Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout7B - Field & Security Lighting at Ponds Park AGENDA#: PREPARED BY: SUBJECT: DATE: BACKGROUND: STAFF AGENDA REPORT ;~K BOYLES, CITY MANAGE!\ )(\ CONSIDER APPROVAL OF 97 -XX A _ DING BID FOR FIELD AND SECURITY LIGHTING AT PONDS PARK. SEPTEMBER 15, 1997 At the September 2, 1997 meeting, the Council considered award of bid for athletic field and security lighting at Ponds Park. The Council heard presentations by the City Manager, City Park and Recreation Director, and the City's Engineering Consulting Firm, Wunderlich-Malec concerning: 1) Neighborhood meetings held with residents whose properties abut the athletic fields and 2) How consultants prepared specifications for a lighting system that would address concerns raised by the City Staff, Parks Advisory Committee, and residents that glare and light spillover not affect residential property. Also at the meeting were the national representative of Hubbell Lighting Systems, area representative (R.L. Mlazgar & Associates), who, through their attorney, challenged the specifications pertaining to the lighting fixtures. Specifically, the Hubbell representatives claimed that the specifications were too narrowly drawn and the objective of minimizing glare on adjacent properties could have been achieved by less restrictive specifications. They further claimed that the City's consulting engineer, Wunderlich-Malec, has consistently in previously bid projects, named Hubbell's competitor, Musco lighting, as the product of choice. In response to the allegations made by Hubbell representatives, the City Council deferred action on the award of bid for the athletic field and security lighting project at Pond's Park. The staff was directed to respond to issues raised by Hubbell representatives at the meeting before the Council takes action to award bid. Since the Council meeting, additional correspondence has been received from the City's consulting engineer, Wunderlich-Malec. It is attached for Council information. 16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake. Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245 AN EQLAl OPPORTL'NITY E',,1PlOYER The staff has had the opportunity to discuss the issues raised by Hubbell representatives at the September 2 meeting and in correspondence. The information derived from discussions with Wunderlich-Malec are shown in this memorandum. In light of the responses which Wunderlich- Malec has offered we continue to believe that the specifications as prepared by the Consulting Engineer met the City's objectives and neighbors' concerns and that such specifications were necessary and essential to meet these objectives. Consequently, the staff continues to recommend that the firm of Electric Service Company of Minneapolis, Inc. be awarded bid for the athletic field and security lighting at Pond's Park in the low-bid amount of $310,408. DISCUSSION: The information set forth below is derived from a recent meeting with the City's Consulting Engineer, Wunderlich- Malec, specifically Wally Sharp and Jim O'Brien. It continues to be our opinion that it is important for the City to respond to the concerns of the neighborhood by providing a lighting system that minimizes impacts of light spill and glare on their properties from the athletic field lighting for present homes and for future developments. Also attached to this staff report is a letter from Craig Gallop of Sports Technology, Inc. representing Musco Lighting, Inc. commenting upon the allegations made by Hubbell representatives and the bid specifications and their intent. We have consulted with Wunderlich-Malec and they have reaffirmed and represented to us that the bidder's use of Musco lighting fixtures in the specifications: 1) provides the least degree of spillage affecting adjacent properties developed or to be developed around the park, 2) places the most light most consistently on the athletic field, which is crucial for safe athletic play, 3) entails the least glare, 4) is upgradable without using custom products, 5) facilitates ease of maintenance. Wunderlich-Malec has addressed each of these factors with the following information: 1) Musco lil!ht orooosal orovides the least del!ree of soilla!!e affectinl! adiacent orooerties: Shown below is a table provided by Wunderlich-Malec which compares the foot-candle data supplied by Musco 91597,DOC 2 and Hubbell which represents the worst case scenarios of light spillage on neighboring residential properties. The attached aerial map shows the location of the houses. Address/Location Foot-candles Company 16992 Blind Lake Trail (located at the north end of the soccer/football fields) 4.30 3.07 Hub bell Musco The consultants point out that the foot-candles are measured at 75 feet from the fields edge, which is just short of the back door of this property. Address/Location Foot-candles Company 17223 to 17305 Woodview Court (located immediately west of the softball wheel) 1.6 .92 Hubbell Musco The consultant indicates that the foot-candles are measured at 150 feet from the field's edge, or on the front side of the houses. The back side of the houses is 110 feet so foot-candles measured there will be higher than on the front side of the home. According to Wunderlich-Malec, the difference in lighting between 4.3 and 3.07 or between 1.6 and .92 foot-candles is approximately 40-70% in lighting intensity. So that Council can observe the difference first-hand, Wunderlich-Malec has, using a light meter, identified and labeled (with red flags and lath) various locations in the Fire Station Parking lot which correspond with these foot- candle values at about 8:00 - 10:00 p.m. at night. Councilmembers should take the opportunity before the meeting to view these lighting intensities. The only value missing is 4.3 foot-candles. However, a 4.1 foot-candle reading was achieved and is identified near the front door of the fire station. 91597.DOC Field Type Softball-Infield Softball-Outfield Soccer 91597.DOC 2) Musco Lil!ht proposal places the most lil!ht most consistently on the fields: Average Foot-candles Company 35 40 Hubbell Musco 23 26 Hubbell Musco 32 33 Hubbell Musco The difference between a lighting intensity of 35 and 40 foot-candles is about 11%, as is the difference between 23 and 26 foot-candles. Using Musco lighting, provides greater uniformity of lighting throughout the field and fewer "light and dark spots" than the Hubbell proposal based upon Musco and Hubbell data provided to our consultants. 3)Musco Lil!htin!! Prooosal provides for the least !!lare: Because the Musco system utilizes shields and reflectors, including a lamp-tip cone, glare is reduced. According to Wunderlich-Malec, the Hubbell system has no such reflectors or shielding. 