HomeMy WebLinkAbout1985-03-19; City Council; 8068-1; Construction of the Safety CntrCI1 OF CARLSBAD — AGENC BILL
AR# ^^~*v
MTG. 3/19/85
r»PPT CM
TITLE: AWARD OF CONTRACTS FOR CARLSBAD
SAFETY AND SERVICE CENTER
BID PACKAGE NO. 1
SITEWORK, GRADING AND IMPROVEMENTS
DEPT HD. fWJ
CITY ATTY\Jfin
CITY MQR.^^
oena.a.
O
<
^o
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Adopt Resolution No.accepting bids and awarding Contract Numbers
3006-1 A, 3006-1 C, 3006-1 D, 3006-1 E and 3006-1 F for the sitework, grading
and improvements at the Carlsbad Safety and Service Center, authorizing
Koll Construction Co. (the construction manager) to negotiate contract
3006-1B for the concrete work at the Carlsbad Safety and Service Center,
and accepting proposals for soils testing and inspection and engineering
staking and survey.
ITEM EXPLANATION:
On January 22, 1985, Council authorized the advertisement for bids for said
project. As of February 26, 1985, sealed bids were received as summarized
in Exhibit "2" provided by the Koll Co. As noted in this exhibit, there
were no bids received on Section 1-B of the bid package for which the
Construction Manager request permission to negotiate an acceptable
contractor.
The Construction Manager's estimate of the five bid sections to be awarded
was $1,166,435.00. References have been verified on the recommended
bidders who are as follows:
Templeton Grading 4 Excavation
Templeton Grading & Excavation
Tresize Construction
$268,950.00
$ 19,647.00
$394,707.00
$136,292.00
Bid Section 1-A Grading
Bid Section 1-C Gunite
Bid Section 1-D Sewer,
Water, Storm Drain
Bid Section 1-E Electrical
Telephone, Gas, C.A.T.V. *Southern Contracting Company
*Van Der Linden Electrical Contractor entered a lower bid, but due
to an error in their calculations, followed by a letter from
their attorney asking relief from liability for the error
(Exhibit 3), they have been relieved.
Bid Section 1-F Ashpalt *Sim J. Harris Company $273,067.00
*Bids of Sim 3. Harris and Sully-Miller were contested by Palomar
Grading and Paving, Inc. However, the two companies were found
to be independent corporations that compete with each other in
the market place.
Total for the five contracts to be awarded is $1,092,663.00 which is
$73,772.00 less than the Construction Manager's estimate.
Page 2 of Agenda Bill No.
Proposals have been received and reviewed on the soils testing and
inspection to be done by Geocon, Inc. (Exhibit 4) per the January 22, 1985
Council action in the amount of $23,300.00 (time and material/not to
exceed). And on the engineering staking and survey to be done by Rick
Engineering Co. (Exhibit 5), per the same Council action, in the amount of
$48,000.00 (time and material/not to exceed). Total expenses of $71,300.00
are under estimate by $3,700.00.
FISCAL IMPACT
Budgeted funds for this phase of the construction are currently in Account
No. 330-820-1810-3006.
ENVIRDNMENTAL IMPACT
EIR and CUP have been approved along with the Grading and Site Improvement
Plans.
EXHIBITS
1. Resolution No. *^7^tf accepting bids, granting negotiating for
concrete work, and approving proposals for soil and staking work.
2. Roll Co. Summary Of Bidding.
3. Rulings on Bidding Questions
4. Geocon proposal on soil testing and inspection.
5. Rick Engineering proposal on staking and surveying.
EXHIBIT "1"
RESOLUTION NO. 7938
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD,
CALIFORNIA, ACCEPTING BIDS, AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF
CONTRACT NOS. 3006-1A, 1C, 1D, 1E and 1F, AUTHORIZING THE
ROLL CONSTRUCTION CO. TO NEGOTIATE BID SECTION 1-B CONCRETE,
AND APPROVING PROPOSALS ON SOIL TESTING AND STAKING FOR THE
CONSTRUCTION OF THE CARLSBAD SAFETY AND SERVICE CENTER.
WHEREAS, bids have been received by the City of Carlsbad for the
construction of the Carlsbad Safety and Service Center, Contract Nos. 3006-
1A, 1C, 1D, 1E and 1F; and
WHEREAS, the bids received for the aforementioned contracts total
$1,092,663.00; and
WHEREAS, no bids were received for Bid Package Section 1B Concrete;
and
WHEREAS, proposals for soil testing and staking have been received "in
the amount of $71,300.00; and
WHEREAS, the funds are available in Account No. 330-820-1810-3006;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Carlsbad, California, as follows: '••-'_".•
1. That the above recitations are true and correct.
2. The bids as recommended by Roll Co. in the amount of $1,092,663.00
for the construction of the Carlsbad Safety and Service Center Bid Package
No.1 are hereby accepted and the Mayor and City Clerk are hereby authorized
to execute contracts thereafter.
