BCRUA_R-10-06-16-7A RESOLUTION NO.R-10-06-16-7A
WHEREAS, the Brushy Creek Regional Utility Authority, Inc. (`BCRUX) has duly
advertised for bids for the construction of the Raw Water Pipeline, Phase One — Contract 2
Project,and
WHEREAS, W.L. Hailey& Company has submitted the lowest responsible bid, and
WHEREAS, the BCRUA desires to enter into a Construction Contract with W.L. Hailey
&Company,Now Therefore
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BRUSHY CREEK REGIONAL UTILITY
AUTHORITY,
That, subject to the approval of the Participating Cities, the Board President is hereby
authorized and directed to execute on behalf of the BCRUA a construction contract with W.L.
Hailey& Company.
The Board hereby finds and declares that written notice of the date, hour, place and
subject of the meeting at which this Resolution was adopted was posted and that such meeting
was open to the public as required by law at all times during which this Resolution and the
subject matter hereof were discussed, considered and formally acted upon, all as required by the
Open Meetings Act, Chapter 551, Texas Government Code,as amended.
RESOLVED this 16th day of June, 2010.
MIT H FULLE President
Brush gional Utility Authority
E T:
hn Cowman, Secretary
Z:\BCRUA\Hoard Packets\Res. BCRUA - Construction Contract w-W.L. Hailey Co (00194636).DOC/rmc
2705 Bee Cave Road,Suite 300
Austin,,Texas 78746 U.S.A.
1.512.314.3100 Fax 1.512.314.3135
May 27,2010
Michael F.Thuss,P.E.
Construction Manager,Regional Water Project
Brushy Creek Regional Utility Authority
1906 Hur Industrial Blvd
Cedar Park,Texas 78613
Re: Raw Water Pipeline,Phase One--Contract 2
Brushy Creek Regional Utility Authority
Dear Mr.Thuss:
Bids were received for the subject project at Cedar Park City Hall on May 19,2010 at 2:00 pm. Enclosed
is the bid tabulation form, which shows the six (6) bids that were received. The low bidder is W.L.
Hailey & Company, Inc, of Nashville, Tennessee. Also enclosed is a copy of our evaluation and
reference check of the low bidder.
Jacobs has reviewed the information submitted by all bidders. It is our opinion that W.L. Hailey &
Company, Inc. is qualified to perform the required scope of work. It is also our opinion that the low bid
submitted by W.L. Hailey&Company, Inc. is a fair and reasonable amount for the scope of work to be
performed, and provides the best value for BCRUA. We hereby recommend award of the contract to
W.L.Hailey&Company, Inc. in the amount of$5,511,774.00.
Jacobs Engineering Group,Inc.appreciates the opportunity to provide this information to the BCRUA. If
you have any questions or need additional information,please feel free to contact me at(512)314-3182.
Sincerely,
JACOBS
Glenn A.Bridges, E.
Sr, Project Enginee
Wenclosures
XC: Chris Lippe,P.E.,BCRUA
Thomas Dawkins,P.E.,City of Cedar Park
Kenneth A. Wheeler,Jr.,P.E.,City of Cedar Park
Don Rundell,P.E.,City of Round Rock
Michael Thane,P.E.,City of Round Rock
Wayne Watts,P.E.,City of Leander
K 650843'UM,1w3tor Pipeline-Conuact?'Rtd PhaseqRtd Opaung',retommcndiuon of a.ard dor
Jacobs -n-,t Ii,'.eflp Irl:,.
BID TABULATION
Brushy Creek Regional Utility Authority
Raw Water Pipeline
Phase One•Contract 2
Ma 19.2010
Item: Description Unit Q1t' W.L.Hailey b Company,Inc. Austin Engineering Co.,Inc. Laughlin-Thyssen,Inc. Oscar Honda Contracting Duroeher Martne S.J.Louis
Construction of
_ _ _ _ __ Texas Ltd.