4)Musco Li!!htinl! Prooosal ~s up!!radable without usm!! custom products: Based upon the testimony of a Hubbell representative, Hubbell light fixtures are not upgradable without customization. With Musco lights, on the other hand, a second level of shielding is a standard option that is not a specially customized product. 5)Musco Lil!htinl! Proposal facilitates ease of maintenance. According to Wunderlich-Malec, the Musco system facilitates ease in maintenance because of its modularity. The staff has had the opportunity to review the draft minutes of the September 2, 1997 meeting. Shown below are several of the arguments which were made by Hubbell representatives and responses to each: 1) The City biddinl! process does not conform to Minnesota Statutes 471.35. The City Attorney, during the course of the September 2 meeting, read an excerpt from a Supreme Court case Otter Tail Power Company versus the Village of Elbow Lake which exempts this bidding from the provisions of Minnesota Statute 471.35. The ruling reads in part that the statute: "does not apply to contracts for work or services or to contracts for the purchase of supplies or equipment which include also the furnishing of work and labor to effectuate the installation thereof." 2) The specifications were drawn too narrowly and ril!idly. The specifications were performance specifications. The consultant had verifiable data that the standards set forth in the specifications could be met by Musco but not by Hubbell. Hubbell, in their testimony at the September 2nd meeting, claimed that they could have met the specifications if they had had more time to prepare their bids. Hubbell acknowledges in their testimony that qualification of their product was possible, and they do not object to specifications referring to "Musco or Equivalent". In short, Hubbell representatives by their own testimony confirm that they were not eliminated from competition The consulting engineers selected and specified the Musco lights after the City Staff and Parks Advisory Committee communicated to the engineer that the highest priority was to 1) Provide minimum spillage and glare, 2)Provide high quality athletic field lighting, and 3) Allow for future upgrading of the lighting system to reduce spillage and glare if necessary. The City Council should be able to determine the level of protection it desires to provide its residents and its athletes. 3) Hubbell had insufficient time to prepare their bid m response to specifications. Hubbell representatives at the meeting confirmed that they were aware of the initial bid on June 10. In fact the City Attorney advised Hubbell's attorney in a June letter that the City intended to rebid the project. They had notice for two months before the rebid was due on 91597.DOC September 4. The argument that they had insufficient time to prepare a bid is specious. 4) Because the specifications were so ril!id, Prior Lake residents were deprived of the benefits of competition. Musco is modular in design, and so according to the consultants it is easier to install and therefore even though the Musco lights may be more costly than the Hubbell lights, often the successful bidders use Musco lights as part of their bid. The Hubbell equipment, while less expensive per unit, because of the lack of modularity, is generally more labor intensive and installation costs are higher. The contractor is typically the first one to call if a specification is non-competitive. Neither Wunderlich- Malec or the City have received any calls from any contractors that there was inadequate opportunity for competition. Moreover, there were six bids and none of the bidders complained about not being able to bid the Hubbell lights. According to information received by Park and Recreation Director Hokeness, the bids received are comparable to other bids submitted by both vendors when Hubbell and Musco products have gone "head to head" (some examples are shown in Park and Recreation Director Hokeness' memo). 6) Wunderlich-Malec, the City's consultinl! en!!ineer, has recommended Musco products in previous bid awards. This creates the appearance of collusion. Hubbell had the opportunity to pre qualify, and indeed has stated on the record that they could have qualified. It is the consultants position that the Musco product is generally specified because it outperforms most other products, due to modular design, glare control, spillage . control, lighting intensity on field, maintenance, and cost. 7)The difference in product spillover is imperceptible to the human eye. Moreover, the area of spillal!e is in a I!rove of trees and does not reach the yards. The data set forth early in this report refutes this contention. In fact, there is a 40% - 70% difference in the lighting intensity proposed, measured on the property of 91597,DOC Prior Lake residents who will be affected by the lighting for the next twenty years. For the reasons set forth above, the City staff continues to be of the opinion that the consultants specifying the Musco system or equivalent has merit and is justified by the unique circumstances of the Ponds Park proposal and criteria communicated to the consultant by the City. ISSUES: The bid provided by Electric Service Company of Minneapolis, Inc. is the lowest responsible bid. The bid conforms to the specifications and provides a product which the City can maintain, athletic field users will be safe in using, and residents will be protected and should be awarded the bid. ALTERNATIVES: The Council has the following alternatives: 1. Award to Electric Service Company of Minneapolis, Inc. by Approving Resolution 97 -XX. 2. Reject all bids and authorize rebidding. 3. Defer action for a specific reason. RECOMMENDATION: On the basis of expert information provided by the City's Consulting Engineer, Wunderlich-Malec, the staff recommends that the City Council approve Alternative #1. FISCAL IMPACT: The bid price is within the limits contemplated within the referendum budget. ACTION REQUIRED: Motion and second to approve resolution 97-XX. Wunderlich-Malec representatives will be present at the City Council meeting if any clarifications are desired by Councilmembers. Att. 91597.DOC 7 .' It. RESOLUTION 97-XX '\~ LUTION AWARDING BID FOR POND'S PARK FIELD AND SECURITY LIGHTING MOTION BY: SECOND BY: WHEREAS, pursuant to an advertisement of bids for the lighting system at Pond's Park, bids were received, opened and tabulated according to law, and the following bids were received complying with the advertisement: Vendor Bid Alt. Total Electnc Service Co. $30 1,108.00 $ 9.300.00 $310A08.00 Klein Electric, Inc. $309,800.00 $ 9.190.00 $318.990,00 Jay Bros. Inc. $317.447,00 $14.605,00 $332,052.00 Electncal Installation & Mainr. Co. 5325.000.00 $21.000,00 $346.000.00 Arcade Electric Co. $343,877.00 $15,120.00 $358,997.00 Ridgedale Electric. Inc. $342,000.00 $20.000.00 $362.000.00 WHEREAS, After analyzing the bids the apparent lowest responsible bidder is Electric Service Company of Minneapolis, Inc. in the amount of $310A08.00 which includes alternate A for security lighting. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE :VIA YOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF PRIOR LAKE, that Electric Service Company of Minneapolis, Inc. be awarded the contract for the installation of field and security lighting at Pond's Park in the amount of $310,408.00; and. FURTHER. The City Manager is hereby authorized to return bid securities submitted with the proposals to the vendors following the execution of contract: and. FURTHER, The Mayor and City Manager are authorized to execute the contract on behalf of the City. Passed and adopted this day of ,1997. YES NO Andren Andren Robbins Robbins Kedrowski Kedrowski Schenck Schenck Mader Mader {Seal} City Manager City of Prior Lake 162tm'~~gle Creek Ave. S,E.. Prior Lake. Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTLNITY EMPLOYER September 4, 1997 Craig Gallop Sports Technology, Inc. P.O. Box 27231 Golden Valley, MN 55427 612/533-2030 Paul Hokness Park and Recreation Director City of Prior Lake 16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E. Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372 Dear Paul, I am writing in regard to the information provided at the council meeting by Richard Feig on behalf of Hubbell Lighting and R.L. Mlazgar Associates. Mr. Feig was portrayed to be an independent electrical consultant which is not exactly accurate. Mr. Feig and the Hubbell representative, Ray Mlazgar, have had a close relationship over the past 30 years. Most all of the athletic field lighting projects, designed by Mr. Feig, have resulted with Mlazgar and Hubbell Lighting getting the project. However, over the past 4 - 5 years, I am not aware of Mr. Feig designing any athletic field lighting. This provides additional questions as there has been many advancements in athletic field lighting just within the past 3 years. At the meeting, Dick Feig told the Council that he had specified Musco Sports-Lighting as far back as the mid 1960s. I found this unusual as Musco Sports-Lighting was established in 1978. Mr. Feig also stated he had done design of controls for spill and glare light. He did not mention that this work was done for Hubbell lighting and that the spill and glare light control he designed is what is found on the Hubbell lights at Dred Scott Field in Bloomington. I believe the only reason Mr. Feig was at the meeting was because of his close relationship with Ray Mlazgar. My intent is not to discredit anyone but to portray things in an accurate manner. Control of spill and glare light is a very important part of this project. Musco Sports-Lighting has the ability to control unwanted spill and glare light. The specifications require control of this light to prevent the ball field lighting from being an annoyance to the neighbors. Hubbell lighting has little control of glare light and had trouble meeting the moderate spill light control required by the specification. There has been no collusion in the design of the specifications as inferred by Hubbell's attorney. The specifications are based on performance standards which will provide the City with correct field lighting for safe play and elimination of unwanted spill and glare light from neighboring park property . It should also be noted that while Musco Sports-Lighting met both field lighting requirements and spill control requirements, Hubbell Lighting failed on both requirements. Not only did Hubbell fail to cut adequate amounts of unwanted spill light, they also failed to provide the required amount of field lighting. ~c~~~~ ffi ~ ~ Ind<,pcndent Represenlnlive for: CXJ:X) . musco@ LIGHTING, INC. DATE: September 10, 1997 TO: Frank Boyles FROM: Paul Hokeness Memorandum RE: Musco vs. Hubbell bidding in other communities At one point during our conversations we discussed the cost differences between a Musco and Hubbell lighting system, It is difficult to explain the various details regarding the pricing of a total lighting system but I know for a fact that Musco and Hubbell systems are very comparable in terms of costs. In instances when Musco and Hubbell have bid projects "Head to Head" Musco has been awarded the low bid in the following communities, Inver Grove Heights Gaylord Hopkins St. Croix Lutheran H.S, Anoka Grove City H,S. Southwest State University City of Rochester Woodbury H.S. Oakdale Softball fields Baseball field Softball fields Football field Baseball field, Hockey Rink, and Tennis Courts Football field Football field Softball and Baseball fields Football Softball WUNDERLICH - MALEC ENGINEERING INC. 5501 FELTL ROAD · MINNETONKA. MN 55343 PHONE: (612) 933-3222 FAX: (612) 933-0608 September 11, 1997 Mr. Paul Hokeness Director of Parks and Recreation City of Prior Lake 16200 Eagle Creek Avenue Prior Lake, MN 55372-1714 Re: Pond Athletic Complex site Lighting WME Project #4406 Dear Paul: This letter serves to address var ious issues presented by R.L. Malasgar and Associates (RLM) at the Prior Lake City Council meeting on September 3, 1997. In particular, I would like to comment on the performance-based nature of our specification, the fairness with which we have treated RLM, and the allegation of "collusion" which was raised by their representatives. While we would have been quite content to discuss the merits of our design, which we believe to be the best possible solution to the engineering task presented to us, I cannot let certain assertions go unanswered. Concerning the performance-based structure of our specification, we feel that Musco has an extensive track record which establishes their typical lighting systems, distribution, and glare and spill control as a reasonable benchmark for performance. We further believe that the base specified performance intent is attainable by most manufacturers under most conditions and that the process for approval is very clear. On this basis, our specification establishes a reasonable opportunity for competitive bidding. On the issue of overall fairness to this vendor, I would like to make it clear that we have afforded RLM extraordinary opportunities to demonstrate their ability to