3. That Section 20166 allows Council to waive formal bidding
requirements and authorizes Roll Construction Company to negotiate the bid
Section 1B of Bid Package No. 1 which is for concrete work estimated at
$154,316.00.
4. That the proposals of Geocon for soil testing and inspection of
$23,300.00 and the proposal of Rick Engineering Co. for staking and survey
work of $48,000.00 are hereby accepted.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Carlsbad City
Council held on the 19th day of March , 1985 by the following vote,
to wit:
AYES: Council Members Casler, Lewis, Kulchin, Chick and Pettine
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ATTEST:MARY H^/CASLER, Mayor
ALETHA L. RAUTENKRANZ, City
(SEAL)
KOLL
7330 Engineer Road
San Diego
California 92111-1464
Koll Construction Company (619) 292-5550
March 6, 1985
Mr. Mike Brooks
City of Carlsbad
1200 Elm Avenue
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Re: Carlsbad Safety Center
KCC Job No. 3225
Bid Recommendations/Awards
Dear Mike:
The following is a brief description of the work, and bid summary associated
with Bid Package No. 1, sitework, grading and improvements. Except as noted
under each specific item, all bids were received in an acceptable manner, bid
bonds attached, and acknowledgement of receipt and inclusion of all appli-
cable Addendum (a) have been verified.
GRADING U
1. Templeton Grading and Excavation $ 268,950.00
2. Erecca's Inc. 327,895.00
3. Signs and Pinnick, Inc. 333,507.00
4. Mark McDowell Corporation 335,858.00
Grading operation includes site clearing, mass excavation, street and curb
cuts, curb backfill and fine grade of streets. All work shall be completed
based on requirements outlined in the project soils investigations prepared
by GeoCon, Inc. An estimated allowance of 5,000 cubic yards of blasted rock
disposed of onsite has been included within the base contract. The exact
amount of rock, if any, cannot be determined until the grading operation is
commenced. Actual quantities will be verified in the field by field survey
and load counts. If the final quantity is less than 5,000 cubic yards, a
credit will be obtained. Amounts in excess will be an extra to the contract,
and adjusted utilizing unit prices included within the bid proposal.
CONCRETE 1B
Unfortunately, no bids were received for this portion of work. One bid
arrived after the latest time set for receiving bids but could not be
accepted by The City Purchasing Agent. Numerous contractors were contacted
and received plans for the project. It's our understanding of the bidding
code that a contract may be negotiated since no bids were received. With
Mr. Mike Brooks
March 6, 1985
Page 2
council approval via staff recommendations, your construction manager will
begin the negotiation process. Our intent would be to start with the
contractor who showed interest in the project but who's bid was late.
GUNITE 1C
1. Templeton Grading and Excavation $ 19»647«00
2. Don Hubbard Contracting 21,500.00
Gunite work includes the installation of drainage channels along key slopes
and perimeter areas to facilitate positive drainage and to minimize erosion.
SEWER. WATER. STORM DRAIN ID
1. Tresize Construction $ 394,707.00
2. Don Hubbard Contracting 396,000.00
3. Cass Construction 441,627.00
The scope of work includes the installation of a fully operational sewer,
water and storm drain system. Portions of this work have been coordinated
for future building bid packages, i.e., sewer and water laterals, roof
drains, etc. A large gunite channel adjacent to the future Faraday Avenue
alignment has been included for storm drain coordination. A similiar rock
excavation allowance outlined in item 1A has also been included.
ELECTRICAL, TELEPHONE. GAS. C.A.T.V.. IE
1. Van Der Linden Electrical Contractor, Inc. $ 97i700.00
2. Southern Contracting Company 136,292.00
This scope of work includes the installation of a fully operational backbone
power, gas and communications system including streetlighting. Metering of
future irrigation system controllers, and a similar rock excavation allowance
outlined in item 1A are also included.
The listed low bidder has issued a letter requesting relief due to an arith-
metic error in extending a portion of his labor hours. Your construction
manager has met with Van Der Linden and determined that a mistake was made
making his bid materially different than he intended. The mistake was not
due to error in Judgement, to carelessness in inspecting the site of the
work, or in reading the plans or specifications. Naturally, they are willing
to complete the work with a revision to their cost; however, we do not
believe this would be in compliance with public bidding codes.
ASPHALT IF
1. Sim J. Harris Company $ 273>067.00
2. Palomar Grading and Paving, Inc. 295,000.00
3. Daley Corporation 305,250.00
4. Sully Miller Construction 307,994.00
5. Reynolds Construction, Inc. 315,000.00
Mr. Mike Brooks
March 6, 1985
Page 3
This scope of work includes the installation of asphalt and base sections
both onsite and offsite. Asphalt and base thicknesses are per the soils
report recommendations. Sections are subject to change based on actual
R-value tests made on designed subgrade elevations. Naturally, these tests
may not be performed until the project is graded. Your construction manager
has tied down various unit prices within the bid proposal for possible future
section changes. These changes could be an extra or credit to the project
asphalt cost. In addition, a series of asphalt ditches and spillways are
included to control positive drainage.
