Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - City Council - 10/07/1985CITY COUNCIL 7 OCTOBER 1985 The South Burlington City Council held a regular meeting on Monday, 7 October 1985, at 7:00 pm, in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset Street Members Present Paul Farrar, Chairman; Michael Flaherty, George Mona, Francis Murray, Leona Lansing Others Present William Szymanski, City Manager; Jane B. Lafleur, City Planner, Albert Audette, Street Dept; Don Whitten, Sewer Department; C. W. H. Lowth, W. G. Martin, D. J. Williams, J. R. Kellett, Catherine Stern, Charwill Construction, Inc.; Donald Roper, NCM Associates; Richard McCain, Angelo Pizzagalli, Ed Bedell, James Pizzagalli, Pat Pizzagalli, Pizzagalli Construction Co., Gloria Yandow, City Bookkeeper, Peter Jacob, Planning Commission; Leo P. Brown; Charles Tetzlaff, Attorney; Bill Keogh, Associated General Contractors of Vermont; Ruth Poger, The Other Paper; Richard Spokes, City Attorney; Bob Graham, S.F. Philips Liquor Control Board Mr. Mona moved that the Council meet as Liquor Control Board to consider a liquor license application. Mr. Murray seconded and the motion passed unanimously. Mr. Szymanski presented a liquor license request from the new owner of Solomans at 1166 Williston Road. The store will be known as Dolan's Variety Market. He noted that there is $142.00 due in back taxes which the new owners say will be taken care of at the closing. Mr. Flaherty moved that the Board approve the liquor license request as presented by the City Manager. Mr. Mona seconded and the motion passed 4-0 with Mr. Murray abstaining. Mr. Murray moved that the Board reconvene as City Council Mr. Flaherty seconded, and the motion passed unanimously. Continue discussion on computer hardware needs Mr. Farrar indicated he had talked with the consultant and is assured that both the AT&T and IBM systems have reasonable memory expansion capacity. He noted that the IBM floppy disks have 4 times the capacity of the AT&T disks. This would be important for larger data bases such as the Grand List. Ms. Yandow indicated they would prefer a tape backup system. Mr. Szymanski said it would cost $1400 for each of two such systems. After a brief discussion, Mr. Mona moved that the City purchase the IBM system. Ms. Lansing seconded, and the motion passed 4-0 with Mr. Farrar abstaining. Update on the Williston Rd. widening (at Gaynes) Mr. Szymanski reported that he, Mrs. Lafleur and Mr. Murray had met with state engineers who asked the city to move on initiating the necessity hearings. Dick Spokes has been asked to set this up for 4 November. The 2 main owners are satisfied, but the procedure must still be followed. Gary Farrell was going to see if he could raise more money to put utilities underground and was optimistic that he could do so. Mr. Szymanski will check on this with Mr. Farrell. Change of Meeting date As several Council members had conflicts with the October 21st meeting date, the members agreed to change the meeting date to October 28th. PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal to the award of the Airport Parkway Sewer Treatment upgrade and expansion construction contract Mr. Spokes advised that in response to his letter of September 10, 1985, he had received letters from Charwill's attorney and from Pizzagalli's attorneys dated September 19th and September 20th respectively. He also received a Memorandum of Law from Charwill dated September 25th and a Supplemental Memorandum of Law from Pizzagalli's general counsul dated October 3rd. Pizzagalli's protest also contained various legal points. Charwill's attorney indicated that they intend to have another witness present. Mr. Spokes then administered the oath to Charwill's three witnesses: Charles Lowth, David Williams, Donald Roper. In his opening remarks, attorney Martin said there are two issues to be considered: whether South Burlington has the right to award the contract to Charwill and whether the city ought to do so. He stressed that even with the correction of the bid, Charwill's bid is still $272,000 less than the next lowest bid. He added that Charwill is ready to get on with the job. Charles Lowth, Charwill's first witness, outlined the steps followed in preparing a bid: 1- getting information about the proposed job 2- writing for bid documents to decide if the company has the expertise for the job (Mr. Lowth here summarized his background. He has been in the construction business 35 years, almost all of that in sewer-related construction) 3. determining what categories and sub-categories there are 4. doing "take-offs" for each category & sub-category 5. feeding quantities into the computer for determination of each category & sub-category (e.g. electric, contrete) 6. taking totals of various categories and putting them on a summary sheet and getting the bare cost of the job 7. preparing the add and deduct sheet (for late price changes on materials, etc. Final totals are adjusted to reflect any changes 8. establishing the buying discount: because they deal with many of the same suppliers, they can buy a job out for less sometimes and this will usually lower the total bid price. 9. figuring in overhead and profit 10. establishing final bid price Mr. Lowth reiterated Mr. Martin's earlier statement that Charwill is ready to go and only needs the final OK. Mr. Tetzlaff asked whether Mr. Lowth had played a part in the bid. Mr. Lowth said he had decided what to bid and had established the overhead and profit. He said that their company does about $6.5 million business a year, and that this would be a big job for them. They have 15 permanent employees and usually employ 45-50 in the summer work season. Mr. Tetzlaff asked what the mistake was in their bid. Mr. Lowth said that basically it was a transposition mistake which resulted in some totals not getting transferred. Mr. Tetzlaff asked if there had been a change in management in the company. Mr. Lowth said that in April a project manager and estimator had left. Dave Williams stepped into that place and became chief estimator at that time. He had been employed by Charwill 1-1/2 years prior to that time and had worked as project superintendent, project manager and project estimator during that time. The estimating department also had one other part-time person. Mr. Lowth said that he reviewed the bids in generalities and the estimator reviewed the specifics. They did, however, subcontract some of the estimating to an estimating firm. Mr. Tetzlaff asked if the mistake was the responsibility of the part-time estimator or Mr. Williams. Mr. Lowth indicated it was Mr. Williams. Mr. Tetzlaff then asked that the Bid Summary Sheet be marked as Pizzagalli's Exhibit 1. Mr. Lowth said this was prepared by Dave Williams shortly after the extentions were done. Mr. Tetzlaff asked that the Add & Deduct sheet be marked as Pizzagalli's Exhibit 2. He asked that they be furnished with copies of p. 1 & 2 of that