HomeMy WebLinkAbout20181561.tiffRESOLUTION
RE: ACTION OF THE BOARD CONCERNING APPEAL OF THE DECISION BY THE
PURCHASING DIRECTOR TO DENY PROTEST OF THE AWARD OF CONTRACT TO
ROCHE CONSTRUCTORS, INC., FOR BID #B1800059, JAIL 2 WEST EXPANSION
(DESIGN/BUILD) - BRYAN CONSTRUCTION, INC.
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Weld County, Colorado, pursuant to
Colorado statute and the Weld County Home Rule Charter, is vested with the authority of
administering the affairs of Weld County, Colorado, and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Sections 2-4-10 and 5-4-155 of the Weld County Code, the Board
of County Commissioners considered the appeal of the decision by the Purchasing Director to
deny the Protest of the Award of Contract to Roche Constructors, Inc., for Bid #61800059, Jail 2
West Expansion (Design/Build), submitted by the appellant, Bryan Construction, Inc., and
WHEREAS, the Board heard testimony and took evidence from the Purchasing
Department and Building and Grounds staff and Bryan Construction, Inc., and
WHEREAS, upon consideration of such appeal, including a review of all information
submitted by the appellant and the Departments of Purchasing and Buildings and Grounds, the
Board deems it advisable to deny the appeal of Bryan Construction, Inc., and affirm the decision
by the Purchasing Department to deny the protest of the Award of Contract to Roche
Constructors, Inc., for Bid #B1800059, Jail 2 West Expansion (Design/Build).
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of County Commissioners of Weld
County, Colorado, that the appeal of Bryan Construction, Inc., be, and hereby is, denied, and the
decision by the Purchasing Department to deny the protest of the Award of Contract to Roche
Constructors, Inc., for Bid #B1800059, Jail 2 West Expansion (Design/Build), is affirmed.
CC: PIA ORT I IR E I CP),
ACTCF3C)) FI COw),CA C68)
o7 -0t'-18
2018-1561
BG0020
RE: APPEAL FOR BID #B1800059, JAIL 2 WEST EXPANSION (DESIGN/BUILD) - BRYAN
CONSTRUCTION, INC.
PAGE 2
The above and foregoing Resolution was, on motion duly made and seconded, adopted
by the following vote on the 16th day of May, A.D., 2018.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
WELD COUNTY, COLORADO
ATTEST: ditsifeti �. ..Clt0%&k.
Weld County Clerk to the Board
BY: „ea/iv-
Deputy'EgrZto the Boa6
A . D ORM:
o nt ttorney
Date of signature: 06- 027-/?
Steve Moreno, Chair
arbara Kirkme r Pro -Terri y ,
Sean P. Conway
Julie A. Cozad
ike Freeman
2018-1561
BG0020
5/19
MEMORANDUM
TO: Board of County Commissioners of Weld County
DATE: May 11, 2018
FROM: Bruce T. Barker, Weld County Attorney
SUBJECT: Procedure for Appeal by Bryan Construction, Inc.
Bryan Construction, Inc. ('`Bryan"), has appealed the decision made by Barb Connolly,
Purchasing Director, regarding the award of Bid #B 1800059, Jail 2 West Expansion
(Design/Build) to Roche Constructors, Inc. The appeal is pursuant to Weld County Code (WCC)
Section 5-4-155 A.3., which says the following:
3. If the aggrieved vendor is not satisfied with the Purchasing Director's resolution, it may
appeal the decision in accordance with Section 2-4-10 of this Code.
Barb's decision is attached.
WCC Section 2-4-10 D., says the following:
D. The Board of County Commissioners shall hear all the available facts pertinent to the
incident, may schedule a second hearing within thirty (30) days following the initial
hearing if the Board determines such a need, and shall render a determination within thirty
(30) days of the final hearing.
In their May 1, 2018, appeal letter, Bryan lists the following issues/arguments:
1. Contrary to the Decision, the BOCC did not determine that Roche was the "lowest qualified
bidder."
2. Contrary to the Decision the Request for Bid was not made under Section 5-4-60.C.
3. Contrary to the Decision the BOCC improperly applied the preference in Section 14-9 of
the Home Rule Charter to award the contract to Roche.
The appeal hearing is set for Monday, May 14, 2018. at 9:00 a.m. I recommend the hearing be
conducted in the following manner:
a. Karl Berg, attorney for Bryan, should first be allowed to present their appeal. He will give
the reasons he believes support the three points listed above. The hearing needs to he
2018-1561
I3&ooao
Memorandum. BOCC
May 14, 2018
Page 2
limited to these issues/arguments — it is not a rehearing to hear all evidence to determine
who gets the hid.
b. Ask staff to respond to these issues/arguments. "Staffwould include Toby Taylor, Rob
Turf, Barb Connolly, Don Warden and me.
c. It is at the Board's discretion if you desire to allow representatives from Roche to speak.
Again, any comments allowed by the Board need to he limited to the three issues/arguments
listed above.
d. No public testimony is allowed.
As with any appeal, the Board's decision is to either grant or deny it. If the Board grants the
appeal, I recommend the Board reset the matter on the Board's agenda for reconsideration of the
four bids. If the Board denies the appeal. Roche then proceeds with the project.
Please let me if you have any questions.
Bruce T. Barker, Weld County Attorney
Attach: Letter, Barb Connolly, 4-26-18
Pc: Barb Connolly
Don Warden
Rob Turf
Toby Taylor
Department of Accounting
Department of Purchasing
Phone (970) 356-4000
P.O. Box 758
Greeley, Colorado 80632
April 26, 2018
Dear Mr. Berg,
I have reviewed your April 23, 2018, letter, written on behalf of Bryan Constructors, Inc.
("Bryan"), protesting the award of Bid #B 1800059, 2 -West Jail Expansion — Design/Build to
Roche Constnictors, Inc. ('`Roche"). Your letter provides the information required by Weld
County Code ("WCC") Section 5-4-155. You contend that the Board of County Commissioners
of Weld County ("the Board") incorrectly applied Weld County Charter Section 14-9(3) in making
its decision, and did not comply with the provisions of WCC Section 5-4-150.
The Board awarded the hid to Roche because it was the lowest bidder. Roche's bid was
$3,136,305. The bid for Bryan Construction, Inc., was $3,283,870. The Board also found Roche
to be qualified to perform the work. Roche previously completed all three phases of the Weld
County Jail on time and under budget.
Because Roche was found to he the lowest qualified bidder, the Board did not apply the provisions
of Charter Section 14-9(3). This procurement was not a "qualification -based selection process for
professional services" under WCC Section 5-4-150. Rather, it was a Request for Bid for a Formal
Purchase, pursuant to WCC Section 5-4-60 C. Subsection 7 of WCC Section 5-4-60 C., states the
following:
7. Formal bid review and award. When evaluating bids, consideration may be given, but not
necessarily limited to some or all of the following: price, bidder's previous record of
performance and service (internal/external), ability of bidder to render satisfactory
service in this instance (i.e., training, maintenance and repairs), availability of
bidder's representative to call upon and consult with the end users, quality and
conformance to specifications, delivery schedule, life cycle costs, warranty. (Emphasis
added.)
a. The department head and the purchasing agent will make a recommendation to the
Board of County Commissioners. The final award of the bid will be approved by the
Board of County Commissioners. If the low bid is found unacceptable because of some
factual circumstance, the Department should write a dear, concise, and factual
justification for selecting other than the low hid.
b. Per Section 14-9(3) of the Weld County Home Rule Charter, the County
Commissioners shall give preference to resident Weld County bidders in all cases
where the bids are competitive in price and quality.
e. Per Section 14-9(4) of the Weld County Home Rule Charter, the County
Commissioners shalt enter in the minutes of the meeting, at which a purchase is made
for other than a low hid, the reason for not accepting the low hid.
d. Exceptions to this section include sole source purchases and professional services
approved by the Board of County Commissioners.
As stated on page 2 of the Request for Bid, "Weld County reserves the right ... to accept the bid
that, in the opinion of the Board of County Commissioners, is to the best interests of Weld County."
As Roche was determined by the Board to be the lowest qualified bidder and thus awarded the bid,
I do not believe there is a means to "resolve the protest by mutual agreement," as allowed by WCC
5-4-155 A.2.
In accordance with WCC Section 5-4-155 A.3. if Bryan is not satisfied with my resolution of
the protest, it may appeal the decision in accordance with WCC Section 2-4-10.
Sincerely,
Barbara Connolly, CPA
Controller and
Purchasing Director
pc: Rob "Turf, Purchasing Manager
Toby Taylor, Director, Buildings and Grounds
Don Warden, Director of Finance and Administration
Bruce Barker, Weld County Attorney
Sec. 2-4-10. - Appeals process.
The Board of County Commissioners shall act as a board of appeals to hear complaints on actions
taken by County boards, commissions and departments. Except for decisions made by the Board of
Adjustment and Uniform Building Code Board of Appeals, procedure for appeals shall be as set forth in this
Chapter, by resolution of the Board, or as otherwise provided by law.
A. Any person appealing an action by a County board, commission or department to the Board of
County Commissioners shall file such a complaint, in writing, with the Clerk to the Board within
sixty (60) days of the incident in question. Appeals concerning purchases or procurements made
in accordance with Chapter 5, Article IV, of this Code shall be filed within five (5) days of the
incident in question.
B. Such complaint shall include:
1. The name of the employee, board, commission or department against which the complaint
is made.
2. A description of the basic facts involved in the complaint.
C. The Clerk to the Board shall schedule a hearing with the Board of County Commissioners, to be
held within fifteen (15) days of the filing of the complaint, and shall notify all parties involved in
the incident.
D. The Board of County Commissioners shall hear all the available facts pertinent to the incident,
may schedule a second hearing within thirty (30) days following the initial hearing if the Board
determines such a need, and shall render a determination within thirty (30) days of the final
hearing.
E. No person shall be denied the right to appeal, provided that he or she complies with the
administrative procedures established by the Board.
(Weld County Codification Ordinance 2000-1; Weld County Code Ordinance 2016-14)
Page 1
Sec. 5-4-155. - Bid protest.
A. The protest shall be submitted, in writing, to the Purchasing Department during the bid process or
when the aggrieved vendor knows, or should have known of, the factors giving rise to the bid protest,
or within five (5) business days after award, whichever is earlier.
1. The written formal protest must contain a minimum of the following:
a. A specific identification of each alleged act and the statute or section of the Weld County
Code that the purchasing staff member or department is alleged to have violated.
b. A precise statement of the relevant facts that include time -lines and all involved parties.
c. An identification of the issue or issues that need to be resolved that support the protest.
d. Any documentation or contractual provision(s) which is relevant to the protest.
2. The Purchasing Director shall review any timely protest and attempt to resolve the protest by
mutual agreement. The Purchasing Department shall notify the aggrieved vendor, in writing, of
its findings and resolution.
3. If the aggrieved vendor is not satisfied with the Purchasing Director's resolution, it may appeal
the decision in accordance with Section 2-4-10 of this Code.
(Weld County Code Ordinance 2016-14)
Sec. 5-4-150. - Qualification -based selection process for professional services.
A. Applicability. This qualification -based selection (QBS) process must be used whenever required by
state or federal law. Appendix 5-P provides additional guidance.
B. QBS procedure.
1. Step 1: RFQ. A Request for Qualifications ("RFQ") shall be advertised by the Department of
Purchasing, outlining general project requirements and proposal guidelines.
a. The RFQ may be advertised at the time that a project need arises or prior to any project
need arising. If the RFQ is not project -specific, the RFQ shall be advertised annually, in
order to create a short list of qualified individuals or firms that are able to provide
professional service. Nothing in this Section precludes the County from accepting
qualifications and/or vendors as allowed in Section 5-4-60 of this Article.
b. Individuals or firms responding to the RFQ shall submit a statement of interest to the
Department of Purchasing by a designated date. Such statements shall address the
categories provided in Appendix 5-Q.
c. The department head or elected official shall designate a review team which shall review
the individuals/firms based upon their statements of interest according to the criteria
provided in Appendix 5-Q. The Director of General Services, or his or her designee, shall
participate on every review team. The review team shall create a short list of three (3) to
five (5) individuals/firms.
2. Step 2: RFP/Interviews. The department head or elected official shall provide a Request for
Proposal (RFP) to each of the individuals/firms on the short list, who shall be required to attend
a mandatory pre -proposal meeting. The review team shall interview all individuals/firms
responding to the RFP and shall rank each proposal according to the criteria provided in
Appendix 5-S.
3. Step 3: Negotiation.
a. The department head or elected official, or his or her designee, shall negotiate in good faith
with the highest ranked firm or company in order to come to agreement on all aspects of
the contract, including total contract price.
b. If no agreement can be made with the highest ranked company or firm, the department
head or elected official, or his or her designee, may stop negotiations and begin
negotiations with the next highest ranked firm or company. This process may be repeated
as may be necessary. If negotiation is not successful with any of the ranked companies or
firms, the department head or elected official may begin the QBS process over or may
begin the negotiation process over.
C. Best Value QBS procedure.
1. Step 1: RFQ. Whenever the project is not required by state or federal law to be procured
through the QBS Procedure outlined above, the following Best Value QBS process may be
used at the discretion of the Board of County Commissioners. Step 1 of the process is identical
to Step 1 under Subsection B. above.
2. Step 2: RFP. The department head or elected official shall provide a RFP to each of the
individuals/firms on the short list, who shall be required to attend a mandatory pre -proposal
meeting. The review team shall review all proposals according to the criteria provided in
Appendix 5-R and shall interview the bidders.
a. When deemed to be in the best interest of the County, the department head may request a
Best and Final Offer (BAFO). Any request for a BAFO should be made following all
pertinent discussions, questions, and all addendums made to clarify full understanding of,
and responsiveness to, the solicitation requirements. Vendors shall be accorded fair and
equal treatment with respect to any opportunity for discussion and revision of proposals. All
pricing and information shall remain confidential until the successful proposal is accepted
by the Board of County Commissioners.
1. Best and Final offers shall be requested in writing. The request shall include:
a. Notice that discussions are concluded.
b. Notice that this is an opportunity to submit a Best and Final Offer.
c. A due date for submission of the Best and Final Offer.
3. Step 3: Interview/Award. If the low bidder's proposal meets the specifications provided in the
RFP, the department head or elected official shall recommend that the Board of County
Commissioners award the contract to the low bidder. If the low bidder's proposal does not meet
the specifications of the RFP, the department head or elected official shall interview the next
lowest bidder until the lowest bid that meets specifications is identified.
D. Approval of contract. The results of the selection process, including the name and address of the
recommended firm or company, and a Professional Services Agreement, shall be presented to the
Board of County Commissioners for approval and specific Board action. No QBS-negotiated contract
shall be approved except through this process.
( Weld County Code Ordinance 2015-2 ; Weld County Code Ordinance 2016-1 )
Sec. 5-4-60. - Purchasing limits and procedures.
These procedures are adopted pursuant to Section 14-9 of the Home Rule Charter. As discussed in
Section 14-9, all purchases shall assure open and competitive bidding. All bid specifications shall be
prepared in such a manner as to invite and encourage bidding from all suppliers. No specifications shall
be submitted to bidders so restrictive in detail as to eliminate any line of competitive equipment. In all
cases, the County shall reserve the right to reject any and all bids and/or select the bid which is in the
best interest of the County.
A. Small Purchases. Purchasing authority has been delegated to the Department head of each
Department for those transactions under $5,000.00 and within their budget. Small purchases do not
require quotes or a purchase order; however, Departments are expected to make purchases in the best
interest of the County. Acquisitions of products and services under $5,000.00 may be handled three
ways:
1. Submission of a formal requisition request to Purchasing,
2. Use of a procurement card (subject to the limitations of Section 5-4-200), or
3. Invoice generated by vendor for a direct pay.
B. Informal Purchases. Purchasing authority has been delegated to the Department head of each
Department for those transactions between $5,000.00 and $25,000.00 and within their budget.
Departments may request, via a requisition, the Purchasing Department to request quotes and
conduct the transaction. Quotes should be sought to foster fair and open competition and to
achieve maximum economy for the County. The amount of money being spent for the goods or
services should cover a 12 -month period. Quotes should not be awarded, within a 12 -month
period, to the same or similar vendors to avoid doing a Formal Bid.
1. The informal bid process consists of:
a. Submission of a formal requisition request to Purchasing or a direct department
solicitation to qualified vendors.
b. Either method should consist of a minimum of three (3) bids (whenever possible) with
results sent to Purchasing to be maintained as a public record. The quotations may be
in writing, e-mail, via telephone, or via facsimile. If by telephone, a complete record of
the transaction must be maintained, to include, as a minimum, the following for each
supplier contacted, including suppliers from whom quotes were solicited, but did not
bid or respond: supplier name, quoted by (name), date of quotation, and quoted price.
c. When using previously obtained bids to purchase products or services, such bids shall
have been obtained within twelve (12) months of purchase.
2. Payment for acquisitions of product and services can be secured through:
a. Purchase order initiated by Purchasing,
b. Use of a procurement card (subject to the limits of Section 5-4-180), or
c. Invoice generated by vendor for a direct pay.
3. If the low bid is found unacceptable because of some factual circumstance, the Department
should write a clear, concise, and factual justification for not accepting the lowest bid.
4. All informal bid prices received shall remain confidential until the award is made. After the
award is made, all information regarding the bid shall be open for public inspection during
regular business hours.
5. In the event items do not meet specifications, the Department of Purchasing or individual
Department may reject the bid or, at its discretion, ask for additional documentation from
the vendor regarding evidence of why the alternate will satisfy the need. If documentation
justifies, the County may invite the vendor to provide a demonstration. Based upon data
and/or demonstration, the Department of Purchasing or individual Department may accept
an alternative bid.
C. Formal Purchases. All vehicle purchases and purchases over $25,000.00 must go through the
formal bid process. The formal bid procedures may be used for purchases under the amount
established by the annual purchasing ordinance (twenty-five thousand dollars [$25,000.00])
when the best interest of the County so dictates.
1. All bidding shall be in accordance with, and pursuant to, Section 14-9(1)-(5) of the Home
Rule Charter. All purchases in excess of an amount to be set annually by the Board of
County Commissioners by ordinance shall be by written, sealed bid, and bids over the
amount set annually by ordinance (twenty-five thousand [$25,000.00]) by the Board of
County Commissioners shall be followed by a ten-day period for consideration and
investigation of the bids submitted to determine comparisons of quality and price. The ten-
day waiting period may be waived by resolution of the Board for emergency purchases.
The Commissioners shall accept the bid they find to be most beneficial to the County. Prior
to advertising for such bids, the purchasing agent shall verify that the purchase is
authorized in the current budget.
2. At the discretion of the Director of General Services, formal bids may be advertised in the
official county newspaper, except as statutorily required, and may be advertised in other
publications or media, such as an online bid advertisement service. Such advertisement
shall include, but not be limited to, the following:
a. General description of the required commodity or service.
b. The location to obtain required bid documents.
c. Cost of bid documents (if applicable).
d. Amount of bid bond (when applicable).
e. Time and place of bid opening.
f. Reservation of the right to: (1) Waive informalities, (2) Reject all bids, or (3) Accept the
proposal deemed most advantageous to the best interest of the County.
3. Invitations to bid shall be sent to all appropriate vendors on the County's vendor list and/or
through the appropriate online bid advertisement service categories. The County may send
invitations to other qualified vendors and/or by advertising on the internet or through direct
solicitation.
4. When bids are received, they shall be stamped with the date and time received, initialed by
the person receiving them, and filed until opened. After the bids are opened, the proposals
shall be reviewed by the purchasing agent and the department head who initiated the
requisition.
5. All formal bids shall be publicly opened at the time and place indicated in the advertisement
or as specified in the bid documents. If bids are submitted by email or facsimile, the vendor
must include the following statement, "I hereby waive my right to a sealed bid." Bidders are
invited, but are not required, to attend the bid opening.
6. The Department of Purchasing may introduce "other source" bids that serve the best
interest of the County. "Other source" bids are quotes for products and/or services which
are obtained from entities such as on-line sources, direct -buy from manufacturers or
wholesalers, published catalogues, or other sources which may increase competition and
reduce cost.
