HomeMy WebLinkAbout7. Village Manager's Report 07/17/2012Mount Prospect Public Works Department
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
l
TO: VILLAGE MANAGER MICHAEL E. JANONIS
FROM: WATER/SEWER SUPERINTENDENT
DATE: JULY 12, 2012
SUBJ: BID RESULTS FOR 2012 SEWER LINE SPOT RELAYS ($289,844)
BACKGROUND
On Monday, May 7, 2012, sealed bids for the 2012 Sewer Line Spot Relay Project were opened
and read aloud. This bid package was assembled to procure the services of a sewer
excavation contractor capable of replacing structurally failed pipe and installing or repairing
manholes. In many instances, once this work is completed, the remaining sections of affected
pipe are further rehabilitated utilizing the cured -in- place -pipe (CIPP) process.
Staff identified Martam Construction of Elgin, Illinois (Martam) as the apparent lowest cost
bidder ($284,500) and presented a recommendation to award a contract accordingly at the May
15, 2012 Village Board meeting. However, Martam had failed to attend a mandatory pre -bid
meeting thereby raising concerns about the responsiveness of their bid. The Village Board
declined a motion to accept staff's award recommendation.
At the June 5, 2012 regular meeting, the Village Board rejected all bids as non - responsive due
to the fact that all of the remaining bids exceeded the engineer's cost estimate. The Village
Board also authorized staff to rebid the work.
Staff had advised the Village Board that these bids appeared to be high due to uncertainty
about responsibility for disposal of contaminated materials. Staff recommended re- bidding the
work with clearer instructions directing bidders to assume all excavated soils could be disposed
of as clean construction debris.
The bid documents were modified accordingly and the work was re -bid.
BID RESULTS
Eight (8) bids were distributed to area contractors experienced in sewer construction. In
addition, public notice was posted in a local newspaper as required. Three (3) additional
contractors picked up plans and specifications for the project. A mandatory pre -bid conference
was held on June 25, 2012 to allow for questions on the plans and project. Seven (7)
contractors were in attendance at the pre -bid meeting. Sealed bids were received until 1:30
P.M. on Monday, July 9, 2012, at which time they were opened and read aloud. Six (6) bids
were received. The bid results are as follows:
Page 2 of 2
Bid Results for 2012 Sewer Line Spot Relays ($289,844)
July 12, 2012
Bidder !
Bid
Lifco Contractors, Carol Stream, IL
$263,494
Martam Construction, Elgin, IL
$275,500
John Ned Construction, Addison, IL
$353,600
R.A. Mancini, Prairie Grove, IL
$381,220
Bolder Construction, Deerfield, IL
$386,000
Patnick Construction, Franklin Park, IL
$447,000
DISCUSSION
Staff has evaluated all bids and all bidders submitted the required bid bonds and appropriate
references. The apparent low bidder for the proposed spot relay work is Lifco Contractors of
Carol Stream, Illinois. The engineer's estimate of the cost for this project is $277,000 —
$295,000.
Lifco Contractors has worked on one (1) Village sewer project in the past — the We Go Park
Spot Repair in 2009. Their work on the project was timely, of high quality, and on budget. They
have submitted the required bid bond and attended the mandatory pre -bid meeting.
Lifco has also performed similar work in other communities including Glen Ellyn, Downers
Grove, Barrington Hills, Hoffman Estates, and Wheeling. Reference checks revealed no
adverse comments. All work was reported to be completed on budget and in a timely,
responsive manner.
Staff recommends the inclusion of a 10% contingency in the award for this proposed contract
due to the fact that the bid quantities are estimates and actual field measurements will vary.
Also, during each year of the project, there have been additional sewer line spot relays
discovered during the CIPP process. The average cost per additional dig can be up to $10,000
and having a contingency would allow some of these repairs to be made so that the lining
program can continue. In this instance, staff is recommending a 10% contingency to the
contract award in the amount of $26,350. The total recommended award would be $289,844
(the $263,494 base award plus a 10% contingency of $26,350).
RECOMMENDATION
I recommend that the Village Board accept the lowest cost, responsible and responsive bid for
the 2012 Sewer Line Spot Relays from Lifco Contractors of Carol Stream, Illinois and award a
construction contract in an amount not to exceed $289,844. Sufficient funds for this proposed
contract exist in the current budget.
I concur. Matt Overeem
S n-P. Dorsey
Director of Public Works
Mount Prospect Public Works Department
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
�M?/
TO: VILLAGE MANAGER MICHAEL E. JANONIS
FROM: WATER/ SEWER SUPERINTENDENT
DATE: JULY 3, 2012
SUBJECT: BID RESULTS FOR DEEP WELL 5 EVALUATION AND REPAIR ($163,165)
BACKGROUND
When the Village began receiving Lake Michigan water from the City of Chicago through the North
Suburban Municipal Joint Action Water Agency ( NSMJAWA); the Village capped and abandoned all
ground water wells except for five (5). The Village maintains these five (5) potable water wells in a
stand -by status to provide an emergency source of water in the event water from the City of Chicago or
NSMJAWA is disrupted. To guarantee that the five (5) deep wells will operate when called upon,
inspections and maintenance are performed at routine intervals in accordance with industry standards.
Deep Well 5 is a deep setting (approximately 1,100 feet deep) line shaft pump located at the Highland
Avenue Booster station (intersection of Highland Av. and Maple St.) The well is operated on a monthly
basis, but Deep Well 5 was last removed for inspection and maintenance in 1998.
