Laserfiche WebLink
REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM <br />Budget <br />Agenda Date Requested:March 11, 2013 <br />Source of Funds: Capital Improvement <br />Requested By:Donald Ladd <br />Account Number:015-9892-601-1100 <br />Department:Fire <br />Amount Budgeted: <br />Report: Resolution:Ordinance: <br />Amount Requested: <br />Exhibits:EvaluationSummary <br />Budgeted Item:YES <br />Exhibits: <br />Exhibits <br />SUMMARY & RECOMMENDATION <br />In January 2013,staff sentout SEALED RFP #13502 –ASBESTOS ABATEMENT & <br />DEMOLITION OF FIRE STATION#1/ADMINISTRATION BUILDING. The RFP consisted <br />of two parts-Section No. 1, which included asbestos abatement and Section No. 2for <br />demolition. Responses were dueJanuary 22, 2013.Eighteenproposals were receivedfor Section <br />No. 1 and nineteen were received for Section No. 2. <br />An evaluation team reviewed the proposals and hasagreed that A &RDemolitionsubmitted the <br />proposal that provided the best value to the City for Section No. 1-asbestos abatement. Because <br />the proposed pricing is substantially below $50,000 (total proposed price was $4,328.75), no <br />Council action is required to move forward with this piece of the RFP. <br />However, based on the evaluation of the proposals for Section No. 2, staff is recommending that <br />Council take action to reject all proposals for this section only. The returned proposals for <br />Section #2 -demolitionseemed to be broad in pricing and experience. Although some vendors <br />are very qualified, some proposals lacked key components that staff felt would not be beneficial <br />to the City, such as not include the required addendumsand less than advantageous pricing. <br />Staff believes some of the confusion was caused by the fact that many of these firms were used <br />to submitting straight bids and specifications and were not used to submitting the type of packet <br />requested for the RFP. Should Council reject proposals for Section No. 2, staff will be issuing a <br />straight bid packet for the demolition, which is believed to bring the City the best valued <br />proposal for the work specified. <br />Action Required by Council: <br />Consider approval or other action to reject all proposals for Section No. 2 of RFP No. 13502. <br />Approved for City Council Agenda <br />Corby D. Alexander,City ManagerDate <br /> <br />