Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
2 <br /> JAIL/COURTHOUSE PROJECT SUMMARY <br /> APRIL 1, 1996 <br /> 5/23/95. First call for bids. Fewer than three bidders per discipline (general, electrical, <br /> mechanical and plumbing) responded, therefore, no bids were accepted and the rebid date was <br /> set for June 8. <br /> 6/8/95 First rebid. In a rebid situation you may open bids regardless of the number of bids <br /> received. In this case, the multiple prime bids were as follows: <br /> three (3) electrical bids; <br /> two (2) mechanical bids; <br /> three (3) plumbing bids; and <br /> zero (0) general contractor bids. <br /> There was, however, one single prime general contract bid submitted in an amount of <br /> $3,944,684. Since the single prime bid constituted the only full set of bids received, if we had <br /> chosen to award, it would have been our only choice. <br /> Since the $3.9 million figure was our first, and to that point only frame of reference for the real <br /> bidding environment, it did not seem prudent to negotiate with the low bidder. The County <br /> rejected this set of bids on June 26, 1995. <br /> During the Summer, 1995 the County's staff and Architect explored options which would allow <br /> the project to be built in a manner that would meet the goals of the County to: <br /> • Get additional bedspace for the Jail as quickly as possible; and <br /> • Relieve the overcrowding in the Courts. <br /> Several sources were consulted regarding potential cost saving measures during this period of <br /> time. <br /> The second rebid for this project occurred on 8/28/95 with the following bidder results: <br /> One (1) Mufti-prime general contract bid <br /> One (1) Mufti-prime mechanical contract bid <br /> Two (2) Multi-prime electrical contract bids <br /> One (1) Multi-prime plumbing contract bid <br /> Two (2) Single-prime general contract bids <br /> The lowest bid was the single prime contract bid for$3,765,000 submitted by Trafalgar House <br /> Construction (THC). <br /> Since the two general contract bids did not exhibit an abnormally high spread between them, it <br /> served as an indicator to us that in light of the market it was unlikely that we could get bids better <br /> than these. It was therefore recommended to the Board at their regular meeting on September <br /> 5, 1995 that the County enter into negotiation with the low bidder. <br />