HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/05/2019 Bid Result for Booster Station 5 East 1MG Water Storage Tank RehabilitationBoardDocs® Pro
Agenda Item Details
Meeting
Category
Subject
Access
Type
Preferred Date
Absolute Date
Fiscal Impact
Dollar Amount
Budgeted
Budget Source
Recommended Action
Public Content
Information
Page I of 3
5.6 Motion to accept proposal for Booster Station 5 East 1 MG Water Storage Tank Rehabilitation
Design and Construction Engineering Services in an amount not to exceed $41,736.
Action (Consent)
Feb 05, 2019
Feb 05, 2019
Yes
Water and Sewer Enterprise Fund
Accept the proposal for Booster Pumping Station 5 East 1MG Water Storage Tank Rehabilitatio
Project Design and Construction Engineering Services as submitted by Burns & McDonnell
Engineering of Downers Grove, Illinois in an amount not to exceed $41,736. 1
As part of routine preventive maintenance efforts, the east 1,000,000 -gallon steel ground -water storage tank (5E) at Booster
Pumping Station 5 (112 E. Highland Avenue) was inspected in 2017. The inspection found that the tank needs rehabilitation.
Specific items recommended include partial interior rafter replacement, blasting and re -coating of the tank interior; spot repair
and topcoat of the tank exterior; as well as replacement of ladders, manholes and railing to comply with current OSHA
regulations.
The engineering work necessary to prosecute this project consists of the preparation of bid documents, bid phase services, and
construction management and inspection. Staff asked four (4) area firms that perform this type of work to submit proposals tit,
assist the Village with design, bid phase services and on-site construction observation.
Reguest for Proposals (RFEII
To design these improvements, staff require 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 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 included review of the 2017 inspection report; preparation of plans and bid
documents; and obtaining all necessary regulatory permits. RFPs were distributed to (4) engineering firms with expertise in the
rehabilitation of water storage reservoirs.
Uff-T-TRM
Three (3) technical proposals and three (3) cost proposals were received. Each proposal was evaluated based on thit
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. The table below summarized this analysis:
https://www.boarddocs.com/il/vomp/Board.nsf/Public 2/6/2019
BoardDocs® Pro
Technical Proposals
Category
Max. Points
Burns & McDonnell
Tank Industry Consultants
Dixon Engineering
Background
20
18
17
18
Experience
20
17
18
19
Scope
25
23
20
18
Schedule
15
11
10
8
Work effort
10
8
8
8
Content
10
9
8
8
Tota Is:
100
86
81
79
Each firm was asked to submit a cost proposal as well. The table below summarizes staff"s analysis of costs.
Cost Proposals
Firm
Hours Total Cost
Cost / Hour
Burns & McDonnell
253 $37,942
$149
Dixon Engineering
397 $46,414
$116
Tank Industries Consultants
815 $90,057
$110
mail
Page 2 of 3
The technical proposals indicated all participating firms were qualified to perform the work. All the firms had adequatc
experience and appropriately trained staff to design and implement a successful reservoir rehabilitation project.
The highest rated firm was Burns & McDonnell Engineering of Downers Grove, Illinois. The Burns & McDonnell proposal provide
numerous examples of successful reservoir and tank rehabilitation projects similar in scale and scope as the proposed wor
Examples cited included a Northwest Suburban Municipal Joint Action Water Agency (NSMJAWA) standpipe rehabilitation pr•je
and an elevated tank rehabilitation project in Rantoul. All references checks indicated Burns & McDonnell performed well.
copy of Burns & McDonnell"s technical proposal is enclosed. I
In addition, Burns & McDonnell has successfully completed several relevant engineering projects for the Village including
rehabilitation of water storage tank 5 North, development of a water rate study, sanitary sewer flow monitoring, storm sewer
smoke testing, and several water main replacement projects. All of their work has been satisfactory.
The lowest cost proposal was submitted by Burns & McDonnell. A copy of their cost proposal is enclosed. It is the opinion of
staff that Burns & McDonnell has allocated sufficient work effort (253 hours) to successfully prosecute this project.
Staff recommends including a 10% contingency in the award for this proposed contract due to the fact that time spent on
construction engineering and inspection can vary due to circumstances beyond the engineering consultant"s control. For
example, contractor delays, material availability and inclement weather are all parameters that can lengthen anticipated
construction time.
It is the staff opinion that Burns & McDonnell understands the proposed project, has prepared a thorough proposal based on
extensive experience, and is well qualified to perform the work.
1. Accept proposal for Booster Pumping Station 5 East 1 MG Water Storage Tank Rehabilitation Design and
Construction Engineering Services.
2. Action at discretion of Village Board.
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends that the Village Board accept the proposal for Booster Pumping Station 5 East 1MG Water Storage Tank
Rehabilitation Project Design and Construction Engineering Services as submitted by Burns & McDonnell Engineering of
Downers Grove, Illinois in an amount not to exceed $41,736.
https://www.boarddocs.com/il/vomp/Board.nsf/Public 2/6/2019
BoardDocs® Pro
B�r
-iabilitati&n of the 1,000,000 Gall&n Stati&n 5E Grou�nd StoraK
ge' I -a -ik.�pdf (2,137 B) McD Rro�posal for [Ze[
L
1- 1:..O[Z PIZOPOSAL.S.�pdf (89 KB) .ocati&n MaIp (3),Ipdf (1,41.8 KB) IZEQUES
B
I -a �r-i
abilitati&n of the 1,000,000 Gall&n Stati&n 5E Grouind Storage' k.Ipdf (1.1. 2 KB) McD Cost Pro�posal for [Ze[-i
I-a �r I -a �r
-i of the IJA Gall&n Steel Grou�nd Storate' -i �k - -ik LndUstry.Ipdf (1.91999 KB)
9-1.3-201.7 U�pdate Evaluati&r
Administrative Content
Executive Content
Page 3 of 3
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
Motion by Richard Rogers, second by Paul Hoefert.
Final Resolution: Motion Carries
Yea: William Grossi, Eleni Hatzis, Paul Hoefert, Richard Rogers, Colleen Saccotelli, Michael Zadel
https://www.boarddocs.com/il/vomp/Board.nsf/Public 2/6/2019