Sheet and indicated that they felt that the Council ought not to allow an adjustment upward in a matter of this sort. He said they can show this policy exists in the industry. Under federal procurement law, adjustments can be made under very special circumstances. The bidder must offer clear and convincing evidence that there was a clerical, not a judgmental error and have to establish clear and convincing evidence of what the intended bid price was. He said that Charwill indicates the error was simply the omission of building concrete. Pizzagalli does not think this is the case and that it is not clear what the bid price would have been without the error. There are other items which the bidder takes into account: the add and deduct sheet, buying discount, and overhead & profit. Mr. Murray asked if Mr. Tetzlaff was inferring that the sheet which shows the missing concrete figure was after the fact. Mr. Tetzlaff said no, but the error was not the only factor. They would have to figure in the other 3 categories to get the final amount. Mr. Miller said they did not want to charge the city overhead and profit on Charwill's mistake. Mr. Tetzlaff then asked that the Buying Discount sheet be marked as Pizzagalli's Exhibit 3. Mr. Lowth estimated that their profit & overhead percentage was 8% (4% each). Mr. Tetzlaff asked whether Mr. Lowth would consider the error that was made a major or minor error. Mr. Lowth said it was major. He said he had reviewed the bid somewhat. All extensions were done by computer and no one recomputes what the computer does. Mr. Tetzlaff asked if Charwill generally doesn't have someone review the bid. Mr. Lowth said the categories are basically the same and the math is done by computer. Mr. Tetzlaff asked if they usually have 2 categories of concrete. Mr. Lowth said this is not usual and that the 2 should have been added together and brought forward as one. Mr. Tetzlaff asked if Mr. Lowth would say the mistake was negligent on the part of Charwill. Mr. Lowth said that in the heat of work, something can be overlooked. One is never too old or too young to make a mistake. He said it was his mistake as it was done in his name. Mr. Miller objected to raising negligence as an issue. He felt that is a decision for the City Council to review and decide. Mr. Tetzlaff said they feel there is Vermont law on this issue. Mr. Miller said they need to know what issues are being raised. Mr. Spokes indicated he was concerned. Pizzagalli raised issues, Charwill responded. Now it seems that Pizzagalli is raising a legal position that hasn't been articulated in the memos. Mr. Tetzlaff said they were planning to give this after the hearing as they were told further memorandums could be so submitted. Mr. Farrar said it would be helpful if they could understand the relevance of the question. Mr. Tetzlaff said they are trying to determine if the mistake was the result of a failure to exercise due care on the part of the bidder. Mr. Miller said the Council has to decide this, not the witness. Mr. Tetzlaff said that in Vermont, courts of equity will allow recession or in certain cases revision in the case of a mutual mistake. In unilateral mistakes, there is serious question whether you can even get recession, particularly if there is negligence or inattentiveness on the part of the bidder. Mr. Miller said these conditions apply where there is a contract and in this case they have no contract. Until a bid is accepted, there is no contract, so there is no question of recession or reformation. He said they specifically discuss this in their memo. This is a bid case, not a contract case, and the Vermont law is silent on bid cases. Mr. Tetzlaff said that in Lyndon vs. Burnett, which was a bid case, the Vermont Supreme Court ruled that by submitting a bid, the bidder agreed to sign a contract for the amount of the bid and will not revoke it. It is their contention that there is a contract in Vermont. Mr. Farrar indicated he would sustain Mr. Miller's objection as to the way the question was phrased since Mr. Tetzlaff was asking for a conclusion not for information. Mr. Farrar asked if it is normal procedure to have someone check that all pieces are complete in a bid. Mr. Lowth said it is; however, when that portion was omitted, it was omitted across the sheet. Mr. Farrar asked if they could then say that checking procedures were not adequate to catch the mistake. Mr. Lowth said this was true. Mr. Flaherty asked if the final bid figure didn't seem wrong. Mr. Lowth said it did not. Mr. Flaherty asked when they decided to check on it. Mr. Lowth said after the bids were in and they saw the spread between them and the next bidder. Mr. Spokes asked if there was anything in the bid documents that should have alerted the city that a mistake was made. Mr. Lowth said he didn't think so. Mr. Murray asked what the other error was. Mr. Lowth said that there was a $30,000 addition error. Mr. Murray asked if this error met the industry standard of care in the bid process. Mr. Lowth said he didn't know how to answer that. Mr. Tetzlaff asked if the $30,000 error has been taken into account in the $269,000 increase in bid price. Mr. Lowth said it has not. Mr. Williams then testified. He summarized his background including 21 years experience in the construction industry. He was project engineer for Nalus and general superintendent for 62S Constructions for 5 years where he reviewed every estimate from $30,000 to $3 million. He was in charge of estimating the bid under consideration. Mr. Williams summarized his actions in the bid process. He and Mr. Lowth reviewed the bid documents and felt it fit their expertise. At the same time they decided how to do it. He noted that he was working on another estimate, so they decided to subcontract some of the estimating to another firm. The other firm took the "take-offs" that required substantial time. The other firm was NCM Associates. Mr. Miller asked what the input is to the computer. Mr. Williams said the estimator takes information from contract documents and relates them to categories and subcategories and comes up with costs. These are added together to come up with prices. Mr. Williams testified that there is a 2-rate structure for labor, involving building construction and heavy construction. He said they discussed with NCM the 2 labor rates and how they would apply to concrete work. Mr. Roper of NCM recommended coming up with 2 separate categories, and Charwill had agreed. Mr. Williams said that they got a computer printout sheet from NCM for categories BCDFJ. Mr. Miller asked how Mr. Williams went about preparing the bid summary sheet. Mr. Williams said he first listed the categories to be sure he had a listing for each category. He then went to the bottom line of each printout and took the numbers from the printout and put them onto the summary sheet. He took the quantities and put them on their own computer to get the most competitive price. He