Bridge board expresses ‘shock and awe’ at high bids

Only a few of the Gasparilla Island Bridge Authority members present at the November 17 quarterly meeting knew when they sat down at the table that they were about to get a $6 million slap in the face. It’s a slap that may be amended in the near future, though, as the bridge’s executive director said on Wednesday, Nov. 23, that the costs may have already been taken down to $15 million.

The news that the replacement bridge budget has gone over by that amount was not taken well by members of the Gasparilla Island Bridge Authority Board at their annual quarterly meeting on Thursday, Nov. 17. Their shock was compounded by a change in the agenda, at the request of Chairman Jerry Lusk, who asked that other business, such as Executive Director Jim Cooper’s contract and bonus negotiations, be put before the $6 million announcement that virtually no one was aware of yet.

Once the meeting began and a few matters of minor business were concluded, Lusk announced that the meeting would be skipping ahead of the published agenda to the Finance and Administration/Governance Committee updates, and returning later to the announcement of the low bid firm for the fixed bridges.
During the rest of the regular business of the meeting, a recommendation was made that Cooper’s contract be extended four years beyond its current January 15, 2013 expiration. When the option to renew annually that is in the current contract was raised, Cooper stated that the bridge replacement project is a four-year project, and that he wants the assurance of those four years.

He also stated that while the annual renewal is in the contract, the four-year extension was what was on the table. The offer, he said, was from him to the board, not vice versa. The board approved the extension unanimously.

Next on the agenda was Cooper’s annual review. While it was a common theme that a new review form needs to be designed, Cooper received top marks. The board debated the amount of his merit performance bonus, which was 8 percent last year, for several minutes. Some concern was expressed over awarding too high a bonus, especially in the current economy. Eventually, a majority of 4-1 members voted to approve a 12 percent 2011 bonus, with David Hayes the only dissenter. Hayes had suggested a 9 percent bonus.

At the end of the meeting the discussion of the fixed bridge bids was broached. Information that the bids were far and away from the bridge consultant’s projections had been known by those who opened the bids on Thursday, Nov. 10, and those who attended the two closed meetings, which were also held on the morning of the quarterly meeting, November 17.

When asked why the agenda had been suddenly changed, when some members of the Authority were already aware that the finance conversation would take much longer than anticipated, Cooper said it was Lusk’s suggestion just that morning.

“Jerry sets up the agenda,” Cooper explained. “He mentioned to me that he felt, because the amount of discussion there was going to be, that it was better to save it for the end of the meeting. He was afraid if there was an hour or more of discussion prior to the other items, it would be difficult to concentrate on the other matters at hand, which were very important, too.”

He added, “We already have the price down to somewhere around $15 million right now. We had a meeting yesterday (November 22) with the low bidder, and they found $1 million in ways to help save money. It’s already been reduced. We plan to get back together with them next week, and I believe we can find some more savings on more items. Where we end up, I really don’t know. We’re hoping to get the cost down to $14, or maybe a little lower. I suspect if it gets down to a reasonable point they may bid the whole package, or the board could decide to throw the bids out entirely if they don’t accept it.”

The basics of the $6 million discrepancy are these:

• Of the four companies that submitted bids, the lowest bid was from Orion Marine, at a total cost of $16.2 million. That was a 60 percent increase from the $10 million estimate provided by DRMP earlier in 2011.
• Mike Albano from one of the bridges consulting firms, DRMP, attempted to explain the huge discrepancy between the estimate and the bids. Again and again, the word mobilization was used. Since maximum load on the swing bridge is 20,000 pounds, any equipment and supplies will have to be broken up to be transported. This greatly increases the cost of repairs.
• The original estimate by Albano’s firm was made under the assumption that the majority of equipment and materials would be barged directly to the construction sites. The estimate provided for bringing equipment to Gasparilla Island was $73,417.97. The average bid was $2.184 million, almost 30 times more than the estimate.
• Another major area of difference was in bringing in material to build the embankment. The average cost listed by the FDOT is $3.75 per cubic yard. The estimate made by DRMP used a cost of $5. The average bid was $35.23. Again the 20,000-pound weight limit on the bridge was mentioned as the cause of the sevenfold price increase.
• One option mentioned was to replace the swing bridge first. The replacement design would allow full loads to cross the bridge and reduce the cost of transporting equipment and materials.

In other board business:

• Jim Cooper reported that even with a 1 percent decrease in traffic crossing the bridge compared to last year, the actual income from tolls was $905,000, more than $135,000 above the anticipated income with the $1 toll increase implemented last year. GIBA was also able to obtain a $1.5 million loan from the state of Florida, at an interest rate of 0 percent, to pay most of the cost for the swing bridge design. The director’s update discussed the effect of red tide and rain on the amount of traffic crossing the bridge, along with an update of the maintenance process for, and condition of, the bridges.
• Bill Holmberg, Finance Committee chair, gave a report on the bridge replacement finances. In short, design is paid for on all bridges by GIBA funds and the state loan. Construction will require financing. To qualify for an “investment qualified recommendation” from Wilbur Smith, a survey will be conducted in December, with a follow-up in March.

The next GIBA meeting will be for the engineering committee, and will be held on Wednesday, Dec. 7 at 1 p.m. in the GIBA adminstration office. The following day, a special board meeting has been scheduled for Thursday, Dec. 8, at 2 p.m. in the Boca Grande Community Center auditorium.

Meetings are also scheduled for January 12 and February 15.