SS9301-AG 921110 WORK SESSION
CITY COUNCIl, MI~C'TING November 10, 1992
Discussion of the bid opening for the Grapevine Creek Trunk Sewer Main Branch I and II and
Direction on bringing forth a recommendation for award of the bid.
SUB~ BY: ~,~ STAFF ]~l~.p: Kenneth :%i. Griffin, P.E.
~ ] ~(~r. Si;'namra, City Engineer
OTHF-I~ RF, P: Steve Goram, Director of Public
Works
F-VAI-IJAT[f~N OF ~M: DATE: November Z, 1992
On September 29, 1992, bids were received for the Grapevine Creek Sewer Main Branch I and
I[. The Iow bidder was Kenko, Inc. The project was bid with several alternates and, because
of the excellent bid prices, the City pursued an additional alternative to the project. Attached to
this agenda item is a schematic showing the general limits of the project and the location of the
various alternates. Alternates #1 and #2 were for a change in materials for the sewer line.
Neither one of those were economically feasible to the City, therefore, they will both be
requested to be rejected. Alternate #3 was to microtunnel beneath Denton Tap Road in lieu of
boring. This alternate is substantially lower for the microtunneling. ~ltemate 04 was to
microtunnel across the rear of some lots on Crestview Cour~ in lieu of'open cutting. This
alternate was requested because of the .steepness of the banks and the pOssibility that open cutting
would disturb the banks thereby creati"fi'g the potential for perceived fOundation problems in the
~uture. This alternate is approximately $66,000 higher to microtunnel. Alternate #5 was to
microtunnel across the rear of the Roy Brock property in lieu of open cuttin~g. This alternate is
approximately the same cost to microtunnel. However, because of the properly and the existing
improvements, the microtunneling still appears to be the best alternative.
SEE PAGE 2 - BID OPENING FOR THE GRAPEVINE CREEK'S TRUNK
SEWER MAIN'S BRANCH I AND II
AMT. +/- BUDGET FINANCIAL REVIEW BY:
CO~NT~:
The information referred to in the memo is accurate and funds are
available out of the 1991-92 Bond Issue in Water & Sewer.
BID OPENING FOR THE GRAPEVINE CREEK'S TRUNK
C
SEWER MAIN'S BRANCH I AND I1
PAGE 2 ,~,_~ ~.~,
Because the bids came in lower than expected, staff pursued another alt~'rnative to microtunnel
dowaq the entire length of east ,~Bethei Road in the Creekview subdivision. This" option was
pursued because it will speed up the project, it will cause less disruption to the neighborhood,
there could be substantially less property damage to the parkway, the street will not have to be
patched and it will give a much cleaner, smoother project through the' neighborhood. The cost
to microtunnel Bethel is approxlmately.$210,000 higher than open cutting. However, because
of the deepness of the sewer line, about 25 to 30 feet, there are still many unknowns that could
be encountered in the open cutting process. Many water and sewer services could be cut, there
could be a general onslaught of complaints from ~he residents, and if the weather turned bad
during the open cutting of the street, there could be severe access problems for prolonged periods
through the neighborhood.
Staff has reviewed the various alternates with the consultant and it is staf?s opinion that
Alternates #3, ~4 and ~5 should be pursued. Also, the City should pursue microtunneling Bethel
Road and reconfiguring the sewer line across Ms. Ruth Alexander's property. When all of the
alternates and changes are considered, the following is the best estimate of the construction cost
for Branch I and Branch II. A detailed breakdown of the anticipated cost is also attached for
your review'.
ESTIMATED TOTAL ESTIMATED TOTAL
BRANCH I BRANCH II
Construction $2,246,072.00 $566,016.00
Consultant fees $ 309,000.00 $ 78,850.00
Testing $ 40,000.00 $ 10,000.00
Inspection fees In-house In-house
Total $2,595,072.00 $654,866.00
5% Contingencies $ 130,000.00 33,000.00
Total $2,725,072.00 $687,866.00
Est. Right-of-Way Costs $ 50,000.00 $ 10,000.00
Total '. $2,775,072.00 $697,866.00
BID OPENING FOR THE GRAPEVINE CREEK'S TRUNK
SEWER MAIN'S BRANCH I AND II
PAGE 3
It appears that the estimated total cost for Branch I and Branch II, with the City pursuing all
options, will be about $3,500,000.00. The appropriated funds for Branch I and Branch II is
$3,990,000.00. The appropriated funds include the initial amount issued in April of 1991 of
$1,750,000.00 for Branch I and $740,000.00 for Branch II and the amount issued in August of
1992 of $1,500,000.00 for Branch I. If the City chooses to not perform any of the options that
have an increased cost associated with them, then the estimated cost of Branch I and Branch II
will be about $3,200,000.00. This figure eliminates Alternate #4, microtunneling down Bethel
Road and the changes on Ms. Alexander's property. A copy of the bid estimate is attached.
Staff will be seeking general discussion and direction from the City Council on how to bring
forth a recommendation at the December 8, 1992 City Council meeting. The City is still in the
process of acquiring all the necessary easements and the contractor has indicated that he will not
be in a position to begin this project until after the first of the year because the subcontractor for
the microtunneling is currently tied up on another project.
Staff will be available to answer any questions at the City Council meeting.
