HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005-07-26; Public Financing Authority; 7; Construction of Carlsbad City Golf Course\B# 7 TITLE:
ACCEPT BIDS AND AWARD CONTRACTS FOR THE
CONSTRUCTION OF THE CARLSBAD CITY GOLF llTG 07-26-2005
AND 39721-3, ACT UPON BID PROTESTS, AND
APPROPRIATE PROJECT FUNDS
TEM EXPLANATION :
In May 3, 2005, the Board of Directors, hereafter the “Board,” of the Carlsbad Public Financing
DEPT.H .
CITY AT
iuthoriy, hereafter the “Authority,” approved the plans and specifications and authorized the
idvertisement of competitive bids for the construction of the Carlsbad City Golf Course Project.
!ids were received by the Authority and opened in public on Wednesday, June 22, 2005 as
Alows:
Carlsbad City Golf Course Project
COMPANY NAME SUBMITTED I CORRECTED I FINAL
RANKING
CONTRACT 39721-1 :
Mass Grading & Utilities I SEMA CONSTRUCTION, INC. $7,721,463.48 $7,721,463.48 1
Lake Forest, California
FLEMING ENVIRONMENTAL, INC. $9,169,036.12 $9,169,036.12 2
Buena Park, California
DOJA INC.
La Puente, California
CONTRACT 39721-2:
$9,277,496.78 $9,277,496.78 3
I Lincoln, Nebraska CONTRACT 39721 -3:
Golf Course Construction
WADSWORTH GOLF CONSTRUCTION
COMPANY
Buckeye, Arizona
SEMA CONSTRUCTION, INC.
$1 6,727,761 .OO $1 6,727,761 .OO 1
$18,957,152.65 $18,957,152.65 2 Lake Forest, California
KUBLY GOLF COURSE CONSTRUCTION
COMPANY
$1 8,974,986.00 $1 8,974.986.00 3
olf Course Buildings
BARNHART, INC. San Diego, California JAYNES CORPORATION
$10,602,943.00 $1 1,211,327.00 2
$1 0,660,864.00 $1 0,661,052.00 1
SOLPAC, INC. dba SOLTEK PACIFIC $1 1,284,051 .OO 1 $1 1,284,051 .OO 1 3 San Diego, California
GKK WORKS, INC. $1 1,692,680.00 $1 1,692,680.00 4
ERICKSON-HALL CONSTRUCTION CO. $1 1.765.000.00 I $1 1.765.000.00 I 5 Escondido, California
WEIR CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION Escondido, California
I. .. .
$14,726,837.09 $14,726,837.10 6
AB# 7
Page 2
With respect to evaluating the bids submitted, two (2) bid protests have been received by CPFA
which require review and action by the Board in order to determine the “lowest responsive,
responsible bidder.”
BID PROTEST FROM FLEMING ENVIRONMENTAL, INCORPORATED
The first bid protest involves Contract 39721-1, Mass Grading and Partial Utilities, for the project.
CPFA received a letter dated June 27, 2005 from Fleming Environmental Incorporated, attached
as Exhibit 2, regarding two issues involving the bid submitted by the apparent low bidder SEMA
Construction, Incorporated.
Issue 1: Lack of Insurance Certifications Fleming alleges SEMA failed to comply with bid
requirements by not submitting with its bid all “insurance certifications and/or insurance carrier’s
notarized signature stating conformance to the insurance requirements.” A review of the
materials submitted by SEMA Construction, Incorporated reveals the following statement on Page
29 of their submitted bid regarding the inclusion of all required insurance certificates: “Per Notice
Inviting Bids, Page 7, item 9, Certificates of Insurance will be submitted prior to award of contract.”
As verified by staff, the City’s bid documents do not require the submission of insurance
certificates at bid time but rather prior to award of contract. Therefore, SEMA is in compliance with
the stated requirements regarding when insurance certificates are to be submitted for this project.
Issue 2: Listed Costs for Retaininrr Wall Structures Secondly, Fleming alleges SEMA’s listing
of $1,195,557 for costs for installation of retaining wall structures on Page 12 of their bid form
does not match the subcontractor listing of $102,201 on Page 25. Fleming has indicated that the
costs listed on the bid form on Page 12 do reflect the true cost for the remaining crib wall
installation. Staff has verified these errors on the forms as Fleming alleges and would concur with
this conclusion.
However, this error is viewed by staff as a minor irregularity at best and is easily correctable.
SEMA’s unit prices and costs for retaining wall structures are clear and unambiguous on Page 12
of their bid form. SEMA’s listing of a designated subcontractor to perform this work is equally
clear and unambiguous on Page 25. This is not a material mistake because correction of the bid
error will not alter the bid price for this item of work and will not change the total amount of the bid.
In addition, the error is not relevant to the bid requirement that the bidder perform at least 50
percent of the work because this is a designated specialty item which is not included for computing
the percentage of work to be performed by the bidder. Therefore, the clerical error is viewed by
staff as having no adverse consequence upon CPFA or SEMA. The intentions of the bidder are
clear regarding this item of work. Attached as Exhibit 3 is a copy of CPFA staffs letter dated July
6, 2005 to Fleming responding to this bid protest.
In consultation with the City Attorney’s Office, staff recommends the Board deny the bid protest
submitted by Fleming Environmental, Incorporated and find the bid submitted by SEMA
Construction, Incorporated as the “lowest responsive, responsible bid” in compliance with the
requirements of the CPFA bid for Contract 39721-1.
BID PROTEST FROM THE JAYNES CORPORATION
The second bid protest was submitted by the Jaynes Corporation under Contract 39721-3 for
construction of the Golf Course Buildings.
AB# 7
Page 3
Issue 1: “Flip-Floppinq” of 2 Bid Values CPFA received a letter dated June 23, 2005 from
Barnhart, Incorporated, attached as Exhibit 4. Barnhart indicates they mistakenly “flip-flopped”
their intended bid values for Schedule E (an onsite restroom facility) with Schedule F (all site work,
parking lots, utilities, and improvements supporting all buildings) on Page 12 of their bid form.
