THE VIRGINIAN-PILOT
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: Saturday, May 13, 1995 TAG: 9505130288
SECTION: BUSINESS PAGE: D1 EDITION: FINAL
SOURCE: BY CHRISTOPHER DINSMORE, STAFF WRITER
LENGTH: Medium: 94 lines
Tidewater Bridge and Tunnel Builders' bid to erect a bridge parallel to the existing Chesapeake Bay Bridge-Tunnel is $3.8 million higher on paper than the low bid, but it might cost less over the life of the contract, its attorney argued Friday.
In a hearing before the Chesapeake Bay Bridge and Tunnel Commission, Daniel Weckstein argued for Norfolk-based Tidewater's $200.9 million bid and attacked the validity of the $197.2 million low bid by a joint venture led by PCL Civil Constructors Inc. of Denver, Colo.
The Chesapeake Bay Bridge and Tunnel District could recoup most of the difference between the two bids by awarding the contract to Tidewater, Weckstein said.
First, the district could sell the property it bought on Little Creek in Virginia Beach as a staging area because Tidewater has its own facilities in the area. Second, the district wouldn't have to pay as much early on in the contract if it awards the job to Tidewater. That would result in interest earned for the district on its money.
The commission, which oversees the district, met Friday to hear details of Tidewater Bridge and Tunnel's May 5 protest to the PCL group's bid. The commission had announced May 4 that it was going to award the contract to the PCL group, which also includes The Hardaway Co. of Columbus, Ga., and Rockland, Mass.-based Interbeton Inc.
The commission will meet again Monday, the deadline for responding to Tidewater's protest, to decide what to do. The 11-member panel could go ahead with the contract award to PCL, opt to award the contract to Tidewater or ask for a new round of bids on the project.
Construction of the new 18-mile span has been scheduled to begin in June and be completed by 1999.
Tidewater Bridge and Tunnelbuilt the original bridge and tunnel, which opened in 1964. The company is a joint venture of Norfolk-based Tidewater Construction Corp. and Kiewit Construction Corp. of Omaha, Neb.
Whatever the commission decides to do, it's likely to be challenged in the courts.
``Regardless of what you do today or Monday, there's a risk that there will be legal action by Tidewater, by PCL or by one of the other bidders,'' Weckstein said.
The commission does not have to award the contract to the apparent low bidder if other circumstances indicate that it may be in its best interests to award it someone else, Weckstein said.
If the contract were awarded to PCL instead of Tidewater, it would cost the district and the state between $5 million and $7 million directly and have a negative impact on the region of up to $24 million indirectly, Weckstein said.
Part of the direct impact stems from the commission's purchase earlier this year of the 36-acre Little Creek site to serve as a staging area and manufacturing site for the builder of the second span. Tidewater doesn't need it, Weckstein said.
Assuming the site could be sold for $4.2 million and subtracting out the $720,000 in anticipated lease payments the district would receive if it was used by PCL, the cost of the site would make up $3.5 million of the $3.7 million differential between PCL's and Tidewater's bids, according to protest documents filed by Tidewater with the district.
Other costs include lost interest to the district because PCL's bid is more costly up front; lost sales and real estate taxes; lost business for local vendors and lost jobs in economically depressed Northampton County, according to Tidewater's study.
Weckstein described the PCL bid as ``unbalanced'' or ``front-end loaded.'' An unbalanced contract charges more than cost for items performed early in the work and less for items performed later.
According to the protest documents, PCL's bid charges 66 percent more to build the North Channel Bridge, an early phase of the project, than the average of the other three bidders. PCL's for the rehabilitation of the old span, the last work to be done, is 63 percent lower than the average of the three other bidders.
``Why did they do that?'' Weckstein asked. ``They want to get their money up front. . . . This is a below the table way of getting additional money up front.''
An unbalanced bid would violate the terms of the bid solicitation and the Virginia Public Procurement Act and should be rejected in favor of Tidewater's bid, Weckstein said.
Dave Filipchuk, PCL project manager, declined Friday to respond to Tidewater's allegations about its bid.
``We will in due course,'' Filipchuk said. ``We're very optimistic still that the district will do the right thing.''
Ed McLaughlin, Tidewater Construction's president and chief executive, said much the same thing after the commission meeting. ``We'll just have to wait and see,'' he said ``Hopefully the commission will do the best thing for it, for the community and for us.''
KEYWORDS: CHESAPEAKE BAY BRIDGE TUNNEL BID PROPOSED CONTRACT by CNB