7. Formal bid review and award. When evaluating bids, consideration may be given, but not
necessarily limited to some or all of the following: price, bidder's previous record of
performance and service (internal/external), ability of bidder to render satisfactory service
in this instance (i.e., training, maintenance and repairs), availability of bidder's
representative to call upon and consult with the end users, quality and conformance to
specifications, delivery schedule, life cycle costs, warranty.
a. The department head and the purchasing agent will make a recommendation to the
Board of County Commissioners. The final award of the bid will be approved by the
Board of County Commissioners. If the low bid is found unacceptable because of
some factual circumstance, the Department should write a clear, concise, and factual
justification for selecting other than the low bid.
b. Per Section 14-9(3) of the Weld County Home Rule Charter, the County
Commissioners shall give preference to resident Weld County bidders in all cases
where the bids are competitive in price and quality.
c. Per Section 14-9(4) of the Weld County Home Rule Charter, the County
Commissioners shall enter in the minutes of the meeting, at which a purchase is made
for other than a low bid, the reason for not accepting the low bid.
d. Exceptions to this section include sole source purchases and professional services
approved by the Board of County Commissioners.
8. Best and Final Offer (BAFO). When deemed to be in the best interest of the County, the Director
of General Services or the applicable department head may request a BAFO as a part of any
Formal Purchase. Any request for a BAFO should be made following all pertinent discussions,
questions, and all addendums made to clarify full understanding of, and responsiveness to, the
solicitation requirements. Vendors shall be accorded fair and equal treatment with respect to
any opportunity for discussion and revision of proposals. All pricing and information shall remain
confidential until the successful proposal is accepted by the Board of County Commissioners.
a. Best and Final offers shall be requested in writing. The request shall include:
1. Notice that discussions are concluded.
2. Notice that this is an opportunity to submit a Best and Final Offer.
3. A due date for submission of the Best and Final Offer.
After receipt and analysis of BAFO's, proposals shall be evaluated and a recommendation
made to the Board of County Commissioners in accordance with this section of the Code.
( Weld County Code Ordinance 2015-2 ; Weld County Code Ordinance 2016-1 )
Mulliken Weiner Berg & Jolivet P.C
Attorneys at Law
Steven K. Mulliken
Murray I. Weiner
Caroleen F. Jolivet
Karl A. Berg, Jr.
Trevor J. Young
Alamo Corporate Center
102 South Tejon Street, Suite 900
Colorado Springs, Colorado 80903-2238
Telephone (719) 635-8750
Facsimile (719) 635-8706
www.mullikenlaw.com
Emory G. Allen
Hilary A. Roland
Sara M. Frear
Of Counsel:
Janet K. Williams
May 1, 2018
Via Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested
and Via Electronic Mail
Ms. Esther Gesick
Clerk to the Board
Weld County Board of County Commissioners
P.O. Box 758
Greeley, CO 80631
kberg@',mullikenlaw.com
RECEIVED
MAY 0 2 2018
WELD COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS
Re: Bryan Construction, Inc. / Bid #B1800059, Jail 2 West Expansion (Design/Build)
/ Bid Protest / Notice of Appeal of Purchasing Director Decision / Request for
Hearing
Dear Ms. Gesick:
This correspondence is sent under Section 2-4-10 of the Weld County Charter and
County Code (the "Code"). On April 23, 2018, Bryan filed a protest with the Purchasing
Director under Section 5-4-155 of the Code based upon the Weld County Board of County
Commissioners' ("BOCC") improper award of the referenced project to Roche Constructors, Inc.
("Roche") on April 18, 2018 (the "Protest"). A copy of the Protest is provided as Exhibit 1 and
incorporated by reference. On April 26, 2018, the Purchasing Director denied the Protest (the
"Decision"). The Decision contradicts the Request for Proposals, the Code and what transpired
at the BOCC meeting on April 18, 2018, and must be reversed. The contract was improperly
awarded to Roche and must be withdrawn or rescinded.
A. The name of the department against which the complaint is made:
Decision of Purchasing Director dated April 26, 2018, denying Bryan's Protest of the
BOCC's award of the contract for the project to Roche.
B. A description of the basic facts involved in the complaint:
Bryan incorporates by reference the facts in its Protest. It also offers:
Mulliken Weiner Berg & Jolivet P.C.
Ms. Esther Gesick
May 1, 2018
Page 2
1. Contrary to the Decision, the BOCC did not determine that Roche was the "lowest
qualified bidder."
The Decision states the BOCC awarded the project to Roche because it was "the lowest
qualified bidder." During the BOCC meeting on April 18, 2018, there was not a single reference
to Roche being "the lowest qualified bidder." The Decision's conclusion that the BOCC
awarded the contract to Roche on this basis has no support in the record and cannot be upheld.
Although the transcript of the April 18, 2018, contains several references to Roche's "low
bid," there was no "low bid" for the project as confirmed by this exchange between
Commissioner Kirkmeyer and Mr. Dan Warden:
22
24
COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: So and this is a
firm price?
MR. WARDEN: Right. Once we --
COMMISSIONER COZAD: [indecipherable] what
yo:.;u're looking at?
COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: Once we what?
MR. WARDEN: Once we establish a guaranteed
maximum price, a GM?.
COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: So this is not the
guaranteed maximum price?
MR. WARDEN: However, what you're seeing in
front of you is a budget estimate of what it would be
without the cells or the controls. That is not the
1 firm price.
The firm price is just the design fee,
1<' general conditions. Things highlighted in yellow are
13 just for some internal calculation.
Mullilzen Weiner Berg & Jolivet P.C.
Ms. Esther Gesick
May 1, 2018
Page 3
Exhibit 2, BOCC Meeting Transcript ("Transcript") pp. 61-62.1 Mr. Warden confirmed that
Roche and the other contractors which had submitted proposals had only provided a firm price
for the design fee and general conditions costs. Roche had not provided a "low bid."
Commissioner Kirkmeyer recognized this when she stated shortly thereafter: "I am still greatly
concerned, because we don't have the guaranteed maximum price at this point." Exhibit 2,
Transcript, p. 65. As of April 18, 2018, it was impossible for the BOCC to determine that Roche
was the "low bidder" based exclusively on the limited firm prices provided with its proposal.
The "Request for Bid" for the Project2 sought a "proposal" not a "bid" from the
contractors. See Request for Bid, p. 10 ("Proposals Are Due March 20, 2018") (emphasis
added). It also stated "The County anticipates entering into a Guaranteed Maximum Price
(GMP) Contract with the successful Design Build team after design is complete." Request for
Bid, p. 14 § I (emphasis added). Had a "bid" been requested, the County would have required a
Bid Bond. One was not required. Further, the Request for Bid would not have specifically
identified the mandatory criteria which "will be used to evaluate the proposal submitted in
response to this Request for Proposal ...." Request for Bid, p. 13 (emphasis added). If the
contract was to be awarded based solely upon the design fee proposal and general conditions
costs these items would have been identified as the sole evaluation criteria. They were not.
The BOCC's conclusion that Roche was the "low bidder" is not supported by any
evidence because Roche submitted no bid for the project. The BOCC's decision to award the
contract to Roche because it was the "low bidder" is flawed and factually unsupportable. The
Decision is without factual basis and arbitrary and capricious because no reasonable person
could conclude from the evidence Roche was the "lowest qualified bidder" or "low bidder."
Geer v. Susman, 298 P.2d 948 (Colo. 1956).
2. Contrary to the Decision the Request for Bid was not made under Section 5-4-
60.C.
The Decision states the Request for Bid was issued under Section 5-4-60.C of the Code.
Reviewing this Section confirms the Decision is incorrect. The Request for Bids did not
reference Section 5-4-60.C or any other section of the Code. The BOCC did not identify during
the hearing the section of the Code under which the procurement was being made. Therefore, it
appears the Purchasing Director unilaterally selected this Code section solely because she
believed it supported the propriety of the award to Roche. This was improper as there was no
basis in the record to support this conclusion.
Bryan's conclusion the procurement was a qualification -based selection follows the
language used in the Request for Bid. The Request for Bid followed Section 5-4-150 of Code
which sets forth the procedures for qualification -based selection. Section 5-4-150.C provides for
Bryan obtained a certified transcript of the BOCC meeting of April 18, 2018.
2 The County used its generic Request for Bid form when soliciting proposals for the project presumably because it
did not have another form specifically tailored for Design -Build projects; however, the contents of the Request for
Bid confirms the County was seeking proposals, not bids from the potential contractors.
Mulliken Weiner Berg & Jolivet P.C.
Ms. Esther Gesick
May 1, 2018
Page 4
the qualification of parties, mandatory attendance at a pre -proposal meeting, interviews, specific
evaluation criteria, and a requirement the staff recommend to the BOCC to whom the contract
should be awarded. See Code § 5-4-150. The requirements in the Request for Bid tracked with
Section 5-4-150. See Request for Bid ("The purpose of this RFP is to obtain statements of
qualifications and to solicit fee proposals from firms who wish to provide the services requested
in this RFP."). The Request for Bid set forth in detail each criteria to be used evaluating the
contractors' proposals. See Request for Bid, pp. 13-14 § G. These criteria were discussed during
the meeting. Exhibit 2, Transcript, pp. 27-28. Commissioner Cozad acknowledged that the fees
quoted by the contractors were only one criteria upon which the award was to be made. Exhibit
2, Transcript, p. 28.
Bryan reasonably believed the evaluation criteria in the Request for Bid would be used
when determining to whom the Contract should be awarded. That did not occur. Instead,
despite the BOCC's and staffs specific acknowledgement that the total cost of the project had
not been determined and could not be determined until the design was complete, the BOCC
awarded the contract Roche based on the fiction it was the "low bidder" and not based on the
evaluation criteria the Request for Bid specifically stated would determine to whom the contract
should be awarded.
Based upon the staff's evaluation of the criteria identified in the Request for Bid it
determined "the best value for the county is to award the bid to Bryan Construction from Larimer
County, which is the recommendations (sic) of Buildings and Grounds Department." Exhibit 2,
Transcript p. 3. The BOCC ignored this recommendation and failed to follow Section 5-4-150 of
the Code or Request for Bid as required.
3. Contrary to the Decision the BOCC improperly applied the preference in Section
14-9 of the Home Rule Charter to award the contract to Roche.
The Decision states that because Roche was determined to be the "lowest qualified
bidder" the BOCC did not apply the local preference at Subsection 3 of Section 14-9 of the
Home Rule Charter. As established above, Roche was never determined by the BOCC to be the
"lowest qualified bidder." That terminology was not mentioned once during the hearing and
there was no firm, fixed price bid submitted by the contractors because the project has not been
designed yet.
The conclusion the preference was not applied is not supported by what transpired at the
April 18, 2018, BOCC meeting. Only several minutes into the hearing Commissioner Conway
specifically referenced the local preference and asked if it had been part of the staff evaluation.
Exhibit 2, Transcript, pp. 4-5. It appears Commissioner Conway was improperly predisposed to
awarding the contract based on the preference. Later the BOCC spent considerable time
debating if FCI Constructors was a resident of Weld County.3 Exhibit 2, Transcript, pp. 37-43.
The County Attorney was consulted regarding the definition of "resident." Exhibit 2, Transcript,
s Roche's and FCI's representatives who spoke at the BOCC meeting also emphasized why they were residents of
Weld County.
10
11
12
13
1'1
15
16
17
Mulliken Weiner Berg & Jolivet P.C.
Ms. Esther Gesick
May 1, 2018
Page 5
pp. 38-40. The only possible purpose of that discussion was to determine if FCI could have the
local preference. While Commissioner Cozad opined the preference did not need to be applied
because Roche was the "low bidder," that was directly contrary to her prior acknowledgment that
the fees were only one of the evaluation criteria. Exhibit 2, Transcript, p. 28. When a concern
was raised regarding the experience of Roche's architect, who has not designed a detention
facility in over 40 years, Commissioner Conway reiterated:
23 But I come back to section 14-9. You know it
says the County Commissioners "shall" -- it doesn't say
"may."
It says shall give preference to resident Weld
1 County bidders in cases where bids are competitive in
price and quality.
Exhibit 2, Transcript, pp. 49-50. The clear import of his comment was to suggest that the BOCC
had no choice but to award the contract to Roche under the preference.
A statement by Commissioner Kirkmeyer undermines the illusion that the award was not
predicated on the preference.
Because when I was looking up the point
8 differentiation here, it's in -- I mean I'm between
Roche and FCI quite frankly.
Yo know if Bryan was a Weld County -- had
their offices were here in Weld County instead of
Larimer County, quite honestly
don't think it would
be an issue, because they are like 11 points more in
the scoring. You know when we went and asked our staff
to go back and look at what's the best value for the
county to make sure, because it's a huge project, they
are like 11 points more. FCI is eight points more.
Mulliken Weiner Berg & Jolivet P.C.
Ms. Esther Gesick
May 1, 2018
Page 6
Exhibit 2, Transcript, p. 51. Her initial comment in lines 7-9 confirms she was only considering
Roche and FCI for the award because they were residents of Weld County. Her following
statements confirm that if Bryan was a resident of Weld County it would have been awarded the
contract. This statement undermines the stated basis that Roche was awarded the contract
because it was the low bidder. Had Bryan been a resident of Weld County, it would have been
awarded the contract despite not being the fictional low bidder.
Before the BOCC could apply the local preference it had to determine if the conditions in
the preference had been satisfied- the bids were competitive in price and the bids were
competitive in quality. As addressed in the Protest, when awarding the contract to Roche, the
BOCC failed to properly consider these conditions.
As discussed above, no determination could be made by the BOCC if the bids were
"competitive in price" based on the proposals provided by the contractors in response to the
Request for Bid. No final "price" was provided in the proposals and the actual cost of the project
cannot be determined.
The second condition which must be satisfied before the preference can be applied is that
the bids are competitive in quality. Based upon the bid evaluation completed by the Purchasing
Department, Roche's proposal was not competitive in quality. Roche scored considerably lower
than the other three bidders regarding the most important evaluation criteria: "Experience of
Staff on similar projects." Despite its decision, the BOCC independently confirmed Roche's
proposal was not competitive in quality as determined by the staff. The BOCC spent
approximately fifteen minutes discussing Roche's architect's lack of experience on similar
projects. Exhibit 2, Transcript, pp. 45-59. The discussion only ended when Commissioner
Kirkmeyer asked the County Attorney if there was anything the County could do contractually to
protect itself from any design defects for which Roche's inexperienced architect was responsible.
Exhibit 2, Transcript, p. 59. This question was completely contrary with the qualification based
selection process specifically called for under the Request for Bid which was intended to identify
the contractor which would provide the best value to the County. The BOCC's decision to
ignore Roche's architect's obvious lack of experience on similar projects confirmed it intended
on awarding the contract to Roche under the preference regardless of the potential consequences
to the County.
4. Conclusion.
The Request for Bid stated that the BOCC could accept the bid that, in its opinion, was in
its best interests. See Request for Bid, pp. 10, 16. Although the BOCC had discretion to award
the contract to the contractor that it wanted, that discretion was not unlimited. It was limited by
the specifically identified evaluation criteria in the Request for Bid. Its discretion was also
limited by its obligation to decide in good faith and free of personal favoritism. See McNichols
v. City and County of Denver, 274 P.2d 317, 321 (Colo. 1954). Based on the BOCC's discussion
at the board meeting on April 18, 2018, regarding to whom the contract should be awarded and
Roche's architect's glaring lack of similar experience, the BOCC did not act in good faith when
Mulliken Weiner Berg & Jolivet P.C.
Ms. Esther Gesick
May 1, 2018
Page 7
awarding the contract to Roche. It did not consider the evaluation matrix showing Roche had
received the lowest aggregate score of the four contractors which submitted proposals. It did not
reasonably consider the Purchasing Department's recommendation that the contract be awarded
to Bryan. It did not consider the conditions in Section 14-9 of the Charter which had to be
satisfied prior to its application. Instead, Commissioner Conway incorrectly stated that the
BOCC had to give a preference to residents of Weld County without consideration of the
conditions required prior to its application. The BOCC did not have the honest intention to award
the contract under the Evaluation Criteria in the Request for Bid.
Simply put, contrary to the Decision, the BOCC's award of the contract to Roche was
improper. The BOCC improperly applied the Charter preference, it ignored the staff
recommendation that the contract be awarded to Bryan, it ignored the deficiencies in Roche's
proposal, it failed to act in good faith, and its decision may have been made based on personal
favoritism towards Roche. The Decision is unsupportable factually and the award must be
withdrawn or rescinded.
The BOCC should also consider the chilling effect its award here will have on future
procurements. If contractors believe spending hundreds of hours and tens of thousands of dollars
preparing proposals or bids for the County will be unproductive because the BOCC will always
apply the Charter preference, they will not bid County projects. This will have a twofold effect -
competition will be thwarted because fewer qualified contractors will bid County projects and
the County will effectively be at the mercy of resident contractors which understand that they
will be awarded County projects regardless of their qualifications or price. This will be
detrimental to the County and its taxpayers. Withdrawing or rescinding the award made to
Roche and awarding the contract to Bryan, which provided the "best value" proposal to the
County, will reassure contractors that they can compete fairly with resident contractors on
County projects.
Bryan looks forward to its hearing with the BOCC under Section 2-4-10.C to address its
appeal. Based upon Bryan's and undersigned's schedules, Bryan requests that the hearing take
place on May 8 or 15. If the BOCC can accommodate one of these dates it would be very much
appreciated. If you have any questions or require any additional information, please contact me
at your convenience.
KAB/sor
Enclosures
cc: Mr. Scott Bryan (w/enc.)
Mr. Doug Woody (w/enc.)
Mr. Todd Blanks (w/enc.)
All Via Electronic Mail
Steven K. Mullileen
Murray I. Weiner
Caroleen F. Jolivet
Karl A. Berg, Jr.
Trevor J. Young
Mulliken Weiner Berg & Joiivet P.C.
Attorneys at Law
Alamo Corporate Center
102 South Tejon Street, Suite 900
Colorado Springs, Colorado 80903-2238
Telephone (719) 635-8750
Facsimile (719) 635-8706
www.mullileenlaw.com
EXHIBIT 1
Emory C. Allen
Hilary A. Roland
Of Counsel:
Janet K. Williams
trherg@mullikenlaw.com
April 23, 2018
Via Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested
and Via Electronic Mail
Ms. Barbara Connolly
Controller / Purchasing Director
Weld County, Colorado
1150 "O" Street, Room 107
Greeley, CO 80631
Re: Bryan Construction, Inc. / Bid #B1800059, Jail 2 West Expansion (Design/Build)
/ Notice of Bid Protest
Dear Ms. Connolly:
We represent Bryan Construction, Inc. ("Bryan"). This correspondence is sent under
Section 5-4-155 of the Weld County Charter and County Code (the "Code"). The award of the
referenced project to Roche Constructors, Inc. ("Roche") on April 18, 2018, by the Weld County
Board of County Commissioners ("BOCC") was improper and inconsistent with the Code. The
Award must be withdrawn or rescinded.
a. The BOCC improperly relied upon and applied the preference in Section 14-9 of the
Home Rule Charter to award the contract to Roche.
Subsection 3 of Section 14-9 provides:
"The County shall give preference to resident Weld County bidders in all cases
where the bids are competitive in price and quality."
(emphasis added). For the preference to be applied, two conditions must be satisfied. The bids
must be competitive in price and the bids must be competitive in quality. When awarding the
contract to Roche, the BOCC failed to properly consider these conditions.
No determination could be made by the BOCC if the bids were "competitive in price"
based on the proposals provided by the contractors in response to the Request for Bid. No final
"price" was provided in the proposals. Unlike a competitive, sealed bid project, where a firm,
fixed price to construct a project is provided, this project is Design -Build. The bidders only
Mulliken Weiner Berg & Jolivet P.C.
Ms. Barbara Connolly
April 23, 2018
Page 2
provided pricing information for pre -construction costs, design fees, general conditions costs and
bond costs. The final cost of the project will only be determined after the design is complete and
approved. While Roche's total costs for the limited items for which it provided pricing were
marginally lower than the other bidders, that does not necessarily mean its final price will
provide the best value to the County. Therefore, the BOCC's conclusion that Roche was the
"low bidder," see Award, is unsupported by the bid documents.
The second condition which must be satisfied before the preference can be applied is that
the bids are competitive in quality. Based upon the bid evaluation completed by the Purchasing
Department, Roche's bid was not competitive in quality. See attached. Roche scored
considerably lower than the other three bidders regarding the most important evaluation criteria:
"Experience of Staff on similar projects." Out of 25 possible points, Roche only received 14.75
points, or 59 percent. In contrast, Bryan received 22.25 points, or 90 percent of the possible
points. This is 31 percent higher than Roche. Even Sampson received 19.75 points, or 79
percent; 20 percent higher than Roche. Roche's proposal was not competitive with Bryan's "in
quality" and the preference in the Charter should not have been applied by the BOCC.