said the mistake occurred because the sheets for concrete got out of order and the sheet at the end which he used was not the one with the total of the 2 concretes. That sheet had gotten into the middle, inside a folded sheet. It shows the total of both concretes as $887,952. Mr. Williams said it would have been his intention to transfer that total to the summary sheet. Mr. Miller asked if the summary sheet shows all work on the job. Mr. Williams said it does with the exception of overhead and profit. The add and deduct sheet only has items which they expect to change at the last moment. Concrete would not have been on the add and deduct sheet. He said the error was a human error, at a point in the bid process when they had computer printouts to transfer to the summary sheet. He was looking for the numbers for each category and was not concentrating on the 2 concretes since in preparing a bid summary they usually only have 1 concrete. Mr. Tetzlaff asked when Mr. Williams wrote in the pencil figures. Mr. Williams said prior to submission of the bid and prior to it being written on the summary sheet. Mr. Tetzlaff asked what checks and balances existed to catch the error and was Mr. Williams work reviewed by anyone. Mr. Williams said most of his work was reviewed. The mechanical operation of transposing was not checked. He stressed that they had never done the concrete in this manner before. Mr. Tetzlaff asked where the $30,000 error was. Mr. Williams said it was on the add and deduct sheets. On the morning of the bid, there was continual calling in of prices. They had a courier in South Burlington to get the final numbers. The addition error took place 3 or 4 minutes before the final number was given out. Mr. Tetzlaff asked if it wouldn't have been better to have someone review his work. Mr. Williams said he could think of several things that could have been done. Mr. Tetzlaff asked if Mr. Williams was familiar with industry standards. Mr. Williams said these vary from firm to firm. Mr. Tetzlaff asked who worked on Exhibit 3. Mr. Williams said it was written by the company treasurer but they worked together on those figures. Mr. Tetzlaff asked what figure was used for overhead and profit. Mr. Williams said 8%. Mr. Tetzlaff asked if that is based on a percentage of the bid summary sheet. Mr. Williams said basically it is. Mr. Tetzlaff asked if with a figure of $269,000 missing, there would have been higher overhead and profit. Mr. Williams said if they applied a straight 8% it would. Mr. Williams said the summary sheets were done about 2 days before the bid date. Mr. Tetzlaff asked if there were any additions or deductions on the add and deduct sheet that would have affected concrete. Mr. Williams said yes, for concrete, both building and heavy. Mr. Tetzlaff asked were there any buying deducts that referred to concrete. Mr. Williams said no. Mr. Tetzlaff asked if Mr. Williams used quantities for both concretes. Mr. Williams said he had, but this was not done at the same time as the summary sheet. He was conscious of the 2 concretes at the time of the add and deduct sheet. Mr. Flaherty asked if when Mr. Williams added up his figures did they seem low to him. Mr. Williams said they seemed reasonable. He said they reviewed the figures because of the big spread and wanted to be sure there wasn't a problem. Mr. Mona asked how the 2 subcategories of concrete would make them more competitive. Mr. Williams said the difference between the 2 rates is $3-$4 which means $20,000 in the heavy class alone. They had a difference of $60,000 - $80,000 by using the lower rate. Mr. Mona asked if it was so special why was it not red-flagged. Mr. Williams said at the transfer, he was concerned with getting the right figures, not the "red flags." Mr. Murray asked if Mr. Williams had ever been low bidder and made a mistake like this before. Mr. Williams said he never made a significant mistake on a bid before. Mr. Roper then testified. He has done estimating work since 1982 and prior to that was purchasing agent and an estimator for Nalus. He has been in the business since 1968. He said he supplied 2 different printouts for concrete and that this had been his recommendation. He said he discussed the 2 concrete quantities with Mr. Williams when he turned over their sheets. Prices were not discussed, only quantities. Mr. Tetzlaff said they had no witnesses to call but wanted to enter into evidence Exhibits 4 and 5, letters from William Keogh, President of Associated General Contractors of Vermont and from Joseph Ashooh, Municipalities Division of Associated General Contractors of America. Mr. Miller stated he felt these letters were industry/trade statements from people interested in contractors. He stressed that there is no evidence they have "created an error". A man made an honest mistake, and they contend that all things allow for an honest error. He said that federal acquisition says that even with an error a bid can be awarded if the bid is still low. He said their cost will save South Burlington a quarter of a million dollars and that there is no evidence this was not an honest error. Mr. Bob Graham of S.G. Philips asked that their presence be recorded as well as their support of Pizzagalli. Mr. Tetzlaff stressed they are not alleging dishonesty or fraud. Their case is based on letters which attest to the holding of the bidding process inviolate. By allowing low bidders to adjust bids opens the door to playing games. A "mistake" could be corrected so you are still below the next bid. What if Charwill's mistake had been more than the next lower bid; would they have adjusted it then? Because this process is so important to a free society, they feel the Council should follow general low and analogous positions of the State of Vermont. He added that federal procurement, it is very rare that a correction will be made and only if it can be shown by clear evidence what the intended bid was to be. He said Charwill has not shown this since there is no clear and convincing evidence of what their bid would have been without the mistake. He reiterated the Vermont Supreme Court ruling that in cases of a unilateral mistake, no modification will be allowed and recession would be denied if the error resulted from negligence or inattentiveness on the part of the person making the error. He said this error was in the system as there was no back-up at Charwill. He felt the appropriate action of the Council would be to indicate to Charwill that they had 2 options: live with the original bid or withdraw and award the contract to the next lower bidder. Mr. Miller stressed in his final remarks that regardless of the error, Charwill would still have been low bidder and should therefore be awarded the contract. Mr. Murray noted that even with an 8% profit and overhead added to the omitted amount, Charwill is still the low bidder. Mr. Tetzlaff said that is not the point of this case. This is a challenge to the entire