AGENDA #4c

 

MEMORANDUM

 

TO:                  Mayor and Town Council

 

FROM:            W. Calvin Horton, Town Manager       

                        Ralph D. Karpinos, Town Attorney

 

SUBJECT:       Modification to Resolution Adopted January 26 Awarding Bids for Comprehensive Rehabilitation Work at the Airport Gardens Public Housing Neighborhood

 

DATE:             February 23 , 2004

 

 

The attached resolution would modify the Council’s resolution, adopted January 26, 2004, awarding a contract for phase I of comprehensive rehabilitation work at the Airport Gardens public housing neighborhood by rescinding the additional authorization to the Manager to “negotiate additional work from Alternates 1, 3 and/or 4 under the current bid prices, and present such change order to the Council at a future meeting.”  The attached resolution would not modify the Council’s action to award the contract for the Base Bid and Alternate 2 to Carl Garris & Son, Inc.

 

BACKGROUND

 

On January 28, 2004, the Council accepted a bid and awarded a contract in the amount of $757,000 to Carl Garris & Son, Inc. for comprehensive rehabilitation work for 18 apartments at the Airport Gardens public housing neighborhood.  The 18 apartments were included in the base bid for eight apartments and an additional 10 apartments in Alternate 2.  The decision to award a bid for the Base Bid plus Alternate 2 was based on the prices submitted and the funds available to the Department of Housing at this time for this rehabilitation work.  Carl Garris & Son, Inc. was the low bidder.  Attachment 1 consists of the January 28, 2004, agenda memorandum and resolution adopted by the Council.  (This meeting had been scheduled for January 26 but was delayed until January 28 due a snow event.)

 

DISCUSSION

 

Following Council’s action on January 28, 2004, questions were raised by one of the bidders on this project who was not the successful bidder.  On February 6, 2004, we received the attached letter from Walter E. Ricks, III, Attorney, on behalf of Hairston Enterprises, raising concerns regarding how this bidding process was conducted and the language included in the Council’s adopted resolution (Attachment 2).

 

Based on the questions that were raised and Mr. Ricks letter, we have reviewed the proceedings related to the bidding of this project and the Council’s action on January 28, 2004.  We believe that the staff recommendation and the Council decision to award the contract to Carl Garris & Sons, Inc.  for the Base Bid and Alternate 2 were proper and in accordance with the requirements of state purchasing laws.  Carl Garris & Sons, Inc. was the low bidder for this project and the choice to award a contract for the Base Bid plus Alternate 2 was arrived at as a result of a determination of what funds the Town had available for this project at this time.

 

Further, we have not identified any actions taken by the Town in the processing of this matter that violate any HUD requirements regarding utilization of minority and disadvantaged general contractors for work on HUD projects, another concerned raised by Mr. Ricks.   Accordingly, we believe that the correct step to take with respect to the Base Bid and Alternate 2 is to proceed to execute the contract with Carl Garris & Sons, Inc.

 

However, we believe that Mr. Ricks raises valid concerns with respect to the further language in the resolution pertaining to negotiating for the completion of other Alternate portions of the project without re-bidding.  Upon review of the resolution adopted by the Council, we now believe that the inclusion of this additional language was in error to the extent it indicates authorization for the Manager to enter into additional contracts for any of the alternates that would themselves otherwise require compliance with the provisions of the North Carolina bidding law.  Accordingly, we believe that such further authorization should not be implemented and, for purposes of making that clear to all interested persons, recommend the rescission of that authority.  This rescission of authority for negotiating further contracts would not alter the procedures authorized for consideration of change orders that do not require separate bidding procedures.  However, if future phases require separate bidding procedures those steps would be followed.  Attachment 3 is a letter to Mr. Ricks stating our recommendation.

 

Manager’s Recommendation:  That the Council adopt the attach resolution rescinding the further contracting authorization provision in Resolution 2004-01-26/R-5.

 

ATTACHMENTS

 

1.      January 26, 2004 Memorandum to Council (p. 4).

2.      Mr. Walter Ricks letter dated February 6, 2004 (p. 9).

3.      Correspondence dated February 18, 2004 (p. 12).

 

 

A RESOLUTION MODIFYING THE COUNCIL’S RESOLUTION OF JANUARY 28, 2004, WHICH ACCEPTED AND AWARDED THE BID FOR THE COMPREHENSIVE REHABILITATION OF AIRPORT GARDENS APARTMENTS TO RESCIND THE AUTHORIZATION TO NEGOTIATE ADDITIONAL WORK FROM ALTERNATES 1, 3, AND/OR 4 (2004-02-23/R-3)

 

BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council, based on the explanation and for the reasons contained in the report of the Manager and Attorney on February 26, 2004, hereby rescinds the authorization contained in the Council’s Resolution 2004-01-26/R-5 “to negotiate additional work from Alternates 1, 3 and/or 4 under the current bid prices, and present such change order to the Council at a future meeting.”

 

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this action is intended to clarify that any future parts of the Airport Gardens Rehabilitation Project which would themselves be required to be advertised for bid under North Carolina law shall be so advertised and the bids awarded in accordance with said law.

 

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this action is not intended to preclude the possibility of consideration of normal change orders to the contract awarded on January 28, 2004, which would otherwise be permissible under State law and Council policy. 

 

This the 23^th day of February, 2004.