Justifying the award to Roche based on the preference which did not apply based on the
contractor proposals and evaluations was arbitrary and not made in good faith by the BOCC.
The conclusion the award to Roche was improper is confirmed by the fact the Purchasing
Department staff recommended the award be made to Bryan. Bryan's total score on all
evaluation criteria was 81.75. In contrast, Roche's total score was only 70.75, 11 points less.
Roche was the lowest of the four contractors. The BOCC disregarded the staffs
recommendation when awarding the contract to Roche.
The arbitrary and improper award to Roche is also confirmed by reference to the Request
for Bid. The Request for Bid followed Section 5-4-150 of Code which sets forth the procedures
for qualification -based selection. Section 5-4-150.C provides for the qualification of parties,
mandatory attendance at a pre -proposal meeting, interviews, specific evaluation criteria, and a
requirement the staff recommend to the BOCC to whom the contract should be awarded. See
Code § 5-4-150. The requirements in the Request for Bid tracked with Section 5-4-150. See
Request for Bid ("The purpose of this RFP is to obtain statements of qualifications and to solicit
fee proposals from firms who wish to provide the services requested in this RFP."). The Request
for Bid set forth in detail each criteria which was to be used evaluating the contractors'
proposals. See Request for Bid, pp. 13-14 § G. Bryan reasonably believed the evaluation criteria
in the Request for Bid would be used when determining to whom the Contract should be
awarded. Although the Request for Bid referenced Section 14-9 of the Home Rule Charter, as
established above, it did not apply because Roche's proposal was not "competitive in price and
quality" with Bryan's proposal. See Evaluation Matrix (Grading Sheet).
Mullilzen Weiner Berg & Jolivet P.C.
Ms. Barbara Connolly
April 23, 2018
Page 3
The Request for Bid stated that the BOCC could accept the bid that, in its opinion was in
its best interests. See Request for Bid, pp. 10, 16. Although the BOCC had discretion to award
the contract to the contractor which it wanted, that discretion was not unlimited. It was limited
by the specifically identified evaluation criteria in the Request for Bid. Next, its discretion was
limited by its obligation to make its decision in good faith and free of personal favoritism. See
McNichols v. City and County of Denver, 274 P.2d 317, 321 (Colo. 1954). Based on the BOCC's
discussion at the board meeting on April 18, 2018, regarding to whom the contract should be
awarded, the BOCC did not act in good faith when awarding the contract to Roche. It did not
consider the evaluation matrix showing Roche had received the lowest aggregate score of the
four contractors which submitted proposals. It did not consider the Purchasing Department's
recommendation that the contract be awarded to Bryan except in passing. It did not consider the
conditions in Section 14-9 of the Charter which had to be satisfied prior to its application.
Instead, Commissioner Conway baldly and incorrectly stated that the BOCC had to give a
preference to companies in Weld County The BOCC did not have the honest intention to award
the contract under the Evaluation Criteria in the Request for Bid.
It also appears the award may have been tainted by personal favoritism. Thomas Roche,
a principal with Roche, contributed $1,000 to Commissioner Conway's campaign in 2016.
Commissioner Conway stated the contract had to be awarded to a resident of Weld County under
the preference. That Commissioner Conway insisted the preference be applied appears to have
been driven by personal favoritism for Roche.
Simply put, the BOCC's award of the contract to Roche was improper. The BOCC
improperly applied the Charter preference, it ignored the staff recommendation that the contract
be awarded to Bryan, it failed to act in good faith, and its decision may have been made based on
personal favoritism towards Roche. The award must be withdrawn or rescinded.
b. A precise statement of the relevant facts that includes timelines and all involved parties.
Relevant facts. See above.
Timeline.
February 8, 2018
February 28, 2018
March 20, 2018
April 5, 2018
April 18, 2018
Request for Bid
Pre -Bid Conference
Bryan proposal submitted
Bryan Interview with Purchasing Department
BOCC awards contract to Roche
Mulliken Weiner Berg & Jolivet P.C.
Ms. Barbara Connolly
April 23, 2018
Page 4
Involved Parties.
Bryan
BOCC
Toby Taylor — Director of Building/Grounds/Evaluator
Rob Turf — Purchasing Manager/Evaluator
Sterling _
Brandon
- Evaluator
- Evaluator
c. An identification of the issues that need to be resolved that support the protest.
i. Did the BOCC improperly apply the preference contained in Section 14-9 of the
Home Rule Charter when making the award to Roche?
Answer: Yes.
ii. Was the condition that Roche's and Bryan's proposals be competitive in price
satisfied prior to application of the Section 14-9 preference?
Answer: No.
iii. Was the condition that Roche's and Bryan's proposals be competitive in quality
satisfied prior to application of the Section 14-9 preference?
Answer: No.
iv. Was the BOCC's decision to award the contract to Roche consistent with Section
5-4-150 of the Code and the Request for Bid?
Answer: No.
v. Did the BOCC exceed its discretion by awarding the contract to Roche?
Answer: Yes.
vi. Did the BOCC act in good faith when awarding the contract to Roche?
Answer: No.
vii. Was the award of the contract to Roche impermissibly influenced by personal
favoritism?
Mulliken Weiner Berg & Jolivet P.C.
Ms. Barbara Connolly
April 23, 2018
Page 5
Answer: There is an appearance of impropriety.
viii. Should the award of the contract to Roche be withdrawn or rescinded?
Answer: Yes.
ix. Should the contract be awarded to Bryan because it had the highest aggregate
score on the evaluation, because the Purchasing Department staff recommended it
be awarded the contract, and because its proposal was most responsive to the
Request for Bid?
Answer: Yes.
d. Any documentation which is relevant to the protest.
i. Request for Bid.
ii. Evaluation Matrix (Grading Sheet).
iii. Award dated April 18, 2018.
iv. Thomas Roche — Contribution Summary.
Bryan is very disappointed the BOCC decided to award the contract to Roche, the
contractor with the lowest evaluation score, simply because it is a local contractor.' Bryan
invested considerable time and thousands of dollars preparing its response to the County's
Request for Bid and was excited to learn it had received the highest score and the staffs
recommendation that the contract be awarded to it. Bryan looked forward to working with the
County to provide it with a quality project at a fair price. Bryan welcomes fair competition from
other contractors; however, when decisions are made based on considerations other than those
which are permissible under the law it undermines the entire proposal system. If Weld County
only wishes to award construction projects to local contractors that is its decision but that should
be made known to other contractors in advance so they do not devote time and resources to
preparing proposals when there is no chance they will be awarded the project. Ultimately the
strategy of "rewarding" contractors simply because they are local will result in higher costs and
lower quality because of the lack of meaningful competition.
Bryan appreciates your consideration of its protest and looks forward to meeting with you
to attempt to resolve it by mutual agreement under Section 5-4-155 of the Code. In the
' Bryan is currently constructing a project in Weld County even though it does not maintain a permanent office in
the County.
Mulliien Weiner Berg & Jolivet P.C.
Ms. Barbara Connolly
April 23, 2018
Page 6
meantime, if you have any questions or require any additional information, please contact me at
your convenience.
yours,
Karl A. Berg, Jr.
KAB/sor
Enclosures
cc: Mr. Scott Bryan (w/enc.)
Mr. Doug Woody (w/enc.)
Mr. Todd Blanks (w/enc.)
All Via Electronic Mail
REQUEST FOR BID
WELD COUNTY, COLORADO
1150 O STREET
GREELEY, CO 80631
DATE: FEBRUARY 8, 2018
BID NUMBER: #B1800059
DESCRIPTION: JAIL 2 WEST EXPANSION - DESIGN BUILD
PRE -BID CONFERENCE DATE: 2/28/18 @ 2:00 PM
BID OPENING DATE: 3/20/17 @ 10:00 a.m.
MANDATORY
1. NOTICE TO BIDDERS:
The Board of County Commissioners of Weld County, Colorado, by and through its Director of
General Services (collectively referred to herein as, "Weld County"), wishes to purchase the
following: JAIL 2 WEST EXPANSION - DESIGN BUILD
A mandatory pre -bid conference will be held on
at the Weld County Administration Bldg., Events Room, 1150 O St, Greeley CO 80631.
B idders must participate and record their presence at the pre -bid conference to be allowed to
submit bids.
Wednesday, February 28, 2018 c 2:00 PM.,
Bids for the above stated merchandise, equipment, and/or services will be received at the Office of the
Weld County Purchasing Department in the Weld County Administrative Building, 1150 O Street Room
#107 Greeley CO 80631 until: Tuesday, March 20, 2018 (d 10:00 a.m. (Weld County Purchasing
Time Clock).
PAGES 1 - 8 OF THIS REQUEST FOR BIDS CONTAIN GENERAL INFORMATION FOR THE REQUEST
NUMBER REFERRED TO ABOVE. NOT ALL OF THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN PAGES 1-8 MAY
BE APPLICABLE FOR EVERY PURCHASE. BID SPECIFICS FOLLOW PAGE 8.
1. INVITATION TO BID:
Weld County requests bids for the above -listed merchandise, equipment, and/or services. Said
merchandise and/or equipment shall be delivered to the location(s) specified herein
Bids shall include any and all charges for freight, delivery, containers, packaging, less all taxes and discounts,
and shall. in every way, be the total net price which the bidder will expect the Weld County to pay if awarded the
bid.
You can find information concerning this request at two locations: On the Weld County Purchasing
website at https://www.weldqov.com/departments/purchasinq located under "Current Requests". And, on
the Bidnet Direct website at www.bidnetdirect.com. Weld County Government is a member of BidNet Direct.
BidNet Direct is an on-line notification system which is being utilized by multiple non-profit and
governmental entities. Participating entities post their bids, quotes, proposals, addendums, and awards on this
one centralized system.
Bid Delivery to Weld County — 2 methods:
1. Email. Emailed bids are preferred. Bids may be emailed to: bids@weIdgov.com. Emailed
bids must include the following statement on the email: "I hereby waive my right to a sealed bid". An email
confirmation will be sent when we receive your bid/proposal. If more than one copy of the bid is requested, you
must submit/mail hard copies of the bid proposal.
2. Mail or Hand Delivery. Mailed (or hand delivered) bids should be sent in a sealed envelope with the
bid title and bid number on it. Please address to: Weld County Purchasing Department, 1150 O Street, Room
#107 Greeley, CO 80631. Please call Purchasing at 970-400-4222 or 4223 if you have any questions.
3. INSTRUCTIONS TO BIDDERS: INTRODUCTORY INFORMATION
Bids shall be typewritten or written in ink on forms prepared by the Weld County Purchasing Department.
Each bid must give the full business address of bidder and be signed by him with his usual signature. Bids
by partnerships must furnish the full names of all partners and must be signed with the partnership name by
one of the members of the partnership or by an authorized representative, followed by the signature and title
of the person signing. Bids by corporations must be signed with the legal name of the corporation, followed
by the name of the state of the incorporation and by the signature and title of the president, secretary, or other
person authorized to bind it in the matter. The name of each person signing shall also be typed or printed
below the signature. A bid by a person who affixes to his signature the word "president," "secretary," "agent,"
or other title without disclosing his principal, may be held to be the bid of the individual signing. When
requested by the Weld County Controller/Purchasing Director/Purchasing Director, satisfactory evidence of
the authority of the officer signing on behalf of a corporation shall be furnished. A power of attorney must
accompany the signature of anyone not otherwise authorized to bind the Bidder. All corrections or erasures
shall be initialed by the person signing the bid. All bidders shall agree to comply with all of the conditions,
requirements, specifications, and/or instructions of this bid as stated or implied herein. All designations and
prices shall be fully and clearly set forth. All blank spaces in the bid forms shall be suitably filled in. Bidders
are required to use the Proposal Forms which are included in this package and on the basis indicated in the
Bid Forms. The Bid Proposal must be filled out completely, in detail, and signed by the Bidder.
Late or unsigned bids shall not be accepted or considered. It is the responsibility of the bidder to ensure that
the bid arrives in the Weld County Purchasing Department on or prior to the time indicated in Section 1,
entitled, "Notice to Bidders." Bids received prior to the time of opening will be kept unopened in a secure
place. No responsibility will attach to the Weld County Controller/Purchasing Director/Purchasing Director for
the premature opening of a bid not properly addressed and identified. Bids may be withdrawn upon written
request to and approval of the Weld County Controller/Purchasing Director/Purchasing Director; said request
being received from the withdrawing bidder prior to the time fixed for award. Negligence on the part of a
bidder in preparing the bid confers no right for the withdrawal of the bid after it has been awarded. Bidders
are expected to examine the conditions, specifications, and all instructions contained herein, failure to do so
will be at the bidders' risk.
In accordance with Section 14-9(3) of the Weld County Home Rule Charter, Weld County will give preference
to resident Weld County bidders in all cases where said bids are competitive in price and quality. It is also
understood that Weld County will give preference to suppliers from the State of Colorado, in accordance with
C.R.S. § 30-11-110 (when it is accepting bids for the purchase of any books, stationery, records, printing,
lithographing or other supplies for any officer of Weld County). Weld County reserves the right to reject any
and all bids, to waive any informality in the bids, to award the bid to multiple vendors, and to accept the bid
that, in the opinion of the Board of County Commissioners, is to the best interests of Weld County. The bid(s)
may be awarded to more than one vendor.
In submitting the bid, the bidder agrees that the signed bid submitted, all of the documents of the Request for
Proposal contained herein (including, but not limited to the product specifications and scope of services), the
formal acceptance of the bid by Weld County, and signature of the Chair of the Board of County
Commissioners, together constitutes a contract, with the contract date being the date of signature by the
Chair of the Board of County Commissioners.
4. SUCCESSFUL BIDDER HIRING PRACTICES - ILLEGAL ALIENS
Successful bidder certifies, warrants, and agrees that it does not knowingly employ or contract with an illegal
alien who will perform work under this contract. Successful bidder will confirm the employment eligibility of all
employees who are newly hired for employment in the United States to perform work under this Agreement,
through participation in the E -Verify program or the State of Colorado program established pursuant to C.R.S.
§8-17.5-102(5)(c). Successful bidder shall not knowingly employ or contract with an illegal alien to perform
BID REQUEST #61800059 Page 2
work under this Agreement or enter into a contract with a subcontractor that fails to certify with Successful
bidder that the subcontractor shall not knowingly employ or contract with an illegal alien to perform work
u nder this Agreement. Successful bidder shall not use E -Verify Program or State of Colorado program
procedures to undertake pre -employment screening or job applicants while this Agreement is being
performed. If Successful bidder obtains actual knowledge that a subcontractor performing work under the
public contract for services knowingly employs or contracts with an illegal alien Successful bidder shall notify
the subcontractor and County within three (3) days that Successful bidder has actual knowledge that a
subcontractor is employing or contracting with an illegal alien and shall terminate the subcontract if a
subcontractor does not stop employing or contracting with the illegal alien within three (3) days of receiving
n otice. Successful bidder shall not terminate the contract if within three days the subcontractor provides
information to establish that the subcontractor has not knowingly employed or contracted with an illegal
alien. Successful bidder shall comply with reasonable requests made in the course of an investigation,
u ndertaken pursuant to C.R.S. §8-17.5-102(5), by the Colorado Department of Labor and Employment. If
Successful bidder participates in the State of Colorado program, Successful bidder shall, within twenty days
after hiring a new employee to perform work under the contract, affirm that Successful bidder has examined
the legal work status of such employee, retained file copies of the documents, and not altered or falsified the
identification documents for such employees. Successful bidder shall deliver to County, a written notarized
affirmation that it has examined the legal work status of such employee, and shall comply with all of the other
requirements of the State of Colorado program. If Successful bidder fails to comply with any requirement of
this provision or of C.R.S. §8-17.5-101 et seq., County, may terminate this Agreement for breach, and if so
terminated, Successful bidder shall be liable for actual and consequential damages.
Except where exempted by federal law and except as provided in C.R.S. § 24-76.5-103(3), if Successful
bidder receives federal or state funds under the contract, Successful bidder must confirm that any individual
n atural person eighteen (18) years of age or older is lawfully present in the United States pursuant to C.R.S.
§ 24-76.5-103(4), if such individual applies for public benefits provided under the contract. If Successful
bidder operates as a sole proprietor, it hereby swears or affirms under penalty of perjury that it: (a) is a
citizen of the United States or is otherwise lawfully present in the United States pursuant to federal law, (b)
shall produce one of the forms of identification required by C.R.S. § 24-76.5-101, et seq., and (c) shall
produce one of the forms of identification required by C.R.S. § 24-76.5-103 prior to the effective date of the
contract.
5. GENERAL PROVISIONS
A. Fund Availability: Financial obligations of Weld County payable after the current fiscal year are
contingent upon funds for that purpose being appropriated, budgeted and otherwise made available. By
acceptance of the bid, Weld County does not warrant that funds will be available to fund the contract beyond
the current fiscal year.
B. Confidential Information: Confidential information of the bidder should be transmitted separately
from the main bid submittal, clearly denoting in red on the information at the top the word, "CONFIDENTIAL."
However, the successful bidder is advised that as a public entity, Weld County must comply with the
provisions of C.R.S. 24-72-201, et seq., the Colorado Open Records Act (CORA), with regard to public
records, and cannot guarantee the confidentiality of all documents. If Weld County receives a CORA request
for bid information marked "CONFIDENTIAL". staff will withhold any information which is clearly marked
CONFIDENTIAL and submitted separately. Weld County staff will not be responsible for redacting or
identifying Confidential information which is included within the body of the bid and not separately identified.
C. Governmental Immunity: No term or condition of the contract shall be construed or interpreted as a
waiver, express or implied, of any of the immunities, rights, benefits, protections or other provisions, of the
Colorado Governmental Immunity Act §§24-10-101 et seq.. as applicable now or hereafter amended.
D. Independent Contractor: The successful bidder shall perform its duties hereunder as an
independent contractor and not as an employee. He or she shall be solely responsible for its acts and those
of its agents and employees for all acts performed pursuant to the contract. Neither the successful bidder nor
any agent or employee thereof shall be deemed to be an agent or employee of Weld County. The successful
bidder and its employees and agents are not entitled to unemployment insurance or workers' compensation
BID REQUEST #B1800059 Page 3
benefits through Weld County and Weld County shall not pay for or otherwise provide such coverage for the
successful bidder or any of its agents or employees. Unemployment insurance benefits will be available to
the successful bidder and its employees and agents only if such coverage is made available by the
successful bidder or a third party. The successful bidder shall pay when due all applicable employment
taxes and income taxes and local head taxes (if applicable) incurred pursuant to the contract. The successful
bidder shall not have authorization, express or implied, to bind Weld County to any agreement, liability or
understanding, except as expressly set forth in the contract. The successful bidder shall have the following
responsibilities with regard to workers' compensation and unemployment compensation insurance matters:
(a) provide and keep in force workers' compensation and unemployment compensation insurance in the
amounts required by law, and (b) provide proof thereof when requested to do so by Weld County.
E. Compliance with Law: The successful bidder shall strictly comply with all applicable federal and
state laws, rules and regulations in effect or hereafter established, including without limitation, laws
applicable to discrimination and unfair employment practices.
F. Choice of Law: Colorado law, and rules and regulations established pursuant thereto, shall be
applied in the interpretation, execution, and enforcement of the contract. Any provision included or
incorporated herein by reference which conflicts with said laws, rules and/or regulations shall be null and
void.
G. No Third -Party Beneficiary Enforcement: It is expressly understood and agreed that the
enforcement of the terms and conditions of the contract, and all rights of action relating to such enforcement,
shall be strictly reserved to the undersigned parties and nothing in the contract shall give or allow any claim
or right of action whatsoever by any other person not included in the contract. It is the express intention of
the undersigned parties that any entity other than the undersigned parties receiving services or benefits
under the contract shall be an incidental beneficiary only.
H. Attorney's Fees/Legal Costs: In the event of a dispute between Weld County and the successful
bidder, concerning the contract, the parties agree that Weld County shall not be liable to or responsible for
the payment of attorney fees and/or legal costs incurred by or on behalf of the successful bidder.
Disadvantaged Business Enterprises: Weld County assures that disadvantaged business
enterprises will be afforded full opportunity to submit bids in response to all invitations and will not be
discriminated against on the grounds of race, color, national origin, sex, age, or disability in consideration for
an award.
J. Procurement and Performance: The successful bidder agrees to procure the materials, equipment
and/or products necessary for the project and agrees to diligently provide all services, labor, personnel and
materials necessary to perform and complete the project. The successful bidder shall further be responsible
for the timely completion, and acknowledges that a failure to comply with the standards and requirements
outlined in the Bid within the time limits prescribed by County may result in County's decision to withhold
payment or to terminate this Agreement.
