HomeMy WebLinkAbout01/21/2020 2020 Lincoln Relief Station rehabilitation project4/14/2020 BoardDocs® Pro
Agenda Item Details
Meeting Jan 21, 2020 - REGULAR MEETING OF THE MOUNT PROSPECT VILLAGE BOARD - 7:00 p.m.
Category 5. CONSENT AGENDA
Subject 5.4 Motion to accept proposal for 2020 Lincoln Relief Station rehabilitation project design
and construction engineering services in an amount not to exceed $59,510.00.
Access Public
Type Action (Consent)
Preferred Date Jan 21, 2020
Absolute Date Jan 21, 2020
Fiscal Impact Yes
Dollar Amount 59,510.00
Budgeted Yes
Budget Source Water and Sewer Fund
Recommended Action Accept the proposal for 2020 Lincoln Relief Station Rehabilitation project design and
construction engineering as submitted by Baxter & Woodman of Crystal Lake, Illinois in an
amount not to exceed $59,510.
Public Content
Information
In the 2020 Community Investment Plan (CIP), there are funds available to continue the rehabilitation of the Village's
sanitary lift and relief stations. These stations are used to provide relief to the Village -owned combined sanitary sewer
system in the event that the interceptor sewers of the Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago
(MWRDGC) become surcharged during train eveints. The Village owns and maintains eight (8) sanitary relief stations
and two (2) sewage lift stations. This project will be the sixth sanitary lift/relief station rehabilitation, as Huntington,
Louis Street, William Street, and both George Street North and South rehab have been completed. This project is the
rehabilitation of the sanitary sewer Lincoln Street Relief Station.
The scope of work includes the Lincoln Street Relief Station situated near the juncture of Lincoln Street and Weller
Creek. Work will include design engineering to facilitate removal of the existing pump station and replacement with a
packaged, prefabricated pump station. Design work will also include all mechanical piping, electrical modifications,
and control system programming necessary to construct a fully operational pump station.
The Lincoln Street relief pumping station work will also include preparation of documents and specifications necessary
to competitively bid the work. On-site supervision of the successful contractor and production of final as -built record
drawings is also included. Additionally, State and MWRDGC permitting and review are required for relief station
rehabilitation.
Request for Proposals
To design these improvements, staff requires technical assistance from a qualified civil engineering consultant.
Accordingly, staff prepared a detailed request for proposals (RFP) necessary to solicit these services. A copy of this
RFP is enclosed. Consulting engineers were asked to submit a technical proposal detailing the firm's background, key
https://go.boarddocs.com/il/vomp/Board.nsf/Private?open&login 1/3
4/14/2020
BoardDocs® Pro
personnel, and approach to the project. In addition, each firm was also asked to submit a separate cost proposal
indicating work effort anticipated and a not -to -exceed fee. The required scope of work includes inspections of the
existing Lincoln Street Relief Station; preparation of plans and bid documents; meetings; construction oversight, and
obtaining all necessary regulatory permits. RFPs were distributed to four (4) engineering firms with expertise in the
design and construction of rehabilitation to sanitary relief stations.
RFP Results
Three (3) technical proposals and three (3) cost proposals were received. One (1) firm called to decline the
opportunity due to 2020 workload. Each proposal was evaluated based on the background of the firm, related project
experience, proposed services and scope of work, schedule work effort and proposal content. Each firm received a
point ranking (total points = 100) for each criterion. Table 1 below summarized this analysis:
Table 1 - Technical Evaluation
Category
................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Maximum Points
Baxter & Woodman
Ciorba Group
Burns & McDonnell
Background
20
$138
18
18
$164
18
................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Experience
20
$136
18
19
18
................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Scope
25
23
22
22
................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Schedule
15
14
11
9
................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Work Effort
10
9
9
9
ContenTotals:
..................................................................................
Tota
100
.1..................................................................................................................................................................................................................
88
85
Each firm was also asked to submit a cost proposal as well. The table below summarizes staff's analysis of costs.
Table 2 - Cost Proposal
Firm
Hours
Total Cost
Cost/Hour
.................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Baxter & Woodman
......................................................................................................3.3.5......................................
391
$54,100.00
$138
C.Lo.r b.a....G.ro.U
$5.5....1.9.1..3.$..............................................
$164
Burns & McDonnell
456
$62,150.00
$136
Discussion
Review of the technical proposals indicated all participating firms were qualified to perform the specified work. All
firms had adequate experience and appropriately trained staff to design and implement a successful sanitary relief
station project. Accordingly, the evaluation results were closely distributed.
The highest rated firm was Baxter & Woodman of Crystal Lake, Illinois. Baxter & Woodman's proposal provided
numerous examples of successful lift and relief station rehabilitation projects similar in scale and scope as the
proposed work. Examples cited included projects for the Village of Frankfort, Downers Grove Sanitary District, and the
Village of Barrington. All reference checks indicated that Baxter & Woodman performed well. A copy of Baxter &
Woodman's technical proposal is enclosed.
In addition, Baxter & Woodman has successfully completed several germane engineering projects for the Village over
the course of the last five years including design and construction of the 2018 Water Main Replacement Project
located on Prospect Ave, Maple St, Lincoln St and School St. In addition, the firm provided construction management
for combined and sanitary sewer main lining (CIPP) and the Village's sewer sport repair work in 2016. All of their work
has been satisfactory.
The lowest cost proposal was submitted by Baxter & Woodman. A copy of Baxter & Woodman's submitted cost
proposal is enclosed. It is the opinion of staff that Baxter & Woodman has allocated sufficient work effort (391 hours)
to successfully execute this project.
Staff recommends including a 10% contingency ($5,410) in the award for this proposed contract, as time spent on
construction engineering and inspection can vary due to circumstances beyond the engineering consultant's control.
Thus, bringing the total not -to -exceed amount to $59,510. Contractor delays, material availability and inclement
weather are all parameters that can lengthen anticipated construction time, thus requiring the need for a contingency.
Alternatives
1. Accept proposal for Lincoln Street Relief Station Rehabilitation Project.
2. Action at discretion of Village Board.
https://go.boarddocs.com/il/vomp/Board.nsf/Private?open&login 2/3
4/14/2020
Staff Recommendation
BoardDocs® Pro
Staff recommends that the Village Board accept the proposal for 2020 Lincoln Street Relief Station Rehabilitation
project design and construction engineering as submitted by Baxter & Woodman of Crystal Lake, Illinois in an amount
not to exceed $59,510.
B&W Technical Proposal for Lincoln Street Relief Station Rehabilitation.pdf (5,585 KB)
'-� - ♦ ' •�r- s • •-' - �w
Exhibit C Location Map.pdf (77 KB) Exhibit D Photos of Existing Station.pdf (506 KB)
Administrative Content
Executive Content
All items under Consent Agenda are considered routine by the Village Board and will be enacted by one motion. There
will be no separate discussion of those items unless a Board member or member from the audience so requests, in
which the item will be removed from the Consent Agenda and considered in its sequence on the agenda.
Motion & Voting
(not specified)
Motion by Paul Hoefert, second by Richard Rogers.
Final Resolution: Motion Carries
Yea: Eleni Hatzis, Paul Hoefert, Richard Rogers, Colleen Saccotelli, Michael Zadel
https://go.boarddocs.com/il/vomp/Board.nsf/Private?open&login 3/3