[MissoulaGov] MissoulaGov Digest, Vol 18, Issue 3

LaNette Diaz lanettediaz at gmail.com
Fri Aug 3 10:11:03 MDT 2007


I know there is a competitive bid process that the city must go through for
all contracts. But I keep thinking there has to be a way to stay in the
competitive bid process but doing the bid a little differently. Here are my
thoughts:

Missoula only has a handful of larger contractors that can afford to carry a
bond on the city's construction projects. What if the city rotated working
with each of those larger contractors (thus reduces risk) and then the
competitive biding occurs on the subcontractor level?

Not sure if this is even legal, but I thought I would put it out there, this
could help reduce the amount of the bid coming in, reduce risk, and increase
accuracy of the bid amount, project details and lessen the use of change
orders.

LaNette




On 8/3/07, Brent Campbell <BCampbell at wgmgroup.com> wrote:

>

> I would encourage you to stick with 8 lanes. The ONLY complaint I have

> heard on the Currents project is on the 20 meter lap pool.

>

> I continue to believe Construction Manager at Risk is a very good

> delivery method for larger City projects like this. Involving a

> contractor early can help manage risk for everyone. We will need

> legislative work to allow for the City to use this contracting method.

>

> Brent Campbell

> WGM Group, Inc.

>

> -----Original Message-----

> From: missoulagov-bounces at cmslists.com

> [mailto:missoulagov-bounces at cmslists.com] On Behalf Of

> missoulagov-request at cmslists.com

> Sent: Friday, August 03, 2007 6:00 AM

> To: missoulagov at cmslists.com

> Subject: MissoulaGov Digest, Vol 18, Issue 3

>

> Send MissoulaGov mailing list submissions to

> missoulagov at cmslists.com

>

> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit

> http://www.cmslists.com/mailman/listinfo/missoulagov

> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to

> missoulagov-request at cmslists.com

>

> You can reach the person managing the list at

> missoulagov-owner at cmslists.com

>

> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than

> "Re: Contents of MissoulaGov digest..."

>

>

> Today's Topics:

>

> 1. Committee Update 8/2/07 (David Strohmaier)

> 2. Committee Update 8/2/07 (Dave Strohmaier)

>

>

> ----------------------------------------------------------------------

>

> Message: 1

> Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2007 13:34:52 -0600

> From: "David Strohmaier" <dstrohmaier at msn.com>

> Subject: [MissoulaGov] Committee Update 8/2/07

> To: bjaffe at ci.missoula.mt.us, missoulagov at cmslists.com

> Message-ID: <BAY114-F2424DB6ECE1AFEC5CFEF4CA1E90 at phx.gbl>

> Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed

>

> All,

>

> Dave Strohmaier here, pinch hitting for Bob on Wednesday morning's City

> Council festivities. Conservation Committee was dedicated exclusively to

> discussing the recent bids on completing the 50-meter pool at Splash

> Montana. By way of background, the lowest bid was from L. S. Jensen and

> came in at approximately $250,000 over the project's construction

> budget. (The City of Missoula and Swim Missoula are equal partners on

> the project, and at this date Swim Missoula has raised about $400,000 to

> add to the City's $800,000 commitment.) In light of the over-budget low

> bid, Swim Missoula, Parks Dept., Cost Management Engineers, and the

> architect, attempted "value engineering" with L. S. Jensen, who

> eventually lowered their bid to within $105,000 of our budgeted amount.

> "Risk factors," such as the risk of working with the city, were

> purportedly a major factor in Jensen's high bid.

> This rationale was less than fully transparent to me, and the council

> wasn't willing to fork out any additional funds at this juncture.

> Suffice it to say, the council voted to reject all bids and return bid

> bonds.

>

> A new round of bidding was advertised on July 29 (with a somewhat more

> limited scope that modifies the original specifications for backfill

> material, powder coating, gravel fill, deposition site for fill

> material, etc.), and bids will be opened August 10. Swim Missoula feels

> that it can raise another $20-30,000, if need be. If bids still come in

> high, we'll miss the fall window for construction and will need to

> rethink our approach to the project. As a backup plan, Councilman Ballas

> requested that staff consider advertising a "deductive option" within

> the next few days for a pool with only six lanes (as opposed to 8).

> However, according to Donna Gaukler with Parks & Rec, six lanes will

> eliminate our ability to hold state meets. Some conversation ensued

> regarding 8 vs. 6 lanes, with some council members concerned that

> putting out the six lane option for bid might impede our ability to get

> good bids for the 8 lane pool. Should all the bids come in over budget

> once again, we'll miss our construction window this fall and will likely

> need to reevaluate the scope of the project.

> In PAZ we took up two items: a subdivision at 709 Parkview Way and

> proposed revisions to our subdivision regulations. The Parkview Way

> subdivision is a minor, two-lot subdivision on a parcel zoned R-1. While

> the subdivision complies with zoning, the biggest concern among council

> members focused on drainage of the site. Namely, a number of council

> members expressed concern that both surface and subsurface drainage

> associated with a perennial pond/riparian area on the site hasn't been

> adequately studied and that the conditions of subdivision approval do

> not adequately address these concerns.

> In the end, the committee voted 6-3 to recommend denial of the

> subdivision.

> Unfortunately, since this was a minor subdivision, we didn't benefit

> from Planning Board review (minors are not reviewed by the PB). We'll

> have a final vote on this before the full council on August 6.