K. Term: The term of this Agreement begins upon the date of the execution of this Agreement by
County, and shall continue through and until successful bidder's completion of the responsibilities described
in the Bid.
L. Termination: County has the right to terminate this Agreement, with or without cause on thirty (30)
days written notice. Furthermore, this Agreement may be terminated at any time without notice upon a
material breach of the terms of the Agreement.
M. Extension or Modification: Any amendments or modifications to this agreement shall be in writing
signed by both parties. No additional services or work performed by the successful bidder shall be the basis
for additional compensation unless and until the successful bidder has obtained written authorization and
acknowledgement by County for such additional services. Accordingly, no claim that the County has been
unjustly enriched by any additional services, whether or not there is in fact any such unjust enrichment, shall
be the basis of any increase in the compensation payable hereunder.
BID REQUEST #61800059 Page 4
N. Subcontractors: The successful bidder acknowledges that County has entered into this Agreement
in reliance upon the particular reputation and expertise of the successful bidder. The successful bidder shall
not enter into any subcontractor agreements for the completion of this Project without County's prior written
consent, which may be withheld in County's sole discretion. County shall have the right in its reasonable
discretion to approve all personnel assigned to the subject Project during the performance of this Agreement
and no personnel to whom County has an objection, in its reasonable discretion, shall be assigned to the
Project. The successful bidder shall require each subcontractor, as approved by County and to the extent of
the Services to be performed by the subcontractor, to be bound to the successful bidder by the terms of this
Agreement, and to assume toward the successful bidder all the obligations and responsibilities which the
successful bidder, by this Agreement, assumes toward County. County shall have the right (but not the
obligation) to enforce the provisions of this Agreement against any subcontractor hired by the successful
bidder and the successful bidder shall cooperate in such process. The successful bidder shall be responsible
for the acts and omissions of its agents, employees and subcontractors.
O. Warranty: The successful bidder warrants that services performed under this Agreement will be
performed in a manner consistent with the standards governing such services and the provisions of this
Agreement. The successful bidder further represents and warrants that all services shall be performed by
qualified personnel in a professional and workmanlike manner, consistent with industry standards, and that all
services will conform to applicable specifications. In addition to the foregoing warranties, Contractor is aware
that all work performed on this Project pursuant to this Agreement is subject to a one year warranty period
during which Contractor must correct any failures or deficiencies caused by contractor's workmanship or
performance.
The bidder warrants that the goods to be supplied shall be merchantable, of good quality, and free from defects,
whether patent or latent. The goods shall be sufficient for the purpose intended and conform to the minimum
specifications herein. The successful bidder shall warrant that he has title to the goods supplied and that the
goods are free and clear of all liens, encumbrances, and security interests.
Service Calls in the First One Year Period: The successful bidder shall bear all costs for mileage, travel time,
and service trucks used in the servicing (including repairs) of any of the goods to be purchased by Weld
County, Colorado, pursuant to this bid for as many service calls as are necessary for the first one (1) year
period after said goods are first supplied to Weld County.
Bidder shall submit with their bids the following information pertaining to the equipment upon which the bids
are submitted:
1. Detailed equipment specifications to include the warranty.
2. Descriptive literature.
P. Non -Assignment: The successful bidder may not assign or transfer this Agreement or any interest
therein or claim thereunder, without the prior written approval of County. Any attempts by the successful bidder
to assign or transfer its rights hereunder without such prior approval by County shall, at the option of County,
automatically terminate this Agreement and all rights of the successful bidder hereunder. Such consent may
be granted or denied at the sole and absolute discretion of County.
Q. Interruptions: Neither party to this Agreement shall be liable to the other for delays in delivery or failure
to deliver or otherwise to perform any obligation under this Agreement, where such failure is due to any cause
beyond its reasonable,control, including but not limited to Acts of God, fires, strikes, war, flood, earthquakes
or Governmental actions.
R. Non -Exclusive Agreement: This Agreement is nonexclusive and County may engage or use other
contractors or persons to perform services of the same or similar nature.
S. Employee Financial Interest/Conflict of Interest—C.R.S. §§24-18-201 et seq. and §24-50-507. The
signatories to this Agreement agree that to their knowledge, no employee of Weld County has any personal or
beneficial interest whatsoever in the service or property which is the subject matter of this Agreement. County
has no interest and shall not acquire any interest direct or indirect, that would in any manner or degree interfere
BID REQUEST #B1800059 Page 5
with the performance of the successful bidder's services and the successful bidder shall not employ any person
having such known interests. During the term of this Agreement, the successful bidder shall not engage in any
in any business or personal activities or practices or maintain any relationships which actually conflicts with or
in any way appear to conflict with the full performance of its obligations under this Agreement. Failure by the
successful bidder to ensure compliance with this provision may result, in County's sole discretion, in immediate
termination of this Agreement. No employee of the successful bidder nor any member of the successful bidder's
family shall serve on a County Board, committee or hold any such position which either by rule, practice or
action nominates, recommends, supervises the successful bidder's operations, or authorizes funding to the
successful bidder.
T. Severability: If any term or condition of this Agreement shall be held to be invalid, illegal, or
unenforceable by a court of competent jurisdiction, this Agreement shall be construed and enforced without
such provision, to the extent that this Agreement is then capable of execution within the original intent of the
parties.
U. Binding Arbitration Prohibited: Weld County does not agree to binding arbitration by any extra-
judicial body or person. Any provision to the contrary in the contract or incorporated herein by reference shall
be null and void.
V. Board of County Commissioners of Weld County Approval: This Agreement shall not be valid until
it has been approved by the Board of County Commissioners of Weld County, Colorado or its designee.
W. Compensation Amount: Upon the successful bidder's successful completion of the service, and
County's acceptance of the same, County agrees to pay an amount no greater than the amount of the accepted
bid. The successful bidder acknowledges no payment in excess of that amount will be made by County unless
a "change order" authorizing such additional payment has been specifically approved by the County's
delegated employee, or by formal resolution of the Weld County Board of County Commissioners, as required
pursuant to the Weld County Code.
X. Taxes: County will not withhold any taxes from monies paid to the successful bidder hereunder and
the successful bidder agrees to be solely responsible for the accurate reporting and payment of any taxes
related to payments made pursuant to the terms of this Agreement. Contractor shall not be entitled to bill at
overtime and/or double time rates for work done outside of normal business hours unless specifically
authorized in writing by County.
6. INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS
General Requirements: Successful bidders must secure, at or before the time of execution of any
agreement or commencement of any work, the following insurance covering all operations, goods or
services provided pursuant to this request. Successful bidders shall keep the required insurance coverage in
force at all times during the term of the Agreement, or any extension thereof, and during any warranty period.
The required insurance shall be underwritten by an insurer licensed to do business in Colorado and rated by
A.M. Best Company as "A" VIII or better. Each policy shall contain a valid provision or endorsement stating
"Should any of the above -described policies by canceled or should any coverage be reduced before the
expiration date thereof, the issuing company shall send written notice to the Weld County
Controller/Purchasing Director/Purchasing Director by certified mail, return receipt requested. Such written
notice shall be sent thirty (30) days prior to such cancellation or reduction unless due to non-payment of
premiums for which notice shall be sent ten (10) days prior. If any policy is in excess of a deductible or self -
insured retention, County must be notified by the Successful bidder. Successful bidder shall be responsible for
the payment of any deductible or self -insured retention. County reserves the right to require Successful
bidder to provide a bond, at no cost to County, in the amount of the deductible or self -insured retention to
guarantee payment of claims.
The insurance coverages specified in this Agreement are the minimum requirements, and these requirements
do not decrease or limit the liability of Successful bidder. The County in no way warrants that the minimum
limits contained herein are sufficient to protect the Successful bidder from liabilities that might arise out of the
performance of the work under this Contract by the Successful bidder, its agents, representatives,
employees, or subcontractors. The successful bidder shall assess its own risks and if it deems appropriate
BID REQUEST #B1800059 Page 6
and/or prudent, maintain higher limits and/or broader coverages. The successful bidder is not relieved of any
liability or other obligations assumed or pursuant to the Contract by reason of its failure to obtain or maintain
insurance in sufficient amounts, duration, or types. The successful bidder shall maintain, at its own
expense, any additional kinds or amounts of insurance that it may deem necessary to cover its obligations and
liabilities under this Agreement. Any modification to these requirements must be made in writing by Weld
County.
The successful bidder stipulates that it has met the insurance requirements identified herein. The successful
bidder shall be responsible for the professional quality, technical accuracy, and quantity of all materials and
services provided, the timely delivery of said services, and the coordination of all services rendered by the
successful bidder and shall, without additional compensation, promptly remedy and correct any errors,
omissions, or other deficiencies.
INDEMNITY: The successful bidder shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless County, its officers, agents,
and employees, from and against injury, loss damage, liability, suits, actions, or claims of any type or
character arising out of the work done in fulfillment of the terms of this Contract or on account of any act,
claim or amount arising or recovered under workers' compensation law or arising out of the failure of the
successful bidder to conform to any statutes, ordinances, regulation, law or court decree. The successful
bidder shall be fully responsible and liable for any and all injuries or damage received or sustained by any
person, persons, or property on account of its performance under this Agreement or its failure to comply with
the provisions of the Agreement, or on account of or in consequence of neglect of The successful bidder in
its methods or procedures; or in its provisions of the materials required herein, or from any claims or amounts
arising or recovered under the Worker's Compensation Act, or other law, ordinance, order, or decree. This
paragraph shall survive expiration or termination hereof. It is agreed that the successful bidder will be
responsible for primary loss investigation, defense and judgment costs where this contract of indemnity
applies. In consideration of the award of this contract, the successful bidder agrees to waive all rights of
subrogation against the County its associated and/or affiliated entities, successors, or assigns, its elected
officials, trustees, employees, agents, and volunteers for losses arising from the work performed by the
successful bidder for the County. A failure to comply with this provision shall result in County's right to
immediately terminate this Agreement.
Types of Insurance: The successful bidder shall obtain, and maintain at all times during the term of any
Agreement, insurance in the following kinds and amounts:
Workers' Compensation Insurance as required by state statute, and Employer's Liability Insurance
covering all of the successful bidder's employees acting within the course and scope of their employment.
Policy shall contain a waiver of subrogation against the County. This requirement shall not apply when a
successful bidder or subcontractor is exempt under Colorado Workers' Compensation Act., AND when such
successful bidder or subcontractor executes the appropriate sole proprietor waiver form.
Commercial General Liability Insurance for bodily injury, property damage, and liability assumed under an
insured contract, and defense costs, with the minimum limits must be as follows:
$1,000,000 each occurrence;
$2,000,000 general aggregate;
$2,000,000 products and completed operations aggregate;
$1,000,000 Personal Advertising injury
Automobile Liability: Successful bidder shall maintain limits of $1,000,000 for bodily injury per person,
$1,000,000 for bodily injury for each accident, and $1,000,000 for property damage applicable to all vehicles
operating both on County property and elsewhere, for vehicles owned, hired, and non -owned vehicles used in
the performance of this Contract.
Successful bidders shall secure and deliver to the County at or before the time of execution of this
Agreement, and shall keep in force at all times during the term of the Agreement as the same may be
extended as herein provided, a commercial general liability insurance policy, including public liability and
property damage, in form and company acceptable to and approved by said Administrator, covering all
operations hereunder set forth in the Request for Bid.
BID REQUEST #61800059 Page 7
Proof of Insurance: County reserves the right to require the successful bidder to provide a certificate of
insurance, a policy, or other proof of insurance as required by the County's Risk Administrator in his sole
discretion.
Additional Insureds: For general liability, excess/umbrella liability, pollution legal liability, liquor liability,
and inland marine, Successful bidder's insurer shall name County as an additional insured.
Waiver of Subrogation: For all coverages, Successful bidder's insurer shall waive subrogation rights against
County.
Subcontractors: All subcontractors, subcontractors, independent contractors, sub -vendors, suppliers or other
entities providing goods or services required by this Agreement shall be subject to all of the requirements herein
and shall procure and maintain the same coverages required of Successful bidder. Successful bidder shall
include all such subcontractors, independent contractors, sub -vendors suppliers or other entities as insureds
under its policies or shall ensure that all subcontractors maintain the required coverages. Successful bidder
agrees to provide proof of insurance for all such subcontractors, independent contractors, sub -vendors
suppliers or other entities upon request by the County.
The terms of this Agreement are contained in the terms recited in this Request for Bid and in the Response to
the Bid each of which forms an integral part of this Agreement. Those documents are specifically incorporated
herein by this reference.
WELD COUNTY JAIL 2 -WEST ADDITION
DESIGN BUILD BID
GREELEY, COLORADO 80631
Public Notice is hereby given that Weld County, Colorado, hereinafter referred to as the "County" will receive
sealed bids to perform design services and construction administration for an addition to the County Jail.
This facility is located at 2110 "O" Street, Greeley Colorado 80631. The project will be commonly called Jail
2 -West Addition.
The purpose of this RFP is to obtain statements of qualifications and to solicit fee proposals from firms who
wish to provide the services requested in this RFP. The County desires to retain a Design Build Team to
perform Design, Construction and Construction Management services for all phases of the work consisting of
improvements including, without limitation for the following work:
• Design Services
• Building Construction
• Construction Management
VENDOR CONFERENCE
A vendor mandatory pre -bid conference will be held on February 28, 2018 at 2:00 PM in the Weld County
Administration Building located 1150 O -Street, Events Room, Greeley, Colorado to respond to written and
oral questions and to provide any needed additional instruction to Architectural, Engineering and General
Contracting firms on the submission of proposals.
BID REQUEST #B1800059 Page 8
BUILDING OVERVIEW
The current building, which is located at 2110 "O" Street, Greeley, Colorado, consists of a 217,568 -square
foot two-story building The current Jail building houses approximately 779 beds, kitchen, laundry,
classroom, administrative office, medical, and kitchen spaces
The new addition of the 2 -West wing is the fourth phase of jail construction It is anticipated the fourth phase
will closely mirror the third phase layout, cell types, and functionality with the exception that the 2 -West
remodel will incorporate a new booking area and house administrative office functions on the third floor
The design services for the new 2 -West wing will consist of two-phase
1 The first phase will result in a comprehensive design of the new 2 -West Jail Wing which will
consist of an additional 129,537 square feet The addition will be a 3 -story building with a
rough footprint of 43,179 square feet It will house an additional 373 beds, new booking area
on first floor and laundry service area for entire complex The goal is for third floor to be
administrative offices
2 The second phase will result in a comprehensive design for the remodel of approximately
19,000 square feet in the existing jail where
a The former booking area will become the new kitchen,
b The current kitchen area to become a new/larger kitchen's dry storage with cooler
and,
c The current dry storage and laundry area will become the larger inmate storage
area
The project consists of new ground -up construction and attaching said structure to the existing structure
which includes, but is not limited to the following
• Design Services
• Modifying the existing building to accept the new addition
• Includes an allowance for the demolition of the existing Kitchen and Laundry room areas And
renovating this existing laundry space into a storage area
• Flooring finishes will be included by Design -Build firm, carpet supplied and installed by owner
• Site clearing and excavation
• The first and second floor are desired be the detention areas and booking
• The third floor is desired to be office/training space
• Underground utilities and their various connections into existing infrastructure
• Concrete formwork and flatwork
• Civil, Structural, Mechanical, Electrical and Plumbing services and associated fixtures &
equipment
• Detention -grade doors, frames and hardware as well as protection devices and specialty
hardware
• Demolition of existing interior walls, electrical and plumbing, HVAC and data connections
• Exterior signage as required ,
• The County will be responsible for the building permit fee
• All work for building must be completed by September 7, 2020
• New HVAC will be VFD design with reheat capability along with appropriate/multiple zoning and
will operate on one of the County's control system (Johnsons Controls or Setpoint through
competitive bid)
BID REQUEST #B1800059 Page 9
• The selected firm will be responsible to attend weekly on -site meetings through the duration of the
construction period.
• Contractor will provide constructability concerns & assistance with cost analysis during the design
phase. The programming and design phase could require extended time with multiple revisions.
• Contractor will provide cost estimating and value -engineering if needed starting at 50% CD's.
• Building must meet compliance with American's with Disability Act standards as applicable for this
particular building's use.
• Exterior CMU color and composition must match existing phases.
• Conference and office spaces need to meet data and audio needs.
• Jail control & monitoring systems will be installed through a 3rd party bid to ensure compatibility
with existing. Winning bidder must coordinate all requirements of the Jail controls with the awarded
3rd party vendor to ensure all conduit, data boxes. and power needs are met.
PRELIMINARY SCHEDULE
Date of this REP
Advertisement Date
Pre -bid
(Mandatory)
Proposals Are Due
Contract Award Notice
Executed Contract
Design Charrettes
Schematic Design (10% CD's)
Cost Analysis Review
Design Development (50% CD's)
Cost Analysis Review
Construction Documents 90%
Cost Analysis Review
For Permit Set
Permit Ready Set
Construction Start — Phase1
Substantial Completion — Phase1 (18mos)
Final Completion — Phase1
Construction Start — Phase 2
Substantial Completion — Phase2(8mos)
Final Completion — Phase 2
February 8, 2018
February 8, 2018
February 28, 2018
March 20, 2018
April 4, 2018
April 11, 2018
April 12, 2018
May 17, 2018
May 17, 2018
August 6, 2018
August 6, 2018
N ovember 5, 20181
N ovember 5, 2018
N ovember 19, 2018
January 7, 2019
January 7, 2019
July 7, 2020
September 7, 2020
July 7, 2020
March 7, 2021
April 7, 2021
The successful Bidder will be required to furnish, as part of the Contract Documents, an insurance certificate
in the amount specified in the Contract Documents, a Performance Bond and Labor & Materials Payment
Bond, each in an amount equal to 100% of its Contract price including Force Account items, said bonds to be
issued by a responsible corporate surety approved by the Board of County Commissioners and shall
guarantee the faithful performance of the Contract and the terms and conditions therein contained and shall
guarantee the prompt payment of all materials and labor and protect and save harmless the County from
claims and damages of any kind caused by the operations of the Contractor.
The Board of Weld County Commissioners reserves the right to reject any or all bids, to waive any degree of
formality in bids, and to accept the bid that, in the opinion of the Board, is in the best interests of the Board
and of the County of Weld, State of Colorado.
BID REQUEST #B1800059 Page 10
SCOPE OF SERVICES
The intent of this section is to highlight in general terms the nature and scope of the work to be performed.
1. DESIGN SERVICES
a. Provide a conceptual design for the project.
b. Provide structural design, as required.
c. Civil engineering and site planning, as required.
d. Prepare submittals to governing agencies for approval.
e. Provide a schematic design package.
f. Provide a design development package.
g. Provide full and complete construction documents.
h. Provide construction administration.
i. Attend weekly design and construction meetings.
j. Prepare building permit submittal, and assist in obtaining the permits. Make Building
Department requested revisions.
k. Provide an estimate of "reimbursables" that would be required for this project.
I. Provide hourly rates for "additional services."
m. Provide a design schedule
n. Include all costs for architectural design services, programming, civil engineering, structural
engineering, mechanical engineering, electrical engineering, and all other "consultant" fees in
the proposal.
o. As each phase of the construction documents are completed the firm will be expected to
provide a construction budget at Conceptual, SD, DD & CD design milestones
The Design Build Team must demonstrate the ability to perform a project of this scope and provide
examples of such that were completed in the past five (5) years. As construction documents are
completed, the firm will be expected to provide a construction budget including a Guaranteed
Maximum Price ("GMP") at the conclusion of design. The County believes it is crucial that the firm be
an interactive member of the project team and participate with the Architect and sub -consultants in
the design process.
2. PRE -CONSTRUCTION SERVICES:
a. Conceptual Estimate
b. Project Development Schedule established that includes the applicable regulatory, agency,
outside entity, project team and County activities. Construction Schedule developed which
includes all critical design/engineering and construction activities and identifies delivery issues.
Advise the County of a plan to manage such delivery issues.
c. Continually review (prepare reports, recommendations, etc.) all design document deliverable
milestones in regard to budget, constructability, completeness and coordination.
d. Monitor budget and schedule throughout the design phase and advise the County when
corrective action is required related to both design progress and costs.
e. Provide value engineering during design studies.
f. Evaluate the availability and supply of labor and advise the County of potential impacts.
g. Develop proposal request packaging/phasing strategy including outreach program for work by
trade contractors.
h. Develop procedures for issuing proposal requests and prepare documents/scopes for the
County Review.
i. Conduct pre -proposal conferences.
j. Review, analyze proposal results and recommend award to successful respondents
k. Develop management reporting procedures to be used during construction, (costs/schedules,
etc.).