The work at Deep Well 5 entails the removal of a 500 hp three -phase electric motor and the pulling of the
line shaft piping from approximately 1,100 feet below grade where the pump bowl assembly sits in the
aquifer. All airlines, shaft couplings, shaft piping and other appurtenances will be checked, replaced or
rehabilitated as needed. The entire depth of the deep well will then be televised to determine if there are
any defects that need to be addressed. Defects in wells are typically loose or broken pipe joints, cracks or
holes in piping that may allow contaminants into the well or aquifer.
Manhard Consulting Ltd of Vernon Hills, Illinois, a professional engineering consulting firm, has been
engaged to develop related bid specifications and provide oversight of this rehabilitation project.
BID RESULTS
Bid documents were sent out in May 2012 to three (3) area well contractors who perform similar deep
well work. Past deep well experience and a listing of similar deep well projects performed within the last
two years was required to be submitted to qualify the firm as a responsible bidder. All firms that
submitted bids were each highly qualified to perform such work. The bid was advertised and publicly
opened on June 18, 2012.
The following three (3) bidders responded:
Contractor Total Bid
Municipal Well & Pump, Waupun WI $135,970
Layne Christiansen, Aurora, IL $152,747
Water Well Solutions, Elburn IL $169,143
Page 2 of 2
Bid Results for Deep Well 5 Evaluation and Repair ($163,165)
July 3, 2012
All bids meet the bid requirements, have the proper signatures, have sufficient deep well experience and
provided all necessary bid certifications or deposits. All contractors who submitted bids have met all of
the bid requirements and qualifications for similar deep well work.
DISCUSSION
The lowest cost proposal was from Municipal Well and Pump of Waupun, Wisconsin in the amount of
$135,970. Municipal Well and Pump performed the inspection and repair work on Deep Well 5 when the
well was last inspected in 1998. The work performed for the Village was satisfactory and on budget.
Public Works staff called to verify references and the firm was considered responsive and capable by all.
Our consultant, Manhard Consulting, has worked with or monitored the efforts of the firm, Municipal
Well and Pump for over three decades and finds no issue with the firm.
As it is nearly impossible to determine specific repairs or parts that may be needed without first pulling
the deep well from its shaft; the industry practice is to ask for pricing for a list of possible repairs and then
to add a contingency to the bid award for any such repairs that may be found. Staff is recommending that
a contingency of 20% ($27,195) be added to the bid for any such additional repairs. Any repair work
would be payable in accordance with the schedule of pricing submitted with their bid. Any amount
remaining of the contingency will be returned to the budget.
The original engineer's estimate for the inspection and subsequent repair work is $225,000. Sufficient
funds exist in the current budget for this proposed expenditure.
RECOMMENDATION
I recommend that the Village Board accept the lowest cost, responsible and responsive bid for the Well 5
Evaluation and Repair Project from Municipal Well and Pump of Waupun, Wisconsin in the of amount
$163,165 ($135,970 bid plus $27,195 contingency).
Matt Overeem
MEO/ neo
C: \Users\sdorsey \Documents \Water \Well 5 \Rehab 2012 \Board report 2012.doc
Sean P. Dorsey
Director of Public Works
Mount • • ' Public Works ' •
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
TO: VILLAGE MANAGER MICHAEL E. JANONIS
FROM: ENGINEERING ASSISTANT
DATE: JULY 10, 2012
SUBJECT: 2012 RETENTION BASIN DREDGING PROJECT
KENSINGTON BUSINESS PARK — BASIN #4
CONTRACT AWARD - $120,257
Background
The Village of Mount Prospect is responsible for maintaining the 11 retention basins in the Kensington
Business Center. Per the agreement made with the business park in the 1980s, Village maintenance
includes sediment dredging, slope erosion protection, and outlet structure upkeep. Staff has identified
Basin #4 on Business Center Drive (map attached) to be this year's dredging project.
The project will involve pumping water out of the basin into the adjacent Feehanville Ditch, loading
accumulated sediment, and hauling it to an offsite landfill. The bottom and sides of the basin will then be
reshaped to conform to the original design. At project's end the shoreline will be stabilized with stone,
silt basins will be constructed near inflow structures, and the site will be restored with sod. Subsequent
rainfall will naturally refill the retention basin.
Bids Results
A Notice to Bidders was published in the local newspaper and several local contractors were sent
invitations to bid on the project. At 1:30 p.m. on July 9, 2012, sealed bids were publicly opened and read
aloud.
Three (3) contractors submitted bids for this project. The bids ranged from a low of $109,325 by
Copenhaver Construction, Inc. to a high of $149,835 by Earth Werks Corp. The Engineer's Estimate is
$140,110
All bidders submitted a bid deposit in the amount of 5% of their total bids as required by the contract
documents. All bids were checked for their accuracy. No errors were found. All bidders correctly signed
their bids and bid bonds. Below is a summary of the bids.
Bidders Total Bid
Copenhaver Construction, Inc. (Gilberts, IL) $109,325
Martam Construction, Inc. (Elgin, IL) $115,925
Earth Werks Corp. (Batavia, IL) $149,835
Engineer's Estimate $140,110
Page 2 of 3
2012 Retention Basin Dredging Project
July 10, 2012
Discussion
The low bidder, Copenhaver Construction, Inc., completed similar projects for the Village including
Retention Basin #7 in 2008 and Retention Basin #5a in 2011. Along with those successful projects, the
Village of Highland Park, Wheeling Township, Glenview and South Barrington Park Districts all
indicated Copenhaver has done quality work in their communities in recent years. Copenhaver meets the
requirements of the contract documents and their references show their workmanship to be good.
Since the contractor's bid is based on estimated quantities, I recommend a 10% contingency of $10,932
be added to the proposed contract to account for variable sediment thickness and possible increases in the
amount of sediment removed. The revised total contract award would be $120,257.
