Up Egans Creek without a paddle

Submitted by Suanne Z. Thamm
Reporter – News Analyst
May 19, 2016 7:00 a.m.

The Fernandina Beach City Commission (FBCC) seems eager to get a kayak launch built for the Egans Creek Park—but not without assurances that the construction bid will be awarded to a firm with the experience and know-how to provide the public with a quality product that justifies the investment of public funds.

At their May 17, 2016 Regular Meeting, Commissioners balked at awarding the construction bid as recommended by city staff, asking for additional information from all three bid responders regarding their experience with similar projects and plans for sinking pilings that will support the kayak launch.  Commissioners expressed the hope that with such information from all bidders, the project bid could be awarded without having to rebid, which would take more time.

The city issued an invitation to bid for construction and installation of an ADA-accessible fishing pier/kayak launch at the Egans Creek Park in March. Three firms responded with city staff recommending the award to Dunmar Group, Inc. for $149,114.12. Adam Wilson, representing Southeastern Docks and Decks, appeared before the FBCC to voice objections to the award, citing Dunmar’s failure to meet experience requirements laid out in the bid documents as well as the absence of engineering documents specifying the depth of pilings to be constructed to support the pier and launch.

Although the public information packet indicated that Southeastern Docks and Decks was low bidder on the project at $134,850.17, that information was incorrect. Their corrected bid came in at approximately $171K. Commissioners did not have that correction in their back up material, but Wilson publicly announced the higher amount.

Harbor Marine Dock Co., Inc., the third bidder, came in as high bidder at $263,277.06.

Wilson claimed that since the bid document contained no engineering specifics with respect to the size and depth of support pilings, it was not possible to evaluate the three bids fairly. He added that there is no code in the city or county for building such pilings, so it was not possible to fairly evaluate the bids without knowing exactly what the bid respondents were proposing to build. The Parks and Recreation Department had put out a “vague bid,” he said. He told commissioners that while his firm has built or refurbished 26 of the 51 decks and piers along Egans Creek, Dunmar has no equivalent experience. Wilson said that because of his experience, he knows how deep the pilings must be set, a major factor in both determining cost and durability of the final project.

City Attorney Tammi Bach asked Wilson when he had learned that the city staff would recommend awarding the bid to Dunmar. Wilson replied that he had contacted Nan Voit, Parks and Recreation Department Director, to correct a typo on his paperwork. He followed up with another phone call to her two weeks later to determine if he needed to provide any additional information on his bid. Wilson said, “She said they did not need any more information from me, and that they would award the bid tonight, May 17, and that they were planning on awarding it to the Dunmar Group. She did let me know that Parks and Recreation had already done work with Dunmar Group and that they were in good standing with them and that she was leaning towards going with them.”

“I understand all that,” Wilson added, “but to me it would be like going to Pizza Hut and ordering a hamburger.” He said that Dunmar does not have the equipment to do the job and would have to subcontract parts of it. Without having engineered plans to bid against, Wilson said that the city has no idea whether they are getting 20- or 40-foot pilings and would have no recourse should the pilings fail. He said that of the seven examples Dunmar had provided of completed work, only one involved sinking pilings.

Commissioner Roy Smith agreed with Wilson. “As an ex-contractor who built bridges and such, I can’t quite understand how [the city] could get bids on something that basically people are bidding apples and oranges. It’s not how you bid jobs. I’ve seen it before with Fernandina Beach. We’ve come up with some strange looking things, and you get strange looking prices because of it. It should never be bid like that. I have a real problem with this [award] because it wasn’t specked out right. You can’t take bids on jobs and expect to have good numbers come in when it’s just open-ended specifications. We’ve got to make sure that everybody is bidding the same project.”

Commissioner Tim Poynter agreed with Smith. “I’m uncomfortable without having any plan for someone to bid against. I don’t know what an [engineering] plan would cost, but it would make sense to have it to bid against.”

Vice Mayor Robin Lentz also weighed in. “I feel that we definitely should not vote on this tonight. I’m asking my fellow commissioners, is it worth the process of going out to rebid? Or should we just send [Community Development Director] Marshall McCrary and [Parks and Recreation Director] Nan Voit to do a little more investigation and make a decision based on what they bring back?” Lentz expressed her desire to get started quickly on the project while not sacrificing quality.

Commissioner Len Kreger said, “To bid without engineering plans is ludicrous. We need to have proper engineering plans so that we can select the right bidders for the right project.”

Smith said that his preference was to “throw the whole thing out,” get real specifications, and “do it right.” He added that according to the specifications in the original bid documents, “You could put anything in there. That’s not right, and that’s not what we want. Pilings for docks or bridges are the most important part of [the project]. You can’t just leave it open-ended.”

Parks and Rec Director Nan Voit next addressed the FBCC, trying to add background and clarity. She said that architect John Cotner had done the specifications and FDEP has already permitted the project. She said that she felt the FBCC discussion was “a little bit unfair” because Dunmar Group was not present to respond to the concerns raised. She echoed concerns about delaying the project, saying that her department has actually started on the park. “Because the DEP has already permitted the structure and the [recommended] contractor is not here to talk about it and the specs were designed by an architect … it was a design build project, so it will have to go to the city for review and permitting … I think those are some factors we need to weigh in before rebidding it. I don’t know if there’s another option.”

Poynter said, “The option is to go back for clarification from all three [bidding] companies. I don’t think we should go out again. These three companies are the ones that showed interest in the job and from which we would be inclined to make an award.” He added that there had to be factors that allowed for the variations in cost represented by the three bids. “If nothing else,” he said, “clarification would help [the FBCC] feel more comfortable in awarding to the lower priced bid.”

Smith said, “Architects don’t design bridges; engineers do. We don’t need an architect telling us how to build [this project]. That’s an engineer’s job.” He expressed his opinion that even with clarification, the city would still need an engineer’s opinion as to whether the proposal would be adequate to handle the project. “We need someone who has knowledge of pile driving to look at this.”

Kreger agreed with Poynter and Smith.

Mayor Johnny Miller expressed his concern that if the finished product had flaws, the city would not be able to go back to the contractor to fix the problems if the city had not provided adequate specifications.

Voit said she thought it would be only fair if the recommended contractor were present to answer questions. Commissioners agreed. Poynter told Voit, “You should never make an assumption that we are going to approve something.”

Voit responded, “Well, I didn’t know that I was going to be blindsided.”

Bach summarized the FBCC’s concerns, telling Voit that she did not need to rebid but she needed to seek clarification from the three bidders. She said that commissioners were looking for a justification from staff that would include what they saw in the bid besides price, since the city does not have a requirement to award to the low bidder. The city is required to award to “the most qualified, most responsive bidder.”

Poynter added that he would also like clarification on the depth of experience of the bidders. Smith emphasized that he wanted to see information from all three bidders, not just the low bidder.

Bach said that if after clarification the commissioners were still not satisfied, the project might need to be rebid.

The item will return for further consideration in June.

Editor’s Note: Suanne Z. Thamm is a native of Chautauqua County, NY, who moved to Fernandina Beach from Alexandria,VA, in 1994. As a long time city resident and city watcher, she provides interesting insight into the many issues that impact our city. We are grateful for Suanne’s many contributions to the Fernandina Observer.