CCR1996236COMMON COUNCIL - CITY OF MUSKEGO
RESOLUTION #236-96
Big Muskego Lake Dredging of Canal
Rejection of Bid
for Boat Access Project
WHEREAS, the City of Muskego adopted Resolution #214-96 on
September 24, 1996 concerning the awarding of bid for the
Big Muskego Lake Dredging of Canal for Boat Access Project
contingent upon the review and approval of the City Engineers;
and
WHEREAS, the City Engineers have not approved of the award of
said bid and have recommended that all bids be rejected.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Common Council of the
City of Muskego does hereby reject all bids for the Big Muskego
Lake Dredging of Canal for Boat Access Project.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Mayor and Clerk-Treasurer are
authorized to take any action necessary to finalize rejection of
said bid.
DATED THIS 8th DAY OF OCTOBER , 1996.
SPONSORED BY:
Mayor David L. De Angelis
This is to certify that this is a true and accurate copy of
City of Muskego.
Resolution #236-96 which was adopted by the Common Council of the
10/96 jmb
Ruekert ~ Mieke
October 7, I996
Mayor David L. De .hetiis
City of Muskego
Wi8i S8200 Racine .L\vence
Post Ofice Box 903
Muskego, $7 53 159
Re: Big Muskego Lake Public Bozt Access Dredging Project
Dear Llayor'
specifications for the Big Muskego Lake Public Boat Access Dredging Project. "hs
As directed per Common Council Resolution, we hzve reviewed rhe plans and
review has turned up engineering and legal concerns that prevent us from m&ng I
recommendation to award rhe bids.
The major concerns are as follows:
1. We found no record that the project was advertised in the le@ newspace: fer
2. There wa no bid bond provided in the information furnished to us.
3. The specifications and plans that we:e fimjshed to us appear incornpicre
the City (Xluskego Sun).
do not address the derails of the consmcrion of the sedimenr basin or how ~ke
sediment will be measured.
4. Tie agrement included mlth t!!e Contract Documents was capied Con
another project, describes a different project, lisu RuekenlblieLke: Inc.
engineer and has dates in November of 1995 listed for Substanrial ant Fhi
problems in enforcement of the Contract.
Completion. The careless use of these bidding documents could lead to mzjcr
5. There is anorhe: agreement that has been drafied that lisrs construction
requirements that were not included with rhe original biddins documem
which could pose legal problems.
6. The DKR pennit is for "hydraulic" dredging rather than mechanical. hlr
Paulat te!ls me hat the !ow bidder bid this project with mechanical dredging
which is in conflict with the DNR permit.
For these reasons we cannot recommend award of this contract. We would dsc
suggest that the Bidding Documents be re-done and the project plans and specifications
be revised to clear up these and orher concerns prior to rebidding.
Very n~ly yours,
RUEKERT & MIF;L&€,JNC.
Dt&fi@k
Michael F. Campbel , P.E.
bff C:eu
cc: Jean Marenda, Clerk
13110960.100 IZ:UAZ\WORD_WC~~FC\I007DE.U.I Doc]
Mark Paulat, City of Muskego
Attorney Donald S. bfoiter, Jr., Arenz, Molter. Mac). & Riffle, S.C.
File
W??9 VI812 ROCKWOOD DS!YE ,v+L-xc<"., .,~,~~~~~,.,.~-..~~.,,,~