The second low bidder (Palomar) has apparently filed a bid protest, since Sim
J. Harris and Sully Miller are both wholly owned subsidaries of Koppers
Company, Inc. Your construction manager requested interpretation on this
matter from the City Attorney, and we are sending a letter to Palomar
indicating award to the low bid of record. We believe these companies are
individual profit centers which operate and routinely bid competitively in
the open market.
UNIT PRICE PURCHASE ORDERS (Time and Material/Not-To-Exceed)
a. Soils Testing and Inspection
GeoCon, Inc.
b. Engineering and Survey
Rick Engineering Company
$ 23,300.00
48,000.00
The continuation of these existing purchase orders were approved by The City
Council on January 22, 1985 when the sitework package was approved to bid.
SUMMARY OF COSTS
1A Grading
1B Concrete (no bid/prelim, estimate used)
1C Gunite
1D Sewer, Water, Storm Drain
1E Electrical, Telephone, Gas, C.A.T.V.
1F Asphalt
Subtotal
Unit Price Purchase Orders
Soil Testing and Inspection
Engineering and Survey
Sitework Cost
Sitework Bid Estimate
(January 16, 1985)
Variance (Decrease)
268,950.00
154,316.00
19,647.00
394,707.00
136,292.00
273.067.00
$ 1,246,979.00
23,300.00
48.000.00
1,318,279-00
1,395,751.00
(77,472.00)
Mr. Mike Brooks
March 6, 1985
Page 4
We believe that the following firms have complied with all conditions and
requirements of the bidding documents and represented a fair and reasonable
price for the intended work. lour construction manager recommends the
following contract awards:
1A Sitework Grading: Templeton Grading and Excavating for $ 268,950.00
1B No Award
1C Gunite Work: Templeton Grading and Excavating for 19,647.00
1D Sewer, Water
& Storm Drain: Tresize Construction for 394,707.00
1E Electrical,
Telephone, Gas
and C.A.T.V.: Southern Contracting Company 136,292.00
1F Asphalt Paving: Sim J. Harrris Company 273,067.00
Although some individual quotations may be higher than the estimated amount,
these awards are generally within the budget established for the entire
project.
We further recommend that Van Der Linden Electric be granted relief from
their bid and their bid bond returned to them and that your construction
manager be allowed to negotiate cost for performing the concrete work.
We suggest that these actions be submitted to council under separate letters
to allow for withdrawal or rejection of an individual item without effecting
the remaining approvals.
Should you have any questions, please call.
Respectfully yours,
N.
KGfLL CONSTRUCTION COMPANY
Steve Mahoney
Project Manager
SM/km
cc: Bill Smith
Bill Miller
Dennis Allison
David Ruhnau
File
II 3
1200 ELM AVENUE • ^S&r • TELEPHONE
CARLSBAD, CA 92008-1989 M^Sl/ &M (619) 438-5628
Citp of Carteimb
FINANCE DEPARTMENT
March 5, 1985
Steve Mahoney
Roll Construction Company
7330 Engineer Road
San Diego, CA 92111
PALOMAR GRADING & PAVING COMPANY
VAN DER LINDEN ELECTRIC
As of March 4, 1985, the recommendation of the City Attorney
regarding the two bid issues from Bid Package 1 of the Carlsbad
Safety Center are as follows:
1. Palomar Grading & Paving Co. - their objection to
Sully-Miller and Sim J. Harris both bidding on the
blacktop work at the Safety Center is not to be
accepted. Go ahead with the recommendation to award
the contract to Sim J. Harris.
2. Van Der Linden Electric - the City Attorney
recommends the relief of this bidder due to the
significant error on their bid and even though
they would still be low bidder with the correction.
Van Der Linden should be assured that they will not
lose their bidder bond and that they may bid on
another bid package at a later date.
If you have any difficulties with these items, please let me know.
IfU,
MIKE BROOKS
Project Coordinator
MB:mmt
PALOMAR GRADING & PAVING, INC.
General Snguneerinp (sbatractor-
February 27, 1985
City of Carlsbad
1200 Elm Ave.
Carlsbad, Ca. 92008
Atten: Ron Beckman - City Engineer
re: Public Safety and Service Center/Public bid 2/26/85
Dear Sir,
It appears that two of the bidders on the above referenced
project may have unwittingly violated the non-collusion
requirements of the City Standards and Project Special
Provisions. Sully-Miller Construction Co. and Sim J.
