Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Procurement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Bid review committee recommends awarding Hardy Road bridge repair contract to M&J Construction
Summary
A bid review committee recommended awarding the Hardy Road over Hardy Canal R&R contract (IFB 2600095, bridge no. 100336) to M&J Construction after finding the low bid roughly 19% over the project estimate; committee members cited deteriorated pile jackets and confirmed available funding.
The bid review committee recommended awarding the contract for IFB 2600095 — the Hardy Road over Hardy Canal repair and rehabilitation (bridge no. 100336) — to M&J Construction Company, after the committee’s project manager presented bids that exceeded the engineering estimate.
Joe Wright, the senior buyer who opened the meeting, said the committee convened under board policy that requires review of capital projects when the low bidder exceeds the construction estimate by 10% or more. He stated the project estimate was $1,078,647.83.
Jay Bon, the lead program manager and project manager for the contract, told the committee the work would replace deteriorated pile jackets, clean and seal joints and perform side-slope repairs. "Pile jackets are bad in condition and primarily metal is exposed," Bon said, adding the condition should be addressed before it becomes catastrophic.
Bon said the committee received three bids. He reported the lowest bid, from M&J Construction Company, was $1,287,125.92 (about 19.3% over the stated estimate). The second bidder (Southern Road and L&C) and a third bidder (Titan Construction) quoted substantially higher amounts, with the third bid near $1.66 million.
During a question-and-answer exchange, a committee member asked why bids were higher than the engineering estimate. Bon and others attributed the difference to current economic conditions and rising material costs, and noted the engineering estimate had been prepared months earlier using FDOT averages. Bon emphasized that three contractors submitted competitive bids and that reference checks for M&J showed multiple recent DOT projects.
Bon recommended moving forward with awarding to the lowest bidder because of the bridge’s deteriorated condition and the public-safety concern it posed. He asked staff member Kelly whether funds were available; Kelly responded that there was "just enough funding" remaining to cover the contract.
The committee voted vocally; members responded "I" when asked for approval and no opposed votes were recorded. The chair directed the record to reflect the motion passed to recommend award to M&J Construction Company.
The committee closed the meeting after the vote. A brief comment after adjournment suggested repeating the bid, but the committee had already recorded the recommendation to award.
