File #: 18-0188    Version: 1
Type: New Business Status: Passed
File created: 4/23/2018 In control: City Council
On agenda: 5/2/2018 Final action: 5/2/2018
Title: Approval of Contract with F & W Construction Co. Inc. for the Kelsey Dock Interpretive Center - Phase 1 project in the Amount of $2,728,168.00
Attachments: 1. Kelsey Dock Interpretive Center - Phase 1 - Bid Summary, 2. Kelsey Dock Interpretive Center - Phase 1 - Contract Body, 3. Kelsey Dock Interpretive Center - Phase 1 - Drawings
ITEM TITLE:
title
Approval of Contract with F & W Construction Co. Inc. for the Kelsey Dock Interpretive Center - Phase 1 project in the Amount of $2,728,168.00
body
SUBMITTED BY: Nathan Duval, Capital Facilities Director

FISCAL NOTES:
Expenditure Required: $2,728,168.00
Unencumbered Balance: 312-6400-49550 - $712,710.36 || 312-6400-49560 - $1,291,922.59 || 312-6400-58000 -$209,763.30 (Current Balance); $1,084,763.30 (Pending Revised Balance)
Funding Source: 312-6400-49550 - City Dock Info & Interpretive || 312-6400-49560 - Dock Improvement || 312-6400-58000 - City Contribution

RECOMMENDATION:
rec
Approve the Contract with F & W Construction Co. Inc, for the Kelsey Dock Interpretive Center - Phase 1 Project in the Amount of $2,728,168.00
end
SUMMARY STATEMENT:
The Kelsey Dock Interpretative Center Project bid closed on 4/10/18. The sealed bids included a qualifications packet to be scored as a percentage of the contract award. The bid price comprised 70 points and the qualification packet 30 points totaling 100 possible points available. Packets remained sealed until 4/13/18 where they were opened at the offices of ECI, inc. (project Architect) in Anchorage, Alaska. The evaluation committee included Nathan Duval, CoV Capital Facilities Director, Maria Kampsen, Alaska Testlabs, and Karen Zaccaro, ECI. Maria represented ATL as the contracted Construction Management firm for the project and Karen represented the Architect. All parties were familiar with the project and process and well qualified to perform the evaluation of the proposals. No one within the scoring committee had a financial interest in the firms proposing on the project and there is no real or perceived conflict of interest.
Each evaluator independently reviewed the proposals; bid packages remained un-evaluated until the qualification scoring was complete as to not bias the packet scoring based on price. After independent review, the committee collaboratively scored each proposal allocati...

Click here for full text