HomeMy WebLinkAbout20031013.tiff 6 GENERAL SERVICES
I1 Ott
915 10TH STREET Cr!/'T�1 P.O. BOX 758
GREELEY, CO 80632
I www.co.weld.co.us
Direct Line: 970-336-7225
C
FAX: 970-352-9019
COLORADO
April 15,2003
John W. Myers,P.E.
Foothills Engineering
420 Twenty-first Avenue,No. 113
Longmont, Colorado 80501
Dear Mr. Myers,
I have reviewed your letter of April 8, 2003 regarding the bid for professional
engineering services for the design of Weld County Road 13, (RFP No. B0300079).
We do not negotiate incomplete bids nor have we ever held a vendor accountable for a
bid price on an incomplete bid. Mr. Howard offered you the option of completing your
proposal based on the original bid price"eating the mistake"or withdrawing your bid.
You obviously misunderstood and requested additional funding. This caused the
rejection of your bid.
On Tuesday,April 1, 2003, I presented the three lowest bids to the Board of County
Commissioners in a work session. The first bid was incomplete and rejected; the second,
yours,had additional pricing and was rejected; the third which met the specifications with
no additional costs was accepted.
Thank you for bidding with Weld County.
Sincerely,
PAT PERSICHINO
DIRECTOR
ce, 1.9-PAtZ G�
2003-1013
Foothills Engineering
420 Twenty-first Avenue, No. 113
Longmont, Colorado 80501
(303) 651-721$ LJ
April 8, 2003
2r. I 1 kl1 9. 31
Weld County Board of Commissioners:
Dave Long, Mike Geile, Robert Masden, Glenn Vaad, and Bill Jerke n t _ )
915 Tenth Street
P.O.Box 758
Greeley, CO 80632
Gentlemen:
This letter is to protest the disqualification of our firm's bid to provide professional engineering
services for the design of Weld County Road 13 from WCR2 to WCR8 (UP No. B0300079),
and the subsequent award of the work to Jenn& Associates.
I own and operate Foothills Engineering Company, in Longmont. We have been in business here
since 1989. In the last fourteen years we have designed many transportation-related projects,
including many highway bridges for counties in other parts of the state. We have never had any
significant problems with any project. All of our designs have been successfully constructed, and I
believe that our reputation with our clients is excellent. Our overhead costs are low, and we are
able to work for less than many larger firms.
On March 18th we bid on the above project. We were especially interested in this project, and
tried to submit a very competitive bid. There were 13 bids in all. Ours was the second-lowest bid
at $161,025.00. Another consultant submitted a lump-sum bid of$99,445.00. The next-lowest bid
above ours was for$218,398.00.
The following Friday, March 21', I received a call from Wayne Howard of the Weld County
Public Works Department asking us to meet with him in Greeley the following Tuesday, March
25th at 2:00 PM. I attended with representatives of CDS Engineering in Loveland, who were to be
our engineering subcontractor for the surveying and soils work.
At that meeting Mr. Howard said that they had decided to discard the lowest bid as being non-
responsive to the RFP, and that we were therefore the lowest acceptable bidder. Mr. Howard then
pointed out one particular bid item, dealing with right-of-way acquisition, which he thought may
have been too low. Adler discussing the County's requirements for land title work, we agreed that
we had underestimated and underbid that one item. Mr. Howard asked how much extra would be
needed for the title insurance, and we promised to get him that number right away. Mr. Howard,
Mr. Scheltinga and Mr. Seivers, who also attended the meeting, indicated that the rest of the
proposal looked acceptable. Mr. Howard asked me to write a letter and fax it to him before 9:00
AM of the following Wednesday, to be taken to the Commission meeting. The letter was to
indicate our continued willingness to perform the work.
Later that day in Greeley, we obtained an initial price of$700.00 per parcel for the land title
work. The next day I phoned Mr. Howard and told him that our extra unanticipated cost was
$16,800, or$700 for each of the estimated 24 parcels, for a revised bid of$177,825. Mr. Howard
asked me to put that in my letter, and to stress that we would be unable to perform the work if we
did not get the additional money. I did not follow that advice, instead putting it as a request. Our
understanding was that the County may deny or negotiate the request. We in no way imagined it
would negatively affect our bid.