effectively comply with our specification. Our dealings with them have included lengthy and detailed discussions concerning product characteristics and performance. We have generally felt that the Hubbell product is viable for many applications, but that submittals by RLM have routinely been flawed. In fact, they have been quite contentious in nature, exhibiting an "I know what is best for you" attitude. They have submitted materials that they have known to be expressly contrary to the preferences of us and our clients, even when suitable alternatives are readily available. In particular, they have insisted that Cor-Ten finish poles and integral fixture ballasting should, in their opinion, be routinely accepted by us. We certainly do not agree. On this project, we actively solicited a bid from Hubbell. Solely at our request (not Hubbell's), a meeting was conducted at our office where we walked them through the specification and explained our position on each issue. In some cases we offered clarifications which we feel were beneficial to Hubbell. We also made certain concessions regarding the requirement for computer-generated printouts, where we offered to manually calculate certain areas. In their final submittal, RLM could still not even nearly meet the specified performance for spill light, a major criterion for the project. As we illustrated in the graphic presented to the Council, the numbers aren't even close. Since they have subsequently stated that they can meet the specification, the contention that we are not being fair is without merit. We also find their comments regarding the available time frame to be groundless. Most importantly, I must comment on the RLM allegation of "collusion". This is a serious matter that should not be taken lightly. We certainly do not, nor should you, as such allegations reflect directly on our respective reputations. Our position in this matter is a follows: 1. We have, over the course of many years, developed appreciation for the Musco product and maintain a cordial, wholly professional relationship with their representative. This relationship is a directly attributable to their usual excellent performance, exhibited at all levels of a project. Such performance is precisely what we wish to deliver to our clients. We have similar relationships with many of the quality vendors in this area. 2. We overtly specify the Musco product performance criteria. As I have previously stated, these criteria are intended to be attainable by other manufacturers. That our specification is attainable has now been validated by Hubbell. We encourage, accept, and evaluate submittals for alternate products. In all cases, our clients are kept fully aware of our activities. By definition, this could hardly be called collusion. 3. As a firm, we have an obligation to promote competition and do so at every opportunity. We do not have an obligation to artificially create competition by accepting substandard systems or products, nor do we control the cost competitiveness of alternate products. Upon review of our past projects it is evident that Musco has, in fact, been the successful supplier for all or nearly all of our recent sports lighting projects. From our viewpoint, this is true by circumstance rather than intent. Our records indicate that we have actively solicited submittals from other vendors such as GE and Hi-Tek, but they have had little interest in these projects. From our discussions with these suppliers and bidding contractors, the Musco specification has influenced their interest in a negative way only to the extent that they do not feel they can be competitive from an installed cost standpoint. They typically have stated that the performance aspects are "tough" but "attainable". This stated, it is certainly plausible in our opinion that Musco has simply found a market niche of performance versus cost that is hard to beat. If so, the ultimate winner is the end user. We flatly reject allegations of "correlation" or "collusion" . Our actions have always been in the best interest of our clients, honorable and entirely without complicity. They will withstand any scrutiny. I am prepared to offer letters from other major vendors which endorse our specification and approval policies. However, in my 20 plus years in this industry, nobody has made such ridiculous claims. It troubles me that such endorsements might be necessary and I would prefer not to take this course. We regret that the City has become so involved in this dispute. Obviously, the easy solution would be to compromlse, but compromises such as these so often end in poor results. I believe the principles of this dispute are worthy of this effort. w~er lY~f Wally arp Vice P sident Wunderlich-Malec Engineering, Inc. STAFF AGENDA REPORT AGENDA NUMBER: PREPARED BY: SUBJECT: 7B PAUL HOKENESS, PARKS & RECREATION DIRECTOR CONSIDER APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION 97-XX AWARDING BID FOR ATHLETIC FIELD AND SECURITY LIGHTING AT POND'S PARK SEPTEMBER 2, 1997 DATE: INTRODUCTION: One of the items which was included in the 1997 Parks and Library Bond Referendum was the installation of athletic field lighting at the Pond's Park (Mangan Fields). The purpose of this agenda item is to award the bid for installation of the athletic field lighting. Field lighting at the Pond's has been requested by P.L.A.Y. and adult softball for many years. The referendum gave us the opportunity to address this request and was a major selling point in the referendum. BACKGROUND: At the April 7, 1997 Council Meeting, the Council approved proceeding with the bidding of the Pond's lights. The City retained Wunderlich-Malec as electrical engineering consultants to prepare plans and specifications. The specifications were prepared with the understanding that the amount of light spilling onto neighbors yards had to be kept to a minimum. The project was advertised with a bid opening date of June 24, 1997. After only receiving two bids with the lowest being $332,000.00 and the highest at $417,388.00 the electrical engineering consultant suggested that the City Council may want to consider rejecting all bids and rebid the project with the hopes of attracting more contractors and reducing the costs by having a fall installation. At the July 21, 1997 meeting Council concurred with the recommendation of the electrical engineer, approved the rejection of bids and authorized the rebidding of the project. The project was rebid and bids were opened on August 26, 1997 at 10:00 a.m.. Wunderlich- Malec has tabulated the bids and recommends that the City approve Electric Service Company of Minneapolis, Inc. as the responsible low bidder in the amount of $310,408.00. The rebidding of this project resulted in a savings of $21,592.00. Staff is pleased with the results of rebidding this project. We were able to come in under the original estimates, Electric Service Co. of Minneapolis is very reputable firm with field lighting experience, and the City will have a lighting system that will meet our needs and have minimal impact on our park neighbors. 