURNISHED:
Bid Bond
0
:I
jpc�-r"s,a:x
ST_001I-87
PROPOSAL FOR U`'CRUSHED SUB -BASE
The material shall be in accordance with the attached Specifications.
Bid Items No. 1 and No. 2 shall include the cost of loading into
City trucks of the material specified, when needed. Bid Item No. 3
shall include the cost of the successful bidder to haul the material
to the job site within the City of Kalispell.
Bid Estimated Unit Total
Item Description Unit Quantity Price Amount
1 6" Uncrushed
Sub -base Tons
50,000 $ /
$ S
2 4" Uncrushed
Sub -base Tons
50,000 $ 1.1
7-
$ 5-- ,5-
3 Above Items 1
OR 2
delivered to
City
job site
Tons
$--
NOTE: The City reserves the right to determine which bid item,
either No. 1 or No. 2, will be chosen.
This proposal shall be in effect untilDecember 31, 1987, or the
end of the 1987 construction season, whichever is the latest date.
The City reserves the right to accept or reject any or all bids.
The City reserves the right to increase or decrease individual quantities
without a change in the unit prices bid for any single item. Payment
will be made for actual quantities delivered. Where tonnage is
the unit, the successful bidder shall furnish weight tickets to
the City, on which the correct tonnage is shown for each load.
The successful bidder will be required to furnish a performance
bond in the amount of $1,500 for a period of one year after date
of award.
If the material cannot be furnished when needed by the City of Kalispell,
the City reserves the right to purchase the material from another vendor.
The undersigned hereby agrees to furnish aggregates in accordance
with the conditions in the above Proposal.
DATE:
TITLE:
t�
ST-0011-87
PROPOSAL FOR UNCRUSHED SUB -BASE
The material shall be inaccordancewith the attached Specifications.
Bid Items No. 1 and No. 2 shall include the cost of loading into
City trucks of the material specified, when needed. Bid Item No. 3
shall include the cost of the successful bidder to haul the material
to the job site within the City of Kalispell.
Bid Estimated Unit Total
Item Description Unit Quantity Price Amount
1 6" Uncrushed Sub -base Tons 50,000 $ 1.20 $60,000
2 4" Uncrushed Sub -base Tons 50,000 $ 1.70 $85,000
3 Above Items 1 OR 2 6" 3.55 $177,500
delivered to City
job site Tons 4" / $ 4.05 $20.2 -500
NOTE: The City reserves the right to determine which bid item,
either No. 1 or No. 2, will be chosen.
This proposal shall be in effect untilDecember 31, 1987, or the
end of the 1987 construction season, whichever is the latest date.
The City reserves the right to accept or reject any or all bids.
The City reserves the right to increase or decrease individual quantities
without a change in the unit prices bid for any single item. Payment
will be made for actual quantities delivered. Where tonnage is
the unit, the successful bidder shall furnish weight tickets to
the City, on which the correct tonnage is shown for each load.
The successful bidder will be required to furnish a performance
bond in the amount of $1,500 for a period of one year after date
of award.
If the material cannot be furnished when needed by the City of Kalispell,
the City reserves the right to purchase the material from another vendor.
The undersigned hereby agrees to furnish aggregates in accordance
with the conditions in the above Proposal.
FIRM: LHC, INCORPORATED DATE: 4/6/87
Construction
BY: TITLE: Superintendent
M.E. utch' Woo and '-01p,rC CC. hF'tGf
BID SECURITY FURNISHED:_ Bid Bond r
•
0
PROPOSAL FOR HOT MIX
Provide approximately 8,000 tons of minus 5/8 inch plant mix material
as specified herein, F. 0. B. vendor's plat location, for the cost
per ton of:
TONS UNIT PRICE/TON EXTENSION
Lcr. OU
DELIVERY BY BIDDER/CONTRACTOR TO JOB SITE
On occasion the City may require the bidder/contractor
to deliver hot mix to the job site within the City of
Kalispell. /
Unit Price/Ton Delivered
The City reserves the right to accept or reject any or all bids.
The City reserves the right to increase or decrease quantities without
a change in the unit price bid. Payment will be made for actual
quantities delivered.
The undersigned hereby agrees to furnish materials in accordance
with the conditions in the above Proposal.
FIRM::'/'/ //' f � L> ��:�.. DATE:
BY: c-/,..`._.%i%/�"� l- TITLE:
BID SECURITY FURNISHED:
0
PROPOSAL FOR HOT MIX
Provide approximately 8,000 tons of minus 5/8 inch plant mix material
as specified herein, F. 0. B. vendor's plat location, for the cost
per ton of:
TONS
UNIT PRICE/TON
DELIVERY BY BIDDER/CONTRACTOR TO JOB SITE
EXTENSION
On occasion the City may require the bidder/contractor
to deliver hot mix to the job site within the City of
Kalispell.
Unit Price/Ton Delivered %
The City reserves the right to accept or reject any or all bids.
The City reserves the right to increase or decrease quantities without
a change in the unit price bid. Payment will be made for actual
quantities delivered.
The undersigned hereby agrees to furnish materials in accordance -
with the conditions in the above Proposal.
FI AC-L� C (C-)N f A)L DATE: (p
I
j
BY: ,�- �� TITLE:
BI� SYCURITY FURNISHED: �\ 4