Recommendation
I recommend that the low bidder, Copenhaver Construction, Inc. of Gilbert's, IL, be awarded the
construction contract for the 2012 Retention Basin Dredging Project in the amount not to exceed
$120,257. There are sufficient funds in the 2012 Budget to cover this proposed contract.
Please include this item on the July 17` Village Board Meeting Agenda.
Dan Randolph, P.E.
I concur with the above
Director of ubliWorks Sean P. Dorsey
Attachments: Project Location Map
c: Village Clerk Lisa Angell
H : \Engineering\Ponds\kbc_basin_4 \Construction \construction rec memo.doc
�
� .
\
. 0
0 En
w Ln
«
� z
z In
� D
I
+ �
� Z
. �
0 �
1
,,.. �
� \
�§
l
�
tIMount
1
I ?A
Mount Prospect Public Works Department
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
TO: VILLAGE MANAGER MICHAEL E. JANONIS
FROM: DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS
DATE: JULY 12, 2012
SUBJECT: CHANGE ORDER FOR TREE AND STUMP REMOVALS
Background
On January 17, 2012, the Village Board awarded a parkway tree removal contract to Homer Tree Care,
Inc. of Lockport, Illinois in a not -to- exceed amount of $155,000. For your reference, attached is staff's
award recommendation memorandum pertaining to this action.
On February 1, 2011, the Village Board awarded a two (2) —year parkway stump removal contract to
Powell Tree Care, Inc. of Elk Grove Village, Illinois. The 2012 award for this contract was in the not -to-
exceed amount of $85,000. Staff's recommendation memorandum pertaining to this action is also
attached for your reference.
Unfortunately, due to the large volume of removals we are encountering this year, there are insufficient
funds remaining in both of these contract awards. An increase in these contract awards is needed to
facilitate additional removals projected through the end of this fiscal year. The projections below include
trees that have already been identified for removal (but not yet removed) as well as an estimated activity
level for the remainder of the year.
Tree Removals
Reason for Removal
Projected
Additional Trees - July 11,
2012 throu h Dec 31, 2012
Trees
Cost
Non EAB /Non DED
Non EAB /Non DED
179
$
65,335.00
DEDNellows
24
$
20,064.00
EAB
86
$
20,812.00
Totals
289
$
106,211.00
Stump Removals
Reason for Removal
Projected
Additional Stumps - July 11,
2012 throu h Dec 31, 2012
Stumps
Cost
Non EAB /Non DED
264
$33,180.00
DEDNellows
46
$10,619.00
EAB
142
$17,167.00
Totals
452
$60,966.00
Page 2 of 2
Change Order for Tree and Stump Removals
July 12, 2012
Discussion
Staff proposes to increase the award for the 2012 parkway tree removal contract by $106,211.
The existing 2012 award for this contract ($155,000) has been expended.
Staff also proposes to increase the award for the 2012 stump removal contract by $46,485.
Please note that there is presently $14,481 remaining in the existing contract award.
However, the estimated volume of stump removals for the remainder of the year will quickly
exceed this balance. Staff recommends increasing the award by the difference between the
anticipated activity level and the year -to -date award balance ($69,966- $14,481 = $46,485).
A total of $152,696 ($106,211 +$46,485= $152,696) is needed to facilitate both recommended
contract award increases.
Staff has identified approximately $125,000 in unexpended general fund accounts that can be
made available to facilitate these proposed increases. These unexpended funds come from a
variety of sources and include some inordinate savings due to environmental conditions. For
example, additional funds are available due to a reduced volume of tree trimming. Tree
trimming activity has been reduced by the increase in removals. Similarly, additional funds are
available due to a significant reduction in the frequency of turf mowing due to this summer's
excessive heat and drought.
Finance Director David Erb has advised that the remaining funds needed, $17,696 ($152,696-
$125,000= $27,696), can be drawn from any excess revenue received during the balance of
the fiscal year or from existing general fund balance.
RECOMMENDATION
I recommend increasing the 2012 contract amount for parkway tree removals, awarded to
Homer Tree Care, Inc. of Lockport, Illinois, in the amount of $106,211.
I also recommend increasing the 2012 contract amount for stump removals, awarded to
Powell Tree Care, Inc. of Elk Grove Village, Illinois, in the amount of $46,485.
Sean P. Dorsey
mount Prospect IF
Mount Prospect Public Works Department
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM ME°ff"M
TO:
VILLAGE MANAGER MICHAEL E. JANONIS
FROM:
FORESTRY /GROUNDS SUPERINTENDENT
Trees R Us
SCAM
DATE:
JANUARY 11, 2012 9
SUBJECT:
BID RESULTS - TREE REMOVALS ($155,000)
BACKGROUND
Sealed bids for parkway tree removals in 2012 were opened on January 3, 2012. This contract requires
removal of dead, dying, diseased, EAB infested or structurally unsound parkway trees to ground level. As in
the past, we also sought prices for emergency tree work in the event of a major storm. Finally, we included a
provision which will allow us to extend the contract for a second and third year at the same bid prices, if both
the contractor and Village agree.
BID RESULTS
Fourteen invitational bids were mailed and a notice was published in a local newspaper. Eight bids and three
"No -Bid" letters were received. Bidders were asked to submit a price per inch for removal of trees in each of
five different size classes. In order to draw comparisons between various bids, we asked bidders to use our
estimated quantities to calculate an extended cost. Bid results for removal of an estimated 6,765 diameter
inches plus an estimated 30 hours of emergency work, were as follows:
Total Bid Price includins Removals and Emeraencv Work
Dawson's Tree Service
$137,087.50 (bid non - responsive - see discussion below)
Homer Tree Care, Inc.