Haeris Co. are both wholly owned subsidiaries of Koppers
Company, Inc.. Sully-Miller and Sim J. Harris both
submitted bids on the service center project. While
this may be completely unintentional,• it clearly is
prohibited by the City special provisions and perhaps by
the anti-trust laws of the United States of America.
It appears that in view of the non conformity to bidding
procedures for public works projects in the City of Carlsbad,
the City may reject the bids of both Sim J. Harris So.
and Sully-Miller Construction Co.
Palomar Grading and Paving Co. is taking 'this matter under
legal advisement, but would like to see a speedy and
amicable resolution of this problem.
Sincerely,
Barry Cohen
Palomar Grading and Paving
BC/cl
2150 N. CENTRE CITY PKWY. • ESCONDIDO, CA 92026 • (619) 743-3007
LAW OFFICES OF
DAUBNEY AND BANCHE
PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS AREA CODE 619WILLIAM H. DAUBNEY
NICHOLAS C BANCHE PACIFIC SAVINGS BUILDING TELEPHONE 7E2-I8S!
SIO MISSION AVENUE, SUITE aOI
POST OFFICE BOX 39O
OCEANBIDE. CALIFORNIA 93054
February 28, 1985
Ruth Fletcher
Office of Purchasing Agent
City Hall
1200 Elm Avenue
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Re: Carlsbad Public Safety Project #3006, BID PKG.#1
Dear Ms. Fletcher:
This office has been asked by VAN DER LINDEN ELECTRIC to
write you regarding the above-referenced bid process, and the
VAN DER LINDEN bid, a copy of the summary sheet of which is
enclosed.
On February 27, 1983 after the bids were opened, it came
to Mr. Van der Linden's attention that an arithmetic error had
been made in the bid, in extending the laborer's hours into the
total column.
Whereas the bid reflects 480 hours at $24.95 and shows a
total of $1,198.00, in actual fact the total is off by a factor
of ten, and should be $11,976.00.
This means that the grand total was off by $12,779.00, and
that the bid price should have been $110,479.00.
As is apparent from the summary sheet, a copy of which is
attached hereto as Exhibit'""A", the error in this situation is
strictly arithmetic, and does not relate to any error in judgment
or misunderstanding of the work to be done.
VAN DER LINDEN would! very much like to do the work represented
by the bid, and, if in fact the actual total bid price remains the
lowest, would like to amend the bid to $110,479.00 and perform the
work at that bid price.
Ruth Fletcher
February 28, 1985.
Page 2
A proposed amended summary sheet is attached hereto as
Exhibit "B" which reflects the actual figures.
In the event it is not possible to complete the work based
on the amended bid, VAN DER LINDEN would request relief from the
original bid. In requesting relief, VAN DER LINDEN wishes to
make it clear that it is not refusing to do the work represented
by the bid, and that it is not undertaking to pay for any increased
costs that might inure to the City if the work is done by another
responsible bidder.
If you have any questions, please contact the undersigned
at your earliest convenience.
We would appreciate a response within 15 days of the date of
this letter.
Very truly yours,
K. Martin White
KMW:ar
enclosures
cc: VAN DER LINDEN ELECTRIC
GEOCON
INCORPORATED ENGINEERS AND GEOLOGISTS • CONSULTANTS IN THE APPLIED EARTH SCIENCES
File No. D-2751-J03
March 4, 1985
City of Carlsbad
1200 Elm Avenue
Carlsbad, California 92008
Attention: Mr. Mike Brooks
Subject: CARLSBAD PUBLIC SAFETY AND SERVICE CENTER
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
PROPOSAL TO PERFORM GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING SERVICES
Gentlemen:
In resonse to the request of Mr. Steve Mahoney of The Koll Company, we are
pleased to submit this proposal to perform geotechnical engineering
services during grading of the subject project. We understand the site
will be developed in accordance with the grading and improvement plans
entitled "City of Carlsbad, Public Safety and Service Center" prepared by
Rick Engineering Company and dated December 14, 1984.
As requested, we are submitting our proposal divided into three phases as
follows:
I. Testing and Observation Services During Grading - We understand that
grading will include placing approximately 90,000 cubic yards of fill
material plus remedial grading. The actual grading schedule is unknown,
however, as requested, we have assumed that 40 eight-hour working days will
be required to complete the mass grading. We propose to perform our
services for a fee not to exceed $15,500 subject to the following
conditions:
• All work will be completed in 40 working days, beginning with
the first day of clearing and ending with the last day of
fine grading.
• Hours worked in excess of 8 per day or 40 per week may be
charged at time and one-half, and may be added to the total
contract.
9530 DOWDY DRIVE • SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92126 • PHONE (619) 695-2880
File No. D-2751-J03
March 4, 1985
• Work performed after 40 working days have elapsed would be
charged in accordance with the enclosed "Conditions and
Schedule of Fees," and would be added to the total contract.