I. Establish job site survey controls prior to mobilization. Coordinate surveys, geotechnical
investigations and other pre —mobilization activities.
BID REQUEST #61800059 Page 11
m. Provide any other Pre -construction services as may be required by Weld County.
n. Contractor will provide programming services during the design phase. The programming and
design phase could require extended time with multiple plan revisions.
3. CONSTRUCTION PHASE:
The Design Build Team will manage and coordinate all construction activities, obtain competitive
subcontract and material bids and have the opportunity to competitively bid portions of the work the
contractor is qualified to self -perform. During this phase, the Design Build will provide without
limitation, the following services:
A. Design Build Team
a. Monitor costs and prepare monthly project cost reports.
b. Quality control.
c. Coordination of all on -site activities including commercial contractors, subcontractors, utility
companies and coordination of all work related to, in close proximity to or adjacent to the site
which may impact the work on this project.
d. Vendor drawing administration.
e. Change Order management
f. Preparation of monthly payment applications.
g. Preparation and coordination of infrastructure acceptance submittals.
h. Close out documentation Notice of Final Settlement process for all sub -contractors.
i. The County may elect to purchase through separate contract the Jail Controls systems and the
prefabricated steel jail cells that will be used on this project. Contractor will be responsible for
seamlessly coordinating these installations.
j. Any other construction services as may be required by Weld County.
B. General Condition Services.
a. Complete field staff and support, temporary facilities.
b. Equipment and support not in direct cost.
c. Manage permits held by Owner.
d. Issue and manage agreements for testing and inspection services, surveying, etc.
e. Coordination with utility companies.
f. Support design team.
g. Performance, labor, material & payment bond will be required.
PROPOSAL DOCUMENTS
Submit four (4) original hard copies AND one (1) electronic copy of your proposal signed by a person
authorized to bind the party. The proposals shall be organized as outlined below:
A. Firm(s) Information:
1) Identify which office (Contact Office) will be responsible for the project.
2) Provide a staffing chart showing proposed organization for this project.
3) Provide a list of proposed firms to be used in design services for the following: Architectural, Civil,
Structural, Mechanical, Electrical and Plumbing.
4) Provide resumes of personnel who will be involved on the project. Weld County reserves the right
to interview designated project personnel.
5) No changes in the approved project personnel will be granted unless agreed to by Weld County.
6) Provide a detailed financial statement of the Firm, including a bank reference and credit available
and furnish any other information that may be required by the County. If Firm does not wish its
financial information to be a public record, please place in an envelope and label as "Confidential".
Failure to do so may result in said financial information being publicly disclosed.
BID REQUEST #61800059 Page 12
7) Provide copy of certificate of insurance and limits of public liability under insurance.
8) Provide any and all information regarding any lawsuits pending or threatened against, you, your
firm or any of the principals or joint ventures.
9) Provide your company's bonding limitations.
B. Firm's Experience:
1) Provide a brief summary of like work your firm has undertaken as a Design Build Contractor for
correctional institutions.
2) Provide data on the number of change orders that were accepted by the Owner and what
percentage of change (+/-) they affected base contract.
3) List the owner, type of project, address and contact name for references and telephone numbers.
4) Indicate whether your contract was a prime or involved a joint venture with another firm and
whether construction management, general contracting, design build, or a combination or other
services were involved.
C. Project Understanding:
Provide a narrative that consolidates the required services for this project and specifically illustrate
your firm's understanding of what is required. Include your firm's approach to programming and
project deliverables in a Design Build contracted project.
D. Current Workload:
Provide a list of current project commitments by your proposed team including designers and the
status of such projects. Identify the owner's representative, address and phone number for each
project.
E. Services:
1) Indicate if your firm has provided Design Build projects.
2) In addition to the activities listed under "Scope of Services", section "2. Construction Phase"
above, provide a list of any additional construction management, general condition and/or
coordination services you believe will be necessary to successfully complete this project.
F. Construction Methods:
Indicate which elements of work or other services your firm is capable of performing with its own
forces. Please note Weld County reserves the authority and right to require the Design Build
Contractor to bid self -performed work in competition with available qualified subcontractors.
G. EVALUATION CRITERIA
The following criteria will be used to evaluate the proposal submitted in response to this Request for
Proposal:
A. Fee proposals and general conditions.
B. Ability to provide and organize the items listed under the Proposal Documents stated above.
C. Prior experience of firm and key staff on a similar project.
D. Quality and experience of people assigned to the project — project manager, superintendent,
design team, etc.
E. Current workload, organizational depth and ability to deliver the project within the project's
timeframe.
F. Demonstrated ability to work with the design team providing conceptual estimating, value
engineering, constructability, and scheduling services.
G. Ability to provide the County a GMP for general conditions and/or the entire project and financial
strength of the firm to stand behind the GMP.
BID REQUEST #61800059 Page 13
H. Demonstrated ability to construction a project such as this to meet cost, schedule and quality
goals.
Proven track record with jobsite safety.
J. Weld County (at its own discretion) may conduct interview(s) with firms that are competitive in
price and/or quality.
K.
Each response must include all information and documents required by this RFP. Failure to furnish
all required information and documents may result in the rejection of the proposal in its entirety.
H. Fee Proposal:
Provide the following on a separate sheet, inserted behind the Fee Proposal form found below.
1) Identify the fee your firm requires to provide Design Build services described in this RFP. The fee
is to be based on your firm's estimate for this project's scope. A budget will not be provided.
2) Provide the cost of general conditions for this project for services described in this RFP.
3) Provide a fee for pre -construction phase services and how you intend to charge for these services.
Include an estimate of non -personnel expenses in similar format to formulate the estimate of total
cost.
4) Provide a list of salary/wage rates for personnel proposed for this project. Indicate the base wage
or salary and applied Direct Personnel Expense to formulate a total hourly billing rate and monthly
billing rate for each supervisory/administrative individual proposed for involvement in either the pre -
construction phase or construction phase of the project.
5) Provide a schedule of current bond premium rates and confirmation of the current bonding capacity
of your firm.
I. Guaranteed Maximum Price (GMP):
The County anticipates entering into a Guaranteed Maximum Price (GMP) Contract with the
successful Design Build team after design is complete. Additional phases of work may be amended
to the contract.
1) To obtain GMP, the contractor will obtain at least three competitive bids from subcontract work
to include self -performed. Provide open book review of competitive bid results of subcontractors
including self -performed work, recommendations, etc.
2) The County will have the successful firm include a 3% GC -controlled contingency in
the GMP. This line item will be used to cover unknown conditions during construction.
3) The County may elect to purchase through separate contract the Jail Controls systems and the
prefabricated steel jail cells that will be used on this project. Contractor will be responsible for
seamlessly coordinating these installations. The costs of these third party contract
"components" shall not be included in the GMP.
4) GMP will be contracted using a standard AIA contract (provided by contractor and
reviewed/approved by County) for stipulated sum including schedule of values/supporting
material.
5) Weld County reserves the right to take full design to competitive bid should contractor
demonstrate inability to provide competitive bid GMP.
BID REQUEST #61800059 Page 14
Complete the fee proposal below for your bid. Assumptions are the contractor's assumptions for completing
this job. The fee proposal shall provide costs correlating to an assumed GMP. A fixed lump sum is required
for line items 1 through 3. A Percentage or Lump Sum is acceptable for line items 4-6 (Overhead & Profit,
Bonds & Other). If you have additional fees, provide attachments detailing those fees.
FEE PROPOSAL
A. Bidder Assumptions
1. Construction Duration Estimated # of Months
B. Fee Proposal
1. Pre -Construction
2. Design Fee
3. General Conditions
4. Construction
Management Fee
5. Bonds (Attach schedule)
6. Other (describe on
additional sheet)
OA
Or Lump Sum
N/A $
N/A $
N/A $
NOTE: Winning contractor will be expected to enter into a standard AIA contract (provided by contractor and
reviewed/approved by County) for this design build.
BID REQUEST #B1800059
Page 15
**ALL BIDDERS SHALL PROVIDE A W-9 WITH THE SUBMISSION OF THEIR BID**
The undersigned, by his or her signature, hereby acknowledges and represents that:
1. The bid proposed herein meets all of the conditions. specifications and special provisions set forth in
the request for proposal for Request No. #B1800059.
2. The quotations set forth herein are exclusive of any federal excise taxes and all other state and local
taxes
3. He or she is authorized to bind the below -named bidder for the amount shown on the accompanying
proposal sheets.
4. The signed bid submitted, all of the documents of the Request for Proposal contained Herein
(including, but not limited to the product specifications and scope of services), the formal acceptance of the
bid by Weld County, and signature of the Chair of the Board of County Commissioners, together constitutes
a contract, with the contract date being the date of signature by the Chair of the Board of County
Commissioners.
5. Weld County reserves the right to reject any and all bids, to waive any informality in the bids, and to
accept the bid that, in the opinion of the Board of County Commissioners, is to the best interests of Weld
County. The bid(s) may be awarded to more than one vendor.
FIRM
BUSINESS
ADDRESS
CITY, STATE, ZIP CODE
TELEPHONE NO
PRINTED NAME AND TITLE
SIGNATURE
E-MAIL
DATE
FAX TAX ID #
WELD COUNTY IS EXEMPT FROM COLORADO SALES TAXES. THE CERTIFICATE OF EXEMPTION
NUMBER IS #98-03551-0000.
YOU DO NOT NEED TO SEND BACK PAGES 1 - 8.
BID REQUEST #B1800059 Page 16
Points
Roche
Bryan FCI
Sampson
Criteria
Available
JAIL
2 WEST
EXPANSION
-
DESIGN
BUILD
#B1800059
Fee
proposal
& General
Conditions
I
20
15.25
14.25
14
12.5
Completeness
of
proposal
documents
10
9
9
9
8.75
25
14.75
22.25
20.75
19.75
Experience
of staff
on similar
projects
Current
work,
organizational
depth
& schedule
10
7
7.5
7.5
7.5
10
7
8.5
8
7.75
Demonstrated
ability
working
with
chosen design
team
10
7.5
8
8
8
GMP
&
financial
strength
Demonstrated
ability
of costs,
schedule,
and
quality
5
3.75
4.25
3.75
3.75
Proven
track
record
with
job
site
safety
10
6.5
8
7.5
7.5
.
Total
100
70.75
81.75
78.5
75.5
WELD COUNTY PURCHASING
1150 O Street Room #107, Greeley CO 80631
E-mail: rturf@weldgov_com
E-mail: reverett@weldgov_com
E-mail: mwalters@weldgov.com
Phone: (970) 400-4216,4222 or 4223
Fax: (970) 304-6434
DATE OF BID: MARCH 20, 2018
REQUEST FOR: JAIL 2 WEST EXPANSION — DESIGN BUILD
DEPARTMENT: BUILDINGS & GROUNDS DEPT
BID NO: #B1800059
PRESENT DATE: MARCH 21, 2018
APPROVAL DATE: APRIL 4, 2018 *** Extended to APRIL 18, 2018 "I*
VENDORS
FEDERAL CONTRACTING INC.
DBA: BRYAN CONSTRUCTION INC
4700 INNOVATION DRIVE, BLDG C
FORT COLLINS CO 80525
ROCHE CONSTRUCTORS INC
361 71ST AVENUE
GREELEY CO 80634
SAMPSON CONSTRUCTION CO
4508 ENDEAVOR DRIVE
JOHNSTOWN CO 80534
FCI CONSTRUCTORS INC
4015 CORIOLIS WAY
FREDERICK CO 80504
IT WAS THE DECISION OF THE WELD BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS TO AWARD THE BID
FOR THE JAIL 2 WEST EXPANSION TO THE LOW BIDDER, ROCHE CONSTRUCTORS, INC.
WELD COUNTY COLORADO
BY: BARBARA CONNOLLY
CONTROLLER/PURCHASING DIRECTOR
THOMAS ROCHE - CONTRIBUTION SUMMARY
Contributor CityState ContributorType Amount
THOMAS ROCHE GREELEY, CO Individual 500
1000
THOMAS ROCHE GREELEY, CO Individual 500
THOMAS ROCHE GREELEY, CO Individual 600
THOMAS ROCHE GREELEY, CO Individual 1500
THOMAS ROCHE GREELEY, CO Individual 500
THOMAS ROCHE GREELEY, CO Individual 1100
THOMAS ROCHE GREELEY, CO Individual 1100
THOMAS ROCHE GREELEY, CO Individual S00
THOMAS ROCHE GREELEY, CO Individual 400
THOMAS ROCHE GREELEY, CO Individual 400
THOMAS ROCHE GREELEY, CO Individual 1150
THOMAS ROCHE GREELEY, CO Individual 400
THOMAS ROCHE GREELEY, CO Individual 1150
THOMAS ROCHE GREELEY, CO Individual
Contribution Date
10/5/2013
7/11/2016
12/6/2013
4/21/2014
3/19/2014
10/18/2013
7/2 6/2014
3/25/2014
3/11/2014
5/6/2014
8/8/2016
8/15/2017
1/6/2016
11/24/2017
ContributionType
Monetary (Itemized)
Monetary (Itemized)
Monetary (Itemized)
Monetary (Itemized)
Monetary (Itemized)
Monetary (Itemized)
Monetary (Itemized)
Monetary (Itemized)
Monetary (Itemized)
Monetary (Itemized)
Monetary (Itemized)
Monetary (Itemized)
Monetary (Itemized)
Monetary (Itemized)
RecipientName
CHILDREN FIRST
CITIZENS FOR CONWAY
COLORADANS FOR GESSLER
COLORADANS FOR GESSLER
COMMITTEE TO ELECT LYLE ACHZIGER
COMMITTEE TO ELECT RON BRECHEISEN
COMMITTEE TO ELECT WAYNE WILLIAMS
CYNTHIA COFFMAN FOR AG
KOPPES FOR CLERK
KRIS SELZER FOR HOUSE DISTRICT 20
PETE WEIR FOR DISTRICT ATTORNEY
POLLY FOR TREASURER
ROURKE FOR DA
STAPLETON FOR COLORADO
RecipientlD
20135026248 No
No
20135025482 No
20135025482 No
20135025307 No
20135026364 No
20135026404 No
20135025505 No
20135026084 No
20135026591 No
20105018793 No
20175032219 No
20155030044 No
20175033116 No
20165030107
InKind Major
N o
N o
N o
N o
N o
N o
N o
N o
N o
N o
N o
N o
N o
N o
AB Court Reporting & Video 1
EXHIBIT 2
TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS (Excerpt: Bids)
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
WELD COUNTY, COLORADO
April 18, 2018
10:38 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Commissioner Steve Moreno, Chair
Commissioner Barbara Kirkmeyer Pro-Tem
Commissioner Sean P. Conway
Commissioner Julie A. Cozad
Commissioner Mike Freeman
ALSO PRESENT:
County Attorney, Bruce Barker
Acting Clerk of the Board, Stephanie Frederick
Controller, Barbara Connolly
NOTE: WHEN IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO DETERMINE WHO IS
SPEAKING, "MALE" OR "FEMALE" IS USED.
AB Court Reporting & Video 3
Z.
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25 bid
Rased on the factors of the analysis, the
best value for the county is to award the bi
to Bryan
Construction from Larimer County, which is the
✓ ecommendations of Buildings and Grounds Department.
Bryan's bid consists of preconstruction costs
o f $37,750.00. If contracted for construction, the fee
goes to zero, the design fee $978,500.00, general
conditions fee $1,100,000.00, the estimate
months.
duration 25
It should ne noted that the bidder which
✓ anks second is the best value for the county. It is
FCI Constructors. FCI Constructors' difference from
Bryan Construction in price is just .79 percent. In
addition FCI is projecting a 22 month construction
schedule versus 25 months. FCI Construction is based
in Weld County, with their office located in Frederick.
CHAIR: Question, Toby, do you have something
to add?
MR. TAYLOR: I did not.
CHAIR: Okay. I know we've got a cou
ole of
work sessions, and I know Commissioners may have some
questions, but I just want to bring to the attention of
the Board that I've been informed that we do have at
least two re
ers anc
oresentatives for two out of the four
have been asked to allow for some comments
AB Court Reporting & Video 4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
from thcse that have put in their bids.
I do personally not have a problem with
allowing for some comment. I just want to hear from
the rest of the Board as far as those that are here.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE COMMISSIONER: No, I'm
fine.
U NIDENTIFIED FEMALE COMMISSIONER: I'm okay.
CHAIR: Everybody okay with that? It looks
like we have all five Commissioners in aggreeance with
that.
So I did have a request from two of them, and
so if they want to come forward and speak to their
company and make their comments, or whoever the
✓ eoresen native is,
°lease come forward. State your
n ame and address for the recor
•
U NIDENTIFIED MALE: Mr. Chair, can I ask to
clarify before we get to what I'm just going to ask.
CHAIR: Sure.
U NIDENTIFIED MALE:
So a couple of questions.
I know we've had a couple of work sessions on this.
21 Mr. Conway
22
23
24
25
In terms of your analysis,
id we look at
section 14-9, the bidding and procedures, particularly
section three and four as part of this analysis in
terms of what the charter calls out for in terms of
giving preference to local?
AB Court Reporting & Video 5
1
3
7
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. TURF:
preference?
So you're referring to the local
U NIDENTIFIED MALE:
MR. TURF:
aetermir_ation .
Yes.
That is the Board's sole
U NIDENTIFIED MALE:
was not included.
So that was not -- that
I just want to
MR. TURF:
U NI
Correct.
ENTIFIED MALE: Thank you. I just
clarified the question. Thank you.
CHAIR: Did anyone else have any questions of
staff before we call out for a comment?
U NIDENTIFIED FEMALE COMMISSIONER: Thanks.
CHAI
• Okay, so I will ask for those that
are here that are representing their com
woul
time.
oanies that
like to come forward, please come forward at this
And state your name and address for the
recora.
MR. HEMEYER: Hello, my name is Bryan
Hemeyer. I'm with FCI Constructors. The address is
4015 Coriolis Way, Frederick, Colorado.
CHAIR: Thank you.
MR. HE
v
EYER: We participated in many -- in
many bid proposals with the county on prior projects.
AB Court Reporting & Video 27
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
12
13
MR. TAYLOR:
Certainly.
Buil
ings and Grounds.
Toby Taylor,
I cannot speak for the other three members
that were part of this panel though.
ids.
We received the
They were very competitive in cost.
And we were
asked to look at a cost benefit analysis looking at the
qualifications and experience of the team, because the
initial look was that all four could perform a
construction of the jail.
Rut which ones were actually the best cost
benefit analysis for the county is what we were asked
to look at.
So we formed a four panel person team to
evaluate various [background noise - inaudible] to each
area of one through five, with one being marginal,
three being average and five being exceptional.
Based on the panel's individual's ratings, we
took all of those ratings and rate
each vendor
independently of each other, no conversations with each
other, and we got together at the end and entered our
scores in, and we took the average of that and come up
with the compilation that was presented with you that
showed that Bryan was actually the number one ranking
as far as the cost benefit analysis with FCI following
as second, Sampson is third and Roche is fourth.
AB Court Reporting & Video 28
1
2
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19 team.
20
21
22
23
24
25
Based on that recommen
ation -- or based on
that result, we gave the recommendation to award to
Bryan Construction.
COMMISSIONER COZAD: And there was -- there
were several
the list here.
ifferent criteria. You were looking at
So you looked at the fees.
o ne of the criteria.
you wish?
That was
MR. TAYLOR: I'll go through the criteria if
COMMISSIONER COZAD:
Yeah, would you min
just going through each of the criteria.
MR. TAYLOR:
We looked at a criteria of fee
proposals and general conditions.
The next criteria
was the completeness of their proposal documents.
n ext criteria was experience of staff on similar
projects.
The
The next criteria was current workload, anc
o rganizational depth and schedule.
The next was
emonstrated ability working with the chosen
esign
The next criteria was the guaranteed maximum
strength or guaranteed maximum price and financial
strength of the company.
The next criteria was
demonstrated ability of costs, schedule and c
uality.
And the last one was
goof of track record with job and
site safety.
COMMISSIONER COZAD: An
can you ex
olain that
AB Court Reporting & Video 37
1 DCA [background noise - inaudible] ADA.
2 That's different from a structural engineer
3 analysis. So as I looked at it, I felt that the
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
architect itself in that team was lacking
ehind the
other architects in relation to those components that
were neede
•
as well.
