Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout7C -Ponds Park Field Lighting DA TE: 7C PAUL HOKENESS, PARKS & RECREATION DIRECTOR CONSIDER APPROVAL OF REJECTION OF BIDS FOR ATHLETIC FIELD LIGHTING AT THE POND'S AND AUTHORIZE THE REBIDDING OF THE PROJECT JUL Y 21, 1997 AGENDA NUMBER: PREPARED BY: SUBJECT: INTRODUCTION: The purpose is to authorize the rejection of bids for athletic field lighting at the Pond's Park and authorize the rebidding of the project. BACKGROUND: The Council authorized bidding of this project at the April 7, 1997 meeting. On Tuesday, June 24th the city accepted bids for this project and at 10:00 a.m. the bids were opened and recorded. Recognizing that the Pond's is adjacent to two eXIstmg neighborhoods the Parks Advisory Committee conducted a public meeting to discuss the proposed lighting project. The residents raised two concerns: 1. That security lighting is needed within the park, and 2. That the field lights would spill into their yards and shine into their windows. Accordingly staff determined that the Musco lighting system had an effective system which could address these residential concerns as well as direct the lights onto the field. Therefore, the City's electrical engineering consultant used Musco, or equivalent as the basis for preparing the specifications for the project. The specifications were written to allow other vendors to bid their products, provided they identify their exceptions to the lighqng engineer. There were only two bids for this project. The highest bid was $417,388.00. The lowest bid was $332,000.00. Both contractors who bid the project proposed the use of Musco Lighting. DISCUSSION: Nine contractors picked up plans and originally showed 162~~~efeek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake. Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTtiNITY E.;"1PLOYER interest in the project. The electrical engineer hired by the City to design the lighting system and assist with specifications advised us that with a specialized project such as this it is typical not to have a lot of bidders. However, he felt that we should be able to attract a few more if the City rebid and scheduled the work in the Fall. Staff found that summer is a very busy time of year for most electrical contractors and many are working on school projects. The electrical engineer believed we would have more competitive bids in the Fall. We were advised by one of the equipment suppliers (not a commercial electrical contractor) that they had not seen the bid advertisement in the Construction Bulletin or Dodge Reports and that they didn't have enough time to provide specifications to the electrical contractors that were bidding the project. Although this lighting supplier is not an electrical contractor and would not be bidding the project they questioned our bidding process and were concerned that they would not be able to supply the lights and poles. The City received a letter from an attorney expressing concerns and alleging improper bidding procedures. We have included a copy of the attorney's letter as well as a copy of the City Attorney's response. FISCAL IMPACT: The estimates for this project were approximately $300,000.00 for the field lighting. At the neighborhood meeting the neighbors suggested security lighting also be included. The P.A.c. and staff felt that this would be an excellent opportunity to add security lighting in the park since we could utilize the same contractor, trenches, poles, and conduits to install this additional security lighting. The estimates for this additional lighting were $20,000.00 bringing the total estimate to $320,000.00. The electrical engineer feels that we should be able to get closer to or under this amount if we rebid the project. Funding for this project is included in the 1997 Parks and Library Referendum. ALTERNATIVES: 1. Authorize the rejection of all bids for athletic field and security lighting at Pond's Park and authorize the rebidding of the project. 2. Table this item for a specific reason. LlTEBID.DOC RECOMMENDATION: ACTION REQUIRED: REVIEWED BY: Attachments LITEB lD .DOC Staff recommends Alternative #1 which would allow us to rebid the project. CAMPBELL KNUTSON Pwfessic1nall\.~~' H.': i~l tic In j\(tOITlcys dt Llw . . . J,,<.:I.1 ):lIl1ntk A ndr..:" Md )lhv"ll Pl ":,Ill,,,. iYl:Hrh,:w K. I~rl)kl' J"i..n F. Kc.:lly M:lrrh,:w I. h ,II Molr!.:! I,Tl(,' ~\. 1vIcC~,\ITIII1 Gt.:l1rl!" T. Srl:rlll:n~"n Tl\1l111:" J. Cdllll'l,dl Rllg!:'1' N, KI1L1(~l'l1 Th'lnl;JS M, S,'.llrr J","", R, W"btl.,n Fllhlrr R. Knl:r,ch SU"'dll L",,, p"<.:,, (612) 4Sl-50CO F~-LX (612) 452-5550 Writer' 5 Extension: 226 Writer's Fax: 452-5550 .,,\l.v.liUIL.,~J in \.1/i."I:,m.