For budgeting purposes, such charges would be an estimated
$400 per day.
• All engineering and geologic observation, field and
laboratory testing, and reporting are included in this
proposal.
• Unforeseen geologic conditions that require geologic and/or
engineering analysis are not included in this proposal, and
will be negotiated under a separate agreement if necessary.
II. Utility Trench Backfill Testing - We propose to provide a qualified
soil technician to observe and test for proper compaction the backfill
material for sewer, water, storm drain and joint trenches within the street
and easement areas of the project. Since we have no control over the
frequency of retesting that may be required, the cost for same is not
includedin this proposal. Where retesting is required, it is suggested
that the responsible contractor be back-charged for the related costs. We
will provide laboratory testing necessary for the backfill compaction
testing.
The actual extent of our services is unclear. Based on the information
available to us and the scope of work outlined above, we propose to perform
our services for an anticipated fee of $4,500. One report will be submitted
upon completion of the backfill compaction phase summarizing our testing
services.
III. Pavement Section Determination - Upon completion of mass grading and
utility trench backfilling, we propose to secure representative samples of
the subgrade soils, perform R-Value and Sand Equivalent tests on the
samples and provide recommendations for pavement sections. We propose to
perform these services for a fee not to exceed $3,300.
Summary
Based on the scope of work outlined, the following is a summary of our
estimated maximum costs.
I. Fill Observation - Rough Grading $15,500
II. Utility Trench Testing (Streets
and Easements) 4,500
III. Pavement Design, Subgrade Testing 3,300
Total Estimated Maximum $23,300
GBOOON ,
INCORPORATED £/
File No. D-2751-J03
March 4, 1985
We would submit invoices on a two-week or four-week interval. The invoices
would be itemized in accordance with the enclosed "Conditions and Schedule
of Fees" to reflect only the actual time and costs incurred. Engineering
analysis and/or consultation requested after submission of our reports for
the various phases would be charged at Fee Schedule rates.
We look forward to working with you on this project. If this proposal
meets with your approval, please sign the enclosed "Work Order" and return
the white copy to this office. If you have questions or desire additional
information, please contact the undersigned.
Very truly yours,
GEOC0S, INCORPORATED
E. Likins / Michael R. Rahilly /
!E 17030 / RCE 28188
MRR:JEL:lm
(2) addressee
(1) Koll Construction Company
Attn: Mr. Steve Mahoney
enclosures: CSF'83; WO
GBOCON
INCORPORATED . X*"
A
PLANNING CONSULTANTS
AND CIVIL ENGINEERSRICK ENGINEERING COMPANY
365 SO. RANCHO SANTA FE ROAD • SUITE 100
SAN MARCOS, CALIFORNIA 92069 • 619/744-4800
March 3, 1985
Mr. Mike Brooks
CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE
CITY OF CARLSBAD
1200 Elm Avenue
Carlsbad, California 92008
RE: CITY SAFETY CENTER, PROPOSAL FOR FIELD
ENGINEERING SERVICES (REFERENCE JOB NO. 9223)
Dear Mike:
At the request of you and Steve Mahoney of Roll, I would
like to submit this proposal for field engineering services
associated with the construction of the City Safety Center.
Work will include the following:
The project consists of field engineering for the devel-
opment of approximately twenty-six acres. Work to be
done in accordance with approved plans for the site
prepared by Rick Engineering Company.
1. Rough and Finish Grade Stakes; Rough grading for all
of the pads shown on the above referenced grading plans.
Finish grading will consist of building sites, streets,
driveways and parking areas, grading stakes set at tops
and toes of slopes and daylight lines. Work to include
walls shown on grading plan.
2. Grade Check; Will consist of a marked up set of plans
showing the "as-built" location (horizontal and verti-
cal) of the pads and slope banks.
3. Sewer Stakes; One set of stakes for all sewer main and
appurtenances as shown on the final plans.
Page 1 of 4
4. Storm Drain Stakes; One set of stakes for all storm
drains and appurtenances as shown on the final plans.
5. Water Stakes; One set of stakes for all public mains
and appurtenances as shown on the final plans.
6. Gas and Electric Stakes; Will be provided for common
trenches, major pull boxes, and street lights shown on
the final plans and plans prepared by San Diego Gas &
Electric Company. No staking will be done until major
vaults and pads have been reviewed by Engineer for
conflicts with other utilities. No stakes will be
provided for facilities beyond the parking lot areas.
7. Curb and Gutter Stakes; One set of stakes for all
curbs shown in the final plans. To include all
streets, driveways and parking areas.
8. Building Layout Stakes: One set of stakes for each of
the four buildings. Stakes to establish a building
envelope.
For the services outlined above (items 1-8), the City
agrees to pay the Engineer on a time and material basis per
his current schedule of hourly rates a fee not to exceed
$48,000. All time will be billed based on actual work
completed.