That was clarified during the interview
But we did do that analysis ahead of time
with the bids that were submitted, and then the
clarification came in the interview. The interview was
not the sole source of the determination.
COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: Okay. I have a
q uestion for Mr. Warden if I may at some point before
everyone else?
CHAIR: Can we go to Commissioner Cozad and
bring Mr. Warden u
yeah.
o after that?
COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: Yeah, yeah, yeah,
CHAIR: [cross talk - inaudible].
COMMISSIONER COZAD:
Sure I actually have a
q uestion for probably the County Attorney.
When it
- I think it got brought up during
some of the public comment too is does FCI are they
considered a resident Weld County bid
er -- I made it
t o in a question for Toby -- under section 14-9 under
AB Court Reporting & Video
1 the bidding process number three -- because it says:
9
L
"The County Commissioners shall give preference to
3 resident Weld County bidders in all cases where the
4 bids are competitive in price and quality."
5 So there was a question that the home office
6 for FCI is in Grand Junction, but that they have an
7 office with a hundred staff that would be managing the
8 projects from Frederick.
9 And so I guess my question is does that meet
10 the criteria of that section of the code for FCI?
11
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. TAYLOR:
So I think that's a
determination that the Board would have to decide
amongst yourself if that meets that residency
requirement.
We have used companies in the past that if
t hey are based in Weld County, regardless of where
their corporate office may be in the world, we consider
t hem to be a resident company of Weld County, because
t hey are here, they're paying taxes. Their employee
base is here, and we have used them in the past that
way.
COMMISSIONER COZAD: Okay, thank you.
CHAIR: Mr. Barker, were you
MR. BARKER:
So while I was sitting there, I
looked up the periodic report for both companies. The
AB Court Reporting & Video 39
1 one that was filed in -- one was filed in 2017. That
7
3
4
5
6
7
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
was for FCI Constructors. They list as their principal
office street address of 3070 I-70 Business Loo
building A, Grand Junction, Colorado.
The thing to me that's important is where do
you if you need to serve process on the company, where
is their process -- where is their registered agent
address.
p,
And in the incidence of FCI it is the same
Grand Junction address. For Roche the registered agent
is Thomas J. Roche, 361 71st Avenue, Greeley, Colorado.
In the provisions both in the charter and in
our code, it does not define residence. It just says
"resident Weld County
dens."
What I offer is that I think from a legal
stand
point when I look to see where they're domiciled
,
I look to see to where the registered agent is located
CHAIR: And, Commissioner Conway?
COMMISSIONER CONWAY: And based on your
research the resident
omicile for one of those
companies is Grand Junction, Colorado; correct?
MR. BARKER: The two agents, the registered
agents, the one for FCI is in Grand Junction. The one
for Roche Constructors is Mr. Roche, and that's here in
Greeley.
AB Court Reporting & Video 40
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
COMMISSIONER CONWAY: And the other one is
for Alamosa, Colorado?
MR. BARKER: I didn't look at that one.
COMMISSIONER CONWAY: Okay. But they list
Fort Collins, Colorado. It's there in the bid.
MR. BARKER: I didn't look at that one.
COMMISSIONER CONWAY: Okay.
CHAIR: Commissioner Cozad, and what comes
after the Commissioner Kirkmeyer is done?
COMMISSIONER COZAD: I'm sorry, I just want
to followup with this question.
So from a legal standpoint, you look at
registered agent and not local preference based on
where employees are and the economic benefits of having
the office that's doing the project in the county?
MR. BARKER:
And I'm not saying that that's
not something you take into consideration.
I think as
Toby mentioned, it's the Board's determination as to
what is meant by both the charter and the code
provisions that say "resident Weld County bidder."
21 I ' m just offering that from a legal
22 perspective. When we look to see where is that
23 corporation located, I look to see where the registered
24 agent is located.
25 COMMISSIONER COZAD: Okay, thank you.
AB Court Reporting & Video 41
1 CHAIR: Is that it from the County Attorney?
2 COMMISSIONER COZAD: Yes.
3 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: No, no.
4 CHAIR: Oh, no. Commissioner Kirkmeyer,
5 sorry.
6 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: So because it's not
7 defined, is that in the charter, then you just look to
8 the regular definition of resident?
9 MR. BARKER: I think it goes to what you feel
10 comfortable with to see if you feel they are located in
11 the county. So it talks about resident Weld County
12 there. Well how ever you define that, sure.
13 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: So but the term
14 "resident" is normally defined as "residing in." It
15 doesn't go back to where you would serve someone.
16 Because you could look at JBS and say they are not a
17 resident using your -- the way that the legal basis
18 would go. And I'm thinking JBS is a resident.
19 MR. BARKER: It's totally up to you. Again
20 I'm just saying from the perspective of a legal
21 perspective, you try and figure out where their
22 residence or where they are located, and you look to
23 see where their registered agent is located.
24 COMMISSIONER FREEMAN: I have a question.
25 CHAIR: Are you done, Commissioner Kirkmeyer?
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
AB Court Reporting & Video
COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: Yes.
CHAIR: Commissioner Freeman.
COMMISSIONER FREEMAN: So not to really make
a mess of this thing, but every time we look at when
we're giving local preference on vehicles and all of
those kind of things, we're looking at where that
dealership is located. We're not looking even though
we have multiple dealerships all over the place. We
look at the John Elway Dealership here in Greeley
that's making that bid, not where the corporate offices
of John Elway Corporation are, because that's not going
to be in Weld County.
And that's going to be true of every one of
these dealerships that we're looking at when we give
local preference.
So I think we're -- I mean maybe I'm just
putting that out there, because we've been doing that
for a long time on preferences where the business is
located.
CHAIR: Commissioner Kirkmeyer.
COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: It's my
understanding FCI has property in Weld County where
their building is, and they pay taxes.
So when I look up definition for a resident
business, they could relate back to an entity. They
42
AB Court Reporting & Video 43
1 talk about as a resident for exchange control and/or
2 tax purposes. So for tax purposes, they are considered
3 a resident of Weld County. That would be my take on
4 it.
5 But I actually have a question for Don
6 Warden. We're done with Mr. Barker.
7 CHAIR: Mr. Warden, please. And Commissioner
8 Kirkmeyer.
9 MR. WARDEN: It's Don Warden, Director
10 Finance and Administration.
11 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: So since you and I
12 were both here in the '90's, and my memory is pretty
13 good, but I'm thinking your memory might be better.
14 So the current county jail that's out on 0
15 Street was built in '97/'98 time period?
16 MR. WARDEN: '97 I believe, yes.
17 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: Yeah, 1997, because
18 it was after that election we had in 1996.
19 So and that's -- that's one of the projects
20 that Mr. Roche was the construction manager on, general
21 manager.
22 MR. WARDEN: He was the actual construction
23 company. Warren Bligh was the architect. And
24 basically that was not a design -build or as we're
25 calling it now. The terminology changed a little bit.
AB Court Reporting & Video
1 management of GCC or GNC type arrangement. And that
2 was Bligh and Roche were the two companies that worked
3 together for both of those.
4 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: Okay, and then can
5 you speak to the comment about a deduction back to the
6 county?
7 MR. WARDEN: Yeah, I recall there was a
8 reduction off of the price, and I'm not sure of the
9 details, but I can certainly look that up. But I think
10 Tom is correct in that statement.
11 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: Okay. And then the
12 statement is also correct, which I have no reason to
13 believe it's not that they were on time under budget
14 kind of thing?
15 MR. WARDEN: Yes, they were on budget, yeah.
16 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: Great. That helps
17 out. Thank you very much.
18 MR. WARDEN: Uh-huh.
19 CHAIR: Any further questions, Commissioners?
20 I'm going to bring it back to the Board
21 comments before we order a motion.
22 All right, nobody wants to comment first? I
23 will take upon what I guess as the Chair.
24 And I appreciate staff first of all, and I
25 appreciate the four individuals that have participated
45
AB Court Reporting & Video
1 in this here. And I know we had the work session to
2 clear up how this was scored, and the time commitment
3 to this here, and your expertise in this process here.
4 And I don't disvalue any of that. I think it was very
5 interesting how this all came out, and the rankings
6 that mirrored basically the same from all four
7 participants in this process here.
8 I know it's a -- this is a big, big project.
9 This is a huge step that the Board is going to
10 responsible for -- on behalf of the taxpayers here.
11 And I appreciate those that have all put into this bid,
12 because as I asked to clarify a question that can they
13 all do this, and it was clearly stated that they can
14 all take on this project.
15 If you wanted to comment, I'm going to go
16 back to hearing a little bit of the history of what
17 happened here with the build of this jail, and the
18 expansion to the jail.
19 And then the projects have been presented
20 here on one particular vendor, and then that's what I
21 want to comment on the Roche Contractor. I, you know,
22 I have no reason to think anything different that what
23 happened back then would happen here and continue on to
24 add to the expansion of this jail.
25 That's me just personally. I do take in
46
AB Court Reporting & Video 47
1
2
3
4
5
7
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
✓ espect to what were the comments that are lacking, and
some of the experience from the staff that was
pointed
o ut in this evaluation and this ongoing process that
was presented to us.
In the work session again today those
questions were asked, but that's kind of where I'm
leaning that I would be in favor of going with what was
presented as the low bid here.
And I have all the confi
ence in the world
t hat I believe they will continue to do a good job for
t he county.
But that's where I'm at, and I will leave it
to the rest of the Boar
's comments.
Commissioner Cozad.
COMMISSIONER COZAD: Yeah, I think first of
all it was helpful to have people here from the public
today and hear directly from the bidders.
And I would like Commissioner Moreno, I
✓ eally do appreciate the amount of time and effort that
the staff, all four of you put into looking at these.
And I think it is important. This is a huge project
for us.
You know, it's going to be over $40,000,000.00
o nce it's all done, and that is a big price tag for us
as a county.
Rut I'm leaning the same way as Commissioner
AB Court Reporting & Video 48
1
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
Moreno.
I'm, you know, I think as far as low bid, it's
✓ eally close.
very close.
Those three, the three companies are
And the one thing that was concerning me was
t he experience of the staff on similar projects.
I do
t hink that there is, you know, from what we heard
today, there are people on the team that could get the
project done. And again I, you know, I did hear from
o ur staff that any of the biG
ers could get the project
done and do a good quality job.
local company.
And I think Roche is a
And, you know, they are a low bidder
and that's what we end of up going with.
We don't have
worry about local preference, because they are low bia.
t hough.
So I do think that that is important to me
As local companies and I appreciate FCI too
nid
in
g
on this.
17 '
business.
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
I don't see that they are not a local
I do think that they are. And I think that
t here were comments made that, you know, they do pay
taxes. They are located here. They are on five acres
down in Frederick.
✓ ight here.
But I do at this
They have 100 employees that are
point I think Roche would Go
a fine job. They have done a good job for us in the
past and returned money back to us an
25 budget and on the schedule.
have stayed on
AB Court Reporting & Video 49
1
2
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
CHAIR: Commissioner Conway.
COMMISSIONER CONWAY:
Yeah, I'm leaning
towards the comment made by Chairman Moreno and
Commissioner Cozad.
I've been struggling with this whole -- I
mean I asked you everything else looked really close,
e xcept for this experience. And I think the
presentation today helped me in terms of understanding
why maybe some of that in terms of the interviews came
o ut that way.
I ' m confident that, you know, if we go with
the original low bidder here, one, it's $147,000.00
$147,565.00 less than Bryan. And it's $450,000.00
$453,000.00 less in terms of the bid in terms of the
first bid.
So I'm confident based on the history. Mr.
Roche has done all three -- or Roche Construction,
e xcuse me, has
one all three of the previous pods.
Mr. Warden said they were on time, on budget. There is
n o doubt in terms of this.
As you said in your testimony, you are
confident that all four of these could do this.
But I come back to section 14-9.
You know it
says the County Commissioners "shall"
it doesn't say
"may."
It says shall give preference to resident Weld
AB Court Reporting & Video 50
1 County bidders in cases where bids are competitive in
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
price and quality.
And clearly they are the low bidder.
I would
agree with you based on to clear up in terms of, you
know, the County Attorney has got that resident agent,
but I think the fact that they've got 100 employees I
think that that's our
iscretion u
here. So I would
concur with you, Commissioner Cozad, on that.
But I mean it's clear that there is I mean a
huge difference. I've got $300,600.00. And that's at
the en
of day in terms of the bid. And that's kind of
where I'm at.
So I'm in concurrence with Chairman Moreno
and Commissioner Cozad in terms of this.
CHAIR: Commissioner Kirkmeyer.
COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: So I think we're
very fortunate first of all. We got in four companies
that came in and bid, and they are all four quality
companies.
COMMISSIONER CONWAY:
I would agree.
COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER:
So now we're down to
basically really separating the wheat from the shaff if
you will to use more of a agricultural term there.
But so here is my concern. So I'm just going
to ask a direct question if I may of Toby. And then
AB Court Reporting & Video 51
1 it's on the experience stuff, which obviously we all
2 have a lot of questions with regard to.
7
10
Because the
part that is concerning me is is when you made the
comment about the architectural team is lacking behind,
and they don't have any recent experience, that
concerns me.
Because when I was looking up the point
differentiation here, it's in -- I mean I'm between
Roche and FCI quite frankly.
You know if Bryan was a Weld County -- had
their offices were here in Weld County instead of
Larimer County, quite honestly I don't think it would
be an issue, because they are like 11 points more in
the scoring.
ou know when we went and asked our staff
to qo back and look at what's the best value for the
county to make sure, because it's a huge project, they
are like 11 points more.
FCI is eight points more.
And the whole issue is aroun
experience.
19 So I just need a direct response with regard
20 to the architectural design team for Roche, and when is
21 their most recent experience in building a detention
22 facility of this type.
23 Because as we all know, Federal rules,
24 regulations and even state laws change. And if we miss
25 those or screw those up, that ends up costing us a lot
AB Court Reporting & Video 52
1
2
3
4
7
10
of money.
So could you give me that number, give me
that here.
MR. TAYLOR:
What I'm recalling from the
interview was the architect
presented that the last
correctional institution that he had worked on was a
1976 construction of the Centennial Jail Complex
through NHP, who has a gentleman fresh out of college
that he presented.
COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER:
facility of this type?
MR. TAYLOR:
On a correctional
Of this type.
Jail down at Centennial in 1976.
The Weld County
14 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: Rob, is that?
15 MR. TURF: That's my recollection as well.
16 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: So that's my
17 concern.
18 MR. TAYLOR: Okay.
19 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: I mean that's 40
20 years ago essentially. There is a lot changed in 40
21 years.
22 MR. TAYLOR: There has been.
23 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: So that's why I'm
24 struggling.
25 CHAIR: Commissioner Conway.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
20
21
22
23
24
25
AB Court Reporting & Video 53
COMMISSIONER CONWAY: Was there discussiGn
about the Federal facility, the $62,000,000.00 facility
in Aurora, because they would have to comply with all
Federal s :andards; correct, ADA, all of the things that
are incorporated into that.
MR. TAYLOR:
Some of that is
eing
conflicted. The Roche Construction is separate from
the Hauser Architectural team is what we're talking.
The Hauser Architectural team is the ones that have not
done that function.
COMMISSIONER CONWAY: But Roche Construction
just did a $62,000,000.00 ICE Holding Facility in
Aurora; correct?
MR. TAYLOR: Going back to Commissioner
Kirkmeyer's question, it was in regards to the
architectural team themselves not Roche Constructors as
a construction company.
So the architectural team themselves have not
one from 1976 was our understanding in the interview.
Roche as a construction company has done
similar functions. And those scores are relative
within the matrix.
CHAIR: Okay. Commissioner Cozad, or I'm
sorry, Commissioner Freeman
COMMISSIONER COZAD:
id you
No, go ahead. Let
1
2
3
4
5
7
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
AB Court Reporting & Video
Commissioner Freeman go next.
CHAIR: Commissioner Freeman.
COMMISSIONER FREEMAN:
Well I'm kin
of in
the same place that all of you are.
it's very apparent
Roche.
I mean I think
that it's certainly between FCI and
ou are supposed to look at low bid.
believe they are both local companies.
I mean I think
we've set that precedent for a very long time that if
they are doing business here, they are paying taxes
h ere. That's a local company. That's the way we've
always looked at that, and I think that's the way we
continue to have to look at that to be able to give
local, because who knows where their corporate
h eadc
-carters are or wherever else.
h ave a
The point to me is that they are located,
usiness and o
aerate out of Weld County.
So I think they are both local.
comes out of the factor.
I think that
20 I am also a little bit concerned about the
21 architectural team. That is a long time, 1976. I
22 guess I'm a little bit -- I guess I'm a little bit
23 wondering why we would use an architectural team that
24 isn't the one that built the facility that Commissioner
25 Conway is talking about that has the experience of
54
AB Court Reporting & Video 55
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
building a project like that is not may
e the
architectural team that's looking at a project this
size.
So I struggle with that a little bit as well.
CHAIR: Commissioner Cozad.
COMMISSIONER COZAD: That is why we
deliberate.
You know the architect is the one that's
going to design the facility. So, you know, I'm a
little -- I am concerned about that.
If the last correctional facility that they
designed was in 1976 -- is that what you said?
MR. TAYLOR: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COZAD:
They have no other
correctional facility design experience at all, whether
it's with Roche or not?
MR. TAYLOR:
I do not recall seeing that.
COMMISSIONER COZAD: And in your opinions,
the two cf you since the two of you were on the team,
is that why there was the differential, and that's what
I was trying to get at earlier, and I really maybe I
Didn't quite get that from you, because that's really
the main reason on the experience from --
MR. TAYLOR: From my perspective it was a
major issue, because your design is what saves you
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
24
AB Court Reporting & Video
money in the long run or you expend more money in the
long run.
You also have to comply with the current
regulation for a correctional institution. And since
1976, some of these things are new. They didn't exist
in 1976.
COMMISSIONER COZAD: So I kind of aske
that
question of Mr. Roche, and, you know, to kind of get to
the meat of who is going to look at the regulations,
the current regulations. And it's been awhile even
since our jail was built even the additions.
Rut I just -- I just want to make sure that
even though there is a $453,000.00 price differential
between FCI and Roche, that we're not going to end up
spen
ing that $453,000.00 because we didn't get
something right that's in our regulations.
So I think to me that is really important.
And I guess maybe that's and now, you know, I ' m kind of
going back the other direction.
MR. TAYLOR:
While I do su
0
Dort
That's on [inaudible].
COMMISSIONER COZAD:
you know going low
bid, I do now have a concern about the architect and
not having a strong architect to do the design.
An
I have no doubt that Roche coul
n't
25 construct the jail. They have experience in that.
56
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
AB Court Reporting & Video
But making sure that it's designed and meets
all of the criteria and the regulations that we have to
meet to make sure our jail is in compliance and not
find something out down the road because the architect
missed it, that is concerning to me.
CHAIR: I want to ask Mr. Warden; I know you
stepped up to the table, did you have some comments
to --
MR. WARDEN: Just a question I guess for
clarification so all of the information is on the
table. In both groups have "teams and consultants" and
as Mr. Roche indicated consulted. Did you take into
consideration the whole team or just Hauser?
MR. TAYLOR: We took into consider the whole
team.
MR. WARDEN: Okay.
MR. TAYLOR: The whole team was rated so they
had different line items depending on where they were
at in the team.
MR. WARDEN: Okay, just wanted to clarify.
Thank you.
CHAIR: All right, Commissioner Conway.
COMMISSIONER CONWAY: So I just want to go
back. You said you have no concern that any of these
entities could do this project; is that correct?
57
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
AB Court Reporting & Video 58
MR. TAYLOR: That is correct.
COMMISSIONER CONWAY: And that includes the
experience on staff in terms of the teams that they
have assembled; correct in total?
MR. TAYLOR: That is correct.
CHAIR: Commissioner Kirkmeyer.
COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: Do you have a
concern with regard that the architectural team doesn't
have any experience since 1976, 40 years ago?
MR. TAYLOR: I do have a concern with it, but
I do believe that if steered in the right direction,
they could look at the references and design a building
and structure that meets the requirements. I don't
feel that they have that current experience right now,
and there could be some omissions or things that are
found later that could lend itself to issues.
And that's why I had my ratings the way that
I did.
CHAIR: That's about all of the questions.
Okay.
COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: I want to ask the
attorney a question.
CHAIR: Go ahead, Commissioner, I'm sorry,
Kirkmeyer.
COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: I'd like to ask the
AB Court Reporting & Video 59
1 attorneys a question.