That is to say, they intended to place the value of Schedule E with F and vice versa to accurately
reflect their intended bid values. Staff has reviewed the Page 12 bid form from Barnhart and finds
support for this “minor clerical irregularity” as being apparent from the information available. It has
no adverse effect upon the bid submitted by Barnhart nor their intended value for these two items
of work.
Issue 2: Bid Mathematical Error bv Barnhart Jaynes alleges in its letter dated June 23, 2005,
attached as Exhibit 5, that the apparent low bid submitted by Barnhart, Incorporated includes a
significant mathematical error that affects the bid results. Jaynes alleges that Barnhart’s addition
of all its bid values for Schedules A through F totals $1 1,211,327 and not the $10,602,943 listed
by Barnhart on Page 12 of its bid form. This mathematical error when corrected, according to
Jaynes, places Barnhart’s bid as the second lowest bid received by CPFA for this work.
Addressing Jaynes’ assertion of the mathematical bid error, Barnhart acknowledges the Schedule
A through F sum is incorrect. However, Barnhart has responded by stating that the sum of their
individual bid values for Schedules A through F was intended to provide a “purposeful discount
based upon economies of scale of an award of all scheduled work.” To determine the specific
requirements of the bid documents, staff points to Page 12 of the bid form which defines the basis
of bid award for this project as:
The basis of award will be the sum of Schedules A, B, C, D, E & F. CPFA hereby desianates
Schedule A (Clubhouse) as a “deductive alternate” which may, at the sole election of CPFA,
not be awarded. Even if deducted from the scope of work, Schedule A (Clubhouse) will be
included for purposes of determinina the lowest bid price in accordance with California
Public Contract Code, Section 20103.8 (b).
In consultation with the City Attorney’s Office, staff recommends the Board find the bid submitted
by Barnhart, Incorporated contains a material error and is, therefore, not in compliance with
Section 20103.8 (b) of the California Public Contracts Code regarding the “sum of all Schedules”
to be the basis of bid award for this contract. Accordingly, the correct bid total submitted by
Barnhart, Incorporated is $1 1,211,327. Staff further recommends the Board approve the bid
protest filed by the Jaynes Corporation and determine the “lowest responsive, responsible bid”
received by CPFA for this project to be from the Jaynes Corporation in the amount of $1 0,661,052
subject to the discussion below. Attached as Exhibit 6 is a copy of the CPFA staffs letter dated
July 7, 2005 to Barnhart responding to this bid protest.
EVALUATION OF THE BID FROM THE JAYNES CORPORATION
With the bid from the Jaynes Corporation potentially being declared the “lowest responsive,
responsible bid” for this contract, staff has reviewed their bid in detail and identified multiple
questions and inconsistencies which require clarification. These questions all surround the way in
which several intended subcontractors were listed by the Jaynes Corporation on Page 20 of their
bid form entitled “Designation of Subcontractors.”
3
AB# 7
Page 4
Beginning with section 4100, et. seq., of the California Public Contracts Code, bidders are required
to list their intended subcontractors by trade, name and location of subcontractor, and amount of
subcontractor’s work. The code goes on to allow bidders to complete their listing of
subcontractors by submitting within 24 hours of bid time to the local agency a confirming listing of
the intended subcontractor’s work specifying by trade, the name and location of their business,
subcontractor’s license number, and amount of subcontractor’s work. This additional amount of
time is necessary to complete the detailed subcontractor information, eliminate “bid shopping,” and
confirm what the bidder had submitted at time of bid with respect to subcontractor work.
In the case of the initial subcontractor information submitted by the Jaynes Corporation, several
misspellings and inconsistencies were revealed during the subsequent bid review by staff.
Therefore, following CPCC Section 41 07.5, the Jaynes Corporation was requested and has
provided two sworn affidavits from Jaynes’ officials explaining the misspellings and inconsistencies
in the way they listed some of their subcontractors on their bid.
These sworn affidavits and the accompanying information, a copy of which is attached as Exhibit
7, have been reviewed in detail by department staff and staff of the City Attorney’s Office. It is the
collective conclusion of staff that the affidavits reasonably explain the misspellings of intended
subcontractors names and locations of businesses sufficient to find these errors “clerical” and non-
material to the bid received by the CPFA for this contract. The intentions of the bidder are clear
from the information presented and the bid costs to CPFA under this contract are unaffected.
Therefore, staff recommends the CPFA Board find the bid submitted by the Jaynes Corporation to
be the “lowest responsive, responsible bid” received and recommends its award to the Jaynes
Corporation. Attached as Exhibit 8 is a copy of the CPFA staffs letter dated July 7, 2005 to
Jaynes responding to this bid protest.
FINAL BID RESULTS
If the Board takes the recommended action denying the bid protest by Fleming Environmental,
Incorporated for Contract 39721-1 and approving the bid protest filed by the Jaynes Corporation
for Contract 39721 -3, the following are the “lowest responsive, responsible bids” received by CPFA
for the construction of the Carlsbad City Golf Course Project:
Contract 39721-1: Mass Grading and Utilities: SEMA Construction, Inc. $7,721,463.48
Contract 39721 -2: Golf Course Construction: Wadsworth Golf Construction $16,727,761 .OO
Contract 39721 -3: Golf Course Buildings: Jaynes Corporation $10,661,052.00
Total Contract Values: $35,110,276.48
PERMANENT VERSUS TEMPORARY CLUBHOUSE
Staff received previous direction from the Board to list the permanent clubhouse bids as a
“deductive alternate” while at the same time not affecting the bids received for the remainder of the
onsite buildings including the maintenance facility, 2 on-course restrooms, half-way house, and the
necessary surrounding and supporting site improvements, utilities, parking lots, access roads and
other improvements. The rationale for deferring a permanent clubhouse at this time is to allow
the golf course time to build up its revenues so that the permanent clubhouse could be paid for
4
AB# 7
Page 5
from golf course revenues. It is estimated it will be no less than 10 years before there are
sufficient revenues, and sufficient revenue history, to bond-finance a permanent structure.