bidding process. Both Charwill and Pizzagalli agreed to have their written comments in the mail within 24 hours, and the Council agreed to meet on October 15 to discuss the issues. Mr. Tetzlaff asked for copies of the computer printouts regarding the concrete. Mr. Miller said that is proprietary information. They have given this to the engineers but they do not want the information given out per se. Mr. Spokes said the printouts were not introduced and marked as evidence so he did not see why they should have to have them. Mr. Mona said he would be uncomfortable providing proprietary information from one contractor to another. Mr. Murray disagreed. Mr. Miller said he would submit the sheets to the City Council, not to the Pizzagalli staff. Mr. Farrar said if Charwill wishes the Council to use them in making their decision, they must also be given to Pizzagalli. If they wish to give them to the Council for future use, they can do that and not have them used in the Council's decision. Liquor Control Board Mr. Flaherty moved that the Council convene as Liquor Control Board. Ms. Lansing seconded, and the motion passed unanimously. Mr. Szymanski presented a catering request from the Ice House Restaurant for a Trustees Meeting at the Skiff residence, 303 Swift Street on October 16, from 6- 10 pm. Mr. Mona moved that the Board approve the permit as presented by the City Manager. Mr. Flaherty seconded, and the motion passed unanimously. Mr. Szymanski then presented a request from Garfield's Tavern at 733 Queen City Park Road for an Arm Wrestling Tournament on October 13, from Noon to 7 PM. Mr. Flaherty moved that the Board approve the entertainment permit for Garfield's for an arm wrestling tournament on October 13, from Noon to 7 PM. Mr. Murray seconded and the motion passed 4-1, Ms. Lansing opposing. Consider recent action of Zoning Board Mr. Farrar expressed concern that after the long discussions on the Transitional Zone, the Zoning Board granted a variance in complete contradiction to that zone. The property involved is the southern corner lot at Brookwood. Mr. Murray advised that if the Council wishes to appeal, that appeal must be filed by tomorrow. Mr. Murray moved that the Council appeal the decision of the Zoning Board as discussed if the time to appeal has not expired. Mr. Mona seconded, and the motion passed 4-1 with Mr. Flaherty voting against. Update on Union Negotiations Mr. Szymanski advised that the Police Union will accept the contract offer. As there was no further business to come before the Council, the meeting adjourned at 11:10 pm. Published by ClerkBase ©2019 by Clerkbase. No Claim to Original Government Works. RICHARO A. SPO-LS -)AWL5 D FOLEI STEVEN F. 671TZEL -- SUSAN C. BOILE ~crr I SPOKES, E'OLEY & STITZEL ATTORNEIS AT LAW 8, 184 SOUTH WI~005K1 AVENUE P. 0. BOX 986 BURLlNGTON. VERMONT 05402-0988 18011 882.64S1 *IK)ZB 863-2657 - September 10, 1985 ISAAC N. P. sroncs COUNSLL Willard C. Martin, Esq. Nighawander, Martin, Kidder & Mitchell One Mill Plaza Laconia. NH 03246 Richard J. McCain, Esq. Pizzigalli Construction Company 50 Joy Drive P.O. Box 2009 South Burlington, VT 05401 Robert W. Graham, Treasurer S.G. Phillips Constructore, Inc. 95 St. Paul Street Suite 4E Burlington, VT 05401 Re: Pollution Abatement Facilities Airport Parkway Waatewater Treatment Facility So. Burlington, Vermont Protest Heariag Please be advised that the South Burlington City Council will conduct a public hearing on September 30, 1985 at 7:30 P.M. at the South Burlington City Hall, 575 Doraet Street, South Burlington, Vermont. It is my objective that the City Council conducts a public hearing which affords all parties their due process rights, but also avoids the rigid formalities of a courtroom hearing or trial. I perceive the issues to be considered as follws: 1. Did Charwill make a material mistake in its bid and what was its intended bid. 2. Should Charwill be bound by its original bid. 3. Whether the City can permit Charwill to amend its bid to reflect the alleged mistake, and award Charvill the contract at the amended bid price. WilLard Hartin, Esq. Richard McCain, Esq. Robert W. Graham, Treasurer - -2- September 10, 1985 I request each party to submit to me, as well as to the other parties. by September 20, 1985 the followingr a. A statement of any issues, in addition to those enumerated above, it feels are relevant. .. b. A brief susrmary of the position it intends to take on each of the three issues. c. The name of each witness it intends to call, the person's qualifications and the issues the witness will address. d. Copies of ell exhibits it intends to introduce at the hearing. I also request that Charwill submit a legal memorandum addressing Issue No. 3, and in particular, responding to the legal principals advocated by Pizzagalli Construction Company in its protest letter of August 26. 1985 and in its letter to Steven Stitael of this firm dated August 15. 1985. I would appreciate receipt of Charwill's legal position by September 25, 1985, and copies should be sent to the other parties. Should Ptzzagalli wish to supplement its previous legal submissions, it may do so, and S.G. Phillips may submit whatever law it wishes to be considered. Please make certain that any legal memoranda, etc., are received by the City and the other parties by September 25. Incidently, I would expect that each party will have a short time after the hearing to supplement its memorandum and file requests for findings. Each party should designate counsel or one person to present its case, examine witness, etc.. I believe Charwill and Pizzagalli have already done SO. I would appreciate learning from S.G. Phillips who will handle its presentation. A hearing agenda is attached to this letter. If any of you object to the proposed hearing procedure please advise me promptly. Thank you. Very truly yours, Richard A. Spokes south Burlington City Attorney US/djg Attachment Hearing Agenda September -, 1985 1. Swear in witnesaes - ~ll persons who will be testifying in behalf of any party will be sworn in. 2. Charwill presents its case. The examination of its vitnesses will be in the following. order: a. Direct examination by Charwill b. Croas examination by Pizzagalli c. Crosa examination by Phillips d. Questioning by Council members. 3. Pizzagalli presents its case. The examination of its witnesses will be in the following order: a. Direct examination by Pizzagalli b. Cross examination by Phillips c. Cross examination by Charwill d. Questioning by Council members. 4. Phillips presents its case, The examination of its witnesses vill be in the following order: a. Direct examination by Phillips b. Cross examination by Pizzagalli c. Cross examination by Charwill d. Questioning by Council members. 