162&9~cPdtkT~~~k Ave. S,E., Prior Lake. Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER DISCUSSION: When the Parks Advisory Committee conducted it's neighborhood meeting with the residents adjacent to the park one of the concerns raised was a lack of security lighting in the park. The P.A.c. and staff felt that this would be worth pursuing at this time so that security lighting could be included in the bid. It would make sense to add this lighting at this time as we would save money by using the same trenching, conduits, and poles. For this reason the project was bid with an alternate for security lighting. There have been virtually no complaints from the neighbors concerning the installation of lights at the Pond's. The commitment that was made to the neighbors was that the field lights would be designed so that the light is directed onto the fields and would do everything possible to minimize the amount of light that would spill into their yards, and into the sky. The Parks Advisory Committee also told the neighbors that we would consider additional security lighting and include this as a bid alternate. The following table shows the bid tabulations for the project: Vendor Bid Alt. Total Electric Service Co. 5301,108.00 $ 9,300.00 S310A08.00 Klein Electric, Inc. S309,800.00 $ 9,190.00 $318.990.00 Jay Bros. Inc. $317,447.00 $14,605.00 $332,052.00 Electrical Installation & Maint. Co. $325,000.00 $21,000.00 $346,000.00 Arcade Electric Co. S343,877 .00 $15,120.00 $358,997,00 Ridgedale Electric, Inc. $342,000.00 $20,000.00 $362.000.00 ISSUES: Staff wanted to achieve two objectives when it requested that the council reject all bids and authorize rebidding. The first objective was to encourage greater competition. This objective was achieved in that six contractors bid this project as opposed to the two bids originally received. The second objective was to save money. Because of the additional competition and the time of year the low bid is $21,592.00 less than the previous bids. We received the attached letter from the attorney who represents R.L. Mlazgar Associates Inc. (R.L.M.), a firm which supplies athletic field lighting. The letter protests the fact that RLM was unable to supply materials for this project because their lights exceed the spill light and glare specifications which were identified in our specifications. R.L.M. was given every opportunity to prequalify, however, they failed to meet the specifications. AGPNDLlTDOC The attorneys letter also implies that the addendum which was sent out specifies that Musco is the only product that would be considered. This addendum was sent out to the contractors only after RL.M. failed to prequalify for the project Prequalification is a common practice and when a supplier of a product meets specifications the engineer sends out an addendum to the contractors who are bidding on the project to let them know what materials to use when preparing their bids. In this case RL.M. failed to meet the specifications and the engineer sent out the addendum to let the contractors know that they should use Musco light fixtures and poles, and Sternberg fixtures for security lighting. RL.M. did meet the specifications for the security lighting and would be able to provide these fixtures if they so desired. The specifications were designed to protect the adjacent homeowners from light spilling onto their yards, as well as into the sky. At the May 12, 1997 neighborhood meeting the Parks Advisory Committee made a commitment to do just that. (Attached is the neighborhood meeting announcement and the map which shows the mailing area.) The other concern when preparing specifications was to make sure that we are directing as much light as possible onto the fields and reducing the amount of glare that the players look into. This factor improves play and player safety. R.L.M. cannot provide the protection our residents should have and consequently were not approved as an acceptable product supplier. Attached is a letter dated August 19, 1997 form the City's lighting engineer which elaborates upon this fact. Representatives from Wunderlich-Malec Engineering, Inc. will be present at the Council meeting to answer any questions that the Council may have regarding this project. Staff and the lighting engineer believe that the specification were designed to meet the City's objectives of protecting its residents and athletes and as such are appropriate and defensible. The City Attorney has verified that the City appropriately followed the applicable bidding statutes. If the City Council approves the low bid and this contract is let, a Musco lighting system will be installed in The Pond's park. With a Musco lighting system it is possible that in the future we could install additional shields on the lights which would provide even greater spill light and glare control. We chose not to specify a total light control system at this time due to budget limitations. The option to further reduce light spill and glare is not available with the Hubbell system. The best spill and glare control that the Hubbell AGPNDLIT.DOC FINANCIAL IMPACT: AL TERN A TIVES: RECOMMENDATION: ACTION REQUIRED: REVIEWED BY: AGPNDLlT.DOC system can offer is what they have already proposed, and that was not able to meet the specifications. By rebidding this project we were not able to provide lights for fall football this year and P .L.A. Y. was disappointed, but they understood our rationale for rebidding. If this project is delayed again we will not be able to provide lights for spring baseball, softball, and soccer and we believe that the disappointment may turn to anger. With our current shortage of athletic fields the addition of lights at Pond's Park will relieve some of the pressure until our new fields can be constructed. The low bid came in lower than our original estimates which were $300,000.00 for field lighting and $20,000.00 for security lighting, Funding for this project is included in the 1997 Parks and Library Referendum. The alternatives are as follows: 1. Adopt Resolution 97-XX awarding the bid for field and security lights at the Pond's Park in the amount of $310,408.00 to Electric Service Company of Minneapolis Inc. 2. Deny this item for a specific reason 3. Table this item for a specific reason. Staff recommends Alternative No.1. Motion and second to approve Resolution 97-XX accepting the bid of Electric Service Company of Minneapolis, Inc. in the amount of $310,408.00 to install athletic field and security lighting at the Pond's Park. RESOLUTION 97-XX ~'l'> LUTION A WARDING BID FOR POND'S PARK FIELD AND SECURITY LIGHTING MOTION BY: SECOND BY: WHEREAS, pursuant to an advertisement of bids for the lighting system at Pond's Park. bids were received, opened and tabulated according to law, and the following bids were received complying with the advertisement: Vendor Bid Alt. Total Elecmc Service Co. $301,108.00 $ 9.300.00 5310..