\Jn I.I{C"IIIJ>od. (;011"'1 l.. Fu-=h,; July 15, 1997 Mr. Thomas L. Fabel, Esq. Linquist & Vennum, P.L.L.P. 4200 IDS Center 80 South Eighth Street Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402-2205 Via Fax #371-3207 and U.S. Mail RE: City of Prior Lake Ponds Athletic Field Lighting Project Dear Mr. Fabel: Your letter to me dated July 1, 1997 concerning the City's bid solicitation in connection with the Ponds athletic field lighting project alleges (1) irregularities in the procedure used to bid the lighting equipment and (2) improprieties concerning certain companies obtaining "the inside tract." These are very serious allegations, but absolutely unfounded. Generally, I am reluctant to respond to letters from attorneys who fail to identify who they are representing, particularly in a case such as this which I suspect involves a disgruntled equipment supplier who failed to have their equipment pre-qualified. This letter will address your client's allegations in the order set forth in your July 1, 1997 letter. Minnesota Statutes Chapter 429, which you cite in your letter. does not apply to this project. Minnesota Starotes Chapter 429 applies to projects that intends to specially assess. The installation of athletic field lighting at Ponds Park is not being paid for through the use of special assessments. The City followed the proper procedure as required by Minnesota Statutes Section 471.345. the applicable statute. Your second allegation. asserted on behalf of your unnamed client, states that an equipment manufacturer, MUSCO, had somehow gained "an inside track on the Prior Lake project." Attached is a copy of the draft staff report for the Prior Lake City Council's July 21, 1997 meeting. I would not be surprised if the equipment supplier described in Mr. Hokeness's staff report and your client turned out to be the same individual. The staff report is self explanatory. SUttL: 317 . EaganJ<llt' Offic~ C~nc~r · 1380 C:orflorare Cenr~r Curve · t:.1C;111. \.-1 N 551 21 T. Fabel July 15, 1997 PalZC 2 of 2 Mr. Hokcness, City Parks and Recreation Director, following the advise of the electrical engineering firm that consulted with the City on this project, is seeking authority from the City Council to reject all bids and authority to re-bid the project in the fall. Following applicable statutory requirements, when the project is re-bid, it will again be advertised in the Construction Bulletin and Dodge Report. Very truly yours, CAMPBELL KNUTSON Professional Association By: ~~ ~~'A / Suesan Lea Pace Prior Lake City Attorney SLP:kgm cc: Mayor and City Council Frank Boyles, City Manager Paul Hokeness, Director of ParkslRec LINDQUIST & VENNUM P.LL.P. 4200 IDS CcNTVI 80 SouTH ElGtm4 5nuT ~. MINecm 5S402-2205 TELEPHONI:612-371-3211 F.x:612-371-3207 IN ClENvol l..JNoal.wr, V!Mu.l & ~ ~.l.LP. 600 17TH 5TMrT. Sum 2125 0INvu.. Col.oIlAoo 80202-5401 TELEPHONI:303-573-5900 ATTORNEYS AT LAW Thomas L. Fabel (612) 371-3546 July 1, 1997 SENT BY FACSIMILE AND U.S. MAIL Suesan Lea Pace, Esq. CAMPBELL KNUTSON SCOTT & FUCHS EagClnda!e Office C enter, Suit~ 317 1380 Corporate Center Curve Eagan, Minnesota 55121 Re: City of Prior Lake Contract for Ponds Park Athletic Field Lighting: Bid Protest Dear Ms. Pace: I am writing to advise you of irregularities in the competitive bid-letting process for the above project and to seek your assistance in obtaining voluntary correction of these irregularities. I have been advised by our client that this project was first advertised for bids on June 6, 1997, and that the final day for bid submission and bid opening occurred on June 24, 1997. The low bid for the project, which includes all materials and labor, was approximately $330,000. The materials component for projects of this sort is normally 50-55% of the project price, which here would be approximately $165,000 - $175,000. City council consideration of the bid for possible contract award is scheduled for July 7, 1997. We do not know whether City staff has recommended a contract award, but we have been advised that the lowest bid substantially exceeds the budgeted amount for this project. The apparent irregularities in the bid-letting process involve (1) the timeliness of the published notice for bid submission and (2) the published specifications for the included lighting materials. I will address these subjects separately. LT01:433~81_1 LINDQUIST & VENNUM P.LL? July I, 1997 Page 2 TIMELINESS OF NOTIFICATION The mandatory procedures for the solicitation of bids by the City of Prior Lake for this project are set forth in Minn. Stat. 9429.041. That statute provides that for projects with estimated costs exceeding $100,000, the published advertisement for bids must occur no less than three weeks before the last day for bid submission. The only published advertisement for this project known to our client appears in the Friday, June 6, 1997 edition of Construction Bulletin Magazine, which