Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1998-09-08; City Council; 14843; Award Contract Poinsettia Park Phase 1-A7 - WI f OF CARLSBAD - AGENDA ;;ILL AB# 14,843 TITLE- -- AWARD OF CONTRACT FOR MTG. 9108198 POINSETTIA PARK PHASE 1-A IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT NO. 3348 DEPT. ENG CITY MGR%? RECOMMENDED ACTION: Adopt Resolution No. 98-304 accepting bids and awarding Project No. 3348 for the construction of the Poinsettia Park Phase I-A improvements to R.E. Smith Engineering and Construction, Inc. ITEM EXPLANATION: This project involves construction of additional recreational and park maintenance facilities at Poinsettia Park. The construction includes two ballfields, two basketball courts, restroom facilities, soccer field fencing, additional infield subdrains walkway lighting, relocation of an existing electrical vault to the restroom building, landscaping around ballfields and basketball courts and construction of a storage building for park maintenance equipment. On May 19, 1998, the City Council approved the plans and specifications for the Poinsettia Park Phase I-A improvements and directed the City Clerk to advertise for construction bids. On July 16, 1998, the following six (6) bids were received: 1. The Augustine Company $858,809.60 . 2. R.E. Smith Engineering and Construction, Inc. $881,809.60 3. CDM Construction Inc./Messner $990,271.75 4. Heffler Company, Inc. $1,064,603.00 5. Metro Builders and Engineers Group LTD $1,078,114.00 6. Wier Construction Corporation $1,100,912.79 The Engineer’s Estimate for this project was $880,000. Staff has analyzed the bids and concluded that the low bidder, The Augustine Company, has made several important errors and omissions in their contract as follows: The contract documents require that 50% of the project shall be performed by contractor’s own forces. The low bidder’s total subcontracted amount adds up to $641,447, which is 75% of the total project cost. This amount exceeds the maximum allowable subcontractor’s work by 25% which is a violation of Section 4100 of the Public Contracts Code. On Addendum No. 1, issued on July 8, 1998, the City required the contractors to add Bid Item No. 83 (Hydroseed Red Fescue) to page 16 of the specifications. Although the receipt of the addendum was acknowledged, the bid item was not added to the contractor’s bid proposal and no cost was given for this item. The City has no way of knowing if the costs of this item is included in the contractor’s bid. Addendum No. 1 also required bidders to change the size of the tree box on page 13 of the specifications from 24” to 36.” The box size was not changed on page 13 of The Augustine Company’s bid proposal. The City has no way of knowing if the costs of this item is included in their bid. t . - - Page 2 of Agenda Bill No. 14,843 On page 25 of the contract (DESIGNATION OF SUBCONTRACTOR AND AMOUNT OF SUBCONTRACTOR’S BID ITEM), the column under the “Amount of Item by Contractor” has been left blank on all subcontractor forms. The City has no way of knowing what amount of the contract will be performed by The Augustine Company. Based on the above substantial errors and omissions, staff recommends that the City Council declare the bid from The Augustine Company non-responsive and award the contract to the second low bidder, R.E. Smith Engineering and Construction, Inc., in the amount of $881,809.60 contingent upon receiving R.E. Smith’s State Corporate Registration by October 5, 1998. The low bidder, The Augustine Company, has submitted protest based on the second low bidder being registered as a Sole Ownership and not a Corporation. R.E. Smith Incorporated has indicated that they had submitted their application to the State Contractors