$140,227.57
Trees R Us
$151,481.00
Powell Tree Care, Inc.
$175,825.60
Landscape Concepts Mgmt.
$200,924.25
B. Haney and Sons, Inc.
$231
R.W. Hendricksen, Co.
$237,480.00 (bid non - responsive - see discussion below)
Winkler's Tree and Land., Inc
$258,881.15
Kramer Tree Specialists, Inc.
No bid letter
Steve Piper and Sons, Inc.
No bid letter
Nels J. Johnson and Sons, Inc.
No bid letter
DISCUSSION
I recommend rejection of the apparent low bid by Dawson's Tree Service. The specifications required all
bidders to submit a bid bond or cashier's check in the amount of 10% of their bid. Dawson's submitted a
corporate check instead, and the amount of the check was approximately $1,900.00 less than 10% of their
bid. Dawson's also submitted only three of the four required municipal references. A check of the three
references that were submitted showed that none were for contracts anywhere near the size of ours (they
ranged in size from $10,500.00 to $50,000.00.) Finally, Dawson's equipment list shows far less available
equipment than the next lowest bidder, Homer Tree Care, Inc. Dawson's listed only 2 aerial trucks, 2
Page 2 of 2
Bid Results — Tree Removals ($155,000)
January 11, 2012
chippers and one grapple truck. In my opinion, Dawson's would not have enough equipment to effectively
respond in the event that a severe storm struck during the height of the EAB / DED removal season, as
happened during 2011.
I also recommend rejection of the bid received by R.W. Hendricksen Co. as being non - responsive. They
submitted over a page of deviations from the bid specifications. R.W. Hendricksen requested deviations
were so extensive that effectively the bid they submitted was for an entirely different contract than the one
the other contractors were bidding on.
The resultant lowest qualified bidder, Homer Tree Care, Inc., has performed admirably for us in the past on
our Parkway Removal Contract (2010 and 2011). They also played a key role in our rapid response to the
June 21, 2011 and July 11, 2011 windstorms this past summer. Although they began 2011 with an
$86,400.00 tree removal contract, during the course of the year Homer willingly accepted multiple contract
additions when additional funds were appropriated for storm and EAB removals. All told, Homer
successfully completed roughly $203,000.00 worth of contractual tree removals in 2011, in addition to their
emergency storm damage work. We found them to be extremely efficient, responsive, and safety conscious,
and we received no complaints about their work. Additionally, they saved our taxpayers dollars by
voluntarily providing us with a free log disposal site for logs generated by our crews.
Even if we escape any serious storms in 2012, we expect that we will likely need to remove about 900 -1100
parkway trees this year. This is based on our usual average of about 400 -500 tree removals per year, as well
as an estimated 500 -600 EAB - infested ash trees. (EAB removals are predicted based on results reported by
local municipalities that have been battling EAB for four or five years.)
Unfortunately, funds budgeted for contractual tree removals in 2012 will only allow Homer to remove
approximately 350 -400 trees, depending on tree diameters. Our in -house crew typically can only remove
about 100 trees per year due to other work needs. Since removal of dead /dying trees cannot be ignored for
public safety reasons, it is highly likely that additional tree removal funds will be needed this year.
BID RECOMMENDATION
I recommend award of a possible three -year contract to the lowest qualified bidder, Homer Tree Care, Inc., in
an amount not to exceed $155,000.00. There are sufficient funds for this proposed contract in the current
budget. If year one is successful, and a contract extension is agreed to by the Village and the contractor,
years two and three will be in whatever amount is appropriated in the subsequent budgets.
Sandy Clark
I concur:
Sean P. Dorsey
Director of Public Works
- mourit Prospea
" I V i? Mount Prospect Public Works Department
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM Musa
TO: VILLAGE MANAGER MICHAEL E. JANONIS
BACKGROUND
Sealed bids for parkway tree stump removals were opened on January 17, 2011. This contract requires grinding
tree stumps to a 10" - 12" depth, removing the grindings, and restoring the area with topsoil and grass seed. We
also included a provision which will allow us to extend the contract for a second year at the same bid prices, if
both the contractor and Village agree.
BID RESULTS
Fifteen invitational bids were mailed and a notice was published in a local newspaper. Five bids were received.
Bid results are as follows:
Company
Powell Tree Care, Inc.
Winkler's Tree & Landscaping, Inc.
Steve Piper & Sons, Inc.
R.W. Hendricksen Co.
Kramer Tree Specialists
Price Per Diameter Inch
0 -24"
$6.97
$7.41
$8.75
$11.84
$15.00
Price Per Diameter Inch
25
$7.07
$7.41
$9.00
$11.84
$19.00
DISCUSSION
At this time we do not know how many stumps will need removal, however we typically have to remove
approximately 400 -500 stumps per year. In the bid specifications we estimated that 7000 diameter inches of
stumps would need removal, with 3000 inches in the 0 -24" size class range and 4000 inches in the 25" and larger
size class. The specifications were written to allow us to assign stumps throughout the year, up to the amount
budgeted.
The low bidder, Powell Tree Care, Inc., has worked satisfactorily for us in the past on our Parkway Removal
Contracts (2007, 2008 and 2009) and our Ash Tree and Stump Removal Contract in 2008. They also performed
commendably in our response to the August 23, 2007 windstorm.
BID RECOMMENDATION
There is $55,000.00 allocated for contractual stump removal in the 2011 budget (Page 254, Account
#001.80.82.83.0.000.576.007). 1 recommend award of a two-year contract to the lowest qualified bidder, Powell
Tree Care, Inc. Year one will be in an amount not to exceed $55,000.00. If year one is successful, and a contract
extension is agreed to by the Village and the contractor, year two will be in whatever amount is appropriated in
the 2012 budget.
