HomeMy WebLinkAbout1985-06-18; City Council; 8119-6; Rejecting Bids Carlsbad Safety and Service Center Bid Package 4 Sections 4A Concrete and 4D MasonryCARLSBAD - AGENDA IILL (3)
AR« xn*! -*•(*>
MT«?,.
DEPT.
6/18/85
ENG
REJECTING BIDS FOR CARLSBAD SAFETY AND
SERVICE CENTER BID PACKAGE NO. 4 —
SECTIONS 4A CONCRETE AND 4D MASONRY
DEPT. HP ^
C,TYATTY?S2
CITY MRR 3&~
O
LU
OCCa.a.
o
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Adopt Resolution No.
and 3006-4D Masonry
rejecting all bids for sections 3006-4A Concrete
and authorize the Purchasing Officer and City Clerk to
readvertise and rebid the aforementioned sections of Bid Package No. 4.
ITEM EXPLANATION;
On April 2, 1985 Council authorized the advertisement of Bid Package No. 4 for
the project. On May 30, 1985 competitive sealed bids were received by the Koll
Construction Company and the City. When the bids were opened for sections 4A
Concrete and 4D Masonry they were substantially over the estimates. The Con-
struction Manager estimates were $566,000.00 for concrete versus the bid of
$912,000.00. Masonry was estimated at $103,000.00 versus the bid of
$171,000.00. Due to redesign considerations on the vehicle maintenance building
involving a change from tilt-up concrete to concrete textured block and the
substantial overbids, the Construction Manager recommends rejection of the bids
and authorizing the Purchasing Officer and City Clerk to readvertise and request
new bids per revised specifications to be issued.
FISCAL IMPACT;
Budgeted funds for this phase of the project are currently in Account No. 114-
820-1810-3006.
EXHIBITS:
1. Resolution No.rejecting all bids for sections 3006-4A Concrete and
3006-4D Masonry and authorize the Purchasing Officer and City Clerk to
readvertise and rebid the aforementioned sections of Bid Package No. 4.
2. Koll Construction Company letter and bid summary sheets.
RESOLUTION NO.8059
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, REJECTING ALL BIDS FOR
SECTIONS 3006-4A CONCRETE AND 3006-4D MASONRY
FOR. THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE CARLSBAD SAFETY AND
SERVICE CENTER AND AUTHORIZING THE PURCHASING
OFFICER AND CITY CLERK TO READVERTISE AND INVITE
BIDS FOR THESE BID PACKAGE SECTIONS.
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Carlsbad, California, has
determined that it is necessary and in the public interest to install concrete
and masonry in the Carlsbad Safety and Service Center; and
WHEREAS, bids have been recieved for Sections 3006-4A Concrete and
3006-4D Masonry; and
WHEREAS, the Construction Manager recommends that all the bids be
rejected; and
WHEREAS the City Council has determined 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 Sections 3006-4A Concrete and 3006-4D Masonry
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 Sections 3006-4A and 3006-4D of Bid Package No. 4.
1 PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Carlsbad City
2 Council held on the 18th day of June , 1985 by the following vote, to
3 wit:
4 AYES: Council Members Casler, Lewis, Kulchin, Chick and Pettine
5 NOES: None
6 ABSENT: None
7
MARY H. CASLER, Mayor
9
ATTEST:
10
11 " / t /. . . J2^jG^£A^-y,12 — 1ALETHA L. RAUTENKRANZ, City Clerk^
13
14 (SEAL)
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
KOLL EXHIBIT #2
7330 F.nginoor Road
San Dirgo
California S>2M1-14M
Koll Construction Company (6!c>) IWo^O
June 7, 1985
Mr. Mike Brooks
City of Carlsbad
1200 Elm Avenue
Carlsbad, CA 92008
RE: Carlsbad Safety Center
KCC JOB # 3225
Rejection of Concrete and Masonry Bids
(Bid Pac # 4 A,D.) and Authorization to Rebid
Dear Mike:
On May 30, 1985 competitive bids were received for Bid Package No. 4, which
included among other items, Concrete and Masonry work.
Bid coverage was very poor since only one bid each were received for the
respective trades. Numerous contractors were contacted for each of these
trades, and we had hoped for better coverage based on the extent of the
work. Follow up calls to various contractors revealed that the bid market
at this time was saturated, and most contractors elected to place our public
works bid on the bottom of their priority list.
As indicated by the bids received for these trades, we appear to have some
major budget problems too. Further examination by your Construction Manager
indicates areas that may be modified/redesigned which could reduce some of
the budget problems. We feel a redesign of the Vehicle Maintenance Facility
from Concrete Tilt-Up to Masonry would be beneficial both cost and schedule
wise. In addition, possible structural modifications of details and design
criteria may also be advantageous. We have contacted various contractors
and they have expressed a desire to be involved with a rebid process.
Naturally, the most critical aspect of a rebid would be the construction time
factor. Conversations with Tulsa Steel indicate they are still on line for
August, although a minor delay should not be a problem.
Our recommendation would be to reject and rebid the Concrete and Masonry for
the project. We feel this could be accomplished relatively quickly as long
as the Architect and his consultants respond in a timely manner to some of
our concerns. Some of the modifications, if approved, could be handled by
written addendums. We would also recommend that the City authorize expenditure
of necessary funds to redesign the Vehicle Maintenance Facility as a Masonry
Building.
Mike Brooks Page 2
KCC JOB # 3225 June 7, 1985
A rebid would not only allow us to receive more competitive bids for these
trades, but we could also restructure the bid proposals into a series of
definitive alternates. We would be able to separate the Police and Vehicle
Maintenance Facilities, such that^ a possible award could be made for the
Police Building (which is the most critical schedule wise), while possible
latent problems could be re-analyzed and developed into the schedule.
Should you have any questions, please call.
Respectfully submitted,
ifTMICTION COMPANY
*»Steve Mahoney I
Project Manager I
fn/
cc: Bill Smith
Bill Miller
Dennis Allison
David Ruhnau
File
w
LT)