Laserfiche WebLink
Page 2 of 3 <br />Bid Results — Streetscape Corridor Landscape Maintenance - $110,675 <br />February 12, 2014 <br />DISCUSSION <br />As explained earlier, this contract is for skilled work at high - profile locations. Over the years the <br />Village has made a significant financial investment in landscaping to improve the appearance of the <br />downtown and other highly visible locations. Frequent, knowledgeable maintenance is imperative to <br />maintain the health and appearance of these landscapes so they continue to reflect favorably on our <br />community's image. <br />We began the landscape maintenance contract some years ago, when the demands of maintaining our <br />many new landscape installations began to outpace the ability of staff to care for them properly. The <br />contract has grown in size and scope over time, as additional high- maintenance landscapes have been <br />installed. One of the challenges of contracting out this work is finding a company large enough and <br />skilled enough to commit an adequate number of well- trained staff to our contract for a long period of <br />time. <br />Unfortunately over the years, we have had three occasions where we awarded this contract to a new, <br />lowest cost bidder who apparently underestimated the amount of work required to comply with our <br />specifications. In all three cases the quality of work suffered substantially, and extensive staff time was <br />required while we tried to obtain compliance with our specifications. On one of those occasions, we <br />were able to take the contract away from the low bidder after a month or so, and the second lowest <br />bidder was able to fulfill the remainder of the contract. In that instance, we were fortunate because very <br />few well - qualified landscape contractors have the capability of taking on a job this large once the <br />growing season is underway. On the other two occasions, we honored the contracts but expended an <br />inordinate amount of staff time gaining compliance. In both instances, we did not work with that <br />contractor the following year. <br />For the January 27, 2014 bid opening, the apparent low bidder, Gambino Landscaping and Brick Paving, <br />Inc, did not meet the terms specified in the bid documents, and thus we cannot recommend them. We <br />required a 10% bid bond or certified check, as well as four satisfied municipal references for a contract <br />of like size and nature. Gambino did not provide a bid bond or certified check, and none of their <br />references were for municipal work of similar size and nature. Therefore I recommend that their bid be <br />considered non - responsive. <br />For similar reasons I am also recommending that the bid from the second low bidder, KGI Landscaping, <br />be considered non - responsive. First, in my opinion the reference list KGI submitted does not reflect <br />adequate experience for me to recommend them for a contract the size and nature of our current <br />landscape maintenance contract. KGI's reference list included four organizations, one of which was the <br />Village of Mount Prospect. <br />Though KGI has planted parkway trees for us for a number of years, they have never done landscape <br />maintenance for us, and I do not feel that completion of our tree planting projects is comparable work. <br />In order to assure the proper depth and width of tree planting pits and to make on -site decisions about <br />tree locations, we always send a staff certified arborist along with the contractor's tree planting crew. <br />Thus, the level of knowledge about plants and even the ability to communicate with the public is less <br />C:\ USERS \SDORSEY\APPDATA\ LOCAL\ MICROSOFT \WINDOWS \TEMPORARY INTERNET FILES\CONTENT.OUTLOOK\NEJSK3XB\MEMO- <br />LMC BID RECOMMEND2 2014.DOC <br />