5. Cloaing arguments, should any party which to present one. !.. . To: South Burlington City Council t. .. . From: Richard A. Spokes .: .. Date: September 20, 1985 .. Re: South Burlington - Airport Parkway, Waste Water Treatment Facility/Charwill Enclosed please find ~rehearing material I received from Charwill's attorneys. I would recommend you each review the material carefully before the September 30th hearing. As of September 20th, I have heard nothing from Pizzigalli and Phillips. RAS:mil Enclosures LATHAM, EASTMAN, SGHWEYER & TETZLAFF ATTORNEYS AT LAW SOB MAIN STREET PO. eox see RURLINOTON. VERMONT 06402 ceoz, Ee3.aeZe September 20, 1985 Richard A. Spokes, Esquire Spokes, Foley & Stitzel 184 South Winooski Avenue PO Box 986 Burlingtcm, VT 05402 RE: Pollution Abatement Facilities, Airport Parkway Waste Water Treatment Facilities, South Burlington, Vermont - Protest Hearing Dear Dick: This is to enter my appearance on behalf of Pizzagalli Construction Company regarding the above-captioned matter as well as to respond to the request contained in your letter of September 10, 1985. We would see the issues for the City Council to consider as follows: 1. Whether Charwill can establish by clear and convincing evidence that it made a material mistake in its bid. 2. Whether such a mistake, if shown, was clerical or judgmental. 3. whether Charwill's error is a result of either negligence or inattention on Charwill's part. 4. Whether Charwill can establish by clear and convincing evidence what its intended bid was. 5. Which of the.following remedies should be applied: a. The bid awarded to Charwill at its original bid. b. Charwill allowed to rescind its bid and award to the next lowest bidder. Richard A. Spokes, Esqui re September 20, 1985 Page 2 c. Charwill allowed to rescind its bid and reopen the bid process with Charwill participating. d. Charwill allowed to rescind the bid and reopen the bidding process without Charwill participating. e. Allow Charwill to modify its bid. It is the very strong position of Pizzagalli Construction Company that, if Charwill can establish by clear and convincing evidence that it made a material mistake of a clerical, as opposed to judgmental, nature, the only remedy available to it is to rescind its bid in which case the next lowest bidder would be awarded the contract. This result is mandated under both Vermont Law as well as general bidding procedures. At this time, the only witness which Pizzagalli Construction Company intends to call is Peter M. Bernhardt, Manager of Estimating at Pizzagalli Construction Company, who will address matters per- taining to the bid process and respond to Charwill's allegations. We wish to reserve the right to add further witnesses after we have had an opportunity to be advised as to specifically what Charwill's allegations and position is as well as having had the opportunity to be confronted with their evidence and witnesses. At this point, I have been unable to determine the specifics with respect to the alleged "mistake" that Charwill is alleged to have made in its bid. We wish to have as exhibits a copy of the letter dated August 27, 1985, from William J. Keogh, Executive Vice President of the Associated General Contractors of Vermont, as well as a letter dated September 17, 1985, from Joseph P. Ashooh, Director of the Municipal-Utilities Division of the Associated General Contractors of America. Copies of both letters are attached hereto. We also wish to reserve the right to offer additional exhibits after we have had an opportunity to be confronted with the specific claims, exhibits and witnesses to be offered by the other parties. I assume that copies of all correspondence, memorandums and briefs will be provided to each of the individual council members prior to the hearing. I am forwarding copies of this letter and attach- ments to Mr. Symanski, Mr. Martin and Mr. Graham. - Very truly yours, CRT:clf Enclosures August 27, 1985 . - - .. -. "- i . ;;"> I . . : .; I Office of City Manager -b. City of So. Rurlington ".7 ; ..I . . I 575 Dorset Street , , (:;it 0, I So. Burl ington, VT 05401 . . While this Association has no financial interest in the So. Burlington Waste- I water Treatment Facility, it is vitally concerned with maintaining the integrity . , I of the competitive bidding process, which has served owners well in the State over I many. many years. - t It is our understanding that Charwill has submitted the apparent low bid of $5-million and, after all competitive bids have been publicly opened, claims a $270M error. The firm wishes to increase its bid by that amount, retaining its apparent low bid position with Pizzagalli ($5.6-million) and S. G. Phillips (bS.7-million). I I The proper industry practice, in this instance, would be to offer the con- tract to Charwill, at its originally bid price. Or allow Charwill to withdraw its I bid due to error, with the City of So. Burlington returning or not returning the I bid bond. In thc event of withdrawal on the part of Charwill, the contract would -, I then be properly awarded to the next lowest bidder, in this case, Pizzagalli. I We feel the integrity of the bid system is at stake here. Bona fide bids are submitted with internal controls and checks within a construction firm to I ! eliminate errors before the bid is submitted. To allow an apparent lor bidder to increase the amount of the bid - after all the bids have been exposed - validates l a procedure which could be detrimental to construction owners and the industry. I I The Vermont Agency of Transportation, which opens bids involving millions of , dollars each year on a week-by-week basis, follows the practice mentioned in para- , graph three above. I I If the City of So. Burlington allows amendments to a bid, it will be estab- lishing a precedent in the Vermont competitive bidding process. Down the road, I contractors who arehean on getting work, can discover how to get a '$second bite i 1 of the apple'' by creating an error. Amending the bid may serve your interests I today, but it may work against the City in subsequent bidding projects. I Again, we have no financial interest in this project. perhais that is in I our favor because the Association has nothing to gain or lose in this project I award. But we do point out the precedent and pitfalls in allowing amending a bid. I This Association has been serving construction owners, contractors and sup- I pliers in Vermont for over 30 years. If you need to call upon our experience - I and my own for the past 15 years , feel free to do so. I I : * - . . ...... ,- - ........ WILLIAM J. KEOGH ' .- :i?: .- ,?A ... - Executive Vice president , . . . . .., _ . . :. .; : :. ... ..... ..... ..,*-..: -.; .- "...I.?.: P.O. BOX 750 MONTPELIER. VERMONT 05602 802.223.2374 '':: ''. ' ' ;- - : :--'&;;.- I ... . . .L ., .; -. .. .. - ............ ..