I,S;BaWin9 a•y Insurance -- LS I 5215.000.00"--:275.000.00 $70.000.504 370.000.00 3150.000.00 $150.000.00 •S35D.000.00 $250.000,00 5206.000.00
5206.000.00 57}5.000.00; $65.000.00
1.2 1a00:latr<m and Ocm01,12a:06 i LS t S27S.00040 $275.000.00 $350.000.00; 5350.000.00 5330.000.00; $300.000.00 S35D,000.00 5350.000.00 5335100(1.00
$335.000.00 $4601&00! 54Do.6m.00
2.1 i7rercJ+Ezcavatan Safety Protemion 1 LF 353 S20A0 67,060.00 510.031 53590,00_ St_00_ $353.00 _ S10.00 63.530,00 SIOA_D� _ 53,530.00
SOAP? _53.53
2.2 136"DIP Open Cut Above Lake Water Swlacc E_lavatbn_ i LF--302•�•-�-S1,i85.00 S357.87-0.00 -S6Ot 410( _$181542.00 $900.00. $271,800.00 _5300.00 $90.60D.00
5600.00 $187,210.00 52560.. •Q0; $803.320.00
'36"DIP Open Cul 8viom Lake Wwor$Vrfa:o-ellvatan ..� -•"'•"' I
2.3•,( 1,E:Qr TrenpNrlg) LF 820 SIA5.00 $971.700.00 $1.220.00; SI,D00.400.00 S1,430.01) 31,172,600.06 52.570.00 52.107.400.00 $670.00
6713.000.00 52.570.007 $2107.400.00
2. i36*DIP Laid on lakt Soltom�--- LF:,976•-�Sf,036.00_ $2.047.136.03 57.700.00; 53.359.200_00»-52.075.00 - $4.100200.00 52.250.00 54.a46.000.0u 51,320.00 _$2,608.320.00
$2.900.00' $5.730.400.00
2.5;2a'DIP Open Cur AOovp Laap wxtr Sunam Elevation LF 3t $667.00 $34.017.00 5414.00; 521,114,00 5630.07 $32,130.00 $300.00 5(5.300.00
5415.00 $2t.165A0 57.125.00; 557.375.00
2.6 iComxtron to tis m36'Pipe" -__-Po" ;--LS i S7.D00.00 - $7.000.00 577.500.00: S17.500.00 slem,3AOi $16.000.00 525.000.00 $25.000.00 $17.500.00
$17-560.00 $10.000.00;_ 510000.00
27?6'.08x8'Wa:M 174.;cr Vaua LS 1 SN.000.00 $.4.000.00 $170.000.00•. 5/(0.000.00 5(1,0.000.00: 5100,000.00-585.000.00 »`---5851000.00 5710.000.00
5710.000.00 655.000.001 SSS.Q76.00
26 s12x15x1l'Presswe Heduckg vale vaex LS: t 5190.000.00 _$196.600.00_ 5127.0.40.001 512_7.070.00 5100.000.00. $100.000.00 593.000.00 583.000.01, S1S0A00.00
$150.000.00 S95.000.00 S95.0OG00
29!24•Bwllfy vale •-I-EA 2 S9.200A0 Sle.400.00 $18.000.00, 536.000.00 316.50-0.00, $37.000.00 $12.000.00-�- $24.000.00 518.000.00 536.000.00 S3D.000.00