The bids for Contract 39721-3, Golf Course Buildings were, therefore, fashioned to list the
Schedule A, Clubhouse bid as a “deductive alternate” which gives the Board the flexibility, if it so
chooses, to deduct the value of the permanent clubhouse from the bids and award the remaining
building items of work. Deducting the permanent clubhouse from the bids would be as follows
using the recommended “lowest responsive, responsible bid” received from the Jaynes
Corporation as discussed above:
Contract 39721 -3: Golf Course Buildinqs
Schedule A: Clubhouse $5,920,016
Schedule 6: Maintenance Facility $ 1,702,376
Schedule C: Half-Way House $ 305,425
Schedule D: On-Course Restroom Building “A $ 170,687
Schedule E: On-Course Restroom Building “B” $ 167,892
Schedule F: All Site Work $2,394,656
Total Bid for all Golf Course Buildings: $10,661,052
Deduct Permanent Clubhouse: - $5.920.016
Net Bid Value for 39721 -3 Contract: $4,741,036
As requested, staff has prepared an analysis of a temporary clubhouse installation in lieu of
proceeding with the permanent clubhouse as bid. At this meeting of the CPFA, staff will review
with the Board in detail a proposed temporary clubhouse alternative that best fits the site and the
operational needs of the project. Attached as Exhibits 9, IO, and 11 are a potential site plan,
temporary clubhouse floor plan, and cost estimate for two possible temporary facility alternatives.
Regarding costs for the permanent versus temporary clubhouse facility, the following is a
comparison based upon the permanent clubhouse bids recently received and the cost estimate
prepared for the temporary clubhouse alternative:
Permanent Clubhouse Construction:
CPFA Provided and Installed F, F & E:
Total Permanent Clubhouse Cost:
$5,920,016
+ $ 1,450,000
$7,370,016
Temporary Clubhouse / Cart Barn Construction: - $2,475,950 (includes minor FF&E)
Net Cost Reduction for Temporary Clubhouse Facility: $4,894,066
Staff has also prepared an “advantages / disadvantages” analysis, attached as Exhibit 12,
addressing potential economic and operational differences between the permanent and temporary
clubhouse alternatives intended for the CPFA Board’s review.
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT SCHEDULE
Various Resource Agency permits for the project limit mass grading of the site to the September 1
through March 1 time frame in any calendar year outside the nesting season for the resident
California Blacktailed Gnatcatcher. Therefore, the project schedule has been developed to initiate
5
AB# 7
Page 6
site grading operations on or after September 1, 2005 and conclude prior to the following March 1,
2006. Remaining construction activities are allowed to proceed provided no adverse impacts
result to resident species during the nesting season each year. Final construction activities and
the important “grow-in” of the golf course is anticipated to conclude in mid-2007 to be followed by
formal opening of the golf course for public play.
The project has secured all required Federal, State, Regional, and Local Agency entitlements,
approvals, and permits.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
On June 7, 2000, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 4772 certifying the
Environmental Impact Report for the Carlsbad Municipal Golf Course Project finding the project in
compliance with the environmental regulations and policies of the City of Carlsbad.
FISCAL IMPACT:
With the construction bids now received, the following is an updated summary of all project costs
necessary to proceed with the development of the City Golf Course Project with a target opening
date of July 1, 2007:
Construction, all components
Construction Contingency (5%) Other Construction Phase Costs Subtotal Construction Phase:
$35,110,276
$ 1,755,513
$ 5,855.000 $42,720,789
“Grow-In” & Pre-Opening Maintenance (April, 2006 - July, 2007) $ 1,100,000 (est.) “Start-Up” Budget to Open and Operate (January, 2007 - July, 2007) $ 1,500,000 (est.)
Subtotal: $ 2,600,000 (est.)
Total Estimated Project Costs: $45,320,789
Staff has indicated in several prior briefings and presentations regarding the City Golf Course
Project that this project is a “business enterprise” funded by CPFA and is dependent upon course
revenues for both bond debt service as well as ongoing maintenance and operation expenses.
The green fee schedule will ultimately be established, and reviewed annually, to meet the financial
needs of the project.
The “grow-in” estimate described above is required to establish and maintain the extensive golf
course and onsite habitat restoration landscaping and support facilities between the period of time
the golf holes are completed and turned over to CPFA and the date of opening for public play.
Water costs are included in this “grow-in” estimate. This maintenance responsibility will be
undertaken by a third-party, private Golf Course Operator under contract to CPFA. This contract
is currently being negotiated and will be brought forward to the CPFA Board in the near future for
review and action. Under the current development schedule, funds for the “grow-in” phase of the
project will not be required until approximately April of 2006.
The “start-up” budget estimate described above is required to undertake all activities necessary to
prepare the entire project for an anticipated July 1, 2007 opening date. This includes furnishing
6
AB# 7
Page 7
the golf course, clubhouse, pro-shop, half-way house, driving range, and maintenance facility with
necessary equipment, materials, systems, consumable products and supplies, and other needs to
begin operation. The contract described above with CPFAs Golf Course Operator will include
their administration and accounting of this budget. The Operator will undertake all staffing for all
components of the project, all pre-opening marketing and advertising, secure all operational
licenses, provide to CPFA all insurance requirements, initiate and manage all retail operations,
and generally be responsible for management and control of the entire operation subject to the
Operator - CPFA management agreement. It is anticipated funds for the “start-up” budget will not
be required until approximately January of 2007 in order to prepare for the opening of the project
the following July, 2007.