- vx~,&&&,\&&L . THE ASSOCIATED GENERAL CONTRACTORS OF AMERICA " 1957 E Street. N.W. Washington. D.C. 20006 (202) 393-2040 TWX: 710-822.9406 AGC WSH I /ERNIE G. LINDSTROM. JR.. President RICHARD E. HALL. Senior Vice President DANA HUESTIS, Vice P&t I WALTER K. PRIESTER, Treasurer HUBERT BEATIY. Executive Yjce President September 17, 1985 - Mr. Dick McKain Counsel Pizzagalli Construction Co. Box 2009, Joy Drive S. Burlington, VT 05401 Dear Dick: You asked for the policy of the Associated General Contractors of America regarping mistakes in bid. That policy was established in 1957,by Convention Resolution and is: 'Bidding Errors 1. The only relief granted to a bidder who claims error in his bid be permission to withdraw the bid. 2. In the event that an error is claimed by a bidder and acknowledged by the awarding authority, the erroneous bid shall be considered void and action shall be taken on the remaining bids the same as if the erroneous bid had not been submitted. 3. A bidder claiming error in his bid ehall be disqualified from bidding on the particular project again. " The AGC position regarding mistakes in bids is supported by the American Society of Civil Engineers and the Arr,erican Institute of Architects. Sincerely, ~oseph- P . Ashooh Director Municipal-Utilities Division THL FU1.L I'LIlV1CE id.;SFllt,iTIOS AijUCI4TlilN FOR F0I.L SERVICE MELlaEfS AGC VERMONT REcE,"~~ AU~US~ 27, 1985 AUG2 8 1985 Office of City Manager ML(N~~~~~ City of So. Burlington Cl?rPp BOR;zcE 575 Dorset Street So. Burlington, VT 05401 'Qh! I While this Association has no financial interest in the So. Burlington Waste- water Treatment Facility, it is vitally concerned with maintaining the integrity of the competitive bidding process, which has served owners well in the State over I many, many years. It is our understanding that Charwill has submitted the apparent low bid of $5-million and, after all competitive bids have been publicly opened, claims a I $27'34 error. The firm wishes to increase its bid by that amount, retaining its apparent low bid position with Pizzagalli ($5.6-million) and S. G. Phillips ($5.7-million) . The proper industry practice, in this instance, would be to offer the con- tract to Charwill, at its originally bid price. Or allow Charwill to withdraw its bid due to error, with the City of So. Burlington returning or not returning the bid bond. In the event of withdrawal on the part of Charwill, the contract would then be properly awarded to the next lowest bidder, in this case, Pizzagalli. We feel the integrity of the bid system is at stake here. Bona fide bids are submitted with internal controls and checks within a construction firm to eliminate errors before the bid is submitted. To allow an apparent low bidder to increase the amount of the bid - after all the bids have been exposed - validates a procedure which could be detrimental to construction owners and the industry. The Vermont Agency of Transportation, which opens bids involving millions of dollars each year on a week-by-week basis, follows the practice mentioned in para- graph three above. If the City of So. Burlington allows amendments to a bid, it will be estab- lishing a precedent in the Vermont competitive bidding process. Down the road, contractors who are keen on getting work, can discover how to get a "second bite of the apple'' by creating an error. Amending the bid may serve your interests today, but it may work against the City in subsequent bidding projects. Again, we have no financial interest in this project. Perhaps that is in our favor because the Association has nothing to gain or lose in this project award. But we do point out the precedent and pitfalls in allowing amending a bid. This Association has been serving construction owners, contractors and sup- pliers in Vermont for over 30 years. If you need to call upon our experience - and my own for the past 15 years feel free to do so. WILLIAM J: KEOGH Executive Vice President 1 P.O. BOX 750 MONTPELIER, VERMONT 05602 802-223-2374 NIGHSWANDER, MARTIN, ~IDDER & - MITCHELL, P.A. Attorneys at Law WIW G. MARTIN JR. BAADLEV F. KIDDER WALTER L MITCHELL DAVID S. OSMAN ALEXANDRA I. BREED DAVID 1. HARMGAN JAMES 1. BURKE MARGARET A. DEMOS UNDA G. PECK MlTCHEU & JEAN SlEPHEN R. WUN OF COUNSEL One Mill Plaza, Laconia, New Hamphire 03246 Telephone: 16031 524-4 12 1 ARTrmR W, NwANDER - WkLlAM S LORD DAVID L KENT September 19. 1985 Mr. Richard Spokes. Esquire Spokes. Foley, and Stiteel P.O. Box 986 Burlington, Vermont 05402-0986 RE: Pollution Abatement Facilities Airport Parkway, Waste Water Treatment Facility South Burlington. Vermont Protect Hearing Our File #T26,3623/343 Dear Mr. Spokes: In response to your letter dated September 10. 1985 regarding the public hearing to be conducted by the South Burlington City Council on September 30. Charwill submits the following: A. No issues in addition to those enumerated in your letter of September 10. 1985. B. A brief summary of Charwill's position on the three issues to be addressed: 1. Did Charwill make a material mistake in its bid and what was its intended bid? A material mistake was made by Charwill in the preparation of the bid it submitted to the City of South Burlington for the construction of the Hrport Parkvay Waste Water Treatment Facility. In preparing the bid, the various types of work to be performed were broken dam into catagories. such as. Earth Work. Building Work, Electrical, etc. and each catagory was assigned a code letter. The Concrete work was assigned the letter "C". In addition, the Concrete catagory was divided into two parts; Building "C" and Heavy "C". When the figures for each catagory were being transcribed onto the sununary sheet, the Mr. Richard Spokes, Esquire September 19, 1985 Page 2 Heavy "C" subtotal was brought forward but the Building "C" subtotal in the amount of $269,616.00 was omitted. Had the bid total included the Building "C" subtotal. Chawill's bid total would have been $5.317.949.00 instead df $5,048,333.00. 2. Should Charwill be bound by its original bid? The City should not bind Charwill to its original bid. To do so would be unconscionable. The mistake that occurred during Chamill's bid preparation (described in Paragraph C1 above) was inadvertent. This mistake resulted in the omission of a subtotal in the amount of $269.616.00 for concrete work to be done under the contract. The mistake, therefore, relates to a material feature in the bid. The City would not be prejudiced by granting Charwill equitable relief. By allowing the reformation of Charwill's bid total, the City would be accepting a bid that is $272,051.00 lees than the next lowest bid of $5,590,000.00. 