Board in 1997, but State had lost or did not have any record of it. Staff contacted the State License Board and they confirmed that they had not received the 1997 application, but had received an application on August 5, 1998 to license R.E. Smith Engineering Construction Inc. as a corporation. The Board also indicated that it will take a maximum of sixty (60) days from the date of the application (August 5, 1998) to issue corporate registration. R. E. Smith has been notified that we are recommending the award of contract, contingent upon receiving R.E. Smith’s corporate registration from the State Board of Registration by October 5, 1998. Staff also recommends that the City Council authorize the City manager to re-bid this project, if R.E. Smith Engineering, Inc. fails to submit proof of its corporate registration to the City Engineer by October, 5, 1998. ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE: On July 30, 1992, the Planning Director issued a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Poinsettia Park project consisting of several phases. The improvements to be constructed as part of Phase IA were anticipated in the prior approvals and are fully consistent with the Mitigated Negative Declaration. The California Coastal Commission issued Coastal Development Permit 6-92-l 82 for this project. FISCAL IMPACT: The Engineer’s Estimate for the construction cost of Poinsettia Park Phase I-A is $880,000. Funds in the amount of $1 ,I 15,283 are available for this project. The project cost breakdown is as follows: Construction $881,809.60 Inspection and Administration (10%) $88,180.96 Construction Contingencies (15%) $132,271.44 Subtotal 1 ,I 02,262.OO Available Funds $1 ,I 15.283.00 EXHIBITS: 1. 2. Location Map. Letter advising bid as non-responsive to The Augustine Company from the City of Carlsbad, dated July 23, 1998. 3. Letter of protest of award to the City of Carlsbad from The Augustine Company, dated July 23, 1998. 4. Letter responding to protest of award from the City of Carlsbad to The Augustine Company, dated July 27, 1998. 5. Resolution No. 98-304 accepting bids and awarding Project No. 3348 for the construction of Poinsettia Park Phase I-A to R.E. Smith Engineering and Construction, Inc. 2 -- - 1 LOCATION MAP IDE LAS ONDAS NOT TO SCALE ROJECT NAME PROJECT EXHIBIT PO/NET T/A PARK NUMBER 3348~IA I 3 - - . EXHIBIT 2 City of Carlsbad July 23,1998 Mr. Keith Folker THE AUGUSTINE COMPANY 8334 Clairemont Mesa Boulevard, Suite 103 San Diego, CA 92111 POINSETTIA PARK PHASE I-A Dear Mr. Folker: : The City of Carfsbad has completed the review and analysis of the bids.for the above project. Due to the following errors & omissions in your bid, staff will recommend that the City Council find the bii submitted by The Augustine Company as non-responsive. We will recommend award of the contract to the second low bidder, R.E Smith Engineering & Construction Inc. Your completed -subcontract forms indicate that your subcontractors will be performing 75% of the contract amount. This amount exceeds the maximum allovirable subcontractor’s work by 25%. Addendum No. 1, dated July 8, 1998, required the contractors to add Bid Item No. 83 to page 16 of the Specifications. Although the receipt of the addendum was acknowledged, the bid item was not added on page 16 of the bld proposal and no cost was given for this item. The City has no way of knowing If the costs of thls item is included in the Contractor’s bid. Addendum No. 1 required the contractors to change the size of the tree box on page 13 of the specifications from 24” to 36.” The box size was not changed on page 13 of the bid proposal. The Clty has no way of knowing If the costs of this item is included in the Contractor’s bid. 2075 