2.10?36'Marao41 LS 1 Sa65.000A0 5466.003.00 $785.000.001 5765.000.00 51.057,350.00 SIAS7,350A0 3750,000,00 5750.000.00 S3.555,000.00 53.555.030.0)
$300.000.00; $300.000.00
2.71;36'COncrcte ReaChOn Necks to*thrust Resfreml � EA 12 $41,000.00 5482,000.00 546.500.001 $SSE.00D.OD $98.000.00 31.056.000.00 560.000.00 $720.000.00
$730.000.00 5(.560.060.00 520.000.00) 5240.060.00
2_2_Ftydros'ata:Testing o:36'Pipel'ss LS' t $10.000.00 510!000,00 $10,000.001__ $10,003.00 3T5.000.Oa 575.000.00 _ $12A00.00 572.000.09_ 585,000.00 _
595.000.00 520.000.00! $20.000.00
3.f!Storm Water pplulion PrevenOwl pyn LS t 570.000.00-• $/0.000.00 5650.001 5650.00 51.000410 51.000.00 S5.000.00 $5.000.00 $650.00,7
3850.00 a'5,00.00, 5500.00
. 00
321:I'me Protection _ LS' 1 $2.750-00_ 52.750.M 52.000.061__ $2.000.00 31.250.00 __31.250.D0 33.000.00 53.000.00 S2.00oio $2.000.00
11.003.00; $1.000.00
3.3'Eih Fence for Eroswn Cenlrol -� LF 1.700 $2,00 53.403.00--- 51.75 $2.975.00 52.00 - ^.03.400.00 34.00 $6.800.00- $05 $2.975.00
$2.001 $3.400.00
3.e IRxk Berm for Erpapn Control -�EA^-1 5320.06 $320.00 5375.001 _$375.00 57.0'0.00 $750.00 __ $1.000.00 $1.000.00 S375.00 5375.00
6600.001 $500.00
3.5 Waeve Gr_SSIand Sa ab Pland .-_-= $v 1.655 St 1.00 _320_405;00---__ 57.00E ----$12.985.00 535.03__--39_4.925.80 $LDO _3.710.OD $7AD--• $12.985.00
$1_56' $2.782.50
3.618onnuesa8btk Soda" _ _ j SY 300 $22.00 _56.600.00 $12.001 S3.6NA0 -- 56�OD: _ 51.800.00 $5.00- $1.500.00 $12.00 $3.500.00
31.0.4' $900.00
3.7'r Ypatir{LTurbidrar 8-yrxr - LF 1,8.50 $81.00 0149.850.06 _S100_901- SIBSAQ=- $50.00- S92_600A0_ St0D.00 5785,000.00 550410 _ S92.500A0 -
$55.001 5101.75040
O.I.3ET(Typo Ih�ee4 a 24-i(RCPi -_. EA 2 $4.400.00. $6.800.00_--$4.500.00i $9.000.00 55.300.07 __-»_$10,600.00 $2.000.00 $4.000.00 54.500.00
S9.030Ag 54.000.00! S6.Ce
4.2'PIC Pipe(Gass 0U124') I LF- 126 $105.00 513230.03 S65.001 -56.190.00_ M.0a. _ S11.970.00 335.00 $10.710.00 _S65.00 58.190.00
$50,0.77 56.300.00
4.3 FON'PF j 4S I 510,000,00 510.000.00 s12.5aa.�0��Y-$12,590.00 58.750.00. - 58.150.00 52,000.00 52.000.00 512.SODAO�- $12500.00 $20.000.00.
