My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
RES-2023-152
>
Meetings
>
2023
>
09. September
>
2023-09-05 10:00 AM - Commissioners' Agenda
>
RES-2023-152
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/12/2023 11:17:36 AM
Creation date
9/12/2023 11:17:31 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meeting
Date
9/5/2023
Meeting title
Commissioners' Agenda
Location
Commissioners' Auditorium
Address
205 West 5th Room 109 - Ellensburg
Meeting type
Regular
Meeting document type
Fully Executed Version
Supplemental fields
Item
Request to Approve a Resolution to Award the Contract for the Faust Road Bridge #88212 Over the Town Ditch Replacement Project (CRP 316-22) and Authorize the County Engineer to Execute the Same
Order
23
Placement
Consent Agenda
Row ID
108557
Type
Resolution
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
7
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
^-,w llllashington State <br />IDepartment of Transportation <br />1) What reasonable and available means did the bidder use to solicit the interest of all certified <br />DBEs who had the capability to perform work on the contract? (CFR 49, Part 26, Appendix A, <br />tv.A) <br />ln the bidder's letter, they mention listing themselves as a prime bidder on the public <br />planholder's list, including QuestCDN, the Daily Journal of Commerce, and The Plancenter <br />(Yakima, Tri-Cities, Walla Walla, and Hermiston). The bidder also mentioned using the DBE <br />directory to search for DBE companies qualified to bid on the portions of the project and <br />reviewed the planholders list to see which firms had already signed to review plans. <br />Conclusion <br />The bidder did provide evidence that it used all reasonable and available means to <br />solicit potential su bcontractors. <br />2l Did the bidder solicit interest within a sufficient time to allow the DBEs to respond to the <br />solicitation? (CFR 49, Paft26, Appendix A, tV.A) <br />The bidder's letter states they reached out via email and phone and were able to solicit bids <br />from several DBE subcontractors. ln total, they received 6 DBE bids. However, no copies of the <br />actual bids were included, and no dates were attached to the phone calls or emails made to the <br />DBEs. <br />Conclusion <br />The bidder's documentation did not show if sufficient time was given to respond to the <br />solicitations. The bidder did not meet this requirement. <br />3) Did the bidder take appropriate steps to follow up on initial solicitations, and did the bidder <br />negotiate in good faith with interested DBEs? (cFR 49, part26, Appendix A, lv.A) <br />The bidder received six bids from DBEs. They used three DBEs of the six: Obunco Engineering, <br />M2 lndustrial, and John Wayne Construction. M2 and John Wayne were not the lowest bid, but <br />because the bidder had used them in past projects, they decided to use them. The bidder also <br />added a DBE supplier, The Bag Lady, and negotiated with Caliber Traffic Control to utilize a <br />portion of their traffic control quote. <br />Conclusion <br />Based on the documentation provided, the bidder did meet this requirement. <br />4l Did the bidder select scopes/classes of the work to be performed by DBEs to increase the <br />likelihood of DBE participation? (CFR 49, part 26, Appendix An tV.B) <br />Note: CFR 49, Part 26 clearly states, "The ability or desire of a prime contractor to perform the work of a <br />contract with its organization does not relieve the bidder of the responsibility to make good faith efforts."
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.