Las Palmas Dr. l Cartsbad, CA 92009-l 576 l (760) 438-l 161 l FAX (760) 431-5769 - July 23,1998 POINSETTIA PARK PHASE 1-A Page 2 l On page 25 of the contract (DESIGNATION OF SUBCONTRACTOR AND AMOUNT OF SUBCONTRACTORS BID ITEM) The Column under the “Amount of item by Contractor” has been left blank on all subcontractor forms. This project will be submitted to the City Council for action at their meeting on August 4, 1998 beginning at 6:00 p.m. You may attend this meeting and request to speak to the City Council by filling out a “Request to Speak” form available at the meeting. If you have any questions, please call me at (760) 438-l 161, extension 4385 or fax your inquiries to (760)431-5769. ’ , : fpw . . . :...:’ . . Project Manager c: Cii Attorney Public Works Director Traffic Engineer Principal Civil Engineer, Walter Brown R. E. Smith Engineering & Construction, Inc. S MOO2 EXHIBIT 3 0?/24/S6 FRI 09:14 FAX 618-4411 TE AUGUSTINE CO - CiQrofcsfsbad~ 12OO-ViIhgttDIiVC C&bad, Ca 92008-1989 Subj: PoixsaiaParkPh~~~ I-A- Contra No. 3348 Rtz FWkSflYfAWSdtORE.SIktbElBgbB@d~~~CKCDM conaructon Dear& Flu&r. Hawmm,pkaseamsickthisourfbmdpatestofadto~ESmich~g i3ncic~ctioqrne.orcDMconstn;lc6aL wehvelevicplrsdtlrttidsofboth~ aadbmedhmeredmanyim@aritkstba!w&dreadertbeirbids lmn-mspoIJsive. 1. RE.Smitb~and-ctioqM.bidtisprojea#lrtilidag caiifomia stat- # 358613. The -sStaELtiBoardbas advisedus!bat&islken6ezImmber~is6ued~aSde~andIlQta CorgumGonAdmtising~a~isindircctvioviolatian~theCantnrctds State Liceme Laws and is illegal. Page4ofyaurBklDocum~pMgraph2~“Nobidsballbeaccepbpd fiuma~whoisnot~inaccordancewiththeprovisionsof califbnaia ate law.” 2. TheBidBoQd~wwrrrnot~y~bytbePrincipal,RE.Smith . I Ezlgmmg~cons&uConstruaiaqrne. Theprindpal’ssign;mrrewa6notxl~ and the date of cmcutiom by the Principal was left blank The Rid Bond form 8334 ClairemorN Mesa Blvd., Suite 103 l San Digo, C4 92111 l PH (619) 560 4466 l rhx (619) 560 4411 - LIC. #63Y749 07/2$/98 FRI 09:15 FM 619-4411 THE AUGUSTINE co - uoos city ofclulsbafI mlclblth~ Fgifz?““” qmificdbyymarBidDocumemtsmandatesthatbo&thesigmturesofthe PhcipalandtheSuretymustbenotarkd. 3. The~ofs-aad-ofS-sBid~ finmsubmiaedareinem~, Cohmm~3and4mustequal”tbedo~amouutin thebidpiia~theitemonbidpropos~pages~-16”.Irr~Cotumn3isthe totdOfCOIumns2eod4, 4. RE~sWorlrcrs’Compeatariancomp6uy,-Colqpezrsstiaqisnot %“ra!edasmp&edbytheBidDocum~. hfkct,theyaceoulya”B+“. Nat only did R E. Smith not cuxqly with the Bid Domts, ifawarded the cm&act; tbey~eaUoWanunf;iradvantageinnrbmhingthcirbid Obviouslythe pmiums~m”A”ratedcooPpsnyismore~a”B”~~thcirov~ rate would be IUB &an the bidders who utilizcd the required “A” rated imamnce COllkpiBlitS. CDM Con~tn~c&ion’s bid is no~+fcqmnsivc based on the fiallowing: 1. ~NcwConasion~davitwlraatexeartedbybidder,~it . lilomzd~tbenDtarybemxmB6illppaltbu-ewasnosiguauIretouo&rize. 2. CDMConshuctiandidnotwriteinlineitemf)83as~crtedinAddendum#l. We are being told our bid is non-respmsive due to km #83 not king listed cm thebid- ChupcsiticmasvmbaQystataitiPat~iisthatby ~~receiptafAddmdrnn#1,we~thcprice~~#83in our bid. The City c&Carl&ad should have included a revised bid fbrm with the Addenmun#l,rathathn~abiddar~atetabidfbrm,whichwould IbOldly~itimnlid 3. The “Designation of Subcontmcor and Ammmt of Subcomactor’s Bid hms” formssubmittedminemx. CDMdidnotlistthcindividualamou&fkeach subwntrahr’s bid item; mtherthey combined thun together. 7 0?