PRESQUE ISLE, Maine — City Council had its first opportunity to discuss recently-opened bids for the Community Center, pool and splash pad during Monday’s meeting. Coming in higher than expected, councilors now have to determine the best way to proceed with the projects.
The four bids received by the city are broken down giving the bids for the pool, Community Center and alternatives, then the overall total. Alternatives include everything from bathroom and kitchen to multipurpose rooms, landscaping and more. Bids came in as follows: Sheridan Corporation — $2,384,000, $7,798,000, $1,520,000, for a total of $11,702,000; J.P. Martin & Sons — $2,370,000, $7,677,000, $1,572,400, for a total of $11,619,400; Bowman Constructors — $2,197,000, $7,799,000, $1,853,000, for a total of $11,849,000; and Nickerson & O’Day — $2,416,104, $7,414,395, $1,915,972, for a total of $11,746,471.
“You will be discussing the results of the bids that have been submitted for these projects. As you are aware, the bids came in higher than projected. As a result, the Council will have a number of decisions to make. It is not expected that the Council will make those decisions tonight,” said City Manager Jim Bennett.
Bennett told councilors he was “looking for guidance on how to proceed,” with their official vote slated for their May 4 meeting.
Bennett said when the bids were broken down, it was easier to see where the problem lies.
“Our cost estimators did their estimates in the fall of 2014, with the Community Center coming in around $6.8 million. Our low bid is $7.4 million for Nickerson & O’Day,” said Bennett. The city received a letter from Karl Ward, president and CEO of Nickerson & O’Day, indicating he’d come up with an additional $300,000 in savings, thus making his company the lowest bid.
“We’re $746,000-plus higher on the pool and splash pad. That’s 30 percent higher than estimators predicted,” said Bennett. “Then there’s other costs. We may not want to pay back the $603,000-plus we’ve taken so far.”
He said there was a possibility of recouping that money through the bond process. “It could come down to $10,000 to $15,000, if bid locally, but that may mean higher interest rates,” he said.
“In the fall of 2012, we asked voters if they’d support a non-binding project. Council asked voters if they’d be interested if the project came in at $7.5 million, with $3.5 million in fund-raising. Today we’re at about $2.5 million in fund-raising, with a smaller blueprint. Our construction costs today don’t match what they were then. We don’t have the wherewithal to make any of that happen,” he said.
“The real challenge the Council will have to wrestle with is you’ll have to make the decision what is more important than other pieces — will it be fund-raising, size of the project, etc.,” said Bennett. “Our apparent low bid will change based on what you decide.”
Bennett said at this point, it’s a matter of “untangling bids to value engineer projects.”
“Ward has ID’d $300,000 in savings in his letter. He’s offered to donate $30,000 to the fund-raising effort, if his bid’s accepted,” said Bennett, noting, “It’s pretty clear the city has to embark on value engineering with the apparent low bidder.”
“We can ask others also to break out the bid for splash pad and pool,” he said.
He said councilors now have a series of questions to ponder.
“You as a council can’t vote to construct the Community Center under the parameters set by voters in 2012. Of the 67 percent who said ‘yes,’ you have to figure out the most important part: price, size, fund-raising. I suspect the 33 percent who said ‘no’ will argue you have to make it smaller and do other things, but they’ve already said they weren’t in favor of the project,” said Bennett.
He told councilors the pool is responsible for an increase of over $1 million to the cost of the project but the pool “serves some of the people who don’t have the wherewithal to go elsewhere.”
“Another thing to think about: do you feel putting $600,000 debt on taxpayers to repay ourselves — given where we are in the project, I’m not sure that’s a wise decision,” he said.
Bennett said the final alternative would be to “scrap part or all of the projects.”
“I recommend we instruct staff to work with the engineer, architect and the two lowest bidders to break down the pool and splash pad and also look at what could they do for value-added,” said Bennett.
“Value engineering,” according to Bennett, involves going back and looking at a proposed project, then coming up with less expensive alternatives. Examples might include less expensive roofing or siding materials, using a liner for the pool instead of what was in the bid package, using a different type of lighting system and so on, as ways to reduce costs.
“We’re not bound by what taxpayers said. We’re behind on contributions and welcome donations. Anything more (received) would help make our decision easier,” said Councilor Dick Engels. “We have to do whatever reasonably brings the heart of the cost down to complete this project.”
Engels said splitting up the projects “makes sense.”
“We have to make sure we can look at the public with a straight face,” said Engels.
“I’ve challenged architects all along on the numbers. What contractors will bid are the specs asked of the architects,” said Councilor Mike Chasse.
Chasse said he’d looked at the 1,400-page specs but wonders “what does the engineer want, what does code (enforcement) say and how can we meet in here.”
Council Chair Emily Smith expressed concern over how the proposed process, moving forward, might be perceived.
“Is it fair, just, and how will it be perceived by the companies who bid. We say ‘we want to talk to you, want your knowledge to work with architects to reduce this,’ but not award to one or the other. We’re pitting the low bidder against a local company,” said Smith.
Bennett said he’d take the two low bidders and ask what’s driving the bids over 30 percent over cost.
“The second thing we’ll ask them to do between now and Monday, based on the work they did, is in terms of value engineering,” he said. “What give-backs or reductions — the range of what they could save us.”
“It’s almost unfair to ask them what they can do now, now that these figures are public,” said Smith.
Bennett said the city “really only has two companies we’re looking at at this point, the other two are out.”
He said one of the driving factors, cost-wise, may be who their subs are.
“Subs would likely keep more money local,” said Bennett, noting he hoped to get that information for next Monday.
“Once the low bidder is determined, then we can begin negotiating. You won’t get the details you want unless you know you have a bid,” said Bennett.
Councilor Leigh Smith said it was “a buyer’s market,” since there were not a lot of large projects for contractors on the horizon at this point.
Councilor Craig Green said bids might have been higher for the pool and splash pad, since they were included as part of the whole package with the Community Center.
“To bid on the pool, companies had to be bonded for $10 million. For that reason, smaller bidders bid up,” said Green. “In a project of this size, you may find cutting it down into separate pieces may affect some significant savings. It could be why we’re seeing such high costs on the pool part.”
Councilors discussed having the fund-raising committee meet again, to see what more could be done to raise funds. Chasse said he’d meet with city officials, the architect and low bidders to look for more ways to save.
“My tentative plan is to plant this squarely in Martin’s (Puckett, deputy city manager) lap. He’ll be the bulldog and work with Mike and the contractors making decisions,” said Bennett.
“People may have the wrong idea that I’m against the project. I’m in favor, I just want to get more bang for the buck,” said Engels.
Councilors will meet again Monday, April 27, for another workshop to continue discussion on the Community Center, splash pad and pool. The public is welcome and encouraged to participate. For more information, call 760-2785 or visit www.presqueislemaine.gov.