>

> Next, and at long last, PAZ committee unanimously recommended approval

> of the revised subdivision regulations. The two amendments that we

> finalized today included incorporating the term "wildland-urban

> interface" (I can't recall offhand what the original term was), and

> modifying Article 3-7, which deals with minimum lot size relative to

> public wastewater and public water supply systems. After many months of

> haggling over the subdivision regulations, spontaneous applause broke

> out following our vote.

>

> I believe that Stacy Rye will provide a synopsis of the afternoon's

> meetings.

>

> Dave

>

>

>

> Dave Strohmaier

> 508 E. Pine

> Missoula, MT 59802

> (406) 327-8911, home

> (406) 721-1958, office

>

>

>

>

> ------------------------------

>

> Message: 2

> Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2007 12:17:16 -0600

> From: "Dave Strohmaier" <DStrohmaier at ci.missoula.mt.us>

> Subject: [MissoulaGov] Committee Update 8/2/07

> To: "Bob Jaffe" <BJaffe at ci.missoula.mt.us>,

> <missoulagov at cmslists.com>

> Message-ID:

>

> <689D48B33023A5469751A46A44C5A7A3049EF42C at mailserver.ci.missoula.mt.us>

>

> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"

>

> All,

>

> Dave Strohmaier here, pinch hitting for Bob on Wednesday morning's City

> Council festivities. Conservation Committee was dedicated exclusively to

> discussing the recent bids on completing the 50-meter pool at Splash

> Montana. By way of background, the lowest bid was from L. S. Jensen and

> came in at approximately $250,000 over the project's construction

> budget. (The City of Missoula and Swim Missoula are equal partners on

> the project, and at this date Swim Missoula has raised about $400,000 to

> add to the City's $800,000 commitment.) In light of the over-budget low

> bid, Swim Missoula, Parks Dept., Cost Management Engineers, and the

> architect, attempted "value engineering" with L. S. Jensen, who

> eventually lowered their bid to within $105,000 of our budgeted amount.

> "Risk factors," such as the risk of working with the city, were

> purportedly a major factor in Jensen's high bid. This rationale was less

> than fully transparent to me, and the council wasn't willing to fork out

> any additional funds at this juncture. Suffice it to say, the council

> voted to reject all bids and return bid bonds.

>

> A new round of bidding was advertised on July 29 (with a somewhat more

> limited scope that modifies the original specifications for backfill

> material, powder coating, gravel fill, deposition site for fill

> material, etc.), and bids will be opened August 10. Swim Missoula feels

> that it can raise another $20-30,000, if need be. If bids still come in

> high, we'll miss the fall window for construction and will need to

> rethink our approach to the project. As a backup plan, Councilman Ballas

> requested that staff consider advertising a "deductive option" within

> the next few days for a pool with only six lanes (as opposed to 8).

> However, according to Donna Gaukler with Parks & Rec, six lanes will

> eliminate our ability to hold state meets. Some conversation ensued

> regarding 8 vs. 6 lanes, with some council members concerned that

> putting out the six lane option for bid might impede our ability to get

> good bids for the 8 lane pool. Should all the bids come in over budget

> once again, we'll miss our construction window this fall and will likely

> need to reevaluate the scope of the project.

>

> In PAZ we took up two items: a subdivision at 709 Parkview Way and

> proposed revisions to our subdivision regulations. The Parkview Way

> subdivision is a minor, two-lot subdivision on a parcel zoned R-1. While

> the subdivision complies with zoning, the biggest concern among council

> members focused on drainage of the site. Namely, a number of council

> members expressed concern that both surface and subsurface drainage

> associated with a perennial pond/riparian area on the site hasn't been

> adequately studied and that the conditions of subdivision approval do

> not adequately address these concerns. In the end, the committee voted

> 6-3 to recommend denial of the subdivision. Unfortunately, since this

> was a minor subdivision, we didn't benefit from Planning Board review

> (minors are not reviewed by the PB). We'll have a final vote on this

> before the full council on August 6.

>

> Next, and at long last, PAZ committee unanimously recommended approval

> of the revised subdivision regulations. The two amendments that we

> finalized today included incorporating the term "wildland-urban

> interface" (I can't recall offhand what the original term was), and

> modifying Article 3-7, which deals with minimum lot size relative to

> public wastewater and public water supply systems. After many months of

> haggling over the subdivision regulations, spontaneous applause broke

> out following our vote.

>

> I believe that Stacy Rye will provide a synopsis of the afternoon's

> meetings.

>

> Dave

>

> Dave Strohmaier

> Missoula City Council, Ward 1

> dstrohmaier at ci.missoula.mt.us <mailto:dstrohmaier at ci.missoula.mt.us>

> http://www.ci.missoula.mt.us/citycouncil/

> <http://www.ci.missoula.mt.us/>

> (406) 327-8911

>

> -------------- next part --------------

> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...

> URL:

> http://www.cmslists.com/pipermail/missoulagov/attachments/20070802/bcc34

> a77/attachment.html

>

> ------------------------------

>

> _______________________________________________

> Subscribe at Missoulagov.org

> List Serve hosting provided by Cedar Mountain Software (406) 549-0766.

>

> End of MissoulaGov Digest, Vol 18, Issue 3

> ******************************************

> _______________________________________________

> Subscribe at Missoulagov.org

> List Serve hosting provided by www.CedarMountainSoftware.com.

>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.cmslists.com/pipermail/missoulagov/attachments/20070803/aafdcb51/attachment.htm>


More information about the MissoulaGov mailing list