was received by our client on June 10. However, even if June 6 is considered the effective date of publication, the earliest permissible date for the closure of bids was June 27, which was three days after the bid opening for this project. It deserves note that this was no mere technical deficiency. As a practical matter the shortness of the notice period effectively precluded any supplier of lighting materials, other than one with an inside track, from receiving fair consideration for its materials. The uinside track" problem I will address later in this letter. For present purposes it is enough to note that the City engineer for this project, Wunderlich-Malec Engineering, required all potential materials suppliers to submit for engineering review the specifications on their products at least ten days before the bid opening. Since these submissions are complicated documents requiring several days for assembly and review, this ten-day requirement could not be met by any materials supplier which was not working on the project prior to the publiShed advertisement for bids. The shortness of time allowed by the City for the submission of bids is one reason why just one supplier of materials - the Musco Sports Lighting Company of Muscatine, Iowa - is included in any of the bids received by the City. Certainly the appearance of just one supplier for materials in a project of this magnitude should be a very significant concern for the City. That concern should be greatly exacerbated by the additional possible irregularity in this process, which is that the materials specifications all but assured that Musco would be the supplier. LIGHTING MATERIALS SPECIFICATIONS In one ,of many efforts to insure the benefit of competition in public procurement, Minnesota law generally requires generic specifications in bid solicitations for the purchase of supplies and equipment. Minn. Stat. 9471.35 provides as follows: When any county, city, town, or school district calls for bids for the purchase of supplies or equipment, specifications shall not be so LTOl:433$81_1 LINDQUIST & VENNU~t P.LLP. July 1, 1997 Page 3 prepared as to exclude all but one type or kind but shall include competitive supplies and equipment. Violation of this provision constitutes a gross misdemeanor. Minn. Stat. 9471.37. It is the opinion of our client, a supplier of lighting equipment of the type needed for this project, that the specifications for this bid violate 9471.35, or at least the spirit of that statute. This conclusion may not be apparent from the specifications on their face, but the structure of the specifications and the extent of their detail very c1ear!y favor Musco as the supplier, This fact gives rise at least to the appearance that Musco obtained an inside track on this project, which facilitated its ability to be the only available supplier for materials. This possibility that Musco somehow obtained an inside track on the Prior Lake project is supported by a pattern involving many similar projects in the Twin Cities metropolitan area. Time and again in sports lighting projects, Wunderlich-Malec has been designated as the city engineer for the project, and Musco has been the supplier of all lighting equipment. Indeed, our client is not aware of a single sports lighting project in recent history where Wunderlich-Malec has served as engineer and where Musco has not been the successful supplier of materials. We believe that this history, coupled with the unusual nature of the specifications for this project, coupled with the fact that the bid solicitation was not advertised for the required period, and coupled with the fact that the low bid substantially exceeded budget, all should create great concern for the City of Prior Lake and its taxpayers. Our client is a supplier of high-quality, reasonably priced, athletic field lighting materials. Its products and the products of other suppliers should be available for consideration by the City of Prior Lake in any project of this magnitude. However, that will happen only if the City now calls for new bids on this project, and then proceeds as required by law, both as to the timing of the advertisement and as to the nature of the specifications. Please bring this matter to the attention of the Prior Lake mayor and city council at your very earliest opportunity. Obviously, there is little time for the statutory irregularities to be recognized and rectified. As you know, injunctive relief is available to assure compliance with these statutes, but we feel confident that the City would prefer to correct this situation without the need for judicial involvement. LTOl:433~81_1 LINDQUIST & VENNUM P.L.LP. July 1, 1997 Page 4 Thank you very much for your prompt attention to this matter. TLFlles cc: Mr. Paul Hokeness LTOl:4JJ.581_1 ~tJ-~