Thoroughfare bids

[rutrow]

OK folks, I am just not understanding what Tupelo is doing regarding this thoroughfare stuff. Could somebody please explain why the mayor is planning to veto the Cook Coggin bid? Maybe I am just not understanding why giving the job to the lowest bidder is so wrong? Is not Cook Coggin just as good as the other one that they want? Maybe somebody can enlighten me.

[rutrow]

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< ;D I just now saw that!! LOLOLOL

[darkhorse]

There is a difference in them both being qualified and being equal. No 2 people or firm do things exactly the same way. If one firm has a lower fee, but the overall job cost is higher you may end up spending more money in the end. Also, these fees were not express in dollar amounts, they were in percentage of overall cost. The media keeps giving dollar amounts based on the estimated budget because $200,000 means more to the general public than 0.5%.

Here's an example, you advertise for a general contractor to oversee the construction of your house with the only general requirements (size, location, #of rooms) as to how you want it built and a estimated budget of $120,000. I guy agrees to do it for say, 5% of construction cost which ends up being $125,000, you would owe him $6,250 for a total of 131,250. If you hire another man to do the same job for 6% and he gets it built for $100,000, you owe him $6000 for a total of $106,000. Now the 5% was a cheaper fee, but the cost was more. I may be a nicer house, but it may not be $25,000 nicer and it may be more than you asked for.

Evaluating who will give the better end result is the Thorofare committee's job that they have been working for years to understand what factors other than just fees should be considered.

Also, it is illegal for engineers or architects to "bid" on work. Because quality of work is always an issue. This process helped to establish that each firms quality of work is satisfactory, but they are almost never equal.

Does that help?

[rutrow]

Yes, that helps my understanding a lot. I guess my next question would be: Why is this not being explained in the media? And Why did the council go against the thoroughfare committee's best opinion and recommendation? I suppose I am trying to understand the politics and the medias coverage of it. It never seems to be very clear to me why they report the way they do.

[darkhorse]

The whole reason for the committee is to do the behind the scene's work that the council doesn't have time to get into. Why the council is going against the committee's recommendation is anybody guess until they give a reason. I haven't heard one yet.

I think the media is just quoting people. I see a quote from Mr. Pirkle that said the difference they're talking about is only about 0.6%, which is about right if this is a $30 million project. But everyone else keep quoting $. I've seen $200k, $212k, & $250k. I think the people pushing the money issue want eveyone to see it in number they can relate to. $200,000 is a lot of money to me and you, but not to much when compared to a $30 million budget, which is an estimate at best.

To answer your question I don't know why someone doesn't explain these things better. I guess they thing we won't understand.

[TF Admin]

I'm not familiar with the other contractor, but I know Cook Coggin's is local. Is the other contractor local? I ask because some of the Council people get bent out of shape if money goes out of the area. I have also heard that Cook Coggin's bid was 2 million lower than the other. That is pure heresay, and I cannot substantiate that, but that woould be a significant number if true.

TF

[darkhorse]

The only place I've seen the $2million is on this message board. As to locality, ESI is in Tupelo. In fact, the founding members of ESI who are doing the current Phase of work split off from Cook Coggin when they were working on the last phase. The engineer that was over the first 2 phases at Cook Coggin is now retired and the engineers you worked directly under him are running ESI. I saw a quote in the paper today about Cook Coggin being 60 yrs and ESI being 6 yrs. I wonder how much Cook Coggin has changed in the last 6 yrs. Cook Coggin is the name of the business. Mr. Cook and Mr. Coggin (who started 60 yrs ago) aren't there anymore.

[Crimson]

I've worked at Cook Coggin for the last 3 years. It hasn't changed much at all in the time I've been here except we have more Registered Surveyors and several new engineers. We also have gotten some high tech GPS surveying equipment recently.

I was the one that quoted the 2M dollars and I think I mentioned that it was 'what I heard'. If not I should have. I have no solid evidence to back that up.... but I do know our bid was lower. There has been speculation that the committee apointed to decide had 'pockets lined' but, again, I cannot prove wether that did, or did not, happen.

Now, speaking as a citizen and not an employee of Cook Coggin Engineers... Why would the commitee pick the more expensive route? If both firms are equally qualified why spend my tax money on the more expensive one?

