Laserfiche WebLink
<br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />We have not had experience with Ti-Zack Concrete, so we contacted the references <br />supplied. Based on my discussions with the references and information provided by the <br />contractor, we have determined that they have (1) have a sufficient understanding of the <br />project and equipment to perform the construction for which it bid; and (2) according to <br />their bonding agent they presently have the financial ability to complete the project bid. <br />SEH makes no representation or warranty as to the actual financial viability of the <br />contractor or its ability to complete its work. <br /> <br />The City has four options for consideration of award. The first option would be to reject <br />all bids. The second option would be to award the base bid only, and the third would be <br />to award the base bid plus the alternate. A fourth option would be to consider the award <br />of the Base Bid plus the alternate bid, and work with the low bidder to eliminate the <br />sidewalk and sheet piling in the area of Spring Creek. This option would provide a <br />sidewalk along County Road H for all but approximately 100 feet at Spring Creek. If the <br />Council does decide to award the project, we recommend the project be awarded to Ti- <br />Zack Concrete, Inc. in the amount of $149,877.50 for the Base Bid alone, and <br />$383,914.60 for the base bid plus alternate. Again, if the fourth option is the Council <br />preference, the Contract Amount would be reduced from the $383,914.60,by a Change <br />Order. <br /> <br />Sincerely, <br /> <br />Barry F. Peters, PE <br />Project Manager <br /> <br />nm <br />Attachment <br />\ \muski e\masterfiles \2003 \ci ty counci l\resolutions\608 8 .doc <br />