After the award of RFP 01-0038 for demolition services of the Columbus Square Mall, Mr. William Reaves of Reaves Wrecking has raised some issues regarding the RFP. You may have received a call and/or correspondence from him regarding the RFP.
Representatives from Reaves have come to Purchasing and reviewed the proposals as well as met with staff and me to address specific concerns.
There are three basic concerns expressed by Mr. Reaves regarding the RFP process.
I. Performance Bond: Reaves' "alternative proposal" recommends we eliminate this requirement, stating "The owner would save approx. $13,500.00". However, vendors were instructed that, "An offeror who submits a proposal which does not address each of the sections specified below will be deemed non-responsive, and the proposal submission deemed incomplete." Therefore, the elimination of the performance bond requirement is technically an exception to the specifications instead of an "alternate proposal".
The specifications of the RFP do state, "Alternative proposals will be considered". However, to accept an alternative proposal that does not include a performance bond places the City at greater risk exposure with little recourse in the event the vendor does not perform the work to specification. Additionally, to accept this alternate proposal would be unethical and unfair to the other proposers, unless we had notified all vendors that the performance bond is no longer a requirement, and allowed the vendors to alter their proposals accordingly. This probably would have lowered the other vendors proposals as well.
II. Insurance Requirement: Reaves' "alternative proposal" states, "If the owner would use our current limits, there would be a savings of $30,000.00 for our company and $10,000 for a sub contractor required to pay additional coverage." The RFP delineated specific limits for each required insurance type.
Reaves' proposal includes a letter from their insurance company, which states, "...the only way to satisfy these limits is to buy Excess Liability on each one...." The company further writes, "The premium for this additional coverage is approximately $30,000, depending on when the job actually starts and finish." Therefore, Reaves' cost proposal will increase by approximately $30,000 in order for the proposal to meet the specified insurance requirements.
If we had accepted this from Reaves, we would be required to do the same for the other vendors, which would have lowered their proposed costs as well.
III. Security Requirement: Reaves states, "The owner could save $26,250.00 by eliminating this requirement." The security requirement is for the City's protection and in the best interest for the project. Again, if we had accepted this from Reaves we would have had to do the same for the other vendors, which would have lowered their proposed costs as well.
Mr. Reaves also raised two technical issues. The first issue is regarding submission of financial statements by the successful proposer, D.H. Griffin, stating that they did not provide financial statements in their proposal. The specification requires financial statements; however, is not specific as to whether the statements may be obtained from a bank, accountant, etc. D.H. Griffin's proposal stated that the financial statements may be obtained from their bank or insurance company. Had there been no acknowledgement in the proposal of the financial statements requirement, D.H. Griffin would have been deemed non-responsive.
The second technical issue is regarding the unit cost proposal for pre-cleaning of Penny's prior to asbestos abatement. Reaves' proposal states there will be no charge if the entire proposal is accepted. D.H. Griffin proposed a unit cost price. The specifications require submission of a price for potential work to be done in the project and pre-cleaning was requested as a separate cost item or stand alone and was not considered in the evaluation of base costs. This is a potential item for negotiation in the contract which is subject to change as are any other line item costs in the proposal.
No attachments for this document.