PRE-BID CONSTRUCTION ESTIMATES VERSUS BID RESULTS
A pre-bid cost estimating exercise was undertaken earlier this year for all construction phase
project components. The following is a comparison of the pre-bid construction estimates versus
the actual bids received:
39721-1: Mass Grading and Utilities $ 6,142,181 $ 7,721,463 + $1,579,282
39721 -2: Golf Course Construction $1 5,032,320 $16,727,761 + $1,695,441
3972 1-3: Golf Course Buildings $11,101,320 $1 0,661.052 - $ 440,268
Net Construction Sub-Total: $32,27582 1 $35, I 10,276 + $2,834,455
Construction Contingency $ 271,37I(a) $ 1,755,513(b) + $1,484,142
Other Construction Phase Costs: $ 4,255,000 $ 5,855,000 + $1,600,000
(c) see below list of work items
Total Construction Costs: $36,802,192 $42,720,789 + $5,918,597
(a) A 3% “bidding contingency” was applied to the 39721 -3 buildings estimate only. No other “construction
contingency” was applied to the pre-bid estimates.
(b) A 5% construction contingency shown in the Bid Results column is applied to the entire project including
buildings.
(c) Includes construction management, City inspection, special code inspections, environmental monitoring, soils and building materials testing, City supplied and installed fixtures, furnishings, and equipment (“FF&E”),
undergrounding of utilities, construction phase architectural and engineering support services, etc.
The bid results for construction totaling $35,110,276 represent an increase of 8% ($2,834,455)
over the pre-bid construction estimates of $32,275,821 for the project. Following the opening of
the construction bids on June 22, 2005, staff discussed with several of the bidders what factors
had the most influence on the bids. The following may explain the reasons for increases in bids
received :
7
AB# 7
Page 8
Increasing Construction Costs: Bidders expressed concern for a continuation of the rising prices of
“the big 3” construction necessities: fuel, concrete, and steel. World-wide, national, and regional
demand for fuel oil, concrete, and steel products continues to exceed supply with prices rising on a
continuing basis. This project will be constructed over an approximately 2-year period of time with
large quantities of fuel, concrete, and steel required for several project components. Bidders
indicated their bids included their own forecasts of price increases in these products over the next 24
months.
Dynamic Bidding Climate: Bidders indicated moderate difficulty securing multiple sub-contractor and materials / equipment suppliers’ bids for the some of the traditional sub-trades required of the project.
This is due to the current and projected busy construction market. Bidders expressed that many of
the sub-trades have existing backlogs of work and may be reluctant to take on additional work in the
near-term.
“Fixed Schedule” Contract: Bidders for the mass grading and utilities work expressed concern for
the mandated 6-month “fixed schedule” required by the contract. This time period is mandated by
the Resource Agency issued permits restricting grading activities to the non-nesting season for
resident protected species. Further, the mass grading is required to occur during the traditional
“winter rainy season” with no relief for rain days due to the established completion date. The 2004 -
2005 “winter rainy season” in San Diego County produced the third largest volume of accumulated
rainfall ever recorded and there is a concern for a repeat in 2005 - 2006, however unpredictable.
Bidders indicated the only way to insure completion of the mass grading within the narrow window of opportunity is to potentially work longer hours during the Fall and early Winter with additional
equipment and crews in the field. There is additional cost, or premium, added to the bids for these
requirements.
“Specialtv Work for Mass Gradina: The golf course mass grading is considered in the construction
industry as “specialty work.” The mass grading is viewed as “contour grading” with precise
tolerances and shaping of final contours and elevations of fairways, bunkers, tees, and greens.
Additionally, because of the Resource Agency permit requirements, mass grading and course layout
shaping may only occur within the “limits of disturbance” which is established on the site by the
orange environmental fencing outlining each of the golf holes, cart paths, and utility corridors. This
severely restricts the flexibility and mobility of the grading equipment operators from making
sweeping cuts and fills across the site as is the norm for a mass graded operation seen in typical
subdivision and road construction. General engineering contractors do not bid “specialty grading”
contracts as is the case with this project. There is additional cost, or premium, added to the bids for
this type work.
“Specialtv Work” for Golf Course Construction: Golf course construction is recognized as “specialty
work within the construction industry. CPFA (City) prudently required potential bidders for the
39721 -2 Golf Course Construction contract submit a “Qualifications Statement” evidencing their
experience and expertise with golf course installations because of the very nature of this work. There is additional cost, or premium, added to the bids for this type work that is unknown and
unquantifiable when preparing rough construction estimates months in advance of a bid for specialty
construction.
Given the size, complexity, and restrictions on the project, along with the national and regional
construction climate in which they were submitted, staff believes the bids received by CPFA fairly
and accurately reflect the current construction market for this type work. Additionally, the grouping
of SEMA, Wadsworth, and Jaynes together represent an experienced, qualified contracting team
to undertake the development of the Golf Course Project.
AB# 7
Page 9
The $42.7 million cost discussed on Page 6 is for the construction of the golf course and all
buildings as a complete and final development package. Total project costs could be reduced by
approximately $4.9 million if the Board elected to deduct the permanent clubhouse building from
the 39721-3 bid and proceed with a temporary clubhouse alternative discussed on Page 4 above.
The total project cost increases to $45.3 million, also discussed on Page 6, when including
required “grow-in” and “start-up” costs that would begin in mid-2006 through the opening of the
course to the public in July, 2007. It also does not include costs previously paid for the design,
permitting, and required off-site mitigation measures (approximately $6 million) or the initial
purchase cost of the land ($5.1 million).
The previous costs have been paid from a combination of transfers from the General Fund and
advances. Previous advances total $4.1 million as of March 31 , 2005. $30.3 million would need
to be advanced from the General Fund balance to undertake and complete the construction of the
entire project and fund the “grow-in” and “start-up” phases of the project. The General Fund
balance was approximately $68.5 million as of June 30, 2005.
The Board should be aware that the bond issue under this scenario will require the full faith and
credit of the City’s General Fund. Also, if interest rates rise prior to the issuance of the bonds, less
money will be available to use towards construction. This will increase the amount of advance
needed from the General Fund. As the Board directed in previous actions, greens fees will need
to be set at a level that will generate sufficient net income to make payments on the bonds. If
there is not sufficient net income for the bond payments, the only back up revenue source will be
the General Fund.
EXHIBITS:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
Resolution No. 10 accepting bids and awarding contracts for the construction of
the Carlsbad City Golf Course, acting upon bid protests, and appropriating project funds.
