Trending
MARIETTA – After a week’s delay by Marietta City Council, a Zanesville company was accepted Thursday as the contractor who will install an elevator at Marietta’s Armory.
G&M Construction was the city engineering department’s original recommendation for the contract, but during the July 7 regular council meeting a representative from Parkersburg-based United Construction Inc. questioned why his company was not recommended for the job.
“My biggest concern is that we did submit the lowest bid for the project, and typically that company gets the contract, that’s the process of competitive bidding,” Charlie Taylor with United Construction repeated to members of city council’s lands, buildings and parks committee Thursday.
Taylor’s company submitted a bid of $255,247 for the elevator contract, while the G&M bid was $257,367.
During last week’s council meeting members delayed approval of $200,000 in funding for the project until they could hear an explanation from city engineer Joe Tucker about why G&M was recommended over United Construction for the contract.
“Basically, side by side, both companies were very good,” Tucker told the committee members Thursday.
He noted that G&M was the general contractor for the ground floor renovation of the Armory, and that G&M had listed Otis Elevator as the type of unit the company planned to install.
“The basis of our design was an Otis 2500 elevator that does not require the construction of a machine room,” Tucker said. The Otis machine room is built into the elevator itself.
United Construction’s bid documents recommended a Thyssen Krupp Endura 2500 Twin-Post unit, which requires an interior machine room within the Armory building.
City safety-service director Jonathan Hupp noted that constructing a machine room would take up valuable space inside the building that could be used for other purposes.
After consulting with Pickering Associates, design engineers for the elevator project, Tucker said the decision was made to go with G&M Construction.
Councilwoman Sarah Snow, R-at large, said one concern from last week’s council meeting was that an elevator with a machine room attached would have to be taken out of the shaft if repairs are needed.
“The elevator that was chosen (Otis) has the equipment room mounted on the side, so most maintenance can be done from the side of the shaft,” explained Traci Stotts with Pickering Associates.
She added that most other elevators of that type have the machine room mounted on top of the unit.
Taylor said the bidding specifications for the contract allowed for recommendation of an alternative elevator unit, so United Construction’s bid included the Thyssen Krupp elevator.
He said United Construction would cover the cost of any redesign that may be needed for installation of that unit.
Ryan Taylor from Pickering Associates (no relation to Charlie Taylor) said the cost would be at least $4,500 for a redesign, including reviewing the building code, meeting with the vendor and contractor, and researching required electrical service.
After some discussion, Councilman Tom Vukovic, D-4th Ward, and chair of council’s finance committee, asked the council members present during Thursday’s meeting if they supported the city engineer’s recommendation of G&M for the elevator project.
Vukovic, Snow and council members Mike McCauley, D-2nd Ward; Steve Thomas, D-3rd Ward; Kathy Downer, D-at large; and Cindy Oxender, R-at large, all said they would support G&M for the contract.
Councilman Roger Kalter, D-1st Ward, was out of town during Thursday’s lands, buildings and parks committee meeting.
Vukovic said the delayed $200,000 appropriation for the elevator project would be brought back for council approval during next Thursday’s regular session.
In other business Thursday, the engineering department requested a $52,950 change order for the third phase of the ongoing wastewater treatment plant upgrade.
Wastewater superintendent Steve Elliott said that funding would be used to pay for additional design work that could include savings of $2 million on the total project cost.
He also noted a raw water well that was originally constructed in the 1950s at the wastewater plant has to be demolished as it could present a safety hazard for workers.
“In 2005 it was determined to be dangerous and needed to be demolished within the next five years,” he said. “We need to get this done. I don’t want to see anyone hurt.”