2 CHAIR: Bruce.
3 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: Is there anything
4 that you can think of contractually that we could do to
5 protect the county should we end up picking a firm that
6 doesn't have the architectural experience or it's
7 lacking so that if there is something that is omitted
8 or simply missed, the county is protected?
9 MR. BARKER: Absolutely.
10 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: Then what would that
11 be?
12 MR. BARKER: Well you could in a couple of
13 things. One would be a requirement, a strict
14 requirement that, in fact, they provide that sort of
15 expertise.
16 Secondly, would be that that expertise is
17 being relied upon for the purpose of going forward.
18 That in essence we are relying upon those -- that
19 expertise for the purpose of making certain that it's
20 done correctly, and that they are taking the
21 responsibility of making sure that it's done in
22 accordance with both federal and state law.
23 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: And that would be at
24 their expense?
25 MR. BARKER: Correct.
AB Court Reporting & Video 61
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
county because of an unknown condition or whatever.
And there were several of those that had to kind of De
mediated between the county and with Pat Presachino
primarily, and sometimes I was involved and Roche and
Bligh.
That was one of the reasons when we did the
second phase, we wanted to do a design -build, even
though we ha
a different terminology at the time,
where they worked together.
And basically once they gave us a firm price,
they lived with it.
If there was something that came
up that they forgot to do something that met the code
or whatever, that was their ticket. And the architect
an
the contractor had to work out who paid for it or
who was going to resolve it.
But we avoided the change order issues I
think you're talking a
out by going to this design -
build concept that once they give us that firm price,
they pretty much -- if they discover something that
they
i
n't put in because of a standard or whatever,
that's their ticket. It's not ours.
COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER:
RKME YE R :
firm
once?
MR. WARDEN:
Right.
COMMISSIONER COZAD:
So an
this is a
Once we --
[indecipherable] what
AB Court Reporting & Video 62
7
14
15
you're looking at?
COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER:
M
. WARDEN:
maximum price, a GMP.
Once we what?
Once we establish a guaranteed
COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER:
guaranteed maximum -rice?
MR. WARDEN:
So this is not the
However, what you're seeing in
front of you is a budget estimate of what it woul
be
without the cells or the controls.
firm
once.
That is not the
The firm price is just the design fee,
general conditions.
Things highlighted in yellow are
just for some internal calculation.
THE COURT: Commissioner Conway.
COMMISSIONER CONWAY: So I want -- you
16 brought up the first part of it, the first phase began.
17
18
MR. WARDEN: Right.
COMMISSIONER CONWAY: You have
19 three. Did that design
20 everything go, because -
chase two and
uild concept work and
21 MR. WARDEN: It worked. It worked very well.
22 I think obviously you could ask Tom, but I think from
23 the county's perspective, we were very happy with the
24 process and the results. And I think my feeling was
25 the architect the Roche Construction order was happy
AB Court Reporting & Video 65
1
2
5
7
COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER:
RKME YE R :
all of t
e c
iscussion.
Yeah, I ap
oreciate
I certainly do.
I am still
greatly concerned, because we don't have the guaranteed
maximum price at this
point.
I'm greatly concerned that the architect team
experience is lacking way
ehind.
recent experience.
There isn't any
I mean we're talking 1976.
just greatly concerns me.
That
9 And the construction management fee of the
10 .0285 is higher than FCI at .0230. Even in the
11 estimated construction duration, Mr. Roche spoke about
12 that he thought it was actually more like 25 months.
13 So with FCI it's actually 22 months.
14 And the difference really is about one
15 percent difference between the two. I'm just --
17
18
19
20
22
23
24
25
I mean
we asked our staff to go through and get, you know, get
these really go through and look at this whole bi
process to make sure that, you know, if we're investing
close to $45,000,000.00, that's a lot of money.
A n d
you know, I think if maybe it were some other
uilding,
I don't even think we would
e here.
But because it
s the jail, if there's a screw
up or some sort, and we only have one jail. So it's
not like we can move people around to all over other
°laces. It's got to get done, and it's got to get done
AB Court Reporting & Video 73
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
CERTIFICATE
I, Randel Raison, certified electronic
court transcriber, do hereby certify that I typed
the proceeding in the foregoing matter from audio
recording, or the transcript was prepared under my
direction, and that this is as accurate a
transcript of what happened at that time and place
as best as is possible, due to conditions of
recording and/or duplicating.
4-30-2018
Date /s/Randel Raison, CET 340
May 4, 2018
CLERK TO THE BOARD
PHONE: (970) 400-4226
FAX: (970) 336-7233
1150 O STREET
P.O. BOX 758
GREELEY, CO 80632
Bryan Construction, Inc.
c/o Karl A. Berg, Jr.
Mulliken Weiner Berg & Jolivet, P.C.
Alamo Corporate Center
102 South Tejon Street, Suite 900
Colorado Springs, CO 80903-2238
RE: Notice of Appeal Hearing re: Bid #B1800059, Jail 2 West Expansion (Design/Build)
Dear Mr. Berg:
The Board of Commissioners of Weld County will conduct a hearing concerning the appeal of
Bryan Construction, Inc., of the Board's decision made on April 18, 2018, awarding Bid
#B1800059, Jail 2 West Expansion (Design/Build), to Roche Constructors, Inc. The appeal
hearing is scheduled for Monday, May 14, 2018, at 9:00 a.m., in the Chambers of the Board
of County Commissioners of Weld County, Colorado, Weld County Administration Building, 1150
O Street, Assembly Room, Greeley, Colorado 80631. The hearing will be conducted pursuant to
the provisions of Sections 2-4-10 and 5-4-155 of the Weld County Code, copies of which are
enclosed.
If you have any questions concerning this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me at
970-400-4226, or email egesick@weldgov.com.
Sincerely,
Esther E. Gesick
Clerk to the Board
cc: County Attorney, Bruce Barker
Purchasing Director, Barbara Connolly
Buildings and Grounds Director, Toby Taylor
Finance and Administration Director, Don Warden
Bryan Construction, Inc.
Roche Constructors, Inc.
FCI Constructors, Inc.
Sampson Construction Co
Esther Gesick
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Attachments:
Esther Gesick
Monday, May 7, 2018 9:31 AM
tblanks@bryanconstruction.com; mbacon@fciol.com; thad.lienemann@sampson-
construction.com; troche@rocheconstructors.com
Esther Gesick; Bruce Barker; Toby Taylor; Rob Turf; Don Warden; Barb Connolly
Notice of Appeal Hearing - Bid #61800059, Jail 2 West Expansion (Design/Build)
Notice of Appeal Hearing - Jail Bid #B1800059.pdf; Appeal - Bryan Construction - Jail
Bid #B1800059.pdf
Please see the attached documents. Hard copies of the notification letter are also being sent today.
Esther E. Gesick
Clerk to the Board
1150 O Street'P.O. Box 758'Greeley, CO 80632
tel: (970) 400-4226
Confidentiality Notice: This electronic transmission and any attached documents or other writings are intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed
and may contain information that is privileged, confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure. If you have received this communication in error, please
immediately notify sender by return e-mail and destroy the communication. Any disclosure, copying, distribution or the taking of any action concerning the contents
of this communication or any attachments by anyone other than the named recipient is strictly prohibited.
1
Cheryl Hoffman
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Please include in Bryan appeal.
Bruce T. Barker, Esq.
Weld County Attorney
P.O. Box 758
1150 "O" Street
Greeley, CO 80632
(970) 356-4000, Ext. 4390
Fax: (970) 352-0242
Bruce Barker
Wednesday, May 16, 2018 9:51 AM
CTB
FW:
Confidentiality Notice: This electronic transmission and any attached documents or other writings are intended only for
the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is attorney privileged and confidential, or
otherwise protected from disclosure. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify
sender by return e-mail and destroy the communication. Any disclosure, copying, distribution or the taking of any action
concerning the contents of this communication or any attachments by anyone other than the named recipient is strictly
prohibited.
Original Message
From: Toby Taylor
Sent: Tuesday, May 15, 2018 7:25 AM
To: Barbara Kirkmeyer <bkirkmeyer@weldgov.com>; Bruce Barker <bbarker@weldgov.com>; Barb Connolly
<bconnolly@weldgov.com>; Don Warden <dwarden@weldgov.com>; Commissioners
<COMMISSIONERS@co.weld.co.us>
Subject: RE:
I do not believe that is correct. Bid was for design -build and identifies: Design Services, Building Construction, and
Construction Management. All cost associated with those were identified.
By definition, design -build is a method of project delivery in which one entity — the design -build team — works under a
single contract with the project owner to provide design AND construction services. One entity, one contract, one
unified flow of work from initial concept through completion — thereby integrating the roles of designer and constructor.
Design -build is an alternative to the traditional design -bid -build project delivery method. Under the latter approach,
design and construction services are split into separate entities, separate contracts, separate work. This approach can
lead to disputes on missed items and potential of many change orders and cost overruns due to any missed items.
With the Design -Build approach both design team and construction team work together. They are united from the
outset of the project, an integrated team readily works to successfully complete a project faster, more cost effectively
and with fewer change orders. Once GMP is set, any missed items (e.g. unknown conditions) become the responsibility
of the contractor.
1
01o/r/561
The County awarded this "entire" design -build package to Roche through unanimous decision (5-0). We subsequently
entered the contract with Roche (in place today). This contract is for the design portion only at this point. This is what I
was trying to communicate with statement of being in the design phase. The other aspects including fees for this
contract would be incorporated during the construction and construction management phase. What I was trying to
indicate during the meeting was that there is an "out" for the County "should the contractor not be able to deliver". I do
not believe this will be needed given the successes the County has had with Roche (and others). But the option does
exist. This verbal exchange seemed to add confusion as the focus started to become geared towards determination of if
this was a design contract (which it is not) versus a design -build contract (which it is). These design -build contracts have
worked well for the County over the years and have proven successful method of construction delivery and kept them
within budgets.
It appears we keep getting lost with a lot of "what ifs" with this one. Correct me if I'm wrong but it seems the simple
sequence has been:
1. Work session where staff recommend low bidder (Roche). BOCC directed to proceed with interviews.
2. Work session detailing interview process & results. BOCC agreed staff to recommend the highest scoring (Bryan).
3. Hearing: after much discussion BOCC agreed unanimously to award to low bidder (Roche) who is also qualified. Met
the components of the code.
4. Contract entered with Roche for the full design -build process (which includes: design, construction, and construction
management) 5. Protest by Bryan who wants the process changed to a "QBS" versus a "bid" because interviews were
performed and they ranked higher on the interviews.
Toby Taylor, Director
Weld County Department of Buildings & Grounds Weld County Veterans Services
1105 H Street
P.O. Box 758
Greeley, CO 80632
P: 970.356.4000, ext. 2023
F: 970.304.6532
ttaylor@weldgov.com
Original Message
From: Barbara Kirkmeyer
Sent: Tuesday, May 15, 2018 6:31 AM
To: Bruce Barker <bbarker@weldgov.com>; Barb Connolly <bconnolly@weldgov.com>; Don Warden
<dwarden@weldgov.com>; Toby Taylor <ttaylor@weldgov.com>; Commissioners <COMMISSIONERS@co.weld.co.us>
Subject:
One More questions:
In documents from Weld we state the bids were for construction of a new wing onto the Jail but the bids do not reflect
an actual bid on construction - correct?
Have a great day
2
Cheryl Hoffman
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Please include in Bryan appeal.
Bruce T. Barker, Esq.
Weld County Attorney
P.O. Box 758
1150 "O" Street
Greeley, CO 80632
(970) 356-4000, Ext. 4390
Fax: (970) 352-0242
Bruce Barker
Wednesday, May 16, 2018 9:52 AM
CTB
FW: RE:
Confidentiality Notice: This electronic transmission and any attached documents or other writings are intended only for
the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is attorney privileged and confidential, or
otherwise protected from disclosure. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify
sender by return e-mail and destroy the communication. Any disclosure, copying, distribution or the taking of any action
concerning the contents of this communication or any attachments by anyone other than the named recipient is strictly
prohibited.
Original Message
From: Toby Taylor
Sent: Tuesday, May 15, 2018 8:00 AM
To: Barbara Kirkmeyer <bkirkmeyer@weldgov.com>
Cc: Bruce Barker <bbarker@weldgov.com>; Barb Connolly <bconnolly@weldgov.com>; Don Warden
<dwarden@weldgov.com>; Commissioners <COMMISSIONERS@co.weld.co.us>
Subject: RE: RE:
I agree, what -ifs should have been proofread and rephrased. Was in a hurry to reply this morning. My apologies.
The bidders have identified their costs for General Conditions, Construction Management, and Bonds. This is essentially
their overhead and profit to perform the construction and construction management phase.
The estimated $35M is based on all the subcontractors responses to bidding on the project through the General
Contractor. The actual construction amount is an unknown at this point because we need to have it designed so Roche
can bid the project out to the various trades. Those bid results, Roche's fees, and a set contingency of 3% are what
make up the GMP. All results are transparent and reviewed.
Toby Taylor, Director
Weld County Department of Buildings & Grounds Weld County Veterans Services
1105 H Street
P.O. Box 758
1
Greeley, CO 80632
P: 970.356.4000, ext. 2023
F: 970.304.6532
ttaylor@weldgov.com
Original Message
From: Barbara Kirkmeyer
Sent: Tuesday, May 15, 2018 7:46 AM
To: Toby Taylor <ttaylor@weldgov.com>
Cc: Bruce Barker <bbarker@weldgov.com>; Barb Connolly <bconnolly@weldgov.com>; Don Warden
<dwarden@weldgov.com>; Commissioners <COMMISSIONERS@co.weld.co.us>
Subject: Re: RE:
Ok how did you come up with $35M as a price by which the construction fees were applied ?
And I'm not lost on any "what if's " nor do I believe any of the other board members are lost on "what if's"
Have a great day
> On May 15, 2018, at 7:25 AM, Toby Taylor <ttaylor@weldgov.com>wrote:
> I do not believe that is correct. Bid was for design -build and identifies: Design Services, Building Construction, and
Construction Management. All cost associated with those were identified.
> By definition, design -build is a method of project delivery in which one entity - the design -build team - works under a
single contract with the project owner to provide design AND construction services. One entity, one contract, one
unified flow of work from initial concept through completion - thereby integrating the roles of designer and constructor.
> Design -build is an alternative to the traditional design -bid -build project delivery method. Under the latter approach,
design and construction services are split into separate entities, separate contracts, separate work. This approach can
lead to disputes on missed items and potential of many change orders and cost overruns due to any missed items.
> With the Design -Build approach both design team and construction team work together. They are united from the
outset of the project, an integrated team readily works to successfully complete a project faster, more cost effectively
and with fewer change orders. Once GMP is set, any missed items (e.g. unknown conditions) become the responsibility
of the contractor.
> The County awarded this "entire" design -build package to Roche through unanimous decision (5-0). We subsequently
entered the contract with Roche (in place today). This contract is for the design portion only at this point. This is what I
was trying to communicate with statement of being in the design phase. The other aspects including fees for this
contract would be incorporated during the construction and construction management phase. What I was trying to
indicate during the meeting was that there is an "out" for the County "should the contractor not be able to deliver". I do
not believe this will be needed given the successes the County has had with Roche (and others). But the option does
exist. This verbal exchange seemed to add confusion as the focus started to become geared towards determination of if
this was a design contract (which it is not) versus a design -build contract (which it is). These design -build contracts have
worked well for the County over the years and have proven successful method of construction delivery and kept them
within budgets.
2
> It appears we keep getting lost with a lot of "what ifs" with this one. Correct me if I'm wrong but it seems the simple
sequence has been:
>
> 1. Work session where staff recommend low bidder (Roche). BOCC directed to proceed with interviews.
> 2. Work session detailing interview process & results. BOCC agreed staff to recommend the highest scoring (Bryan).
> 3. Hearing: after much discussion BOCC agreed unanimously to award to low bidder (Roche) who is also qualified. Met
the components of the code.
> 4. Contract entered with Roche for the full design -build process
> (which includes: design, construction, and construction management) 5. Protest by Bryan who wants the process
changed to a "QBS" versus a "bid" because interviews were performed and they ranked higher on the interviews.
>
>
>
> Toby Taylor, Director
> Weld County Department of Buildings & Grounds Weld County Veterans
> Services
> 1105 H Street
> P.O. Box 758
> Greeley, CO 80632
> P: 970.356.4000, ext. 2023
> F: 970.304.6532
> ttaylor@weldgov.com
>
> Original Message
> From: Barbara Kirkmeyer
> Sent: Tuesday, May 15, 2018 6:31 AM
> To: Bruce Barker <bbarker@weldgov.com>; Barb Connolly
> <bconnolly@weldgov.com>; Don Warden <dwarden@weldgov.com>; Toby Taylor
> <ttaylor@weldgov.com>; Commissioners <COMMISSIONERS@co.weld.co.us>
> Subject:
>
> One More questions:
>
> In documents from Weld we state the bids were for construction of a new wing onto the Jail but the bids do not reflect
an actual bid on construction - correct?
>
> Have a great day
3
Cheryl Hoffman
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Bruce Barker
Wednesday, May 16, 2018 9:51 AM
CTB
FW:
Please include in record for Bryan appeal.
Bruce T. Barker, Esq.
Weld County Attorney
P.O. Box 758
1150 "O" Street
Greeley, CO 80632
(970) 356-4000, Ext. 4390
Fax: (970) 352-0242
Confidentiality Notice: This electronic transmission and any attached documents or other writings are intended only for
the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is attorney privileged and confidential, or
otherwise protected from disclosure. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify
sender by return e-mail and destroy the communication. Any disclosure, copying, distribution or the taking of any action
concerning the contents of this communication or any attachments by anyone other than the named recipient is strictly
prohibited.
Original Message
From: Don Warden
Sent: Tuesday, May 15, 2018 6:49 AM
To: Barbara Kirkmeyer <bkirkmeyer@weldgov.com>; Bruce Barker <bbarker@weldgov.com>; Barb Connolly
<bconnolly@weldgov.com>
Cc: Commissioners <COMMISSIONERS@co.weld.co.us>
Subject: RE:
Here are my thoughts:
If there was no public testimony and we were limited to the 3 issues in the appeal why was Roche allowed to speak ?
As Bruce indicated in the meeting it was up to the Board and the Board decide to allow Roche to speak. I do not see
anything in the process prohibiting him from speaking and he certainly was a party of interest, since if the appeal was
granted he would lose a contract.
Does the HRC provision 14-9 siting local preference apply to a bid as defined in 5-4-150?
I think it does.
What process did we use for the 49 project? We prequalified 3 teams to design and give a construction price. We paid
them I think $50,000 each with the understanding we would pick one, but Weld County owned the work product, so we
could take good ideas from any of the three and incorporate them into the final design and construction.
1
Or any other design build project ? We have done a number of them, last two phases of the jail, the HS remodel, crime
lab, and others.
Toby said that the board had only awarded the design portion of the bid and the bocc could award the construction to
another bidder. Is that correct ? I disagree with Toby's statement. I think we awarded the design and construction to
Roche. The third paragraph of the bid document say, Design Services. Building Construction and Construction
Management.
Did the bid documents allow for more than one vendor to be selected and to parse out the bid? No, not in my opinion.
After extending the process and further evaluation Staff recommended second low bid is it inferred that staff found the
low bid unacceptable? I think they testified that all bidders were qualified.
Donald D. Warden
Director of Finance and Administration
Finance and Administration
PO Box 758
1150 O Street
Greeley, CO 80632
tel: 970-356-4000 Extension 4218
email: dwarden@co.weld.co.us
Confidentiality Notice: This electronic transmission and any attached documents or other writings are intended only for
the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged, confidential or otherwise
protected from disclosure. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify sender by return
e-mail and destroy the communication. Any disclosure, copying, distribution or the taking of any action concerning the
contents of this communication or any attachments by anyone other than the named recipient is strictly prohibited.
Original Message
From: Barbara Kirkmeyer
Sent: Tuesday, May 15, 2018 5:34 AM
To: Don Warden <dwarden@weldgov.com>; Bruce Barker <bbarker@weldgov.com>; Barb Connolly
<bconnolly@weldgov.com>
Cc: Commissioners <COMMISSIONERS@co.weld.co.us>
Subject:
questions to start:
If there was no public testimony and we were limited to the 3 issues in the appeal why was Roche allowed to speak ?
Does the HRC provision 14-9 siting local preference apply to a bid as defined in 5-4-150?
What process did we use for the 49 project?
Or any other design build project ?