Letter dated June 27, 2005 from Fleming Environmental, Incorporated.
Letter dated July 6, 2005 from CPFA staff to Fleming.
Letter dated June 23, 2005 from. Barnhart, Incorporated.
Letter dated June 23, 2005 from Jaynes Corporation
Letter dated July 7, 2005 from CPFA staff to Barnhart.
Two (2) Affidavits from the Jaynes Corporation dated July 5, 2005
Letter dated July 7, 2005 from CPFA staff to Jaynes.
Temporary Clubhouse alternative site plan dated June 20, 2005.
Temporary Clubhouse alternative floor plan dated June 20, 2005.
Temporary Clubhouse alternative purchase option cost estimate dated June 20, 2005.
Permanent versus Temporary Clubhouse “Advantages / Disadvantages” list;
DEPARTMENT CONTACT: John Cahill, (760) 602-2726, jcahi@ci.carlsbad.ca.us and Lisa
Hildabrand, (760) 602-2430, Ihild@ci.carlsbad.ca.us
4
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. 10
A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE
CARLSBAD PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY ACCEPTING
BIDS AND AWARDING CONTRACTS, RECEIVING AND ACTING
UPON BID PROTESTS, AND APPROPRIATING PROJECT FUNDS
FOR THE CARLSBAD MUNICIPAL GOLF COURSE PROJECT
’ WHEREAS, in December, 2003, the Board of Directors of the Carlsbad Public Financing
Authority (“CPFA”) authorized proceeding with the development of the Carlsbad Municipal Golf Course
Project (“Project”); and
WHEREAS, CPFA has secured all final project permits and entitlements necessary for the
Project; and
WHEREAS, on May 3,2005, CPFA did approve the final construction documents for the Project
and authorized the advertisement of construction bids; and
WHEREAS, on June 22,2005, CPFA did receive and open in public said bids for the Project; and
WHEREAS, CPFA has received two bid protests resulting from the receipt and opening of said
bids; and
WHEREAS, the Board hereby finds it necessary, desirable, and in the public interest to proceed
with review and action on the two bid protests received, award construction contracts, and appropriate
funds for the Project.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Directors of the Carlsbad Public
Financing Authority as follows:
1. That the above recitations are true and correct.
2. That the Board shall review and act upon the aforementioned two bid protests and this
Resolution shall be subsequently modified, if needed, by Board Counsel and / or Board
Secretary to include and incorporate the results of the Board’s action on these two bid
protests.
3. That bids received for Contract Numbers 39721-1, 39721-2, and 39721-3 are hereby
approved and the Board hereby awards Contract Number 39721-1 to SEMA
Construction, Incorporated in the amount of $7,72 1,463.48, Contract Number 3972 1-2 to
Wadsworth Golf Construction Company in the amount of $16,727,761 .OO, and Contract
Number 39721-3 to The Jaynes Corporation in the amount of $10,661,052.00 and the
Board President is hereby authorized to execute said contracts. This Resolution shall be
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
subsequently modified, if needed, by Board Counsel and / or Board Secretary to include
and incorporate any different action taken by the Board regarding contract award.
That the Board does hereby grant the CPFA Manager construction contract change order
authority up to an accumulated total of five percent (5%) of the accumulated total
awarding value of the three contracts, 39721-1, 39721-2, and 39721-3, identified in
paragraph 3 above without requiring further Board action.
That the Board does hereby appropriate and authorize the CPFA Finance Director to
transfer up to $30.3 million from the General Fund balance to the Golf Course Enterprise
Fund for the Project. The Board further authorizes the CPFA Finance Director to
schedule, prepare, and administer a bond sale in an amount of approximately $15 million
as additional financing for the project. The CPFA Finance Director shall return to the
Board with final bond sale schedule, details, and procedures as may require Board action
to include final amounts as may be necessary to affect remaining financing of the Project.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Carlsbad Public
Financing Authority held on the 26th day of JULY , 2005 by the
following vote, to wit:
4.
5.
6.
AYES: Board Members Lewis, Hall, Kulchin
NOES: Board Members Packard, S
ABSENT: None
(See Minutes for
ATTEST
RESONO. 10 -2-
JUN-27-2005 MON 04:38 PM Fleming Enw FAX NO. 7142289231 P, 02
A EXHIBIT 2
Jiinc 27, 2005
City of Car-lsbad
JCcviir [>,zvk; Buycr
163 5 Faraday Avc.
Cnrsbad, (:A 92008
Re: Carl!:h;~tl Murricipnl GolTCourse L’rojcct - Grading uid LJLilitics, Contmt No
30721-1 - Bid Ilatc, 6/22/05 @ 4;OO 1’M
I?leasc liwl this correspondent as our foriiial protest for the abovc rcfcrcnced projecl..
After c;\rcfiil rcview of Sema Coiislruction Itic,’s bid, wc havc fouiid two irrcgularities
wiihiii their hid arid bid documcmts.
As part of he bid dociiiticnk pagc 29 of 122 pages, “TWdcr’s Ccrtificcite of Tnsui’ilnce f’or
Chiicml Linbilily, llrnploycrs’ Liability, Au tomotivc 1 hbility and Workcrs’
Compcnsation”, Scma Constniction did riot meet the requirement ofthis section by iiot
siibmittiiig llic rcquircd iiisurancc ccrtilicatians and/or insiaancc carrier’s irotafizcd
sipiattirc SI ahg co~ifortliaiicc to Ihc iusurance rcquirc~iicnts. This sccrion specifically
slutcx arid rquircs (hat eillw “musl” bc altaclicd to tIic biddcrs proposal. Again, SCIII~)
Coiistrirction did not pavidc this infortnalioii with thcir bid and ultiiuatcly did not submit
tlic bid docitrncnts in its cntircly.