�
I concur:
Glen R. Andler
Director of Public Works
H :\Forestry \WORD\2011\STUMP\MEMO - STUMP RECOMMEND 2011.doc
Mount
1 ll
Mount Prospect Public Works Department
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
TO: VILLAGE MANAGER MICHAEL E. JANONIS
FROM: PROJECT ENGINEER
DATE: JULY 10, 2012
SUBJECT: 2012 CDBG SIDEWALK PROGRAM CONTRACT AWARD - $45,304
Background
The Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Sidewalk Program includes the installation of new
sidewalk at locations in the Village where sidewalk is missing. Staff has identified the north side of
Kensington Road, from Brentwood Lane to Hemlock Lane, to be this year's project location.
Bid Results
A Notice to Bidders was published in a local newspaper as required and invitations were sent to
contractors familiar with this program. At 1:30 P.M. on July 9, 2012 sealed bids were publicly opened
and read aloud.
Ten( 10) contractors submitted bids for this project. The bids ranged from a low of $41,186 by
Copenhaver Construction, Inc., to a high of $75,260 by Mondi Construction, Inc. The Engineer's
estimate for the project is $49,005.
Each of the bidders submitted a bid bond in the amount of 5% of the total bid as required in the bid
proposal packet. All bids were checked for accuracy. No errors were found. All bidders correctly signed
their bids and bid bonds. Below is a summary of the bids:
Bidders
Total Bid
Copenhaver Construction, Inc.
$ 41,186.00
ALamp Concrete Contractors, Inc.
$ 44,700.00
Globe Construction, Inc.
$ 48,524.50
C -A Cement Construction Co., Inc.
$ 48,680.00
D'Land Construction, LLC
$ 50,092.50
Alliance Contractors, Inc.
$ 52,502.80
Schroeder and Schroeder, Inc.
$ 54,495.00
G & M Cement Construction, Inc.
$ 59,020.00
Triggi Construction, Inc.
$ 62,920.00
Mondi Construction, Inc
$ 75,260.00
Engineer's Estimate $ 49,005.00
Page 2 of 2
2012 CDBG Sidewalk Program
July 10, 2012
Discussion
The low bidder, Copenhaver Construction, Inc., is prequalified by the Illinois Department of
Transportation for concrete construction projects. They meet the requirements of the contract documents
and completed the 2010 Shared Cost Sidewalk Program with the Village and their workmanship was
good.
Since the Contractor's bid is based on estimated quantities, I recommend a 10% contingency of $4,118 be
added to the proposed contract. This amount would be used to cover the cost of unanticipated
construction issues and final measured installed quantities. The revised total contract award would be
$45,304.
Recommendation
I recommend the low bidder, Copenhaver Construction, Inc. of Gilberts, IL, be awarded the contract for
the 2012 CDBG Sidewalk Program in the amount not to exceed $45,304. There are sufficient funds in
the 2012 Budget to cover this proposed contract.
Please include this item on the July 17` Village Board Meeting Agenda.
Donna M. Brown, P.E.
cc: Village Clerk Lisa Angell
H: \Engineering \Sidewalk\2012 \CDBG \recommend memo.doe
Village of Mount Prospect
Mount Prospect, Illinois
RfMROFFICE MEMORANDUM
TO: ASSISTANT VILLAGE MANAGER DAVE STRAHL T
FROM: IT DIRECTOR
DATE: JULY 3, 2012
SUBJECT: REQUEST TO PURCHASE BACKUP APPLIANCES -,.
Because Village data is growing at a rate of more than 10% per year, it can be challenging to �-
manage. Storage space for the data and backups must be scalable to keep up with storage
needs. The Village's current backup storage is no longer adequate and needs to be upgraded.
Staff is requesting approval to purchase two ExaGrid backup appliances to fulfill this need.
Back -round
The Village proactively manages data growth by having "records days" periodically. On these
days Village offices are closed for business to allow employees to clean up and properly
dispose of both paper and electronic documents. Records days have been wildly successful,
and have helped minimize data growth.
In 2006 and 2007 the Village purchased EqualLogic storage arrays for disk backups. One array
is located at Village Hall and the other is at the EOC. Each array provides approximately 1 TB
of storage for backups and 1 TB for replication between storage units. Because a full backup of
all the systems maintained by Information Technology requires about 2 TB, a combination of
disk and tape is needed. Tapes are taken to the EOC for offsite storage.
Currently available technologies include data deduplication functionality. Deduplication reduces
the disk space required by eliminating redundant data, replacing the duplicate data with a
pointer to the original saved copy of that data. Backup time is reduced as well since only the
changes from backup to backup are stored, instead of storing full new copies.
Selection Criteria
After reviewing recommendations on storage and research websites, talking to multiple storage
vendors and to an existing ExaGrid customer, staff chose the ExaGrid backup appliance. Key
considerations are listed below.
• Price point: ExaGrid is the lowest cost backup appliance available with deduplication.
• Compatibility: ExaGrid is compatible with Symantec Backup Exec, the Village's backup
software, so there is no need to replace backup software.
• Scalable: Additional appliances can be added when more storage is needed.
• Replication: ExaGrid appliances replicate with each other eliminating the need to take
tapes offsite. One appliance will be located at Village Hall and the other will reside at the
EOC.
Request to Purchase Backup Appliances
July 3; 2012
Page 2
• Reputation: Info -Tech Research - Group named ExaGrid °Disk Backup Champion".
Gartner referred to ExaGrid as a "top emerging vendor".