Toby said that the board had only awarded the design portion of the bid and the bocc could award the construction to
another bidder. Is that correct ?
Did the bid documents allow for more than one vendor to be selected and to parse out the bid?
After extending the process and further evaluation Staff recommended second low bid is it inferred that staff found the
low bid unacceptable?
2
DEPARTMENT OF BUILDINGS AND GROUNDS
PHONE: (970) 304-6531
FAX: (970) 304-6532
WEBSITE: www.co.weld.co.us
1105 H STREET
P.O. BOX 758
GREELEY, COLORADO 80632
April 3, 2018
To: Board of County Commissioners
From: Toby Taylor
Subject: Jail 2 -West Addition Bid (B1800059)
As advertised this bid is for the 2 -West addition to the Jail. Bids are still being evaluated.
Therefore, we are requesting an extension until April 18, 2018 in order continue the evaluation
process before making a recommendation for approval.
If you have any questions, please contact me at extension 2023.
Sincerely,
Toby Taylor
Director
gig
'.-)4(2)()_,O
WELD COUNTY PURCHASING
1150 0 Street Room #107, Greeley CO 80631
E-mail: rturf(a�weldgov.com
E-mail: reverettaweldgov.com
E-mail: mwalters a(�,weldgov.com
Phone: (970) 400-4216,4222 or 4223
Fax: (970) 304-6434
DATE OF BID: MARCH 20, 2018
REQUEST FOR: JAIL 2 WEST EXPANSION - DESIGN BUILD
DEPARTMENT: BUILDINGS & GROUNDS DEPT
BID NO: #B1800059
PRESENT DATE: MARCH 21, 2018
APPROVAL DATE: APRIL 4, 2018
VENDORS
FEDERAL CONTRACTING INC.
DBA: BRYAN CONSTRUCTION INC
4700 INNOVATION DRIVE, BLDG C
FORT COLLINS CO 80525
ROCHE CONSTRUCTORS INC
361 71ST AVENUE
GREELEY CO 80634
SAMPSON CONSTRUCTION CO
4508 ENDEAVOR DRIVE
JOHNSTOWN CO 80534
FCI CONSTRUCTORS INC
4015 CORIOLIS WAY
FREDERICK CO 80504
BUILDINGS & GROUNDS WILL REVIEW THE BIDS.
'702-7
o261g-dk13
66.Qb-°
DEPARTMENT OF BUILDINGS AND GROUNDS
PHONE: (970) 304-6531
FAX: (970) 304-6532
WEBSITE: www.co.weld.co.us
1105 H STREET
P.O. BOX 758
GREELEY, COLORADO 80632
April 17, 2018
To: Board of County Commissioners
From: Toby Taylor
Subject: 2 -West Jail Expansion -Design/Build; Bid (B1800059)
As advertised, this bid is for construction of a new wing onto the Jail Complex. The new wing will be
commonly referred to as 2 -West. We received four responses to the bid.
The associated fees were calculated using an anticipated construction budget. Based on this calculation,
the low bidder was Roche Constructors with an estimated construction timeline of 27 months. However,
the difference between low and second low was only .39%. And the difference between low to high was
only 3.78%. Due to the competitiveness of this bid's fees, a cost value analysis was performed using an
evaluation panel.
Based on the factors of the analysis, the best value for the County is to award the bid to Bryan Construction
from Larimer County. Therefore, Buildings & Grounds is recommending that Bryan Construction be
awarded the design build construction contract based on the following submitted fees:
Pre- Construction:
$37,750 (If contracted for construction, fee goes to zero)
Design Fee:
$978,500
General Conditions Fee:
$1,100,000
Construction Management Fee:
.0285
Bond Schedule:
1st $500,000 = $12.00 per 1,000
Next $2,000,000 = $8.76 per 1,000
Next $2,500,000 = $7.20 per 1,000
Next $2,500,000 = $6.54 per 1,000
Next $2,500,000 = $6.00 per 1,000
Over 10,000,000 = $5.40 per 1,000
Estimated Duration: 125
Months
It should be noted that the bidder which ranked second as the best value for the County is FCI
Constructors. FCI Constructor's difference from Bryan Construction is in price is just .79%. In addition,
FCI is projecting a 22 -month construction schedule versus 25 months. FCI Construction is based in Weld
County with their office located in Frederick.
2o/!- OP,-
If you have any questions, please contact me at extension 2023.
Sincerely,
Toby Taylor
Director
Section 14-9. - Bidding - Procedure.
(1) The Board of County Commissioners shall adopt bidding procedures for county
purchases which shall assure open and competitive bidding on all county purchases, and
the Central Purchasing Division shall follow the procedures adopted in all county
purchases.
(2) Bid specifications shall be prepared in such a manner as to invite and encourage bidding
from all suppliers of the goods and equipment being purchased by the County. No
specifications shall be submitted to bidders so restrictive in detail as to eliminate any line
of competitive equipment.
(3) The County Commissioners shall give preference to resident Weld County bidders in all
cases where the bids are competitive in price and quality.
(4) The County Commissioners shall enter in the minutes of the meeting, at which a
purchase is made for other than a low bid, the reason for not accepting the low bid.
(5) All purchases in excess of an amount to be set annually by the Board of County
Commissioners by ordinance shall be by written, sealed bid and bids over the amount set
annually by ordinance by the Board of County Commissioners shall be followed by a ten-
day period for consideration and investigation of the bids submitted to determine
comparisons of quality and price. The ten-day waiting period may be waived by resolution
of the Board for emergency purchases. The Commissioners shall accept the bid they find
to be most beneficial to the County.
"Point
vailable
-
Roche
Bryan
FCI .Sampson
Sam
JAIL
2 WEST
EXPANSION
- DESIGN
BUILD
#B1800059
Fee
proposal
& General
Conditions
20
15.25
14.25
14
12.5
Completeness
of
proposal
documents
10
9
9
9
8.75
Experience
of
staff
on similar
projects
25
14.75
22.25
20.75
19.75
Current
work,
organizational
depth
& schedule
10
7
7.5
7.5
7.5
Demonstrated
ability
working
with
chosen
design
team
10
7
8.5
8
7.75
GMP
&
financial
strength
10
7.5
8
8
8
Demonstrated
ability
of
costs,
schedule,
and
quality
5
3.75
4.25
3.75
3.75
Proven track
record
with
job
site
safety
10
6.5
8
7.5
7.5
Total
78.5
I
75.5
100
70.75
81.75
Firm
Pre -Construction
Design Fee
General
Conditions Fee
Construction
Management
Fee
Roche Constructors
Inc.
361 71st Avenue
Greeley, CO
$25,000
$815,000
$1,076,805
0.0285
Bryan Construction
Inc.
4700 Innovation Dr.
Fort Collins, CO
$37,750
If contracted for
consturction, fee goes to
zero
$978,500
$1,100,000
0.0285
ECI Constructors
4015 Coriolis Way
Frederick, CO
$65,000
$1,450,220
$876,844
0.0230
Sampson Construction
4508 Endeavor Dr.
Johnstown, CO
$52,000
$2,288,810
$1,330,000
0.0200
Internal Calculations
Amount based
on $35M
$37,914,305
$38,076,000
$38,197,064
$39,370,810
Bond Schedule
1st $2,500,000 = $8.30 per 1,000
Next $2,500,000 = $6.80 per 1,000
Next $2,500,000 = $6.60 per 1,000
Over 7,500,000 = $6.10 per 1,000
Total
1st 5500,000 = $12.00 per 1,000
Next $2,000,000 = $8.76 per 1,000
Next 52,500,000 = $7.20 per 1,000
Next $2,500,000 = $6.54 per 1,000
Next $2,500,000 = $6.00 per 1,000
Over 10,000,000 = $5.40 per 1,000
Total
0.0051
or
1st $100,000 = .0009
Next $400,000 = .0063
Next $2,000,000 = .0063
Next $2,500,000 = .0054
Next $2,500,000 = .0047
Next $2,500,000 = .0047
Over $10M = .0038
Total
0.0075
Did not provide Bonding Schedule
Internal Calculations
Bond
20,75
17,000
16,500
167,750
222,000.00
6,000
17,520
18,000
16,350
15,000
135,000
207,870
90
2,520
12,600
13,500
11,750
11,750
95,000
147,210
262,500
Internal Calculations
Additional fees
Additional
Fees
Estimated Construction
Duration
27 Months
25 Months
.0070
Design Construction
Administration Costs •
245,000
22 months
26 Months
Internal
Calculations
Total
38,136,305
38,283,870
38,589,274
39,633,310
Variation from Roche Variation from Bryan
Price Difference
0.39%
Price Difference
1.17%
Price Difference
3.78%
Price Difference
0.79%
Price Difference
3.40%
Jail Construction Interview Questions
1. Can you sum up your company philosophy and what you stand for in just a few words?
2. Describe the General Contractor's experience building a correctional type facility?
3. Describe the Architectural team's experience building a correctional type facility?
4. What projects have the General Contractor and Architect worked on together as a design -build
project?
5. What is your track record of delivering projects on budget and on schedule?
6. Please explain how our desired schedule corresponds to your estimated design timeline and
projected construction duration?
7. What communications & tracking process do you use to keep clients up to date in both design and
construction phases?
8. What safety procedures and or training do you have in place when you're on a job site?
9. Can you describe your current workload? How does this project integrate into your current
workload and backlog ?
10. When developing the GMP, you must bid to at least three bidders including self -performed. What
difficulties will this present?
10. Are you familiar with any "special" design criteria for penal/correctional institutions? If so, please
describe.
11. This project requires designing a commercial/institutional kitchen. Please describe how you plan to
accomplish this specialized task.
12. We identified three cost analysis submittals required during design and prior to GMP at the 10%,
50% & 90% . Please walk us through your process in preparing these submittals?
The following criteria will be used to evaluate the proposal submitted in response to this Request for Proposal. In addition the interview process may be used as supplemental information to information received in the bids,
Each category will be rated from 1 - 5.
1 represents marginal; 3 being average, 5 represents exceptional
Item Corresponding Bid Specifications for Evaluation
1 Fee Proposal & General Conditions
a. Pre -Construction & Design Fee
b. General Conditions Fee
c. Construction Management Fee
d. Bonding capability (with Schedule)
2 Ability to provide and organize the items listed under the Proposal Documents stated above.
a. Are all items listed as "Proposal Documents" on pg 12 of RFP provided?
b. Is fee proposal sheet complete
3 Prior experience of firm and key staff (project manager, superintendent, design team, etc.) on a similar project
a. General Contractor experience with correctional institutions
b. Architect experience with correctional institutions
c. Superintendent experience with correctional institutions
d. Mechanical, Electrical, Plumbing design team experience with correctional institutions
e. Experience of both GC and Architect working together on design -build projects
4 Current workload, organizational depth and ability to deliver the project within the project's timeframe.
a. Does current workload permit this project timely completion
b. Does projected timeframe meet, exceed, or not meet needs
Ts+Lal possible Total Score
Points Interviewer #1 Interviewer #2 Interviewer #3 Interviewer #4 (Averaged)
5 5 3 5 5
5 4 3 3 4
5 4 3 3 3
5 5 3 4 4
Total 20 18 12 15 16
5 5 3 5 5
5 5 3 5 5
Total 10 10 6 10 10
5
5
5
5
5
Total 25
4 4 4 4
3 2 1 2
4 3 2 4
3 2 1 2
4 3 4 3
18 14 12 15
5 4 3 4 4
5 4 3 3 3
Total 10 8 6 7 7
Demonstrated ability to work with the design team providing conceptual estimating, value engineering,
5 constructability, and scheduling services.
a. Experience of providing conceptual estimating & value engineering 5 4 3 3 4
b. Experience of providing constructability and schedule projections 5 4 3 3 4
Total 10 8 6 6 8
Ability to provide the County a GMP for general conditions and/or the entire project and financial strength of the firm
6 to stand behind the GMP.
a. Does firms financial information permit undertaking construction 5 5 3 3 3
b. Does firms financial information permit bonding capabilities 5 5 3 3 5
Total 10 10 6 6 8
7 Demonstrated ability to construct a project such as this to meet cost, schedule and quality goals.
a. Firms past experience with meeting costs, schedule and quality goals
8 Proven track record with jobsite safety.
a. Absence of OSHA violations
b. Contractor's safety training & plan
5
Total 5
5
5
3
3
3
3
4
4
5 4 3 3 4
5 4 3 2 3
Total 10 8 6 5 7
15.25
9
14.75
7
7
7.5
3.75
6.5
The following criteria will be used to evaluate the proposal submitted in response to this Request far Proposal. in addition the interview process may be used as supplemental information to information received in the bids.
Each category will be rated from 1- 5.
1 represents marginal; 3 being average, 5 represents exceptional
Item Corresponding Bid Specifications for Evaluation
1 Fee Proposal & General Conditions
a. Pre -Construction & Design Fee
b. General Conditions Fee
c. Construction Management Fee
d. Bonding capability (with Schedule)
2 Ability to provide and organize the items listed under the Proposal Documents stated above.
a. Are all items listed as "Proposal Documents" on pg 12 of RFP provided?
b. is fee proposal sheet complete
3 Prior experience of firm and key staff (project manager, superintendent, design team, etc.) on a similar project
a. General Contractor experience with correctional institutions
b. Architect experience with correctional institutions
c. Superintendent experience with correctional institutions
d. Mechanical, Electrical, Plumbing design team experience with correctional institutions
e. Experience of both GC and Architect working together on design -build projects
Total Possible Total Score
Points Interviewer #1 Interviewer #2 Interviewer #3 interviewer #4 (Averaged)
5
5
5
5
Total 20
4
4
4
5
17
3
3
3
3
12
4
3
3
4
14
4
4
3
3
14
5 5 3 5 5
5 5 3 5 5
Total 10 10 6 10 10
5
5
5
5
5
Total 25
4 Current workload, organizational depth and ability to deliver the project within the project's timeframe.
a. Does current workload permit this project timely completion 5
b. Does projected timeframe meet, exceed, or not meet needs 5
Total 10
Demonstrated ability to work with the design team providing conceptual estimating, value engineering,
5 constructability, and scheduling services.
a. Experience of providing conceptual estimating & value engineering 5
b. Experience of providing constructability and schedule projections 5
Total 10
Ability to provide the County a GMP for general conditions and/or the entire project and financial strength of the firm
6 to stand behind the GMP.
a. Does firms financial information permit undertaking construction 5
b. Does firms financial information permit bonding capabilities 5
Total 10
7 Demonstrated ability to construction a project such as this to meet cost, schedule and quality goals.
a. Firms past experience with meeting costs, schedule and quality goals
8 Proven track record with jobsite safety.
a. Absence of OSHA violations
b. Contractor's safety training & plan
5
Total 5
5 5 5 5
5 5 5 5
4 5 3 4
4 3 4 3
5 5 4 5
23 23 21 22
4 3 4 4
4 3 4 4
8 6 8 8
5 3 4 5
5 3 4 5
10 6 8 10
5
5
10
5
5
3
3
6
3
3
3
3
6
4
4
5
5
10
5
5
5 5 3 4 5
5 4 3 3 5
14.25
9
22.25
7.5
8.5
8
4.25
Total 10
9
6 7
10 8
The following criteria will be used to evaluate the proposal submitted in response to this Request for Proposal. In addition the interview process may be used as supplemental information to information received in the bids.
Each category will be rated from 1- 5.
1 represents marginal; 3 being average, 5 represents exceptional
Item Corresponding Bid Specifications for Evaluation
1 Fee Proposal & General Conditions
a. Pre -Construction & Design Fee
b. General Conditions Fee
c. Construction Management Fee
d. Bonding capability (with Schedule)
2 Ability to provide and organize the items listed under the Proposal Documents stated above.
a. Are all items listed as "Proposal Documents" on pg 12 of RFP provided?
b. Is fee proposal sheet complete
3 Prior experience of firm and key staff (project manager, superintendent, design team, etc.) on a similar project
a. General Contractor experience with correctional institutions
b. Architect experience with correctional institutions
c. Superintendent experience with correctional institutions
d. Mechanical, Electrical, Plumbing design team experience with correctional institutions
e. Experience of both GC and Architect working together on design -build projects
Total Possible Total Score
Points Interviewer #1 Interviewer #2 Interviewer #3 Interviewer #4 (Averaged)
5 2 3 3 3
5 4 3 3 4
5 4 3 4 4
5 5 3 5 3
Total 20 15 12 15 14
5 5 3 5 5
5 5 3 5 5
Total 10 10 6 10 10
5
5
5
5
5
Total 25
4 5 4 5
4 5 4 5
3 5 3 4
4 4 3 5
3 4 4 5
18 23 18 24
4 Current workload, organizational depth and ability to deliver the project within the project's timeframe.
a. Does current workload permit this project timely completion 5 4 3 3 4
b. Does projected timeframe meet, exceed, or not meet needs 5 4 3 4 5
Total 10 8 6 7 9
Demonstrated ability to work with the design team providing conceptual estimating, value engineering,
5 constructability, and scheduling services.
a. Experience of providing conceptual estimating & value engineering 5 4 3 4 5
b. Experience of providing constructability and schedule projections 5 4 3 4 5
Total 10 8 6 8 10
Ability to provide the County a GMP for general conditions and/or the entire project and financial strength of the firm
6 to stand behind the GMP.
a. Does firms financial information permit undertaking construction 5 5 3 3 5
b. Does firms financial information permit bonding capabilities 5 5 3 3 5
Total 10 10 6 6 10
7 Demonstrated ability to construction a project such as this to meet cost, schedule and quality goals.
a. Firms past experience with meeting costs, schedule and quality goals
8 Proven track record with jobsite safety.
a. Absence of OSHA violations
b. Contractor's safety training & plan
5
Total 5
5
5
3
3
3
3
4
4
5 4 3 3 4
5 5 3 4 4
14
9
20.75
7.5
8
8
3.75
Total 10
9
6 7
8 7.5
The following criteria will be used to evaluate the proposal submitted in response to this Request for Proposal. in addition the interview process may be used as supplemental information to information received in the bids.
Each category will be rated from 1 - 5.
1 represents marginal; 3 being average, 5 represents exceptional
Item Corresponding Bid Specifications for Evaluation
1 Fee Proposal & General Conditions
a. Pre -Construction & Design Fee
b. General Conditions Fee
c. Construction Management Fee
d. Bonding capability (with Schedule)
2 Ability to provide and organize the items listed under the Proposal Documents stated above.
a. Are all items listed as "Proposal Documents" on pg 12 of RFP provided?
b. Is fee proposal sheet complete
3 Prior experience of firm and key staff (project manager, superintendent, design team, etc.) on a similar project
a. General Contractor experience with correctional institutions
b. Architect experience with correctional institutions
c. Superintendent experience with correctional institutions
d. Mechanical, Electrical, Plumbing design team experience with correctional institutions
e. Experience of both GC and Architect working together on design -build projects
Total Possible Total Score
Points interviewer #1 Interviewer #2 Interviewer #3 Interviewer #4 (Averaged)
5 2 2 1 2
5 2 3 2 3
5 3 3 5 5
5 5 3 4 5
Total 20 12 11 12 15
5 5
5 5
Total 10 10
3
3
6
4
5
9
5
5
10
5 4 4 3 5
5 4 5 5 5
5 4 3 3 5
5 3 4 3 5
5 3 3 3 5
Total 25 18 19 17 25
4 Current workload, organizational depth and ability to deliver the project within the project's timeframe.
a. Does current workload permit this project timely completion 5 4 3 3 5
b. Does projected timeframe meet, exceed, or not meet needs 5 4 3 4 4
Total 10 8 6 7 9
Demonstrated ability to work with the design team providing conceptual estimating, value engineering,
5 constructability, and scheduling services.
a. Experience of providing conceptual estimating & value engineering 5 4 3 4 5
b. Experience of providing constructability and schedule projections 5 4 3 3 5
Total 10 8 6 7 10
Ability to provide the County a GMP for general conditions and/or the entire project and financial strength of the firm
6 to stand behind the GMP.
a. Does firms financial information permit undertaking construction 5 5 3 3 5
b. Does firms financial information permit bonding capabilities 5 5 3 3 5
Total 10 10 6 6 10
7 Demonstrated ability to construction a project such as this to meet cost, schedule and quality goals.
a. Firms past experience with meeting costs, schedule and quality goals
8 Proven track record with jobsite safety.
a. Absence of OSHA violations
b. Contractor's safety training & plan
5
Total 5
5
5
4
4
3
5
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
4
5
5
5
5
12.5
8.75
19.75
7.5
7.75
8
3.75
Hello