SUMMARY ESTIMATED COSTS
TOTAL BRANCH I TOTAL BRANCH II
Construction $2,246,072.00 $566,016.00
Consultant fees $ 309,000.00 $ 78,850.00
Testing $ 40,000.00 $ 10,000.00
Inspection (in-house) -
Total $2,595,072.00 $ 654,866.00
5% Contingencies $ 130,000.00 $ 33,000.00
Total $2,725,072.00 $687,866.00
Right-of-Way Costs $ 50,000.00 $ 10,000.00
Total $2,775,072.00 $697,866.00
Estimated Total Costs Appropriated Funds
Branch I $2,800,000.00 $3,250,000.00
Branch II $ 700,000.00 $ 740,000.00
$3,500,000.00 $3,990,000.00
ESTIMATED COSTS
Construction Cost
Base Bid $2,035,196.50 $526,016.00
Alternate 1 - -
Alternate 2 -- -
Alternate 3 -'~. ';' - 64,460 00',/~ -
5- ~ .... ~ ~-~+65,952100
Alternate
4
Alternate
5
5 ---': +29,560 00~5/
Pipe for Alt. 5 ; .___~. .
Microtunnel Bethel'~ . ~
,366.00'~f
Ms. Alexander Change '~. - "-- \ ~ 5-.)-. ~0,000.00
/
$2,246,072.50 $566,016.00
Consultant Costs ;,~. ~£ ~"~.
Engineering Design $130,000.00 $38,000.00
Contract Administration 23,000.00 7,000.00
Surveying 57,200.00 17,200.00
Geotechnical 16,000.00 3,500.00
Alternate Creek Design 38,500.00 ()
Easement Right-of-Way Preparation 40,600.00 12,500.00
Miscellaneous 3,700.00 650.00
$309,000.00 $78,850.00
Project Testing
Necessary Lab Tests $40,000 $10,000
October 27, 1992
Ken Griffin, P.E.
City Engineer
City of Coppell
P.O. Box 478
Coppell, Texas 75019
RE: Grapevine Creek Sewer Branch I & II
Dear Mr. Griffin:
Bids were received on September 29, 1992 for the above referenced project.
KENKO, Inc. was the apparent Iow bidder with a bid of $2,561,212.50 for both
Branches I & II. Attachment "A" lists the bidders and their bids. Attachment "B"
shows the complete bid tabulation with unit prices.
Alternative Consideration. We requested the low bidder, KENKO, Inc. to
reevaluate their bid with consideration for Microtunneling East Bethel Road.
Attachment "C" provides their alternative costs. The bottom line is: KENKO, Inc. is
willing to give a lump sum deduction of $65,000.00 from the unit prices bid.
Therefore, the net additional cost to the City would be $210,366.00 for
Microtunnelling East Bethel Road.
Attachment "D" is information obtained from KENKO, Inc. regarding their
experience, financial statement, and bonding. Also included is information regarding
Ken Griffin, P.E.
10/27/92
Page 2
Southland Contracting, the subcontractor for the Microtunnelling portions of the
project.
Based on the bids and information submitted. It is our recommendation that a
contract in the amount of $2,772,088.50 be awarded to KENKO, Inc. for the
construction of the Grapevine Creek Sewer Branches I & II.
We will be happy to have the contract documents executed and issue a "Notice
to Proceed" with construction upon receipt of your written authorization.
Yours truly,
H. Wayne Ginn, P.E.
HWG: sb
Enclosure
cc: Steve Goram
File 454
D:\'~I, qNWORD'~GIN N_IN C'CI.II~N-F$'.CO PPE[.L.G R IFFIN .IX)C
DRAFT
ATTACHMENT "A"
CITY OF COPPELL
GRAPEVINE CREEK SEWER
BRANCHES I & II
BASE BID SUMMARIES
SEPTEMBER 29, 1992
CONTRACTOR BASE BID
1. KENKO, INC. $2,561,212.50
2. BAR CONSTRUCTORS 2,690,084.75
3. OSCAR RENDA * 3,868,356.00
4. SABINE CONTRACTORS * 3,761,921.00
5. BRH GARVER, INC. 3,055,099.00
6. PATE BROTHERS CONST. 3,062,644.45
7. E.P. BRADY, INC. 3,163,600.75
8. CIRCLE C CONSTRUCTION 3,310,875.00
* ERROR IN BID. CORRECTED BID PLACES BIDDER IN 4TH AND 5TH PLACE,
RESPECTIVELY.
DRAFT
A'VFACHMENT "B"
CITY OF COPPELL
GRAPEVINE CREEK SEWER
BRANCHES I & II
COMPLETE BID TABULATION
DRAFT
Iii
~ §§~ .......... ~o~oo~ ...... ~ .............
~, o-oooo o~oo oo9 oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo~!~I
~, oNooooo ooaooooooooooooooouoooooooDoaoooooooooooooooi~
iai [i"l
go gggggggggg§gggggggg~ggg,~ggggggggggg~gggoSg~og
ooqoqooqo~oo~ogo~oeooooooogooooooooooooooooggggggooo
[~i o~oo~o ~ -o~o~ .... ~o oo~ 'o~oo ~ 'o~ '~o ' · ·
o~ooooooo¢0ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!1~
II
:,~, o~o~o~o~o~ooo~o~ .... ~~~oo~~
-li~I .~.
ooooooooooo oooooooooooooo ooooooo qo
- ~i~ ~§gg§gggogo .... oooooooooooooooooooo!% ggo o oo I
~ ~ ogoogoooo oooggooggoogoooggoogggog oooooo oog
!~; ggggg §§ggg gg§gggggg 8ggg ggggggg§g§gg'g ...... gggggo.g g g
~X~i ......................... §gg§ggggggg o o