The following services are extra work which shall be paid
for at the current hourly engineering rate (per attached
schedule).
A. Changes in scope of design directed and authorized by
Owner in writing after the start of work drawings. In
this case, the revised work to be the same stage of
completion as the original work at the time of the
change order.
B. Work of a general or promotional nature not connected
with the actual design, approval, or construction of
the project.
C. Engineering services not specifically mentioned above.
D. Staking of any private area drains, landscaping, or
private electric lighting other than those shown on the
plans.
E. Supervised grade inspections as required by the City.
Page 2 of 4
F. As-built plans, except as outlined in Item 2, above.
G. Review of San Diego Gas & Electric, Pacific Telephone
and Cable TV plans relative to final improvement/site
plans.
H. San Diego Gas & Electric, Pacific Telephone, Cable TV
staking beyond the parking/street areas.
I. Design or staking of any buttresses, key ways or
sub-drains.
J. Blue tops for sub-base, base and pavement within
streets and parking areas.
K. Building control within limits of building foundations
including foundations, columns, partition walls and
utilities.
L. Landscape grading and site concrete flatwork staking.
Engineer agrees that all extra billing will be broken down
in detail with field work back-up tickets to be signed daily
by Superintendent or Project Director for work beyond the
scope of contract items, if a Superintendent is available
on-site on a daily basis.
Owner shall be responsible for and pay:
A. All bonds.
B. Utility charges.
C. City and other public agency fees.
D. Title Company fees.
E. Blueprints and miscellaneous fees or reproduction costs
required by Owner, contractors, and engineers.
F. Off-site letter of permission, if required.
G. Landscape and irrigation plans, including any plans for
use of reclaimed water.
H. Equipment rental and costs of potholing, if any, or
location of existing facilities.
Page 3 of 4
Payment for services shall be made by you to Engineer within
thirty (30) days after the date of monthly statement for
work performed during the preceding month.
The standard provisions set forth upon the attached Rick
Engineering Form 1, adopted 1978, are incorporated hereinto
and made a part of this agreement.
If notice to proceed is delayed for any reason beyond sixty
(60) days, it is understood by the parties that terms and
conditions contained herein are subject to revision.
Thank you for requesting Rick Engineering for services. We
are ready to proceed with this project upon the appropriate
authorization from the City. If you have any questions,
please give me a call.
Sincerely,
Barry C. Bender
BCB:omh
Enclosures
Copy to Steve Mahoney, THE KOLL COMPANY
Page 4 of 4
RICK ENGINEERING COMPANY
JANUARY 28, 1985
CURRENT HOURLY RATES
Through July 26, 1985
Office
PRINCIPAL CONSULTANT (Special Projects) $125
PRINCIPAL $ 70
PRINCIPAL PROJECT ENGINEER/MANAGER $ 63
ASSOCIATE PROJECT ENGINEER/MANAGER $ 57
ASSISTANT PROJECT ENGINEER/MANAGER ' § 52
PRINCIPAL SURVEY ANALYST* $62
SURVEY ANALYST* $ 50
PRINCIPAL ENGINEERING DESIGNER $ 46
ASSOCIATE ENGINEERING DESIGNER $ 42
ASSISTANT ENGINEERING DESIGNER $ 36
PRINCIPAL ENGINEERING DRAFTSPERSON $ 40
ASSOCIATE ENGINEERING DRAFTSPERSON $ 38
ASSISTANT ENGINEERING DRAFTSPERSON $ 34
ASSOCIATE PROJECT ADMINISTRATOR $ 44
ASSISTANT PROJECT ADMINISTRATOR $ 28
PRINCIPAL PROJECT PLANNER $ 60
ASSOCIATE PROJECT PLANNER $ 49
ASSISTANT PROJECT PLANNER $ 41
PRINCIPAL PLANNING DRAFTSPERSON $ 40
ASSOCIATE PLANNING DRAFTSPERSON $ 36
ASSISTANT PLANNING DRAFTSPERSON $32
ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT $ 35
SECRETARY (Special Assignment) $ 20
ELECTRONIC COMPUTER (Hydraulic Analysis Only) $ 60
*Includes cost of computer time.
Unless otherwise agreed upon, we shall charge, at cost, for blue
printing and reproduction desired by the client or public
agencies, deliveries, transportation, expenses and telephone
calls.
A ten (10) percent fee for administration, coordination and
handling will be added to all subcontracted services.
RICK ENGINEERING COMPANY
JANUARY 28, 1985
NON-UNION
CURRENT HOURLY R A T ]2 S_
Through July 26, 1985
Field
FIELD SUPERVISOR $ 47.50
ONE-MAN SURVEY PARTY $ 47.50
TWO-MAN SURVEY PARTY $ 95.00
THREE-MAN SURVEY PARTY $142.50
EDM MACHINES (During Periods of Operation) $ 60.00/hour
Unless otherwise agreed upon, we shall charge, at cost, for blue
printing and reproduction desired by the client or public
agencies, deliveries, transportation, expenses and telephone
calls.
