HomeMy WebLinkAbout1985-05-21; City Council; 8119-2; Rejecting Bids Carlsbad Safety and Service Center Bid Package 3 Electrical Section 3006-3ECITA JF CARLSBAD - AGEND/ )ILL
AR# ,py/9-*x
MTG. 5/21/85
DEPT. CM
TITLE:
REJECTING BIDS FOR CARLSBAD
SAFETY AND SERVICE CENTER BID PACKAGE
NO. 3, ELECTRICAL SECTION 3006-3E
HEPT HD *jy
CITY ATTYV/^/^
niTY MGR. ^^
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Adopt Resolution No. gfo.3O rejecting all bids for section
3006-3E Electrical for the Carlsbad Safety and Service Center
and authorize the Purchasing Officer and City Clerk to
readvertise and rebid the aforementioned sections of Bid
Package No. 3.
ITEM EXPLANATION;
On April 2, 1985 Council authorized the advertisement of
bid package No. 3 for said project. As of May 2, 1985 sealed
bids were received per Exhibit 2 provided by the Koll Company.
Following the bid opening it was discovered that an addendum
to the bidding instructions was incorrect through no fault of
the bid administrators. Due to this problem and other
considerations per Exhibit 3 from the Koll Company we are
recommending that these bids be rejected for section 3006-3E
Electrical of Bid Package No. 3 and that the Purchasing Officer
and City Clerk should readvertise and request new bids on this
item.
FISCAL IMPACT:
Funds are available in Account No. 332-820-1810-3006.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT:
EIR and CUP are already approved.
EXHIBITS;
1.Resolution No.rejecting the bids and authorizing
the rebid of section 3006-3E Electrical.
2. Summary of Bids.
3. Koll Company letter of explanation.
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
RESOLUTION NO. 8030
A-''RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OP CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, REJECTING ALL BIDS
FOR SECTION 3006-3E ELECTRICAL OF BID PACKAGE
NO. 3 FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE CARLSBAD
SAFETY AND SERVICE CENTER, AND AUTHORIZING
THE PURCHASING OFFICER AND CITY CLERK TO
READVERTISE AND REINVITE BIDS FOR THIS BID
PACKAGE SECTION.
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Carlsbad, California,
has determined that it is necessary and in the public interest
to install electrical systems in the Carlsbad Safety and Service
Center; and
WHEREAS, bids have been received for contract 3006-3E
Electrical; and
WHEREAS, the Construction Manager recommends that all the
bids be rejected; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has determine that the public
interest requires the Council to exercise its discretion under
Section 3.28.120 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code and reject all
bids.
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. That the bids for section 2006-3E Electrical are
hereby rejected.
3. That the Purchasing Officer and City Clerk are hereby
authorized to proceed to publish in accordance with law, Notice
to Bidders, inviting bids for section 3006-3E of Bid Package
No. 3.
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 by the City Council of the
City of Carlsbad, California, at a regular meeting held on the
21st ~ day of May , 1985, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Council Members Casler, Lewis, Kulchin, Chick and Pettine
None
None
y ,
ATTEST:MARY H. ^CASLER, Mayor
ALETHA L
(SEAL)
UTENKRANZ, City Clerk
tf
rl
Cu
KOLL 7330 Engineer Road
San Diego
California 92111-1464
Koll Construction Company (619) 292-5550
May 13, 1985
Mr. Mike Brooks
City of Carlsbad
1200 Elm Avenue
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Re: Carlsbad Safety and Service Center
Bid Package #3
Rejection of the Electrical Bids Received and
Authorization to Rebid
Dear Mike:
On May 2, 1985 competitive bids were received for bid package #3 which
included among other items the building electrical work.
Excellent coverage was enjoyed by our receiving twelve bids for the specified
work. Kolls estimate for this work was $573,224 with a low bid being
received from Circle Electric in the amount of $678,950.
Although the low bid is approximately 18$ over our estimate there are several
items that were expanded or added during the final programming that could
explain at least part of this overrun.
We also note that the low bidder has an apparent irregularity in his bid
submitted whereas he has not listed subcontractors for any portion of the
electrical work and specifically the Fire Alarm System (Specification 16721)
requires the installer to have a C-61 and C-16 contractors license.
Additionally, the Security System (Specification 16727) requires that the
installation be done by an authorized manufacturers representative. We have
not determined that Circle Electric complies with either one of these
specified requirements.
The largest item of concern is that of the prevailing wage requirements for
the project. The bid package addresses the legal requirement for prevailing
wages but during the prebid conference the question regarding the electrical
prevailing wage was raised since there has been an approved reduction
effective June 1 of this year. We were not able to satisfy the question
raised without contacting the State of California Department of Industrial
Relations Division of Labor Statistics and Research. This was done on
April 24 and in discussion with Mr. Bob Low we were erroneously informed that
the prevailing wage at time of bid must hold throughout the duration of the
contract. Mr. Low was questioned at that time since this did not seem
Mike Brooks
May 13, 1985
Page 2
logical plus since a reduced wage would be in effect we wanted to take
advantage of this lower rate with correspondingly lower bids. We reflected
this information in Addendum 1 to bid package #3 dated April 26, which states
in part "All bidders are responsible for current wage determinations at the
time of bid. Once established said wage rate shall be fixed for the duration
of the project regardless of periodic increases and/or decreases in the
quarterly rate.n
On bid date approximately one hour prior to closing a call was received by
the architects office from the National Electrical Contractors Association
(NECA) protesting this provision stating that it was illegal. This is the
first feedback of this sort we had received on our Addendum.
Since it was too late to verify or modify the bid document we decided to
proceed with the bid opening and resolve the problem in the best manner once
validity of the complaint could be determined.
On May 6, I placed another call to Mr. Bob Low at the State. This time he
told me that the wage rate with a double asterisk adjacent to the contract
expiration date could be incorporated in and adjusted after the bid date. I
of course told him this was contrary to my previous conversation with him and
I'm convinced that he did not realize that the modification to the expiration
date exists.
Based on the current analysis of the bids received and the problem with the
bid package it is our recommendation that all of the electrical bids only be
rejected, the bid bonds returned and a new bid date set as soon as possible.
We additionally recommend that all contractors that have previously purchased
the bid package for this work be supplied with any new bidding documents at
no cost.
Very truly yours,
ROLL CONSTRUCTION COMPANY
William D. Smith
Senior Project Manager
WDSrds
cc: Bill Miller
Dennis Allison
Steve Mahoney
Ruth Fletcher, City of Carlsbad, Purchasing