A site survey indicated that ExaGrid's EX3000 model is best suited to Village needs. Each
appliance provides 6TB of usable space for backups and replication, which will allow up to 12
weeks of retention for the backups.
Cost
Three quotes are provided below. COW worked with ExaGrid to provide special pricing for the
Village, available only through the end of July. The special pricing is far below what other
vendors offered.
Funds are available through the .replacement schedule since the original EqualLogic storage
arrays are due for replacement. The original EqualLogic storage arrays will be repurposed as
additional network storage.
I recommend that the Village approve the purchase of two ExaGrid appliances from CDW for an
amount not to exceed $41,400. Let me know if you have any questions or concerns.
?
Middleton
IT Director
1AV13 Request Memos\2012 Backup Appliance.docx
1 li
Mount Prospect Public Works Department
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
Director of Public Works
(P.
TREE CrrY USA
TO: VILLAGE MANAGER MICHAEL E. JANONIS
FROM: FORESTRY /GROUNDS SUPERINTENDENT
DATE: JULY 10, 2012
SUBJECT: BID RESULTS — CDBG PARKWAY TREE FURNISHING AND PLANTING CONTRACT
($25,000)
BACKGROUND
Bids were recently opened for the provision and installation of parkway trees using Community Development Block
Grant (CDBG) funds. Bid prices were sought for 1 -1/2" diameter trees, to be planted in neighborhoods that qualify
for these funds. Trees planted on this project will replace ash trees removed due to EAB and a few storm damage
removals.
We also asked bidders to quote prices for "enhanced planting sites " -- larger pits with amended backfill- -which we
may order on a small number of trees being planted in very poor soil. Bid prices are good for Fall 2012 planting only.
Note that, because of the funding source, this bid requires the contractor to pay federal prevailing wages as specified
in the Davis -Bacon Act.
BID RESULTS
A mandatory pre -bid conference for this contract was held for interested contractors on June 19, 2012. Sixteen
invitational bids were mailed and a notice to bidders was published in a local newspaper. Sealed bids were opened on
July 9, 2012. Three bids were received; all the bidders had attended the mandatory pre -bid conference. Bid results
are attached. It should be noted that no one bidder submitted the low price on all species requested.
DISCUSSION
At this time, we do not know the exact quantity and species we will need to order for the project. However, the
average bid cost per tree is $156.52, and therefore, we expect approximately 160 trees will be planted on this
program. All three bidders met our bid requirements and have successfully planted trees for us in the past.
BID RECOMMENDATION
There is a total of $25,000.00 in the 2012 budget for this project. Therefore, I recommend splitting the contract
award among Huffman Landscape, Arthur Weiler, Inc., and KGI Landscaping Company. Total expenditures for all
purchases will not exceed $25,000.00, and each tree will be ordered from the lowest bidder for that particular species.
I concur:
_
Sandy Clark
Sean orsey
C:\ Users \sdorsey \Documents \Forestry \CDBG Tree Planting 2012 \Memo -CDBG Plant Recommend 2012.doc
N
T
O
N
O
T
7
c
a)
CL
u
W
W
J
'
v/
W
m
C)
Z
F—
Z
Q
J
d
W
W
w
F-
m
U
O
O
CI.
LO
O
O
O
CI.
O
u)
O
O
O
rn
0
0
0
m
O
O
O
67
O
r-
m
LO
M
d
I`
M
M
N
M
r
r
>
Q
Q
U
J
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
U
0
O
O
O
O
O
U')
O
6.7
O
V
O
m
O
m
O
m
O
m
O
14•
O
O
LO
r
O
N
(f)
M
O
O
L6
M
N
N
N
N
N"
-
r
r
'' �-
N
M
N
N
co
N
co
m
64
69
6
6)
6
fA
61
6
EA
''QFl
64
6'}
64
EA
69
69
63
Efl
64
64
63
64
69-
O
r
O
N
O
T
O
cJ
O
r
O
O
m
O
N
O
O
O
LO
M
O
O
N
O
r
O
CO
O
O
r
O
N
LO
O
M
O
co
O
O
—
U
Q
a)
W
O'
O'
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
C'
O
: O:
O'
O
O
O
O
O
O'
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
L
C
O
co
U
N
O'
I-
O
co
O
(D
O
d
O
m
U') '
d
O
co
O
O'
LO
M
O
P-
O
O
O
O
O
co
O
m
O
m
a
Q
m
W
ffl
6>
69
69
EA
69
V>
(/9
69
U)-
6>
Ef}
64
63
6}
69
60-
63
63
;.: VY
64
O
T
(n
LO
ON
0
O
C.