111 addilioir, pqc 25 of 122 pages, “L3csigiiation of Subcontractor and Amount of
Subcontractor’s I’licl Itcms”, wc belicvc there to be nn error with 1he listing dollar atiioiinl
of tficir Crib Wall subcontractor Ibtaining Walls. Jf you compare the loin1 of bid ilcnis
20 arid 21, $1, I95,557.00, lo llic lisled ainourrt of$ I02,20 1 .OO, thcre is n drastic
c1iKcrcocc. Vrom our owii pcrspcctivc, thc cost listcd in bill itcriis 20 ntid 21 do rcflcct
thc tiiic cost for thc crib wall iiistallation.
Thcrelbrc?, wc rospccifiilly rcqucst that Scina Cotistniction Iiic.’s bid bc dccmcd 11011
rcsponsive based on thc abovc irrcgularitics with thcir bid.
Should you havc airy qucstions or rcqiiirc fuitlicr information, plcasc do not hcsitatc to
contacl irre ;it (7 14) 228-0935,
EXHIBIT 3
July 6, 2005
Terry Fleming
Fleming Environmental, Inc
61 30 Valley View Street
Buena Park CA 90620-1030
BY FAX AND BY MAIL
RESPONSE TO PROTEST LETTER DATED JUNE 27,2005
On June 27, 2005, I received from you a letter in which you stated concerns about
possible irregularities in the bid submitted by Sema Construction Inc. in response to the
project titled “Carlsbad Municipal Golf Course Project - Grading and Utilities, Contract
NO. 39721 -1 .”
The two areas of concern were the omission, by Sema, of a certificate of insurance or a
document assuring that the required insurance would be available, and the difference
between the sum of bid items number 20 and 21 and the amount of the Sema “Crib
Wall” subcontractor listing.
The City considers the omission of the insurance document to be a minor discrepancy.
Omission of this document does not give Sema an unfair advantage over other bidders.
The purpose of the document is to lower the chances that the City will have problems
with a contractor who cannot obtain the needed insurance after award. If Sema can
show that they can obtain the required insurance before the contract is awarded this
goal will be met.
Regarding the issue of the “Crib Wall” subcontractor listing, the City does not recognize the difference between the totals of the Retaining Walls subcontractor listing and the sum of Sema bid items 20 and 21 to be an irregularity. First, there is no information
available in the bid that allows us to know exactly the tasks that the Retaining Walls
company will perform. Second, the dollar amount of the subcontractor’s portion of work
is used by the City solely to calculate the amount of work subcontracted by the general
contractor. Since the crib wall and retaining wall installation is called-out as a specialty
item in the bid documents, the dollar amount for this item is not even used for this
purpose in this case.
City staff will recommend that the City Council consider the bid submission from Sema
Construction Inc. to be a responsive bid.
‘KEVIN DAVIS
Buyer
__ __ __-
1635 Faraday Avenue - Carlsbad. CA 92008-731 4 - (760) 602-2730 FAX (760) 602-8562
EXHl8lT 4
Ir.l h rnhart, incl
June 23,2005 Sat via Facsimile and US. Mail
Fax # 760-602-8562
Attn: Mr. Kevin Davis
City of Carlsbad
PW Purchashflngineering Department
1635 Faraday Avenue
Carlsbad, CA 92008-73 14
Re: Contract No: 39721-3 - Carlsbad Municipal Golf Course Buildings
Agmcy :
Bidder: Douglas E. Barnhart, Inc.
Bid Date: June 22,2005
Carlsbad Public Financing Authority
Dear Mr. Davis:
This letter is with regard to doughs e. bannbart, inc.'s bid referenced above. We hereby make
two clarifications to our bid. First, our total bid for all of Schedule A through F is correctly
stated as $10,602,943.00. This pwposefblly reflects a discount ofthe subtotal of Schedule A-F
based on the economics of scale of an award for all of the scheduled work. Second, due to a
clerical error, we inadvertently transposed the numbers listed for Schedule E and F. This
resulted in the numbers for these two scopes being flip flopped. The correct amount for
Schedule E is $124,112.00, and the correct amount for Schedule F is $2,341,766.00, Of course
this becomes irrelevant if the CPFA awards the entire scope of Schedules A-F at our discounted
price of%10,602,943.00. However, in no event would Bdatt be obligated to pcrform the
scope of Schedule E and I: for the flip flopped prices, Please contact us with any questions and
thank you for the opportunity to be considered for this project.
Sincerely,
douglas e. barnhart inc
William R. Sharp
President
cc: Reads
Post Mfice Box 270303. Sari Diego, California 92198-2399, (8S8) 385-8200, FAX (858) 385-8201 Offices in Orange County. Palm Springs. Riverside, Central Valley, Venturn and San Diego, California
License No. 439407 www.debinc.com
JUN 23 2005 4:19PM JAYNES CORPORATION OF CAL f6191234-4090
‘r
P.2
EXHIBIT 5
June 23,2005
City of Carlsbad
Public Works Department
Faraday Center
1635 Faraday Avenue
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Attention: Kevin Davis
Subject: Golf Course Buildings
Carlsbad Municipal Golf Course Project
Contract No. 39721-3
Dear Mr. Davis,
Jaynes Corporation of California submitted a proposal on June 22,2005, for the
construction of the subject project. In analyzing the bid results, we noticed that the
proposal submitted by Douglas Barnhart has a mathematical error. The sum of
Barnhart’s Schedules A, B, C, D, E & F add up to $1 1 2 1 1,327, not the Total which was
submitted of $10,602,943.
According to the Contractor’s Proposal, the basis of award will be the sum of Schedules
A, B, C, D, E & F. That would make Jaynes Corporation of California the apparent low
bidder.
We look forward to hearing from you and please contact me or Rick Cohen, Senior Vice
President, if you have and questions.