/24/96 FRI 09:15 FM 619-4411 TEE AUGUSTINE CO - AtwRawhack -gm PIigc- J9iya 1998 W~bave&Obeem4ViSUitk4tOlN- listing-wewiiIsub-let appr-y75%ofthccontract. ThisiBnot- &lfi*afler~tiew, we~dscoveredsclericalemrria~tbeamanmtslisted~rtbesubco~also includesourprice&hstaUationbyourownfbrces. Asyoucauseethef~prhied ~vlcry~~sndwithtbeao~~~~~~ofthebiddes~~~ bidpmccssmndusagnafmaxginofamr. Tbisisev&ntbythtcmrsmadcbyRE. SmithEnpineerinrrand~lilc. ~~~~cmnrsbytbeAugustiot~vlcry..minor,esp~inoompariuwntoR E.Sntith’s. BidItem#83isonlyamioorcoaaadcouldbewaivcdpayorPBid Do~s,‘~ifaddedinwouldstinmalnustheopparentlOWbidder. Hmever,the price is tiy included in ourtotal bid. MditionalIy, as stated above, we My intend to perfhnatkast503/oofthcworkwith~QwlD~ WebeliernitworJdbein~bestintenert~tlpeCityofC~~aDdtbe~ayersto award&is ammuST~tbeAyytiue~Comp6ny. Wesubdtedthe~most reqmdvebid To award&is oonmctboRESmi&b,whoisncrtanly~~~nsive butalsowi&uhgilIe@ly,urtoawanIt0anaLher~ bidder wmld rest& ingr~~acpcnBetothe~yerB. Tb&p~lbry~carsideratian. Weareav&bleatimytimetodkcusstkisfbther. Ml004 EXHIBIT 4 Juty 27,1998 Carol A. Rauscher, Vice President The Augustine Company 83345 Ciairemont Mesa Blvd., Suite 103 San Diio, CA 92111 Poinsettia Park Phase I-A, Project No 3348 . Dear Ms. Rauscher, We have received your letter of July 23, 1998 protesting the award of the construction contract to R. E. Smith Engineering and Construction, Inc. or C D M Construction. In that letter you have expressed your opinion that irregularities in the bids by both contractors render them non-responsive. We appreciate your concerns. Please be advised that City staff is not advising award of the contract to C D M Construction. The reasons that your bid has been found to be non-responsive are listed in our letter to you of July 23, 1998. City staff has reviewed the issues you have raised regarding the bid of R. E. Smith Engineering. and Const+ion, Inc. and have not found them to be issues that constitute, individually or in the aggregate, flaws that render the bid by R. E. Smith Engineering and Construction, Inc. non-responsive. In response to the issues you raised we offer the following: 1. Issue of corporate identity of R. E. Smith Engineering and Construction, Inc.. - representatives cf the firm have shown us a copy of the paperwork that they claim was submitted, well before bidding, to the State Contractor’s Board to change the former sole ownership nature to a corporation. Even if that were not the case the issue is one that can be easily remedied with no harm to the City or the public it represents. 2. Bid bond execution - the firm has submitted a signed and notarized copy of the bidder’s bond. 3. Designation of subcontractor and amount of subcontractor’s bid items - although R. E. Smith Engineering and Construction. Inc. erred in its choice of columns to place the information the data needed to determine the amount of subcontractor bids and the amount of R. E. Smith’s portion of each of ths bid items is clear. The error appears clerical and has no impact on the City’s ability to analyze the bids, nor does it give unfair advantage to the contractor. 4. Worker’s compensation carrier’s rating - No rating of the workers compensation is required by State law or the City’s bid documents. Accordingly City staff believes that there are no serious flaws in R. E. Smith Engineering and Construction, Inc’s. bid that were not previously resolved, are an issue of contract requirements or are of a significance that offers unfair advantage to the bidder. City staff will recommend that the Carlsbad City Council award of the contract to R. E. Smith Engineering and Construction, Inc. as the lowest responsive bidder. As mentioned in our letter to you of July 23, 1998 you may speak to the City Council at their August 4, 1998 meeting. You must complete a “Request to Speak” form as mentioned in that letter. c: Public Works Director Traffic Engineer Associate Engineer, Entezari \\LASPALhMS\SYSUIBRARY\ENG\WORO\ENTEZARN’OlNSETTlA PARK PHASE I-AM!GlJSTINE CO. RESPONSE.OOU/27/98 4% PM 2075 Las Palmas Dr. - Carlsbad, CA 92009-1576 - (760) 438-l 161 l FAX (760) 431-5769 a3 * 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. 