+08,00 Klein Electric. Inc. $309.800.00 $ 9.190.00 $318.990.00 Jay Bros. Inc. $317,447,00 $14,605.00 $332,052.00 Electrical Installation & Maint. Co. $325.000.00 $21.000.00 $346,000.00 Arcade Electric Co. $343,877.00 $15,120.00 $358.997.00 Ridgedale Electric. Inc. $342,000.00 $20.000.00 $362.000.00 WHEREAS, After analyzing the bids the apparent lowest responsible bidder is Electric Service Company of Minneapolis. Inc. in the amount of 5310..+08.00 which includes alternate A for security lighting. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE :VIA YOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF PRIOR LAKE, that Electric Service Company of Minneapolis, Inc. be awarded the contract for the installation of tield and security lighting at Pond's Park in the ::unount of 5310,408.00; and, FURTHER, The City Manager is hereby authorized to return bid securities submitted with the proposals to the vendors following the execution of contract: and. FURTHER, The Mayor and City Manager are authorized to execute the contract on behalf of the City. Passed and adopted this day of ,1997. YES NO Andren Andren Robbins Robbins Kedrowski Kedrowski Schenck Schenck Mader Mader {Seal} City Manager City of Prior Lake 16200"~~gle Creek Ave. S.E.. Prior Lake. Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER WUNDERLICH - MALEC ENGINEERING INC. 5501 FELTL ROAD · MINNETONKA, MN 55343 PHONE: (612) 933-3222 FAX: (612) 933-0608 MEMORANDUM DATE: August 26, 1997 TO: Paul Hokeness City of Prior Lake FROM: Jim O'Brien Wunderlich - Malec Engineering, Inc. RE: Pond Athletic Complex Prior Lake, MN WME Project No. 4406 Bids were received this morning at 10:00 a.m. from six of the nine plan holders. Base bids were within 17% ($51,592.00) of each other, low to high. Please refer to the bid tabulation. The apparent low bidder is Electric Service Company of Minneapolis, at $310,408.00, base bid. WME has had considerable experience with this contractor and considers them one of the best in the Twin Cities Area. As a matter of fact, WME has provided the engineering for three other ball fields currently under construction in the metro area, all of which are being installed by Electric Service Company. Based on the bid furnished and Electric Service Company's experience with the specified products, I would recommend award of contract to them. PONDS PARK FIELD LIGHTING. PRIOR LAKE, MN. BIO TABULATION MINNETONKA. MN 55343 WME Project No..4406 WUNDEflUCH - MAl€C EtIGINEERltlG,IN. Bid Op6Blng RKUh 0aI8: 8/28191 - 5501 FELTLROAD Prepared By: Jim O'Brien MlNNETONKA,MN 55343 BASE BID TOTAL OONTRACTOR INCLUDES ALL LIGHTING OEOUCT At TERNArE NO, El 810 8ONO (BA.SE BID LESS AlT. 1) OOMVJ:NTS SECURITY LIGHTS NO SECURITY LIGHTS ARCADE ELECTRIC 608 EAST COUNTY ROAD 0 $358,981.00 $15.120,00 YES 1343,811.00 ADDENOUMNO. I NOT COMPANY ST .PAUl, MN. 55111 ACI<NOJVLEOOED ELECTRiCAl INSTAllATION 498S BROADMOOR DAIVE 1346,000.00 U',DOO.OO YES 1325,000.00 ADDENDUM NO.1 & MAINTENANCE CO. INDEPENDENCE. MN. 56359 ACI<NtVYLEDGED ELECTRIC SERVICe CO. Uj09 CHICAGO AVE $3tO,408..oo $1l.300 .00 YES 1301,108.00 ADDENDUM NO. 1 MPlS, MN 55040 ACKNO./YLEOOED JA V BROS . INC. P.O. BOX 824 1332,052..00 '14,605.00 YES 1311.447,00 AOOENOUM NO. I FOREST LAKE, MN. 55025 ACKNOlJVlEOOED I<l.EIN ELECTRIC, INC, 24763lA1(E ROAD $318.990.00 $9,190,00 YES 1309.800,00 ADDEf;DUM NO. I ST. ClOUD,t.r-l58301 - ACKtlOv'VlEOOED R100EDAlE ELECTRIC, INC. 500 BRINHAll AVE. 1382,000.00 S20,OOO,QO YES 5342,000,00 ADDfNOUN NO.1 oor LONG LAKE, Mf't. 65354i ACI<NMlEOOEO I ':' Dear Resident., The Citv of Prior Lake' sParks Advisorv Committee invites vou to their Mondav, Mav - .... ~.. 12th meeting.to discuss the upcoming improvements scheduled for The Pond's Park this summer. These improvements will include: a new playground strucmre. trails. development of the southe:-n 30 ac:es of the park. and new Iield lighnng. This item will be the Erst agenda item for the ~vening. The meeting will Sl::J.ll at 7:00 p,m. and will oe held at G.~e Prior Llice yraintenmce Cencer located at 17073 Adelmmn Scree:. If you have questions prior to 'lhe meeting, ple:J.Se c~l tb.e Parks md Re:::-eJ.tion _1 1- 1""~0 Depar:ment Jt ~ / --T_.J - Sincerely. Prior La..l.ce Parks Advisory COrnJ:1irree PONDS.DOCS/5/97 16200 Eagle Creek .A.ve. S.E.. Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY 2-lP!..OYE.~ ~'i I "'I ; .... o ;:OND -)1 :;;:: OF 72- I ., " \ i I 6 \ 7 \ 8 I 1\&7QZ! 'I' '\ .... I(,,~ll- 10 i o! 9 =- or' ~ 14 15 16 ( SO ~g 1#51 1,882 1 'I t ~-- ~Sril? " .' 7 0 "'~ .." Y t:...V- L y\~~~\~~ ~ ~~\-~ ~ ~ ~i. v.\ ~':> Sk:?T Zg93 JUNE 1993 SC:?T. 1992 OCT. - 199 I APRIL. 1991 AuG. /990 JUN E ' 1989 OC'!..J'3BS MARCH _ 1ge~ JAN' 4 19as:: NOV. "1964._ AUG. 1984 ". '.l~~ 'C1~4. t'D..-vL r', -.: ~ ;- -:- -~ ~~~4 'Y\~~"~ ; -=; I~ ;i ~ - "::1 __:-9 ~! :::: 0 '..... '"'"' ...... z.t:. C-' :::::::<1 !c- Ii it J[ ~ I~ )jGC~c~ ~.. r~ /t- /~ ~- .:. '-' ~v'"' ~~ c',..' ~,:;;...~;: ",:)/~ ::: '-~ , '..... .\>0 """" ~ ~ ." ~:.~ - ~ ~ y , \ D~S : -I :)1 -.. -.. N 1', ~~7d ~.::J7I.J " ,....; / / 9 ""I -, /' / / / L :; i :~ "7 N IOGv8 ~ 'N IN L C"il It'- r-, GNOJ::C: ;: I 2 iO I S =, !;:; 9 -" ..... I <'41 -, i~ -; 1 I , ::--. 'JI ~ 1:;# S~I '-" S- , ' ::;9; _.....v J.. "'1 A~ ; ~ ~ "" / ~ ---.:::'\ ' ,... ::: U'I I . II \'V :; '7 / .......JGI~I..;CO~'\ - .~ . . \ ~~/ >" ~ 'J\~ ""-~ ( ~ '>l1::7c 1>\V,~/1 ~\":\V \ (\~~\.b >41:-:''; ~ 9 <::> r- -- ~ -5) 2 -! ::- <-J i: z c.