3. #ether the City can permit Charwill to amend its bid to reflect the alleged mistake, and award Chawill the contract at the amended bid price. Chonrill is entitled to equitable relief as set forth in Paragraph tZ above. There is clear and convincing evidence as to the existence of the mietake and the bid price actually intended. Notice of the mistake was given promptly to the City, which has not since altered its positioa. The bid price both before and after the correction of the mistake is the lowest submitted. It would be in the best interest of the City to award the contract to Chawill at the reformed bid price of $5,317.949.00. C. The name of each witness Chawill intends to call: William President of Charwill Construction, Inc.; Registered Professional Engineer licensed in Maine. New Rampahire. Vermont. Pennsylvania, and Louisianna. Issues to be addressed by Mr. Lowth: 1. The mistake was related to a material feature in Charwill's bid; 2. To impose the original bid price on Chawill would be unconscionable; 3. Prompt notice of the mietake was taken to the City; 4. Chamill submitted the lowest bid both before and after reformation of the bid price. Mr. Richard Spokes. Esquire September 19, 1985 Page 3 David Williams; Project Manager and Estimator of Charwill, Civil Engineer. Issues to be addressed-by Kr. Williams: 1. Description of Charwill's bid preparation process; 2. The figure omitted in the bid preparation; 3. How the inadvertent mistake occurred. D. Copies of the following exhibits to be introduced at the hearing are attached: 1. Computer printouts and worksheets involved in the preparation of Charwill's bid; 2. The bid proposal submitted to the City of South Burlington by Charwill; 3. The letters from the City dated August 12 and August 15, 1985 regarding Notice of Intent to award the contract to Charuill. Please let me know if you need any additional information. Sincerely, Catherine C. Stern Enclosures cc: Richard J. McCain. Esquire Mr. Robert W. Gram Mr. William Lowth &'roo8 0 0 -0191 OEII SS UWf .- . "-- ---- ---- .:* l-0 WPIZ O'ZVIS4 0 . $;;i Z91Sb -CKS w&% - .= grlC93 ------*-.--- .--.--..-- -w&s VJRi .9f -pun l1** Pa -==l .ja. -- .... ..~ ,. r/9 w - . . ..h /PI/ --el 0 ,:%c saor . . -.----.-. .MS 4- a .LL 4ep n9 -43 r~x -ma+ mep3 9 -- ---- ---- .?- --zT $2 0 . <. I - VC07 rbS - Z'S9Lt 0 . -1, Z4$-t 'd -- a ... - . . ;i: ... .. < -. , . ~ . , .. ocw % .)LIP '4- S'bLOP 0 :5 6LOt &' We hCft -- EE0Z dS mW:- Ulrd .I . 1' ' , .. , . -- --. - -- - . - - - . - - .- - - . - --A . - I .* I - C420S Farm p.d *.I 1 under 16. wen ltsol a= 18417 4573 70m- Sob70 0 o Sob70.1 ~7200 Ftllot concroto tv I I 53 41 I 44 II 4- SOQ o tn. 2 a C7400 krrd and i1m.t +lnlmh .C 1713s I71 1047 W S1 ItU 0 0 IW.4 C7700 kmm (111 concrotm CV 20 IS 1-5 49 ? Zlt ee0 0 I1II.L '1 C7000 *dinar) flnlmh 9F 30313 WS HIS v SuS 3719 0 0 37lO.S Troll #lnlmh % 122~2 245 Zb47 SbE 243 CebW Rub tlnlmh 6F 11948 521 5831 110 I le 6o&a 0 0 bOM, 7 0 Vmpw bmrrla SF 4994 24 SO(, v 14 $15 Z49 0 W.. 0 OLlJP pore 100 V71- l SIC' IJZI- 1 lU2 0 0 IlU2.7 C, I . . ! i i , i i i i I I.; -u ,..- ,.: -. :L -< i L, - LC- - .-L b . - -- ;." . ,- ... .,~ . .. 1 i BID (hereinafter) the lzws of the State of (a yticm, a parrrrership or in individual To City of South Burlington ermont 1 (Grantee) - (hereinafter called "&UfR". ) In camlimce vith wxx Advertisapent for BES. BmDFR herebv mamses to perfom a11 for ihe ccnstmction of ~ollution Abatement ~aciliiies. Airport Parkuay Wastewater Treatment Faciliry Upgrade. Combined Contracts No. 1 & 2 ,! - 3n strict accordance With the CINIWX w. within the ticre set forth .. , . :,tkx.c thKein, md at the prices stated below. By mbdssian of thia BID, each Bm certifies, and in the case of a , , joint BID. each party thereto certifies as to his rn org8nizatim. that his BID has bear arrived at Lndependently, witbit crxlsultatian, ec~ticn, or egreawnt as to any matter relating to thls BID with any other BmDt or with any ccnpetitor. Bm hereby agtees to ccmmce 1JOW( Mder this cantract an the dete of issuwce of the NOTICE 10 IBXED and to mlv mlete the PROJECT within 545 consecutive calender days the&&&. BIDER frather agrees to pay as es. the smof S 700.00 """5 for each mecutive vIl3- tbC. ter as provia in Sctm 15 of General Caaditians. BmrSR achmledges receipt of the following m: rr'/ 719.h- #2 1. BID SCHEDULE LUMP SUM BID PROPOSAL: THE BIDDER agrees to perform all of the Pollution Abatement Facilities, Airport Parkway Wastewater treatment%cility Upgrade. Combined Contracts No. 1 and 2 work described in the specifications and shown on the Drawings for the sum ($5 C?dy&, 333 ). ( Amount shall be shwn in both words and figures. In case of discrepancy, the amount shown in words will govern. F T , the u~xlers iened bidder or pro> pet ti~? con Lractor , represent tk:a t I have participated in a previctrls coritrart or sub- CO-1 tr-rC t 8uL-!rct kt, Exc-,,u l ivs- r.rd~:r 1 I 71~1: f re~ardlnp e'1~1aZ employ.nnri+ c~n?or+urr3 ty) r,r a ~reccdi ri- simil ar. Executive Order*. and while ~)articjpatif~~ i11 such a curltract I have f i? rd ?; '. cr~roap! inrere rc2!*cir!:3 tl1-t T have been required to f -e in connec'ti.cn with the crntract or subcont-ractut-. f&o/c-fh&H-1= resn-inc u ne Zln Code ~l/ * =I CWAWILL CONSTRUCTION, INC. In accordance with the Advertisement for Bid for the subject project, please ba advised that wq have Solicited p.rtlcipation/pricing from registar.@ WBEIMBE groups. and are prepared to fulfill the Contract In a manner ' consistent with Federal Policy in this ragard. % As to record . . . hs C. W. H. wth. J*. President /General Manager Avery Street, P.O. Box 689, Mercdlth, New Hampshlm 03266-0685'6603) 279-6538 BID BOM, ~~~~~~~~~.~h.rw,~ehc~rripd. Charwill Construction, Inc., P.O. Box 689, Meredith,N.H. n7357 as Principal, and United States Fidelity and Guaranty Company as Surety, hereby held fMy bap.ld mto City of South Burlington, Vermont as (k]Em in -1 sLm of 5% (five percent) of the attached bid for the paycent of which, well and truly to be unde.'- hereby jointly and severally bind ourselves, successors and assigns. Signed, this 25th day of July . 19.. 85 'Ihe Conditim of the above obligation is such that whereas the Principal has submitted to City of south Burlington, Vermont a certain BID, attached hereto end hereby uncle a part hereof to enter into a contract in writing, for the Pollution Abatement Facilities, Airport Parkway Wastewater * Treatment Facility Upgrade, Combined Contracts No. 1 and 2 k (a) If said BID shall be rejected, or (b) If said BID shall be accepted and the Principal shall execute and deliver a contract in the Form of Contract attached brew (properly carpletea in accordance with said BID) and shall fv;mish a EOND for his faithful perfommce of said contract, wd for the payment of all persons performing labor or fianishing materials in cmection theradth, and shall in all other respects perform the agreemnt created by the acceptance of said BID. I 1 ~~FDRCCNSIIW;TI~OFEPA BID BOND: Page 1 of 2 I Awl Sll'U'E ASSISrED smEmX pFWECTS Docment 4 (Revised 6/83) CS44B I I ! ZI7. - then ulis abligrtim shall be wid, otherwise f3e sam shall remain in force and effect; it being expressly m&rstood and agreed that the liability of the Surety for any and all claims hereunder shall, in no went, exceed the penal muunt pf this oblfgeticm as herein stated. 