I phoned Mr. Howard several times to check on the status of our proposal, and to ask how the
letter had been received. The first week he told me that the Board had not gotten to it, and that he
would call after the meeting of Wednesday, April 2". Yesterday, when I was finally able to reach
Mr. Howard at his office, he informed me that our proposal had been rejected based on an iron-
clad principle of refusing to negotiate increases in bids, and the job awarded to the next-lowest
bidder, Jenn& Associates. Their bid was $218,398, or $57,373 over ours, and $40,573 more than
our bid would have been with the requested increase. Mr. Howard further stated that, although
Jenn& Assocs. also underbid on the e item of work, that they agreed to"eat"the mistake and
not ask for additional money. This was, ccording to Mr. Howard, the factor which got them the
job.
I strongly protest the disqualification of ur bid:
1. We were never informed abou any procurement rule which would result in our
disqualification for asking for an ncrease. Mr. Howard and Mr. Scheltinga asked us to get
them the price for the extra work without mentioning any potential problems that would
cause for us. I can find no statem nt in the RFP about such a rule.
2. Jenn& Associates was given t e option of accepting the job at their original price, even
though it was $57,373 over ours, and they had underbid on the same item as we had. We
were not given that option, but uld have accepted it in order to keep the job.
3. Mr. Howard asked me to inclu a language in my letter to the Board indicating that we
would not and could not perform the work at our original bid price. According to our
conversation yesterday, that Ian age would have automatically disqualified us. I put it in
the form of a request instead, beli ving that there was latitude for negotiation. Why was I
told to state it in terms of an ulti tum?
4. We were never given the oppo unity to discuss this matter with anyone, or to defend
our bid before the Board. We ha no idea there was any problem until I spoke with Mr.
Howard yesterday.
I am requesting the reinstatement of our id, and that we be allowed to perform the work. The
process used by Mr. Howard and the Pu lic Works Department was misleading and was not
conducted in good faith. I can't believe t at they are willing to waste a minimum of
$40,573 of the taxpayers' money in this anner. I believe that this negates the valid purpose of
the bid.
I hope to hear from you soon on this. We are anxious to get started on the job.
Sincerely,(>15)--/4 �7� /
` v
ohn W. Myers, P.E.
attached: Letter of March 25*requesting addition to our bid.
cc: Frank Hempen, Public Works Director
Pat Persichino, Purchasing Director
Foothills Engineering
420 Twenty-fist Avenue, No. 113
Longmont, Colorado 80501
(303) 851-7212
March 28, 2003
Wayne Howard, P.E.
Project Manager
Weld County Department of Public Works
P.O. Bo 758
1111 H Street
Greeley, CO 80632
Re: Proposal for Professional Engineering Services for Road Design Project, WCR 13
from WCR 2 to WCR 8 (RFP No. B0300079).
Dear Mr. Howard:
This is to confirm our interest in providing engineering services for the design of Weld
County Road 13, between WCR 2 end WCR B. We are very much interested in this
project, and are committed to providing the County with the best possible professional
services.
As you brought to our attention in our meeting yesterday, we inadvertently left out of our
proposal some of the costs of right-of-way acquisition, specifically the cost of the title
policies. These will amount to $700.00 per parcel, or a total of $16,800 for the
estimated 24 separate parcels to be acquired. I apologize for the omission. We have
reviewed our proposal and have not found any other mistakes or omissions.
In the interest of providing the County with the best possible service, we would like to
request permission to increase the Item 7.03.07 by that amount, to $27,303. This will
just cover the cost of tide insurance for the right-of-way parcels, while allowing us to
complete the other tasks under that item of work. This would increase our total
proposed price for the project to $177,825. Please let us know if this is acceptable to
the County.
Again, I apologize for the omission in our Proposal. Please call at any time to discuss this
or any other matter.
Sincerely,
Jo n (Jack) Myers, P.E., Principal
cc File
Hello