Title
MOTION TO AWARD # PSUT-25-08 “WATER TREATMENT PLANT UNIT B REHABILITATION” TO THE MOST RESPONSIVE/RESPONSIBLE BIDDER, LAWRENCE LEE CONSTRUCTION SERVICES, INC., IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $3,133,025 WHICH INCLUDES $30,525 FOR PAYMENT AND PERFORMANCE BONDS, A 10% OWNER’S CONTINGENCY OF $277,500, AND A $50,000 OWNER’S ALLOWANCE.
Summary Explanation and Background
PROCUREMENT PROCESS TAKEN:
- Chapter 35 of the City’s Code of Ordinances is titled “PROCUREMENT PROCEDURES, PUBLIC FUNDS.”
- Section 35.15 defines an Invitation for Bid as “A written solicitation for competitive sealed bids with the title, date and hour of the public bid opening designated therein and specifically defining the commodities or services for which bids are sought. The invitation for bid shall be used when the city is capable of specifically defining the scope of work for which a service is required or when the city is capable of establishing 15 precise specifications defining the actual commodities required. The invitation for bid shall include instructions to bidders, plans, drawings and specifications, if any, bid form and other required forms and documents to be submitted with the bid.”
- Section 35.18 of the City's Code of Ordinances is titled "COMPETITIVE BIDDING OR COMPETITIVE PROPOSALS REQUIRED; EXCEPTIONS."
- 35.18(A) states, "A purchase of or contracts for commodities or services that is estimated by the Chief Procurement Officer to cost more than $25,000 shall be based on sealed competitive solicitations as determined by the Chief Procurement Officer, except as specifically provided herein."
- Section 35.19 of the City's Code of Ordinances is titled "SEALED COMPETITIVE BIDDING PROCEDURE."
- Section 35.19(A) states "All sealed competitive solicitations as defined in § 35.18 shall be presented to the City Commission for their consideration prior to advertisement."
- 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) 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 June 18, 2025, the City Commission authorized the issuance of Solicitation PSUT-25-08, “Water Treatment Plant Unit B Rehabilitation.” In accordance with the City’s procurement procedures, the solicitation was advertised on June 25, 2025.
2. The purpose of this solicitation was to obtain bids from qualified firms to furnish all labor, equipment, and materials, for the renovation and painting of the existing Water Treatment Plant Unit B, in accordance with the terms, conditions, and specifications contained in the solicitation.
3. On August 12, 2025, the City received three (3) bids in response to the solicitation. The bids, inclusive of the required Payment and Performance (P&P) Bonds, were submitted by the following firms:
|
Vendor Name |
Cost |
P&P |
Total with P&P |
|
Lawrence Lee Construction Services, Inc. |
$2,775,000.00 |
1.10% |
$2,805,525.00 |
|
Conti LLC |
$2,994,787.00 |
1.00% |
$3,024,734.87 |
|
Razorback LLC |
$3,344,000.00 |
3.00% |
$3,444,320.00 |
4. The final project cost reflects the base bid submitted by Lawrence Lee Construction Services, Inc., the cost for the vendor to provide the required the payment and performance bonds, an owner’s allowance, and a 10% owner’s contingency as outlined in the breakdown below.
The Owner’s Allowance has been incorporated to provide the project managers with the resources to address structural repairs that are anticipated for this project but that cannot be fully quantified in areas that are currently inaccessible or submerged.
The owner’s contingency, similarly, provides the project managers the flexibility to address unknown conditions that may arise during the course of construction, particularly in areas that are currently inaccessible or submerged, thereby mitigating potential delays and supporting the timely and efficient execution of the project.
|
Lawrence Lee Construction Services, Inc. |
|
|
|
Bid Total |
|
$2,775,000 |
|
Payment & Performance |
1.10% |
$30,525 |
|
Contingency |
10.00% |
$277,500 |
|
Allowance |
|
$50,000 |
|
Total |
|
$3,133,025 |
5. Upon review and evaluation, the Utilities Department determined that Lawrence Lee Construction Services, Inc., was the most responsive and responsible bidder. This determination was based on the firm’s submission of the lowest cost proposal and the satisfactory references demonstrating successful completion of similar projects within the past three (3) years.
6. In accordance with the City’s procurement requirements, Lawrence Lee Construction Services, Inc. submitted a completed Equal Benefits Ordinance Compliance Form and affirmed that the firm is currently in full compliance with the provisions of the City’s Equal Benefits Ordinance.
7. Staff recommends Commission approval to award # PSUT-25-08 “Water Treatment Plant Unit B Rehabilitation” to the most responsive/responsible bidder, Lawrence Lee Construction Services, Inc., in an amount not to exceed $3,133,025 which includes $30,525 for payment and performance bonds, a 10% owner’s contingency of $277,500 and a $50,000 owner’s allowance.
Financial Impact
FINANCIAL IMPACT DETAIL:
a) Initial Cost: $3,133,025
b) Amount budgeted for this item in Account No: $1,547,221 is available in Account No. 471-533-6031-663993-0000-000-0000- (Improvements - Other)
c) Source of funding for difference, if not fully budgeted: Upon Commission approval, $1,605,094 will be moved from Account no. 471-533-6032-663233-0000-000-0000- (Water Main) into the appropriate Account.
d) 5 year projection of the operational cost of the project: Not Applicable.
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.