320.000.00
4.4�Pat CTB iFwrosh&kntal)(Lm pmt a( .1) � i LF 20 518.00 5360.00 �Sa2A0i 6VO.00 _ SSS.OR_ $1.(00.00 S30.00�_ 5600.00 $4200'
SE40.00 51.00 520.00
4,5 Port CTB(Mpve)(Lpn Pmq(ry 1) i LF 20 $13M 5260.00 $16.00; 5360.00» - 562.50: Si.250.00 55.00 - $100410 518.00 5360.00
$1.01) 520.00
4.6'Pon CTB Aampvei(I.-Protl(TY l) ; LF 26 $18.00 $360.00 $25.001 5500.00_ 56250 _ $1,250.00 55.00 � � $100.00 525.06 5500.00
$5.001 $loom
4.7•Pon 07 i(Fwnish 61nsla[05ow ProO(TV 2i - ! LF 20 S2-1.00•--`•` S420.00-` S42.00;_ 5840.00_ $55.00�_ $1.100.00_ S30.00 _3600.00 $42.00
$840.00 _ $1.00' 520410
44 ton CB(ASpeq(Lov.Prolj(Ty 2_ -LF 20 $15.00 5300.00�- -516.00 5360.00 562,501 $1_250.00_ SS00-� S700.00 $18.00. S360.09�
51-001 S20Arl
_-.. _...-r-"-
a.9 Pon CTB:aomaro)(Lovr ProO(Ty2)., i LF: 20 520.03' S400.00 S2S00! 5503.00 $6250 51,250.00 SSM. 5100.00 $2$.00
$500.00 SSAO, _---- $100.00
4.10 het CTB(Fwrush B tnsla6)(Sr4 Slp)ITy 2) .. 1 LF 150 W4.0U $2.100.00 542.70-;- 56.300.00_ 3SSA0j SB.250.00 _ $20.00 $3.000.00 $<20o
$6.306.00 1
1.00i S1y3.00
4,11 ton CTB tmcva)ts,4 Slp)(TY 21 _ LF 150 56.00 S90O.00 S1g.00 $2.700.00 676.00 $11,250.00 55.00 5750.00 516.100
$2.700.00 SI.00r 5150.00
4.t2.►pr•CTB IRR•Ovei(5: ISlpl(Ty 21- i LF 150 SBA6 --_ 5900.00 $25.00 $3.750.00 575.00 571250.00 $5.00 5750.00 $25.00 S3.M.00
35.001 5750.00
4.13D-GRHMAtOAIQCIFTYrl(SAC-9)(P-.7q-22) I Ton 360 SW4A0 537,440.00 SIW.001 $16.000.00 S1o5.00' $3.,800.00 550.00 518.000.00 $70.00
525200.00 590ADI 532.400.00
6.1416.OR INA(OA'OCIITY A)(PG 84-221 Tod 165 $104.00 517.160.00 - 590.00, $14,850.00 -5270.ODr $44,550.00 550.00 -,_ $6,250.00 585.00'
S14A2S.00 565.001 SKAMDO
-- ._.•R- _ --
<.15:1Aivarvays ACP SY Ila $52.00 55.720.00 5103.00: $71,000.00 S140.00 $15.400,00 316100 53,760.00 $100.00311.000,00 $50.001
55.500.00
4,16�Iaterse;aans ACP _-- SY 429 $52.00 -. 522^308.06 _ SfOD_00i $42900.00 --MAID $40.755.00 570410 $7.722,00 $100.00 542.900.00 550.001
$21.450.00
s.1?:Re0 Pav Mrk 731(V1)<•(SLO)100141L LF 2.440 SO.SD 51.220,0 51.05; $2.562.00 5090E $1.95200 SI.Op $2.440.00 $1.05
S2.562.00 $0.751 51.830.00
.. 1111.... .. .
>tellPa•Alrk 731(1)4'(SLD)100ML' i LF' 2<40 50.50- 57,220.00 $1.071 52.610_.00 $0.80' 31.952.00 _51.00 $2.440,00 SI.iO $2,684.00
30.60•: $1.952.00
4.19 AWIPW My4.•Ty 14A-A _- --._ EA 28 $6.00 $1611.00 $7.001. -_-S)96.00`---55.00; 5740.00 •___- S100.00 32.800.00 57.00 $106.00
--$7.001 3196.00
_.__._.-_-_�.,.-�_._.•1_111._.-1111._._:-._._-_ _�.....-_.__ _._......_..._�...._-
�.._:.....__.�.....__..._._.___ +.......•i---.-_ -_111_1-_..-...__....._-_-- ! _..-__._._1111._.._-.. ? -..- _
.1111...-111_1---.-._.011__1_.-_
:Total&p-Conlrae/2•_-_ ••• 55,511,770.00 16592.989,80 $8.005.077.00 --_--_- 19,334,.46200 -_ 39541507.00 •. _ r`SiOAST.314.gs
---...--1010---- ------ -- -1110_._- .- - __---'-i---
_._._....�---
1 Jacobs Projecl No.050844
BID TABULATION
Brushy Creek Regional Utility Authority
Raw Water Pipeline
Phase One-Contract 2
May 13 2010
Extra Unit Prim Items(Not Included!In ltd)
Item; Description Unit Est W.L.Hailey&Company,Inc, Austin Engineering Co.,Inc. Laughlin•Thysson,Inc. Oscar Ronda Contracting Duracher Marine S.J.Louts Construction
of
Ot _ Texas Ltd.