Sincerely,
JAYNES CORPORATION OF CALIFORNIA
Debra Luhnow
Chief Estimator
JAYNES CORPORATION OF CALIFORNIA
11 1 Elm Street, Fourth Floor 0 San Diego, CA 92101-2649 0 Tel(610) 233-4080 Fax (619) 234-4090
License No. 787005
~
EXHIBIT 6 ~. -
.. . _. -... City - __ of .- ... Carlsbad -
July 7, 2005
William R. Sharp
douglas e. barnhart inc
PO Box 270399
San Diego CA 92198-2399
BY FAX AND MAIL
EVALUATION OF BID AND RESPONSE TO CLARIFICATION LETTER
Your submission in response to the request for bid titled Carlsbad Municipal Golf
Course Project - Buildings, Contract 39721-3, has been evaluated. This letter
will inform you of our findings and of actions City staff will take regarding
recommendations for award.
We noticed that the grand total of your bid did not equal the sum of the individual
Schedules ”A through ”F”. Since it is clearly stated in the bid documents that
“The basis of award will be the sum of Schedules A, 6, C, D, E & F...”, the
number used to rank your bid must be $11,211,324.00 which is the sum of the
schedules in your bid. This number places you at the level of second lowest
bidder.
Unfortunately, your letter of clarification dated June 23, 2005 was not helpful in
determining your bid total for the reason stated in the previous paragraph. Since
the bids must be ranked by the sum of the schedules, your “discounted” total
cannot be accepted.
Considering the corrected total, City staff will recommend that the City Council
award the bid for this contract to Jaynes Corporation. As of today, the target
date for City Council consideration will be July 19, 2005. Please call me if you
have any questions. *- KEV N DAVIS -
Buyer
~-
1635 Faraday Avenue - Carlsbad, CA 92008-731 4 - (760) 602-2730 FAX (760) 602-8562 @
16
July 5,2005
EXHISIT 7
City of Carlsbad
Public Works Department
Faraday Center
163 5 Faraday Avenue
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Attention: Kevin Davis
Subject: Golf Course Buildings
Carlsbad Municipal Golf Course Project
Contract No. 3972 1-3
Dear Mr. Davis,
I am responding to your Request for Clarification Affidavits, dated June 30, 2005.
Included as attachments are:
1 .)
2.)
3.)
4.)
5.)
Affidavit of Richard Cohen, Senior Vice President, dated July 5, 2005
Affidavit of Debra Luhnow, dated July 5,2005
Exhibits 1,2, 3, 4 and 5
Affidavit of J.G. Tate Fire Protection Systems, Inc., dated July 1,2005
Affidavit of Underground Utilities, Incorporated, dated July 1,2005
I hope all of the enclosed information address the concerns of the City of Carlsbad.
Please call me should you have any questions.
Sincerely,
JAYNES CORPORATION
OF CALIFORNIA
Debra Luhnow
Chief Estimator
: enclosures
JAYNES CORPORATION OF CALIFORNIA
111 Elm Street, Fourth FLoor - San Diego, CA 92101-2649 9 Tel(619) 233-4080 Fax (619) 234-4090
I
,
Affidavit of Richard Cohen, Senior Vice President of Jaynes
Corporation of California
I, Richard Cohen, am the Senior Vice President of Jaynes Corporation of
California. Debra Luhnow of Jaynes provided me with a copy of your June 30,2005,
letter requesting certain information, and this affidavit is submitted in response.
We understand the Carlsbad Public Financing Authority (“CPFA”) considers
Jaynes’ Subcontractor Listing which was submitted as part of its bid on June 22,2005,
included two listings where the intended subcontractor was “unclear”.
Jaynes is pleased to submit this affidavit explaining the circumstances that led to
these incomplete listings.
Jaynes requests CPFA treat the “unclear” listings as inconsequential deviations
from the bidding requirements for listing subcontractors, and to award the contract to
Jaynes. However, to the extent CPFA considers that a substitution under Public Contract
Code section 4107.5 is required, Jaynes submits this affidavit requesting your approval of
such a substitution.
Fire Sprinkler Subcontractor Listing.
We understand the Subcontractor Listing for fire sprinklers was unclear in Jaynes’
submission on bid day. This lack of clarity was due to an inadvertent clerical error in the
spelling of the subcontractor’s name.
This affidavit will confirm that it was Jaynes’ intention at bid time to list J.G. Tate
of Poway, California, as the subcontractor for the fire sprinkler portion of the project.
Before the bid deadline J.G. Tate had submitted a bid to Jaynes for this scope of work.
Jaynes’ internal bid compilation document abbreviated J.G. Tate’s name as “Tate”, and
the compilation showed “Tate” was the low subcontractor bidding to Jaynes for this
work.
Jaynes’ chief estimator, Debra Luhnow, has explained to me that on bid day she
telephoned Jaynes’ bid runner and directed him to list “Tate” as the listed subcontractor
for fire sprinklers, along with “Tate’s” bid number of $137,300. (See affidavit of Ms.
Luhnow, accompanying my affidavit.). Apparently, Jaynes’ bid runner misunderstood
the pronunciation of the name when it was phoned in to him, or misspelled it.
the bid runner did not correctly write “Tate”, he did correctly state Tate’s bid number
($1 37,300), and Tate’s location in Poway.
Although
Further, while “Tate” is not spelled correctly on the Subcontractor Listing, on the
day after submitting its bid Jaynes submitted complete subcontractor information, and
this information did accurately list J.G. Tate.
Based on the information that was shown on the Subcontractor Listing, including
the bid amount and location of the fire sprinkler subcontractor, there is no doubt J.G. Tate
was the subcontractor who would have been listed but for the misspelling of the name.
Attached to this declaration are true and correct copies of the following:
Exhibit 1. J.G. Tate’s June 22,2005 bid submitted to Jaynes. The typewritten portion of
this letter was provided by J.G. Tate initially to show the scope of work J.G. Tate
proposed to perform. The actual pricing was provided closer to the bid deadline by
telephone, and is shown in the handwriting of the Jaynes’ employee who received the
pricing information over the telephone. This letter also shows Tate’s location in Poway,
California, which was accurately listed on the Subcontractor Listing submitted on bid
day.
Exhibit 2:
the work. This exhibit shows “Tate” at $137,300”, which was the low bid received by
Jaynes for this work.
Jaynes’ internal worksheet for evaluating bids on the fire sprinkler portion of
In summary, it was and remains Jaynes’ intention to award a subcontract to J.G.