~~;. WUNDERLICH - MALEC ENGINEERING INC. 5501 FELTL ROAD · MINNETONKA. MN 55343 PHONE (612) 933-3222 FAX: (612) 933-0608 August 18, 1997 Mr. Paul Hokeness Director of Parks and Recreation City of Prior Lake 16200 Eagle Creek Avenue Prior Lake, MN 55372-1714 Re: Pond Athletic Complex Site Lighting WME Project #4406 Dear Paul: As you may know, our firm has been going to great lengths to accommodate the Hubbell product in the rebid of this project. In response to concerns that have been expressed by their local representatives, we have made several specification revisions and have been quite aggressive in soliciting a viable submittal. Largely at our request, the local representative as well as a Hubbell National Accounts Manager and the local Miller- bernd (pole) representative hand-delivered their submittal to us on August 14,. We discussed our design positions at that time and came to agreement on several specific key points relating to product quality and performance. The meeting adjourned with an understanding that we could generally accept the products as submitted (with noted minor exceptions) on the condition that, under our subsequent closer evaluation, the lighting performance would be comparable to that specified. In our closer evaluation, however, we have found significant variations in their submitted values, particularly in the area of average illumination and spill light. Unfortunately, even though we have made every effort to cooperate with the Hubbell people, we seem to be back to square one. Despite the progress we have made, we are once again faced with the difficult issue of recommending against the submitted system. Given the attitude and past actions of this vendor, we would certainly understand if you might still prefer to accept a bid from them. We will proceed with any recommendation you may offer. Please let me or Jim O'Brien know of any comments you may have. Again, thank you for your patience in this matter. sl~f~r lY~ u:.~y arp f Vice P sident Wunderlich-Malec Engineering, Inc. August 19, 1997 Wunderlich-Malec Engineering Inc. Attn: Wally Sharp. Vice President 5501 Feltl Rd Mirmetonka.?v10J 55343 Dear Wally. It sounds to me as if you have given Hubbell and Millerbernd every opportunity to pre-qualify for this project. As a matter of fact you have gone out of your \oval' to assist them in their efforts to provide poles and lighting equipment for this projec:. The bottom line is if they do not meet specifications, especially in the area of field illumination and spill lighting, then we should not be accepting their product. Kno\oving the sensitivity of a field lighting project in a neighborhood with residents less than 100 feet from our fields it is imperative that the lighting manufacturers meet the specifications that you have set forth. The City of Prior Lake has hired you to make a recommendation regarding the lighting of the Pond's Athletic fields and \ove support your recommendations. SQrelY Paul Hokeness Parks and Recreation Director City of Prior Lake, ivIN cc: Jim O'Brien, Lighting Engineer Suesan Lea Pace, City Attorney 162~~T~~k Ave, SE.. Prior Lake. Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245 ,\N CQL',\I_ OPPORTl::-HTY [~.lPI n,TR A.I..1J.1~t:IH NO. ~ 40 CON"l"RACT DOCtlZ1S1n"S PCm. PONCS A'T.m:.B"1':tC COtiPLEX .PRI:OR LJUe:g, :MIB:NESO~ OHN13R: CITY 011 PR~O.R l.A1Cli 6200 EAGLli c::REEK AVBNOE sOu-J:t-Ua...ST ~I~ LJUC1:i:. MN 55372 E:NG~NKXR : lIrONDERLICH - ~c RNGDm:SRINQ. .n:c. .55 0 ~ PliL TI.. ROAD M~. MN 5534.:2 ~ ~~OJACT NO_ 4406 .A~ ~1., 1.997 BIDDXR.S OF ltECOXD DA "r2 = TO: This; Adde,"Anftt :is ~ Co=1.~-act Doc..1m.Q::lt: and nray apply ~o a:::.y 0:: a.l.~ Concrac;t~ a:c.d. Subeont=act:s. J:t. supplements ~ mocu..t::ies t:..'le or:i.g:ina..J. Cone:s.ct: Documents. UnJ..e~~ ctherwi.,;s. ~c~:i.a he.:.;i.n or ..."'JQWn on at:tac..~ed D:r~w:i.ng~r all. work ~:i~d. by t'~""ie ACldcnry,.mt sha~l ~~ ~ eompleca acco~ w~e~ ~e Con~=&Ce Doeu-~ts &nd ~sequ~t a~~en~~ ther~to. A~ovled.q~ ;eceipt of t.h.i.:5 Add..Q"'tdum. by rec::.ord.i.~ n~;;- -.;c.c;l da.t:.e. of i.ssue :i.n tOg B.::..d Porm. F-.i~u.=~ eo do so may sul:lj ec~ l::i.dCer to dig~~a~i~~cation. ..."",-.::110.. 0.1 A. ACCepr:abJoe ~VQ1'"~e~urer8.: The 1:o11cwi.=.s ma:D.u.:l!...c~,:ure.r1!l are o.ppravcd as aqua.l.s to tlpee~~:1.CiWS 1"JIa%%U~a.ct:U:rQ: ~or pr~ts :i.~ea1:ad.. aubj ~c:t:. to eompJ.:i.ancr;: w:i. th aJ.J. ~peei.t:.i.ca t::i.on X'oqui~8Il\ents . SB~ON Y'TJPI ;l.CCEP-:rJ\S'!'.~ ~Jl~ 1.6500 Li-ght:1.ng ~ixture "ryp4it1iiJ 'AI. 'Br. .C', and '5' ~GSOO L~ghting Fixtur~ Typ. 'D' Musco. ~eve1 S/SC2 Sternberg #9403/47Sw;;rgiS J..6500 .PO~~ J4ll.SCO. Light: St::ruceur( ~. SUDro~~s~on o~ a b~ .~ch produee~ t~t ;rg :O~ ~?ac~fic31~y approved ~~~ be gro~ fo~ rQj.c~ion of co~e=act~r$ b~d. ~ if" lIDil( 02 A. P.e:=. 'Co Drawiug" El., h0rn6::u.n tor po~e 51. S~_~~ De re:t:erence<l to ~ci.f:i.c: UO~. 1.0 ~or conduit and vi..rQ s.i.za. S.G/~O 'd Cn9r :-=-:: ?r:::J -,,)IT \.'~ . .. , LINDQUIST & VENNUM: P.L.L.P. 4200 IDS CEHT'f/I 80 SouTH E,CIH'Tli STPlEET MINNEAPOUS. Me-uoT" 5S402-2205 TELEPHONE: 612-371-3211 FAX: 612-371-3207 IN DENVEIl UNDQUIST, VENHUW &CHf\osn:HSEN P.L-L.P. 600 17T14 STREET, SUm: 2125 DENVER, CoLORADO 80202-5401 TELEPHONE: 303-573-5900 ATTORNEYS AT LAW Thomas L. Fabel (612) 371-3546 August 25, 1997 Suesan Lea Pace, Esq. CAMPBELL KNUTSON SCOTT & FUCHS Eagandale Office Center, Suite 317 1380 Corporate Center Curve Eagan, Minnesota 55121 Re: City of Prior Lake Ponds Park Athletic Field Lighting Project Dear Ms. Pace: Recent events in the ongoing efforts of the City of Prior Lake to acquire lighting for the Ponds Park Athletic Field require that I again correspond with you on this subject. To satisfy your previously-expressed curiosity, our client is R. L. Mlazgar Associates, Inc., a family-owned company which 'n the business of supplying lighting for projects such as this for over 25 year RLM Id provide ve satisf lighting materials for the Ponds Park project and ~ m eSlres an 0 ortuni to jOI In the competition for this work. However, despite extensive effort to receive consideration, including the expenditure of over $1,000.00 in independent engineering services, RLM again has been frozen out of this project by action of the engineering firm managing the project for the city. Enclosed with this letter is the final word on this ~subject from that firm, Wunderlich-Malec Engineering. This "addendum" to the lighting specifications discloses that bids from electrical contractors on this project will not be considered if they include materials from any manufacturer other than the MUSCO Sports Lighting Company of Muscatine, Iowa, except for a small portion of the job for which MUSCO does not carry the necessary item. RLM was advised by Wunderlich-Malec that its products were rejected from consideration because they exceeded the "spill light" and "glare" specifications prescribed by the engineer. RLM has advised me that the only products known to it which can meet those specifications are those of MUSCO, That fact alone should be very troubling to anyone favoring competition in public procurement. Even more LT01:433581_1 .. LINDQUIST & VENNUM P.LLP. August 25, 1997 Page 2 troubling is the apparent fact that the amount by which the RLM products exceed the specifications for "spill light" and "glare" may be undiscernible to the human eye. In other words, competition for lighting materials has been eliminated for the sake of specifications which are of no practical benefit to the citizens of Prior Lake. The refusal of Wunderlich-Malec to approve the RLM product for bid consideration was simply the final act in a course of hostile treatment accorded to RLM during its efforts to receive consideration for its products. RLM's aggressive pursuit of an opportunity to compete has been quite unwelcome, as we fear our bringing this matter to your attention may also be unwelcome. The easy course, and the common course for materials suppliers in these situations, is to do everything possible to curry favor with the engineering firm responsible for issuing specifications. Challenging the engineer may jeopardize the supplier's fortunes not just on the instant job, but on future jobs as well. RLM consciously runs this risk in its current effort to provide the citizens of Prior Lake with the benefit of competition. I encourage you and the public officials whom you represent to be mindful of this fact as you evaluate this situation. As you know, Minn. Stat. 8471.35 requires that materials specifications for public bids "shall not be so prepared as to exclude all but one type or kind but shall include competitive supplies and equipment." It is our firm belief that the current specifications for the Ponds Park lighting project violate that statutory requirement. Testimony supporting this contention will be offered at the upcoming meeting of the city council in opposition to any contract award based upon the existing specifications. I urge you and the other city officials to give that evidence careful consideration before proceeding with the award of the contract. Very truly yours, Thomas L. Fabel TLF/les cc: Mayor and City Council Frank Boyles, City Manager Paul Hokeness, Director of Park-Rec. Mr. Mark Mlazgar LT01:433581_1 --- WUNDERLICH - MALEC ENGINEERING INC. 5501 FELTL ROAD · MINNETONKA, MN 55343 PHONE: (612) 933-3222 FAX: (612) 933-0608 MEMORANDUM DATE: August 19, 1997 TO: Paul Hokeness City of Prior Lake FROM: Jim O'Brien Wunderlich - Malec Engineering, Inc. RE: Ponds Athletic Complex WME Project No. 4406 Specification Article 16010 1.6.D mandates submittals for prior approval be submitted ten days prior to bid date, that would make Friday, August 15, 1997 the final working day prior to the cutoff date. Hubbell made their submittal for prior approval On August IS, 1997 at 11:00 a.m. This submittal did not include structura: calculations for poles and bases due to the explanation that the engineer for Millerbern Pole Company was on vacation. They stated in the submittal that they would provide these calculations "on or after August 18, 1997, but prior to bidu. They were submitted on August 22, 1997, five days after the deadline for submittal. The Hubbell submittal showed light scans on ~he softball field ~o 26U' and the fence is at 275'. They had Pole C3 in the wrong location as well. They were requested to correct these two items. They could not complete the correction on August 15, 1997, so WME allowed them to submit prior to noon on August 18, 1997, re-submittal was made at 9:40 a.m. on August 18, 1997. All calculations are to be based on a lamp with 155,000 lumens (standard 1500 watt metal halide lamp) per Specification Article 16500 2.4.A.2 and 16500 2.5.A.2. Hubbell's submittals are based on 150,000 lumens for the softball initial foot-candles. This lumen level will consequently skew their spill lighting levels lower. This is represented on Hubbell's drawing #97-1262FR. Hubbell's calculations for the softball "maintained foot-candlesu should be based on the specified 155,000 lumens with a specified 0.8 maintenance factor, calculations submitted on drawing #97-1262ER use 166,500 lumens with a 0.8 maintenance factor. This skews the numbers higher. WME pointed out the areas where they did no~ comply with the specifications. It was agreed by Hubbell representatives and WME that WME would interpolate the numbers to arrive at the correct foot-candle levels. ... \ MEMORANDOM Mr. Paul Hokeness Augusc 19, 1997 Page 2 WME recalculated the softball maintained foot-candle levels and arrived at 29.0 infield and 19.6 outfield. Specifications call for 31 intield and 21 outfield. Hubbell does not meet specifications on this point. WME did a straight number-to-number review of the spill lighting for the softball fields even though Hubbell used a lower than specified lumen level. Foot-candle levels horizontally and in maximum plane will be higher than indicated on their drawing #97-1262FR. Specifications call for a maximum horizontal foot- candles of 0.15, Hubbell's calculations indicated 0.4 (a 160% variation). The maximum foot-candles in maximum plane is specified at 0.92, Hubbell's calculation indicates 1.6 (a 74% variation. On the softball fields Hubbell submitted a lighting system which would require more fixtures on some poles and less on other poles than was specified on the plans. This will require more engineering time to recalculate the circuit breaker, conduit, and wire size for each of these twelve poles. We would then have to reissue these updated draWings to the electrical contractor. This will take several hou~s of engineering time as well as expenses associated with reissuing the drawings. Our fee does not include additional services for redesign due to vendor modifications. The football fields a~e calculated with the higher 166,550 lumens per lamp. When adjusted, the average maintained foot-candle level per field is 24.2, specifications require 26 (a 7.4% variation) . The football spill lighting maximum plane maximum specified foot- candles is 3.07, Hubbell's adjusted level is 4.0 (a 32% variation). The maximum initial horizontal foot-candles specified is 1.02, Hubbell's adjusted level is 1.76 (a 73% variation) . Ln all cases the lighting calculations for the Hubbell equipment proves that the amount of spill lighting directed onto the neighbors properties exceeds the specification~. This is not a minor difference as suggested by the Hubbell representative, but in most cases there are major variations from the specifications, as noted above. We realize that one of the major concerns is the amount of spill lighting on the neighbor's property, but please note that Hubbell did not meet specifications for the amount of light needed on infields and outfields of the softball fields.