A ten (10) percent fee for administration, coordination and
handling will be added to all subcontracted services.
3088 PIO PICO DR. • SUITE 202 • CARLSBAD, CA 92008
RICK ENGINEERING COMPANY I WD^L^^R! P-o.Boxii29 . PHONE . AREA CODE 714 • 729-4937
5620 FRIARS ROAD - SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92110 365 SO. RANCHO SANTA FE ROAD . SUITE 1QO
TELEPHONE - AREA CODE 714 . 291-0707 SAN M A RCOS, C All FO R NIA 92069 - 714/744-4800
STANDARD PROVISIONS OF AGREEMENT
The client and consultant agree that the following provisions shall be a part of their agreement:
1. The client binds himself, his partners, successors, executors, administrators, and assigns to the consultant to this agreement in respect to all of the terms and
conditions of this agreement.
2. In the event that the plans, specifications, and/or field work covered by this contract are those required by various governmental agencies and in the event
that due to change of policy of said agencies after the date of this agreement, additional office or field work is required, the said additional work shall be paid for by
client as extra work.3. In the event that any staking is destroyed by an act of God or parties other than consultant, the cost of restakmg shall be paid for by client as extra work.
4. In the event of any increase of costs due to the granting of wage increases and/or other employee benefits to field or office employees due to the terms of
any labor agreement, or rise in the cost of living, during the lifetime of this agreement, such percentage increase shall be applied to all remaining compensation.
5. The client shall pay the costs of checking and inspection fees, zoning and annexation application fees, assessment fees, soils engineering fees, soils testing
fees, aerial topography fees, and all other fees, permits, bond premiums, title company charges, blueprints and reproductions, and all other charges not specifically
covered by the terms of this agreement.
6. All original papers and documents, and copies thereof, produced as a result of this contract, except documents which are required to be filed with public
agencies, shall remain the property of the consultant and may be used by consultant without the consent of client.
7. Should litigation be necessary to enforce any term or provision of this agreement, or to collect any portion of the amount payable under this agreement,
then all litigation and collection expenses, witness fees and court costs, and attorney's fees shall be paid to the prevailing party.
8. Fees and all other charges will be billed monthly as the work progresses, and the net amount shall be due at the time of billing.
9. A late payment FINANCE CHARGE will be computed at the periodic rate of 0.833% per month, which is an ANNUAL PERCENTAGE RATE of 10%,
and will be applied to any unpaid balance commencing 30 days after the date of the original invoice.
10. In the event of any litigation, client agrees to pay to consultant interest on all past due balances at the rate of ten per cent per annum.
11. Client hereby agrees that the balance as stated on the billing from the consultant to client is correct, conclusive and binding on the client unless clientwithin ten (10) days from the date of the making of the billing notifies consultant in writing of the particular item that is alleged to be incorrect.
12. In the event all or any portion of the work prepared or partially prepared by the consultant be suspended, abandoned, or terminated, the client shall pay
the consultant for the work performed on an hourly basis, not to exceed any maximum contract amount specified herein.
13. In the event that client institutes a suit against consultant because of any failure or alleged failure to perform, error, omission, or negligence, and if such suit
is not successfully prosecuted, or if it is dismissed, or if verdict is rendered for consultant, client agrees to pay consultant any and all costs of defense, including
attorney's fees, expert witnesses' fees, and court costs and any and all other expenses of defense which may be needful, immediately following dismissal of the case
or immediately upon judgment being rendered in behalf of consultant.
14. Neither the client nor consultant shall assign his interest in this agreement without the written consent of the other.
15. The consultant makes no representation concerning the cost figures made in connection with maps, plans, specifications, or drawings other than that all
cost figures are estimates only and the consultant shall not be responsible for fluctuations in cost factors.16. In the event of litigation on this agreement, the interpretation thereof, and all disputes or controversies arising hereunder shall be governed by the laws of
the State of California.
17. No conditions or representations, altering, detracting from, nor adding to the terms hereof shall be valid unless printed or written hereon or evidenced in
writing by either party to this agreement and accepted in writing by the other.
18. All agreements on consultant's part are contingent upon, and consultant shall not be responsible for damages or be in default or be deemed to be in default
by reason of delays in performance by reason of strikes, lockouts, accidents, acts of God and other delays unavoidable or beyond consultant's reasonable control, or
due to shortages or unavailability of labor at established area wage rate or delays caused by failure of client or client's agents to furnish information or to approve ordisapprove consultant's work promptly, or due to late or slow, or faulty performance by client, other contractors, or governmental agencies, the performance of
whose work is precedent to or concurrent with the performance of consultant's work.