O
O
O
O
r
cu
>
C)
N
Q
(0
J
;
C
�
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O'
CD
O
O
O
O
O
O
U
L
i
i
L6
CO
i
L6
I�
i
i
i
i
6
L
L6
I-
i
O
O
L
0')
L6
I�
a
=
r
r
T
T
r -
N
r
N
0
=
m
m
L
64
6)
6
63
64
fH
69
63
6�Y
W1
64
6
to
69
ffl
6k
6
69
69
°
Q-
U
a)
N
°o
O
0
N
Q
(6
3
(D
V
.�
(o
CL
N
(
a)
(`a
�
a)
U
>,
�o
o
a
2
c
U
o
a)
Y
o
Q
w
c
E
S �
° p
O
2
L
a
a
m
O
c_
a)
O
Q
Q
m
Z
O
Y
O
Y
U
(�
(Q
N
Q
N
N
N
Q
c
E
c
a)
O
O
Z
>
m
«
(a
O7
E
U
(6
�
- o
a)
0
a)
O
Q
L
"p
Z
N
y
ca
3
Y
tB
Z
°
7
(n
N
-O
o
2
c=
N
�
�
E
o
U
>-
U
(n
d
o
U
=
O
c
(B
`-
N
O
o
U
c
p
T
m�
c
(a
O
Z
>,
Q
(6
d o
°
c
c
c
N
E
E
m
N
°
(n
E
m
E
a)
a)
a)
ca
a)
m E
E
m
(n
Y
a)
V
°
i
>
E
O
a)
Q
QS
�'
7
a)
L
L
U
O
O
U
o
a)
CD
c °
a)
E
E O
V
(p
O
E
O
7
Q
V
=
IL
=
d
Z
U
U
J
c0
Q
U
W
1
Q
F
c
a)
L
rn
c
7
E
_U
E
Y
- C c :
- E
o
E
(D
E
c
c
o
a
c
a)
a)
o
L
a)
o
CD
p
o
cn
E
a)
E
m
>
- 0
c
a)
U
m
°
a)
/
C7
°
>
c
c
a)
U
E
W
_�
O°
C) U
U
rn
(�
°
(a
N
N
c
a)
_
M
CL
7
E
E
°)
c a n )
u)
c a n )
c a n )
E
E
m
(n
c
ns
°
c0
to
CL
N
m
Q
•
V)
.t
E
E
a)
V
O
O
O 7
O J
a`
O
O
O
(o
`
Co
(A
°
C
O
M
L
7
U)
O
7
i
U
U
(TS
m
Z
CL
o
7
O
N
E
c
c -p
(�0
c
c
c
U
U
_
U
OU
N
E
>
o
L
�--
y_
E
(a
•-
(n
i
>_,
C
7
L
0)
(u
(0
(6
(0
QS
. c
(6 (6
(0
7
p)
y
7
U
p
(u
U
(A
(n
;�,
O
7
0)
>.
(n •-
.fl
—
=
U
x
cm
c
Q
Q a
E
Q
Q
Q
(n
U)
cn
c
(n
'(�
7
L
a)
(n cn
L
°
Q
d
L
a)
L
a)
L
a)
L
a)
L
a)
L
a)
L
a)
L
a) W
L
a)
L
a)
L
a)
L
() 7
L
a)
�
Q
L \
-
L
�
c
L
�
7
0) °
cn
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q o
Q
Q
Q
Q 2
Q
Q
/ U
U
U
U
U
U
/
U
LL r'
�
/ V
ROT
O
N
CA
7
C
N
0-
0
E
w
ui
2 / �
C /V/
r
LU
m
Z
p
Z
J
CL
ui
LU
F—
m
U
(n
X
N
O
In
J
w
CP
Cp
�1
m
0
0
O
U
N
LL
z
E
C
0
0
o
O
o
o
O
O
O
C)
O
o
o
C)
Cl.
O
o
O
C)
C)
C)
O
o
0
O
O
LC)
O
M
O
CO
O
N
T
O
T
T
T
Ch
�y
V
T
>
Q
Q
C�j
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
a)
W
J
CD
O
O
O
i
I
I
C D
1
O
1
I
O
O
1
O
O
U
LO
Ln
O
ui
ui
Ln
ui
Ln
O
O
•i
(�
co
t`
LO
(0
CO
CO
0
Cfl
0)
co
1..1LL
0
m
fA
H-}
CA
CA
fR
d)
U)-
6-?
1 6-
K)
H-}
U>
1 U>
'n'
K-}
69
K}
C-)
I V3
6-1
ta
EF}
H)
Cf}
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
Ln
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
N
�Y
CO
T
co
CO
O
U)
C
—
cn
>
Q
N
Q
O L11
d
> a)
>
O
O
O<
O
O
O
C)
O
O
A`
L
O
O
9
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
O
O
O
O
I
Cl
1
1
1
1
1
1
O
U
LO
0 Ch
M
M
'
tf
0
N
�
N
N
d''
�y�
W
H?
6
V>
EA
V>
Efl
EA
CA
69
Efl
H
ER
EA
H?
ER
1 Va
64
Efl
V>
CR
to
U)
H9
V}
O
O
O
O
O
O
m
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
LO
•
O
O
O
V
T
U)
T
Ln
LO
d
N
T
�
T
T
T
C
,
a
ca
cu
U
N
>
Q
�
J
C
m
O
O
O'
... 0
O
O
O
O
O
O
0._
O
E
O
O
O
O
1
1
O
1
1
O
O
O
1
O
1
1
O
1
O
1
1
I
1
O
U
Lt)
Ln
6
tS7:
L17
O
O
O
O
O
O
Ln
L
I-
LO
00
00
r—
C}'
d'
It
d•
LO
O
D
T
CIA
T
T
T
T
m
m
C
L
N
0
Y
E (U
a
N
}
L
U
Q
U
0
0)
Y
0�
a)
U
Y
m
2
� Q
'a -O
Q.