98-304 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, ACCEPTING BIDS AND AWARDING A CONTRACT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF POlNSElTlA PARK PHASE 1-A. PROJECT NO. 3348. WHEREAS, plans and specifications have been reviewed by the City Council of the City of Carlsbad for the construction of Poinsettia Park Phase l-A, Project No. 3348; and WHEREAS, bids have been received by the City of Carlsbad for the construction of said project; and WHEREAS, the low bid received to construct said project submitted by The Augustine Company was found to be non-responsive; and WHEREAS, the contract documents require that 50% of the project shall be performed by contractor’s own forces. The Low bidder’s total subcontracted amount adds up to $641,447 which is 75% of the total project cost. This amount exceeds the maximum allowable subcontractor’s work by 25%; and WHEREAS, on Addendum No. 1, issued on July 8, 1998, the City required the contractors to add Bid Item No. 83 (Hydroseed Red Fescue) to page 16 of the specifications. Although the receipt of the addendum was acknowledged, the bid item was not added to the contractor’s bid proposal and no cost was given for this item; and WHEREAS, Addendum No. 1 also required the contractors to change the size of the tree box on page 13 of the specifications from 24” to 36.” The box size was not changed on page 13 of the contractor’s bid proposal; and WHEREAS, on page 25 of the contract (DESIGNATION OF SUBCONTRACTOR AND AMOUNT OF SUBCONTRACTOR’S BID ITEM), the column under the “Amount of Item by Contractor” has been left blank on all subcontractor forms; and WHEREAS, the second low bid received to construct said project submitted by R.E. Smith Construction and Engineering, Inc., is responsive; and WHEREAS, funds in the amount of $1 ,115,283.00 are available for design, construction, administration, and inspection of said project. WHEREAS, Subsection 3.28.172(c)(l) of the Carlsbad Municipal Code authorizes the City Manager to approve change orders in the amount equal to the contingency set at the time of the bid award; and Ill h 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 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 low bid of $858,809.60 submitted by The Augustine Company for Project No. 3348 for the construction of Poinsettia Park Phase 1-A improvements is hereby rejected. 3. That the second low bid of $881,809.60 submitted by R.E. Smith Construction and Engineering, Inc., is hereby accepted contingent upon its submittal to the City of proof of State Corporate registration by October, 5, 1998, and the Mayor is hereby authorized to execute a contract therefor. 4. That the award of this contract is contingent upon R.E. Smith Construction executing the required contract and submitting the required bonds and insurance policies, as described in the contract, within twenty (20) days of adoption of this resolution. The City Manager may grant reasonable extensions of time. 5. That a construction contingency in the amount of $132,000 is hereby approved. 6. That the City Manager is hereby authorized to approve construction change orders up to $132,000. 7. That the City Manager is hereby authorized to re-bid this project if R.E. Smith Engineering Construction Inc. fails to submit its corporate registration by October 5, 1998. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Carlsbad City Council held on the 8th day of seDte&er , 1998 by the following vote, to wit: AYES: Council Members Lewis, Kulchin, Nygaard, Finnila & Hall NOES: None 20 21 22 23 24 /I ATTEST: 25 26 27 KAREN R. KUNDTZ, 28 (SEAL)