_.-_--_-.00.00__-__-__ .-..._ ..- .-_..._.__-_- _
E.t;5e1ta F0in0s In PlacO I43-0c9rcC ecMs} FA t S5.li00.W $22.000.00 $4,'000.00; 518.W0.00 $18.500.00; 3)ap00,00 5l,p00,p0 $16.000.00 S4.SOD.OD
518.000.00 312.000.00' $46.000.00
E.2 iTem wy.Vo,O Rortction lPiywood PWnkirgi i EA 5 5500.00 S25WA0 5500.00!
$2.500.00 S560.0p't S2R00.00 5700,00 53500.0> _... 5500.00 S2.5_OOAO _ 3200.00! 51000.00
E.31Con:rdlsO LON Sfreng!h Malerallor A:ityalior: 3 CY' 10 3200.00 $2.000.00 S115AOi-- 31.150.00 570.00; 5700.00 540.00. S400AD S11S.00
$1,150.00- -SISO.�; 51.500.00
EA PCaorasel-Filled ror a:W Bags for Void MitzJaiwn EAS 3 3100_DJ�� �5500.Op St2A0� � 580.00 31i.00�� 565.00 �570.00��� � ��SSOAO
� 3i2.00��� � � 560.00 SSO.00i 5250:00
E.S 13 to 51nc1 ROC lot void 1l i9aDVrt CF. 10 550.00_.. 5503.00 310.00:- 5100. 52.001 $20.00 $10.00 $100.0D 510.00. 3100.00
SS.DDI -- S50.00
E.6 IiWter Fabric for Void Mililiali0n I SY 10 $45.00 5450.00 320.001 $200.00 SUM $70.00 $10" 3100.0 $20.00 5200.00
52.001 _ $20.00
E.7 IPeM."Turf Rer:f0rcetneM A1al ro:Void Mnga;on SY 10 s45.00 8450.00 $12.00: 5120.00 51450! $145.00 $10.00 3100.0 $It00
3120.00 520.00E 5200.00
E.8!Low Stamp COnCrau CR 10 $45.00 $450."..0 SS.O $50.00_ 565.00 5650.00 510.00SiD0.00 $5.00 - $50.W �52.IAOi 5200.00
E9iSlicOial Tt,Ohbalcly AsswiawdwiIDOhsmat;onol Voidsl LF 10 St y0D.00: $17.000.00 520.00' 5200.00 Sl1S.Mt $1,150.00 $10.00 $100.00
520.00 5200.00 550.001 $500.00
:a00ar FloWng Vista, ..-... -....__ I --. i i
Downlinvc AssatiaM_d ntlh Oosemal;on of Voids aAd'or t
E.IO i t DAY 1•� 54.000.00 5-.000.00 S4. 0.00! $-.S00.0 - 56.500.00; $6.500.00 $500.00 3500.00 $4.500.00 44.500.03 623.0000Ati
0001 S2S.p
�Flowng Water 50 .
E,tt�OOscrvation of Voids aOS'or Water Flow Fcalores by ft
e01.giel ,Hour 5 $-00.00 52.000.00 $150.Mt' 5750.00 ^� 5400.001, ^��• 52.000.00 5200.00 51.000.00 $150.005150.00 4500.001 52500.00
IG� ander Geologist fke-:M.:aliv2 -_
1
i 1
i
t i .
i -
I
I
t
i
2 Jacobs Project No.050844
Jacobs Project No.050844
Evaluation of Low Bidder
BCRUA Raw Water Pipeline,Phase One-Contract 2
May 26,2010
W.L.Hailey&Company,Inc.
