Item Coversheet
 STAFF REPORT
For Meeting of April 25, 2022
MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
Agenda Item # 8.B.

TITLE:  Resolution No. 2217- Sewer Lift Station #6 Reconstruction 
Subject

Resolution 2217 awards the contract to reconstruct Sewer Lift Station #6 to C & E Trenching for $689,560.

Summary and Background

Sewer Lift Station #6 is located near the intersection of N 1st Place, and West Ridgeway Avenue.  This facility was built in 1981, and the various mechanical and electrical components of the pump station have experienced significant corrosion of the metal and concrete over the past 41 years.  Replacement of these components is necessary, as called for in the 2021 Sewer Collection System Master Plan, as well as the 2021 updated Capital Improvement Plan.

 

The existing structure is 22 feet deep and receives all discharges from that region of the city, including all the way to the Hermiston Family Aquatic Center, and the wetwell’s capacity is insufficient to accommodate sewage flows without excessive pump cycles. A larger wetwell will provide more time between pump cycles, simultaneously providing a buffer against overflows and system backups.

 

This work will also re-locate the facility from the south-bound lane of North 1st Place, which has grown to carry fairly heavy traffic over the past 41 years, over to the much less-traveled West Ridgeway right of way.  This will increase safety for the operators, and significantly reduce traffic impacts when regular maintenance is needed.



Tie-In to Council Goals:

Goal 6: Plan for City facilities that meet current and future needs

Fiscal Information

Bids were opened on April 19, 2022, with the following:

 

- C & E Trenching:  $689,560.00

- Tapani, Inc.:  $699,179.00

- R & G Excavating:  $717,340.00

- ORR Inc.:  $886,008.23

 

The Engineer's estimate for the project was $616,300.  Due to significant ongoing uncertainties in the bidding environment, Anderson Perry Engineering's staff had considerable debate about establishing their estimate before ultimately erring on the low-end.

 

Although the lowest bidder is approximately $70,000 above the engineer's estimate, the fact that the three lowest bidders were all within 4% of each other, it is apparent that the low bidder is right in the range of the current market for this work.

 

Despite the overage, the Utility Fund has the capacity to absorb this cost.



Alternatives and Recommendation
Alternatives

1.  Accept the low bid and award the contract.

2.  Reject all bids and re-advertise.

3.  Reject all bids and re-advertise at a future date.



Recommendation

I recommend accepting the low bid and awarding the contract to C & E Trenching.  Engineering staff feels comfortable with the bid as submitted, and the City has contracted with C & E Trenching for large scale projects in the past.  It is unlikely that re-advertising would result in noticeably lower bid results, and re-advertising also carries with it costs associated with actual advertising, as well as engineering staff time to re-do documents, hold meetings, answer questions, etc. to the tune of $10,000 or more.

 

Re-advertising at a future date, while also unlikely to result in lower bid-prices, is also not advised due to the current state of the existing lift station equipment.  It is possible that putting this off could result in an emergency replacement project, which is certain to be more expensive.



Requested Action/Motion

Motion to approve Resolution 2217.

Submitted By:  Mark Morgan
ATTACHMENTS:
DescriptionType
Short-Form Bid TabulationExhibit
Resolution 2217Cover Memo