'Rhe Surety, for value received, hereby stipulates and agrees that the obligaticxls of said Surety and its BOND shall be in no way -red or affected by any excensiar of the tine within which the CkjMER my accept such BID; md said Surety Qes hereby waive notice of eny swh extension. IN WJXNBS WERDX, the Principal wd the Surety have heremto set their hands and seals, and such of them as are corporatiars haw caused their corporate seals to be hereto affixec! and these presents to be sipd by their proper officers, the day and yq fbst set forth above. Charwill Construction, Inc. United States Fidelity and Guaranty company By: H.' k. Adam, Attorney-in-fact - -ty carpenies executhg BCMrS rmst ~*~ DeDartment's mst current list (Circdar 570 as &3nfzG= ) and be authorized to-transact business in the state where the project is located. BID m: Page 2 of 2 (Revised 6/83) a48 . ' . CERTIFIED COPY GENERAL POWER OF ATTORNEY .................... N& ...... M.az * -..M."I.-h*., Tha UNITED STATES FIDELITY MD CUAUNTY COMPANY. m rvpnuh rpnhd and ndairy oak the Ln et tln s1.k nl YIarylmd, md Mog llr pddpl .kr mt tln City el .Ibim~ in tb. Sutm of M&and. dma hemby witme mnd appdmt 8. W. Adma. dIlnUty0i Bedf ord .hd lev Hampthire . iuauadhrlslramwr IIUYJIOIIJ*W~ 4 Maine, Rev Hampshire. Vermaut, Ma~rachuaetts, Conaectieut and Florida T*~l~auu~lua).rJ~~~.d..d.cb.rlcdna~.daIIbr*.dunyrtl..h&ud~~ul atlrormdrLlyrnhnLInIli.m~d*.801.d0fDho~ndrLouldUNI~~A~nDEWTIANDGUARAm COMPW.~oaibd~d*LLrr*.~dmd.udrmmsf tM. kof Anay; and rL. dd WITEDSTATW nDELETY AND GUAMN'W COMPANY. thryk r itl Boud *I Di- knbp mltk md anlimn mII and rhMoa tin dd H. W. Adamr ~hrldrkh~brpumhbydn.cdrb.e~n~r. In lllauibul,tlurid~HA~M~ANDGUARAMYWPANYhradW~~mb aJ.adn1(1~-&~dblckrlilrvlaad*.Y*,~adh~~,l~* 31st March .aa1983 UNITED mhm FIDELITY Am cum COMPAm. (Signed) Paul Y. Schlough 4. ....................................................... I- Robert 0. Bruce ........................................................ ontbb 31rt +d March .A.D.19 83ktonrwpnrvlllow Paul If. 8chlbugh . Yke-P& d cba UNITED STATES FIDELITY AND GU- QOMPAtiY ud Roberf G. Bruce .Ariuat%murref uid~.*~bol~ d *k~uma.~h~b~rbbahlku-~rr~-~~~butb.l.th.ril PUU~ W. 8chlough .ad Robert G; Bruce ra nrpai* *. ~ie6- d chr hraq .t IL. 4 UNITEO STAmmTY ANDCU~COmP~, tb~dedbedimud*UcLdIb~i~P...r.IA~: b~rcbklmrb.wlsfd~,thc~kmI~'~sdhuMPnnsd~rrd~drbrk~ rind~&~tb.~dob~d~~,mndtbttb.r~tLcknurt~~EtdondcrayieeRaidmt msArl*urSrmySrmyn4Pmmeb,d(L.Crpun. wt -rirt.n .rd- t~. &. b 1.1.. A D. ir.86. ~. ~ ..... ~.. (Signedj Margaret W. Hurmt ........................................................ NuqFdtk. STATE OF NMYLAND IULmMom m* & Saundra B. Banks .~mtcb.QalcCnnlaMdwmClb.~~bs ~~i*mdd~.d&~~* Mar aret M. Hurst .-* ~(~*~~~d*~~.~.~~~kr%aribd--an~~.llar-rbLt-md~ hd~imIIJ*rbCIQ.I~(rb-dr*ond.rtbrbdLIin,m~wdudaL. ~rporldWImb.aanlrlcL.nkI~~tba1m.s.rbld*~~.IIL.~ ~.ua*rlh~t&.bs*km.~.~gllra ~T~W.I~rrmL.dd.b:&wldcL~CI.nIrI*khrr~,~rrbrbt~C.rc .Ill.od.Ulr , 31.f *of March .AD. 1983 (Slmea) ............................................................. Saundra Z. Banks ~.I6.CaJIC1lnirlktriunaQ. 9' ,':?. ety of South Burlington @ AuG 2 3 1985 575 DORSET STREEl SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT Omt TEL (802) 6.58-7953 Charwill Construction, Inc. P.O. Box 689 Meredith, NH 03253-0689 Pollution Abatement Facilities . ., Airport Parkway Wastewater Treatment Facility Upgrade Combined Contracts No. 1 and No. 2 Notice of Intent Gentlemen: OFflCL OF cm MANAGEE WlllAM I. IZTMANSUI YOU are hereby notified that after due consideration of your bid dated August 24, 1985; your Western Union Mailgram addressed to Webster-Martin, Inc. dated August 25, 1985, 2:45 p.m.: your letter addressed to Webster-Martin, Inc. dated July 31, 1985; Webster-Martin, Inc. letter addressed to the City Council dated August 5, 1985; and advise of counsel, and subject to concurrence by the State of Vermont, Agency of Environmental Consenration and United States Environmental Protection Agency, the City Council intends to award a contract to Charwill Construction, fnc. for construction of the above referenced project in an amount of $5,317,949. This figures represents the lump sum bid proposal of $5,048,333 plus an amount equal to $269,616 which has been accepted as an honest mistake during the preparation of your bid. L Because the City needs authorization from the state and Federal Funding Agencies prior to executing a contrhct, you are hereby cautioned not to coramit to any expensea in connection with the work until you have received a formal Notice of Award or a ' contract has been executed. We will keep you informed as to' progress in the approval process. s- CHARWllt CONSTRUCTION, ING + Charwill ~onstr-on, Inc. August 12, 1985 Page 2 If you have any questions or comments, please feel free to contact either William J. Szymanski, City Manager or Stanley M. Wilbur, P.E. at Webster-Martin. Very truly yours, C City of South Burlinston Authorized ~epresentative @ty of South Burlington dB 575 DORSET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT OW1 TEL (802) 658-7953 OiFICf OF CllY MANAGER WUUAM L llyMhNtYl Pizeagalli Construction Company 50 Joy Drive P.O. BOX 2009 South Burlington, VT 05401 S. G. Phillips Constructors, Inc. 95 St. Paul Street * Suite 413 . Burlington, VT 05401 Pollution Abatement Facilities Airport Parkway Wastewater Treatment Facility Upgrade Combined Contracts No. 1 and No. 2 '. Notice of Intent Gentlemen: You are hereby notified that the City of South Burlington intends to award a contract to Charwill Construction, Inc. of Meredith, NH for construction of the above referenced project in an amount of $5,317,949. The contract amount reflects Charwill Construction, 1nc.I~ lump sum bid proposal of $5,048,333 plus an amount equal to $269,616 which has been accepted as an honest mistake by Charwill Construction, Xnc. during the preparation of their bid. This action will result in a contract which is $272,051 less than the second bid of;85,590,000 submitted by Pizzagalli Construction Company and $379,828 less thad the third bid of $5,697,777 submitted by S. G. Phillips Constructors, Inc. received AUG 22 1985 B I . Airport Parkway weewater Treatment Facility 1 Upgrade Combined Contracts Na. 1 and No. 2 August 15, 1985 @ I :i Page 2 Should any party with a direct financial interest desire to protest this action, it may do SO by filing a Pro.test Notice I with the Office of the City Manager, 575 Dorset Street. South I Burlington, VT on or before August 26, 1985. I The notice must include the following: P 1) A statement of the protestor's direct financial interest and how it may be adversely affected by this action. 2) A statement of the factual basis of the protest. 3) A statement of the legal basis of the protest including citations to specific rules, regulation and/or judicial and administrative decisions. I 4) The relief requested. 5) Any written supported documentation you choose to offer. Copies of the Protest Notice and supporting documentation, if I any, must be also send to all bidders. Very truly yours, I ' qn (IF ~cWt!H BD~IN~~N I Michael D. Flaherty ' +. Authorized ~epresentatige -+----- , Charwill-~Gnstruction, 1nc7 _*_-- .---