Total Bid=$5,511,774.00
1. Company History
• Incorporated in Tennessee on 7-31-1925
• In business for 85 years
• Wholly owned subsidiary of Reynolds,Inc.of Orleans,Indiana
• In October 2009,Reynolds,Inc.a wholly owned subsidiary of Layne Christensen Co.
purchased all W.L.Hailey stock.
• W.L.Hailey continues to operate as a Tennessee corporation
• 80%of work done by own forces on a typical project
• Normally sub out work for buildings,electrical,controls,etc.
2. Surety Company
• Travelers Casualty and Surety Co.of America
• Licensed to do business in Texas since 1964
• AM Best Rating is A+
3. Experience Modification Rate(EMR)
• 2009=0.72
• 2008-0.79
• 2007�0.86
• Note: 1.0 is average. Less than 1.0 is above average.
4. Personnel Experience--Required by Bid Documents:at least 3 key staff personnel,
including at least one safety officer,shall have at least 20 years combined experience,with no
one person having less than 5 years.
• George Naylor Operations Manager(32 years experience/ 12 years with Hailey)
• Joe Rast-Project Engineer(9 years experience/4 years as Project Engineer with
Hailey)
• Brian Hyffin-Project Engineer(14 years experience/2 years experience as Project
Engineer with Hailey)
• Andrew Hooper III--Marine Superintendent(32 years experience/9 years with Hailey)
• Thomas Garnette Marine Superintendent(16 years experience/9 years with hailey)
• Chris Morgan Regional Safety Manager(over 20 years total experience.;3 years as
Safety Manager with Hailey)
5. Project History-Required by Bid Documents: Over the last 10 years,two or more major
projects(>$2 million)underwater pipeline projects with> 16"diameter.
• Qualifications included with bid shows complete project descriptions for 15 marine type
heavy civil projects,including 3 underwater pipelines from 24" -78"diameter with
construction costs from$2 million to$14 million.
i
Jacobs Project No.050844
6. Reference Check—Date:05-26-10
Reference#1:Gary Crosby(CTI Engineers Inc.—Chattanooga,TN
(423)267-7613)
Project:Outfall Pipe at John Sevier Fossil Plant for TVA
I, Considering a range from poor to excellent,how would you rank the overall quality of
the contractor's work on your project? Poor is equivalent to never hire them again and
excellent ranking is equal to your best project ever.
Hailey is very capable of doing underwater pipeline work. Gary was not directly
involved in construction administration because it was handled by TVA. This
involved 1600'of 16"DIP in a river(20'deep water).
They also did a project for him in 2000 for Knoxville Utilities. 24"DIP trenched in
river. They did work off platforms. It was a good project,no issues.
2. Considering a range of poor to excellent,how would you rank the contractor's overall
mana e� ment of your project,with respect to coordination with your inspection team,
subcontractors,suppliers,other contractors,materials testing labs,etc?
Halley has no issues in project management.
3. Considering a range of poor to excellent,how would you rank the contractor's overall
management of your project,with respect to their handling of the general public,
coordination with local residents and businesses,etc.?
Hailey is known for doing"unusual and hard"projects. They did a water line
project for him in a national park and couldn't use vehicles for hauling in material,
so used pack mules.
4. For your project(s),did the contract exceed,meet,or not meet the schedule. If not meet,
were they the cause of the delays?
He is aware that Hailey bid the TVA project based on being able to blast rock but
after the fact TVA determined they couldn't blast. Hailey agreed to hammer it out
and it took longer than planned,but he doesn't fault Hailey.