[TF Admin]

That is the $30 Million dollar question, isn't it? Why would they be inclined to do that? There needs to be a public report from the committee with explanation as to why. It certainly might settle some of the mudslinging, but then again, it might not.

TF

[darkhorse]

As to equality and cost, read my previous post. Nothing is ever equal. All I can say is check your facts and ask questions from licensed professionals in the business that know how the system works. There are very good reasons why it is illegal to bid on professional services flat out. Mostly because all other things are not equal.

There is no $ amount difference in the fees. It's a difference of percentages. About 0.6% (6/10%) according to Mr. Pirkles quote. Therefore the actual dollar amount will be subject to change with the to cost of the job. Missing a $30million dollar estimate by $200k would be pretty easy for either firm to do. After all that's less than 1%. So the question goes to who can do the best at cutting cost without sacrificing quality. That obviously is a judgement call, and that is what the Thorofare committee is for. To do the research the council doesn't have time to do. They can't thoroughly research every issue the city has. That is why committees and sub-committee are made.

All this information is public if you watch the council meetings and news reports. Do your research and see who's prior work has run the smoothest with the least cost overruns. Just check out your information.

[calliope]

Dark Horse, your points are excellent. There's a lot more to it than the money, and $212,000 is not a lot of money when considered in the context of the thoroughfare program budget, which is just over $30 million.

It's also worth noting that ESI did the last phase. The Thoroughfare Committee has now worked with both ESI and Cook-Coggin, and it could be that they found ESI easier to deal with in some capacity. These things really do matter in a project of this magnitude.

There's also a difference in the way Cook-Coggin and ESI do things. Cook-Coggin has a reputation as being a firm of draftsmen, while ESI tends to employ newer technology, which is often faster, without sacrificing accuracy. This can be a real advantage in a project like major thorougfare, which takes a lot time to plan and do, and which the public wants done RIGHT NOW (or YESTERDAY).

ESI is a newer company, and Cook-Coggin has the advantage of getting a ton of big work from the city, like wastewater treatment projects, Fairpark water and sewer work, and virtually everything from Tupelo Water & Light. In fact, Johnny Timmons, the water and light director, actively campaigned for Cook Coggin to get the thoroughfare bid. But ESI still won it, and unanimously. That speaks really well for ESI.

Frankly, I think the council should let the M.T. committee's recommendation stand. The council has NOT done the work on this thing. (They've been too busy banning things.) Plus, there are quite a few M.T. committee members who have been on the committee since it started -- how can the council seriously say that the committee doesn't know what it's talking about? The committee's interest in the project is genuine -- they do all this work for free, you know.

And there are some seriously educated people on that committee. Among the committee members are an engineer (Dean Patterson) who has provided all kinds of advice and work for free; a lawyer (Greg Pirkle) who knows contract law as well as anybody in this city and who has chaired the committee through the bid process; and a bunch of other professionals who have worked on this project and educated themselves in the fine points of it, some for 15 years, and a yo-yo like Bill Martin wants to pretend he knows better? Please.

[Crimson]

Cook Coggin is not a company of draftsmen. They have at least 7 professional engineers, could be more but I don't know if all of the engineers are certified and have P.E. numbers. They have several survey crews that are all cheifed by certified public surveyors. Our survey crews are also able to use state of the art GPS survey equipment. The engineers and CADD Operators all use up to date software and equipment.

I don't think there is much, if any, difference between the two companies technology wise. I cannot say what resources ESI has at their disposal.

All I can say is... look at Coley road. Ever drive through there when it's raining?

[darkhorse]

If anyone has any questions about the selection process. Sunday's paper has a copy of the memorandum that went from the thoroughfare committee to the council. It also give an explanation of how the project cost and fees are related at the end. The heading on the page in Section B is AN OPEN LETTER TO THE CITIZENS OF TUPELO.

[rutrow]

I just got done reading the entire page about the subcommitte and the selection process and recommendations. It was lengthy but quite understandable to someone who is not an engineer. ;D

Kudos to Mr. Sam Patterson for explaining the process and it makes a whole lot more sense than just talking the dollar amount to plain folks like me.

It looks like a lot of time was involved in this research and its recommendations ought to have been quite conclusive when the final vote came.

This explanation makes it more clear as to why the Mayor planned to veto the council.

[Crimson]

I haven't had a chance to get my hands on a sunday paper so I haven't read it yet.

Did the mayor end up vetoing it?