O
a
iZ
M
O
Q
(U
N
Y
/ ( C
V
Ca :3
N
N
L
N
m
O
O
N
Q
Q
O
c
U
Ca
+
�,
m
U
N
N
E
Q
Q-
C U
0
O
C2
O
C2
Q
Q
Q
-0
(a
L cu
C
- 0
N
Y
p
N
m
Ca
v-
J
d
E
c
>,
0
a)
Cll
Y
Q
>,
O
Q
(D
M
U
(B
U
O
U
p
V
N
cn
c
O
_
CCU
/
U
'�
L
0
L
Y
CU
to
Ca
CU
U
U
T
s� o
C�
ca
L
U
U
U
d
a)
3
U
Ca
(D
},
co
>
CD
Q
U
00
O
C
Y
C
(U L
U
N
=
Q
'�_
C
p
0)
LF�
O
O
R3
� A �
L
p
C
N
C
C O
E
_
fn
U
U
''"'
L
Y
- a
'ca
Q
O
W
>
Ca
C
L'
U
c
p
C
Y
C
N
0
- O
Ca
�
N
-0
m
O
Ca
-C
p
O
U
O
(n
O
Y
U
U)
U)
"0
Q
U
i
d
d
Q
2
c�
D
�
U
U
(D
rn
o
E
p
U
E
Y
CO
U)
C
N
E
Q
O
N
C
"Q
C
U
C
N
Cn
�
N
(U
U
a)
N
p
c
a)
L
�
m
O
>
C
Cn
�
U
O
U
O
U
-
C
N
U
0
Q
r
E
°'
c
o
p=
m
ca
a3
a)
a
3
L()
H
rn
m
m
U
m
=
a
ca
M
'z
Ca
ca
w
w
�_
in
E
c
C
(U
a�
c
O
Y
L
Ca
C
c
° a
T
2
O
• U
L
Z3
O
E
.I..r
C
U
N
L
�
L
Q
L
L
1
(n
CT
O
O
CA
L
(a
f
N�
,
Ca
Ca
U
La
U
/
vJ
p
Q
Ca
U
L
U
/^ �L°
LL
! �
LL
C
w
<
Ca
Z
�
V/
0
>
�n
O-
U)
Cu
L
N
m
C
CA
C
C
Y
to
to
Cn
to
N
to
to
N
N
N
U)
U)
cn
o
'
C
N
CA
Q
E
E
E
0
7
7
�
�
S
7
_S
_�
_�
�
—
C
fn
C
a)
C
CU
m
_�
N
N
_�
N
Ca
_�
Ca
(6
_�
Ca
N
(a
(a
N
N
N
N
Q
O
L
cn
C�
C�
0
CD
2
�
2
2
2
2E
2
2
,
2i
2i
1 2
U)
cn
(n
X
N
O
In
J
w
CP
Cp
�1
m
0
0
O
U
N
LL
z
E
C
,'ter
O
N
0)
C
a)
Q-
0
E
W
W
U)
U)
J
U)
N W N
I.L.
0
Z
Z
J
CL
w
w
m
U
(�•
N
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
0)
r
to
M
00
LO
r
LO
r
LO
00
O)
>
Q
U
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
J
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
U
O
U")
U')
O
LO
L6
L6
O
6
O
d
Y
N
r
r
N
r
N
N
N
N
m
69
64
64
64
64
69
64
64
64
64
69
64
69
64
69
64
69
64
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
d
Iq
N
q
O
co
co
N
—
U
�
C
>
Q
a)
N
`
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
- O
i
i
O
C?
i
i
O<
O
i
O
O
O
�
�
co
co
";r
'IT
dam'
LO
LO
a
Q
m
64
EA
69
6g
6R
63
69
64
69
64
69
63
69
64
63
69
64
69
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
Cl
O
O
•
N
N
U')
U)
ti
N
O
N
d
N
LO
N
�
r
C
Q
c0
CU
U
U
>
Q
O
J
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
a)
E
E
O
O
1
O
O`
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
�
�
O
�
�
O
U
LO
O
O
O
6
6
6
6
6
6
to
L6
O
i
�
U7
(D
't
Nr
d
O
O
O
ti
0 <
(0
(0
LO
m
m
Ef}
EA
69
61)
69..
cn
69
EA
EA
w
69
Efl
EA
EA
EA
EA
EA
E
L
a)
w
c
E
E
c
_0
a)
cu
C:
w
U
c
7
(n
_O
Ur
C
J
'O
U
a)
c0
.L
C
U
a)
cu
U
w
w
E
O
`O
�
C
J
�
Q
¢
p
J
N
N
>
'
E
Q
a)
w
Z 3
a)
a) -0
O_
J
(n
` J
O
a)
Q
O
"O
c6
_E
w
(0
"O
U
E
O
cq ~
Q _
C
v7 M
ZS
t
L
o
L
w
w
E
c0
O ca
a)
E
O
E
(LS U
6) C
N
O
Q
E
v7
O
U
a)
ca
Q
,�
m
_
m
E
cv
a) a)
E
a)
U
E
c
m
U
E
.O
c
O
U
L
C� �,
=
(A
(1)
O E
Q=
C
f0
O
C
O
(6
m
a)
v
U
O)
L
�
Q
d
tiS
_
C
cu
a
(l)
E
O
O
co
O
O
d
Ag
N
p
C
M
C
O
U
C
cu
N
C
Q
a
a)
En
O
E
L
U)
°�
m
`
a
Q
(a
3
O
`�
F
U
it)
(�
0
p
3
x
0
x
(�
v
�
c
�—
d
E
a)
Q)
(�
=
m
m c
co
(�
w
(n
a)
co
°_
C U
X
w
d
Z
Y
U)
O
C
(0 N
co
C
c
O
C
N
E
O
C
c
O
C
c °
O
C
C
•Q
L
v
N
Q
N C
(0
p
a)
U
L C
p
p_
O
— _
O
2
N
E
Q
y
Z
O
- � O
O
L
w
+. cn
oU
�
U
=
rn
UU a)
a)
O
N
cn
to
CO
N
cn
cn
to
N Q
N
rn
Q
d
c
`°
`°
`°
N
� E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
cn
E o
E
E
c
m
cn
�,
cn
.-
C7
F- I
i=
F- I
i= 5 1
51
51
51
51
5
5
5 a
-
X
w cn