Reference#2:Butch Johnson(Civic Engineering Consultants,Inc.—Marietta,GA
(770)977-5747)
Project:Lake Lanier Intake Pipe in Cummings,Georgia
I. Considering a range from poor to excellent,how would you rank the overall duality of
the contractor's work on your project? Poor is equivalent to never hire them again and
excellent ranking is equal to your best project ever.
Malley has good expertise on barge work. This project involved 2,000 feet of pipe in
30 feet of water. Also included a 66"microtunnel to intake for pump station. They
have a good reputation for taking"nasty"projects involving construction in the
water. He would rank them good on his project.
Jacobs Project No.050844
2. Considering a range of poor to excellent,how would you rank the contractor's overall
management of your project,with respect to coordination with your inspection team,
subcontractors,suppliers,other contractors,materials testing labs,etc?
They were a little lax in documentation due to the particular superintendent,who
was very informal and did not document things in writing very well.
3. Considering a range of poor to excellent,how would you rank the contractor's overall
management of your project,with respect to their handling of the general public,
ordination with local residents and businesses,etc.?
Project was near expensive lake homes and Hailey did a good job in working with
the community,etc.
4. For your project(s),did the contract exceed,meet,or not meet the schedule. If not meet,
were they the cause of the delays?
Halley needed a time extension due to the hard material they encountered—it was
harder than anticipated. However,the owner didn't have a time constraint so
schedule was not a problem.
Reference#3:Charles Dick(City of Somerset,KY—(606)678-4466)
Project:Raw Water Intake Modifications on Lake Cumberland
1. Considering a range from poor to excellent,how would you rank the overall quality of
the contractor's work on your project? Poor is equivalent to never hire them again and
excellent ranking is equal to your best project ever.
Hailey is the best contractor he has ever dealt with. In particular,George Naylor
with Hailey is very knowledgeable and has helped the City on other projects.
2. Considering a range of poor to excellent,how would you rank the contractor's overall
management of your project,with respect to coordination with your inspection team,
subcontractors,suppliers,other contractors,materials testing labs,etc?
They handled all phases of the work very professionally.
3. Considering a range of poor to excellent,how would you rank the contractor's overall
management of your project,with respect to their handling of the general public,
coordination with local residents and businesses,etc,?
Same as above.
4. For your project(s),did the contract exceed,meet,or not meet the schedule. If not meet,
were they the cause of the delays?
Same as above.
Recommendation: W.L.Hailey is qualified to perform the required scope of work. References
are good. Due to the differences in amounts bid for underwater pipe items between W.L.Hailey
and other bidders,it will be a good idea to have a meeting with them prior to award,just to make
sure there are no misinterpretations,etc.and to find out if they are going to try and re-design and
want to change everything.
DATE: June 11,2010
SUBJECT: BCRUA Board Meeting—June 16,2010
ITEM: 7A. Consider a resolution authorizing the President to execute a contract with
W.L. Hailey & Company for the BCRUA Raw Water Pipeline, Phase One —
Contract 2 Project.
Presenter: Michael Thuss
Program Manager
Justification:
This Contract is the second of three construction contracts designed by Jacobs Engineering Group to
deliver water from Lake Travis to the proposed BCRUA Water Treatment Plant(WTP).The first
contract was for the 78"raw water pipeline that is currently constructed up Trails End Road. This
second project consists of constructing approximately 3,000 linear feet of 36"raw water pipeline
along the bottom of Lake Travis.The third construction contract will be for the piping and pumping
upgrades on the existing floating barge.
On May 19,2010,six bids were received. The bid amounts ranged from$5,511,774,to the amount
of$9,841,807. The low bidder is W.L. Hailey&Company, Inc. The Engineer and Staff from Round
Rock,Cedar Park,and Leander recommend awarding the project to W.L. Hailey&Company, Inc.
The construction cost is allocated to the Cities based on their capacity in the pipeline. Round Rock's
allocated percentage being 38.56%,Cedar Park's 14.18%and Leander's 47.26%.