Agenda No. 3.
CITY COUNCIL MEMORANDUM
| City Council Meeting: | August 4, 2026 |
| Department: | Engineering |
| Subject: | Resolution 26-R-088 - Rejecting all Bids for the Library Foundation Repair Project (Assistant City Engineer John Nowak) |
BACKGROUND
The Library has a pier and beam foundation. The gap between the piers and the foundation beams was sealed with composite plastic panels and the area outside the perimeter backfilled with native soils and base material. The plastic panels bowed inward over time, collapsing into the crawl space underneath the floor of the Library. This has caused "sinkholes" adjacent to the exterior walls of the Library, most notably in the rear paver courtyard. To correct the situation, the composite, plastic panels should be replaced with more durable panels, such as reinforced concrete panels.
Staff began developing a project to replace the plastic panels with concrete ones. Unintech, one of our on-call Engineering firms, was retained to develop the project for us. A detailed bid package was created and the project bid (# 2026-005). Bids were opened on July 1, 2026 and two bids were received. A third "proposal" was received after the bid opening time. Not only was this "proposal" received after the bid opening, it was not submitted on the required bid documents, did not have a bid bond, and contained work elements very different than the bid package contained. For these reasons, the "proposal" is deemed "non-responsive" and can not be considered for the bidding process. The two bids received were close to each other, with lowest bid received at $729,380.00 and the other bid at $729,473.80. The bids amount significantly exceeded the estimated project cost ($241,367.72) and the available budget for the project.
In reviewing the bid tabs, staff noted that several line items in the bid had unit prices significantly higher than the estimated unit prices. It was also noted that there were some irregularities with one of the bids. The extensions of the unit prices did not match the bid form, resulting in a lower summed amount. However, this lower summed amount ($699,607.82) still far exceeds the estimate and budget.The bid unit prices were often several factors higher than the estimated unit prices. For example, the asphalt cost per ton was bid at $750 vs. a typical city project unit price of $120 per ton and the paver removal cost was estimated at $65 per ton (based on an estimated cost from a contractor that installs pavers) vs. the bid price of $450 per ton. Neither Staff nor our consultant are able to justify why the unit pricing in the bids is so high.
Because the bids received were so high, Staff and our Consultant recommend rejecting all bids and re-bidding the project.
Before the project is re-bid, our consultant will reach out to the bidders to try to glean why the unit pricing was so high and get feedback on the plans and bid package. This information will be used to revise the bid package to hopefully obtain better bids when the project is re-bid.
Staff began developing a project to replace the plastic panels with concrete ones. Unintech, one of our on-call Engineering firms, was retained to develop the project for us. A detailed bid package was created and the project bid (# 2026-005). Bids were opened on July 1, 2026 and two bids were received. A third "proposal" was received after the bid opening time. Not only was this "proposal" received after the bid opening, it was not submitted on the required bid documents, did not have a bid bond, and contained work elements very different than the bid package contained. For these reasons, the "proposal" is deemed "non-responsive" and can not be considered for the bidding process. The two bids received were close to each other, with lowest bid received at $729,380.00 and the other bid at $729,473.80. The bids amount significantly exceeded the estimated project cost ($241,367.72) and the available budget for the project.
In reviewing the bid tabs, staff noted that several line items in the bid had unit prices significantly higher than the estimated unit prices. It was also noted that there were some irregularities with one of the bids. The extensions of the unit prices did not match the bid form, resulting in a lower summed amount. However, this lower summed amount ($699,607.82) still far exceeds the estimate and budget.The bid unit prices were often several factors higher than the estimated unit prices. For example, the asphalt cost per ton was bid at $750 vs. a typical city project unit price of $120 per ton and the paver removal cost was estimated at $65 per ton (based on an estimated cost from a contractor that installs pavers) vs. the bid price of $450 per ton. Neither Staff nor our consultant are able to justify why the unit pricing in the bids is so high.
Because the bids received were so high, Staff and our Consultant recommend rejecting all bids and re-bidding the project.
Before the project is re-bid, our consultant will reach out to the bidders to try to glean why the unit pricing was so high and get feedback on the plans and bid package. This information will be used to revise the bid package to hopefully obtain better bids when the project is re-bid.
GOAL
To reject all the bids received for the Library Foundation project and allow the project to be re-bid.
COMMUNITY BENEFIT
The lowest bid received exceeds the available project budget by a very significant margin. Proceeding with the lowest bid would require adding significant funding to this project, delaying proceeding with other, important projects. By rejecting all the bids, the project bid package can be refined and the project re-bid to receive more favorable bids for the project.
SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDED ACTION
Reject all bids received for the project and allow the project to be re-bid.
RECOMMENDATION
Approve Resolution 26-R-088