19. In the event that litigation be instituted under the terms and conditions of this agreement, the same is to be brought and tried in judicial jurisdiction of the
court of the county in which the consultant's principal place of business is located and client waives the right to have the suit brought, or tried in, or removed toany other county or judicial jurisdiction.
20. Consultant does not guarantee the completion or quality of performance of contract or the completion or quality of performance of contracts by the
construction contractor or contractors, or other third parties, nor is he responsible for their acts or omissions.
21. Consultant makes no warrant, either express or implied, as to his findings, recommendations, specifications, or professional advice except that these were
promulgated after being prepared in accordance with generally accepted engineering and/or surveying practices and under the direction of registered professional
engineers and/or licensed land surveyors.22. Client agrees to cooperate in any and every way or manner with consultant on project.
23. Consultant makes no representation, either expressed or implied, concerning soils or geological conditions, and he is not responsible for any liability that
may arise out of the making or the failure to make soils or geological surveys or subsurface soil tests or general soil testing and reporting.
24. Consultant makes no representations concerning estimates of areas. Estimates of areas are estimates only and are not intended as accurate unless such area
is certified. Certified areas will only be given when requested in writing and at an additional charge-to client.
25. In the event that any changes are made in the plans and specifications by the client or persons other than the consultant, which affects the consultant's
work, any and all liability arising out of such changes is waived as against the consultant and the client assumes full responsibility for such changes unless client has
given consultant prior notice and has received from consultant written consent for such changes.26. The consultant is not responsible, and liability is waived by client as against consultant, for use by client or any other person of any plans or drawings not
signed by consultant.
27. In consideration of the consultant's fee for services, the client agrees that the consultant will perform no on-site construction review for this project; that
such services will be provided by others; and that the client shall defend, indemnify and hold the consultant harmless from any and all liability, real or alleged, that
might be occasioned by others performing construction review for this project.
28. The client agrees that in accordance with generally accepted cortstruction practices, the contractor will be required to assume sole and complete responsibility
for job site conditions during the course of construction of the project, including safety of all persons and property; that this requirement shall be made to apply
continuously and not be limited to normal working hours; and the client further agrees to defend, indemnify and hold the consultant harmless from any and allliability, real or alleged, in connection with the performance of work on this project, excepting liability arising from the sole negligence of the consultant.
29. The client agrees to limit the consultant's liability to the client and to all contractors and subcontractors on the project, due to professional negligent acts,
errors or omissions of the consultant to the sum of $50,000 or the consultant's fee, whichever is greater.
30. Upon written request, each of the parties hereto shall execute and deliver, or cause to be executed and delivered, such additional instruments and documents
which may be necessary and proper to carry out the terms of this agreement.31. The terms and provisions of this agreement shall not be construed to alter, waive, or affect any lien or stop notice rights, which the consultant may have for
the performance of services under this agreement.
32. One or more waivers of any term, condition or covenant by the consultant shall not be construed by the client as a waiver of a subsequent breach of the
same or any other term, condition or covenant.
33. In the event client fails to pay consultant promptly or within sixty (60| days after invoices are rendered, then client agrees that consultant shall have the
right to consider said default a total breach of this agreement and the duties of the consultant under this agreement terminated. In such event, client shall thenpromptly pay the consultant for all of the fees, charges and services performed by consultant on an agreed hourly basis.
34. In the event any provision of this agreement shall be held to be invalid and unenforceable, the other provisions of this agreement shall be valid and binding
on the parties hereto.
35. Services provided within this agreement are for the exclusive use of the client.
36. There are no understandings or agreements except as herein expressly stated.37. The Client will require that the Contractor will hold harmless, indemnify and defend the Client, the Architect, the Engineer and his consultants, and each
of their officers and employees and agents, from any and all liability claims, losses or damage arising or alleged to arise from the performance of the work described
herein, but not including the sole negligence of the Client, the Architect, the Engineer and his consultants, and each of their officers and employees and agents.38. Questions concerning location or changes in construction stakes or questions concerning information on plans and specifications must be called to the
attention of the Engineer upon discovery and before corrective remedy.
39. The Engineer shall be notified so that he may inspect forms for grade alignment only prior to the pouring of concrete for cast-in-place concrete structures,thrust block for fire hydrants, electrical boxes, bridge abutment or piers, or any similar structures staked by the Engineer. The Engineer can assure compliance to
proper grade and alignment only when he has been advised to inspect in advance.
40. The client shall indemnify and save harmless consultant with regard to all liability or claims of any kinds, including all investigation and defense costs,
connected directly or indirectly with this project, which liabilities or claims do not result from the active negligence of the consultant.
41. Consultant has a right to complete all services agreed to be rendered pursuant to this contract. In the event this agreement is terminated before the comple-tion of all services, unless consultant is responsible for such early termination, client agrees to release consultant from all liability for work performed.
DAWCO PRESS 1/79