Title
MOTION TO APPROVE THE REPAIR OF THE EAST HOLLY LAKE REMOTE WATER STORAGE TANK, WITH CROM LLC, IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $154,190, PURSUANT TO SECTION 35.18(C)(7)(D) OF THE CITY'S CODE OF ORDINANCES.
Summary Explanation and Background
PROCUREMENT PROCESS TAKEN:
- Chapter 35 of the City's Code of Ordinances is titled "PROCUREMENT PROCEDURES, PUBLIC FUNDS".
- Section 35.18 of the City's Code of Ordinances is titled "COMPETITIVE BIDDING OR COMPETITIVE PROPOSALS REQUIRED; EXCEPTIONS".
- Section 35.18(C) states that "Only the following situations are exempt from the competitive bid and competitive proposal requirements of this section:"
- Section 35.18(C)(7)(d) states that “When considered to be in the best interest of the city and recommended by the using department and the services to be performed are by the equipment manufacturer, manufacturer’s service representative or a distributor of the manufacturer’s equipment, the services may be procured without following the competitive sealed bid process”
- Section 35.21 of the City's Code of Ordinances is titled "AWARD OF CONTRACT."
- Section 35.21(A) of the City's Code of Ordinances is titled "City Commission approval."
- Section 35.21(A)(1) of the City’s Code of Ordinance states, "An initial purchase of, or contract for, commodities or services, in excess of $25,000, shall require the approval of the City Commission, regardless of whether the competitive bidding or competitive proposal procedures were followed."
SUMMARY EXPLANATION AND BACKGROUND:
1. On March 19, 2025, the City Commission authorized a design Agreement with Carollo Engineers, the city's continuing services water design consultant, for the design of a replacement of the East Holly Lake 2.5 million gallon (MG) remote water storage tank. This tank has exhibited a continuous leak along the north and west side through the joint at the base of the wall.
2. Prior to staff's issuance of a Notice to Proceed to Carollo Engineers, the tank's manufacturer (CROM, LLC), provided an alternate proposal to repair rather than replace the tank, using the maintenance service and repair of equipment exemption. This option would extend the life of the tank by approximately three (3) to five (5) years and the work would have a one-year warranty on labor and workmanship. The repair would include installation of a high-density polyethylene repair boot on the inside of the tank, affixed to both the base of the wall and the floor slab with structural anchoring.
Additionally, this option would cost the city $154,190 as opposed to $2,300,000, which is the estimated cost for replacing the tank.
3. CROM proposes to supply labor, supervision, materials and equipment required to complete this repair work in a period of three (3) weeks from notice to proceed.
4. CROM includes mechanical preparation of the surfaces at the floor/wall connection, placing an isolation boot around the tank wall, and mechanically attaching the boot to the wall to achieve adequate seal of the current leaking locations.
5. As part of staff’s due diligence, staff reviewed a similar repair done by CROM in Mobile, Alabama. The repair was performed about a year and a half ago and the tank repair exhibits no leaks, thereby demonstrating a successful repair.
6. Staff recommends the approval of the repair of the East Holly Lake Remote Water Storage Tank, with CROM LLC, in an amount not to exceed $154,190, pursuant to section 35.18(C)(7)(d) of the City's Code of Ordinances.
Financial Impact
FINANCIAL IMPACT DETAIL:
a) Initial Cost: $154,190
b) Amount budgeted for this item in Account No: Funds are in account No. 471-533-6032-664400-0000-000-0000 (Other Equipment)
c) Source of funding for difference, if not fully budgeted: Not Applicable
d) 5 year projection of the operational cost of the project Not Applicable
|
|
Current FY |
Year 2 |
Year 3 |
Year 4 |
Year 5 |
|
Revenues |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Expenditures |
$154,190 |
N/A |
N/A |
N/A |
N/A |
|
Net Cost |
$154,190 |
N/A |
N/A |
N/A |
N/A |
e) Detail of additional staff requirements: Not Applicable
FEASIBILITY REVIEW:
A feasibility review is required for the award, renewal and/or expiration of all function sourcing contracts. This analysis is to determine the financial effectiveness of function sourcing services.
a) Was a Feasibility Review/Cost Analysis of Out-Sourcing vs. In-House Labor Conducted for this service? Not Applicable
b) If Yes, what is the total cost or total savings of utilizing Out-Sourcing vs. In-House Labor for this service? Not Applicable