Tate in the amount of its’ bid, $137,300, if Jaynes is awarded the prime contract.
We have asked J.G. Tate to provide an affidavit as well, as your letter directs.
Site Utilities Subcontractor Listing.
We recognize the Subcontractor Listing for site utilities was incomplete in Jaynes’
bid day submission. This omission was due to an inadvertent clerical error. Jaynes’ bid
runner correctly listed the intended subcontractor’s location and bid figure, but did not
list the name of the company because of a misunderstanding.
This affidavit will confirm that it was Jaynes’ intention at bid time to list
Underground Utilities, Incorporated of Spring Valley, California, as the subcontractor for
the site utility work, at a bid price of $294,100.
The reason for the incomplete listing is as follows.
2
14
Earlier in the bid compilation process, Jaynes was going to list “Burtech” of
Encinitas for site utilities work. The handwritten Subcontractor Listing shows a lined-out
‘‘ Burtech”, a lined-out “Encinitas” (which was Burtech’s location) and a lined-out
number of “$288,000” (which rounded down Burtech’s bid by $240 dollars to make last
minute computations easier).
However, before the bid deadline, Jaynes decided not to list Burtech because
Burtech’s corrected bid number was not the “low bid”. As the bid deadline approached,
Jaynes continued to examine the bids submitted by subcontractors. Jaynes learned
Burtech’s bid figure ($288,240) did not include a “comfort building”, and that to include
this required scope of work would increase Burtech’s bid by $10,000.
With this increase to Burtech’s bid number, Underground Utilities, Inc., not
Burtech, was the low subcontract bidder to Jaynes.
Thus, before Jaynes submitted its bid to CPFA Jaynes’ estimator, Ms. Luhnow,
telephoned our bid runner and directed him to cross-out “Burtech” and to list
Underground Utilities, Incorporated, Inc. at a price of $294,100.
As already noted, before submitting the bid Jaynes’ bid runner correctly crossed
out “Burtech”, crossed out “Encinitas”, and crossed out “$288,000”.
The bid runner also correctly wrote in the bid number provided by Underground
Utilities, Incorporated, along with its location (Spring Valley).
The bid runner failed to list the name Underground Utilities. I understand from
speaking with Ms. Luhnow that the bid runner mistakenly understood Ms. Luhnow’s
direction to list “Underground Utilities” as a reference to the scope of work---site
utilities---rather than to the name of the subcontractor. (Again, see Ms. Luhnow’s
affidavit.)
Attached to this affidavit are true and correct copies of the following:
Exhibit 3: Underground Utilities, Incorporated’s June 22, 2005 bid to Jaynes,
showing its’ total price of $294,189.
as Spring Valley, which was shown on Jaynes’ Subcontractor Listing form.
This letter also shows this subcontractor’s location
Exhibit 4: Jaynes’ internal worksheet for evaluating bids on the site work portion
of the project. This exhibit shows Underground Utilities, Inc.’s bid number as $294,184,
which was the figure listed by Jaynes on the Subcontractor Listing, and in compiling its
overall bid to CPFA. (On this worksheet Underground Utilities, Inc. is abbreviated as
“UUY.) “Burtech” is also shown, and the number on the worksheet is the number before
learning that Burtech had not included the comfort station in its’ number.
Exhibit 5: Page 1 of “Burtech’s proposal to Jaynes, with the handwritten notation
by a Jaynes’ employee in the right margin that the proposal “Does Not have comfort-
add $10k”. This is referring to the information learned shortly before bid time by
telephone that Burtech’s bid number had to be adjusted up by $10,000, and thus it
became higher than the bid submitted by Underground Utilities, Inc.
Based on the information that was shown on the Subcontractor Listing, including
the bid amount and location of the site utilities subcontractor, as well as Jaynes’ internal
records, it is beyond dispute that Jaynes intended to list Underground Utilities,
Incorporated, but due to an inadvertent clerical error in the transmittal of the name (and
the similarity of the name to the description of the work), the listing was incomplete.
Jaynes asks this incomplete listing be corrected, or deemed an inconsequential deviation.
It was and remains Jaynes’ intention to award a subcontract to Underground
Utilities, Inc. in the amount of its’ bid, $294,189, if Jaynes is awarded the prime contract.
We have asked Underground Utilities, Inc. to provide an affidavit as well, as your
letter directs.
In closing, while the Subcontractor Listing form submitted on bid day was
incomplete and included a misspelling, the irregularities did not affect the integrity of the
bidding process nor did they give Jaynes any advantage over other bidders. The two
deviations discussed in this affidavit were the result of inadvertent clerical errors, and
requests CPFA either waive the deviations as inconsequential, or permit substitution of
the complete and accurate names.
In the event CPFA would like hrther information, please let me know.
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California the
foregoing is true and correct.
Dated: July 5, 2005
Yfiard & Cohen
Notary Public Acknowledgement
CALIFORNIA ALL-PURPOSE ACKNOWLEDGMENT
~~
State of California
Place Notary Seal Above
&ersonally known to me CI proved to me on the basis of satisfactory
evidence
acknowledged to executed
capacity(be$j,
the same in
WhTNESS my hand and official seal.
OPT10 NA L
Though the information below is not required by law, it may prove valuable to persons relying on the document
and could prevent fraudulent removal and reattachment of this form to another document.
Description of Attache
Title or Type of Document:
Document Date:
Signer(s) Other Thi %Above: ~f?717/ru7_1
Number of Pages: .I/
- 1
0 Individual @ Corporate Officer - Title(s): && Y$!,)J!Q-, @)+&&&&,
0 Partner - 0 Limited 0 General
0 Attorney in Fact
0 Trustee
0 Guardian or Conservator
0 Other:
Signer Is Representing: u
0 1997 National Notary Association . 9350 De Solo Ave., P.O. Box 2402 - Chatsworth. CA 91313-2402 Prod. No. 5907 Reorder: Call Toll-Free 1-800-876-6827
AFFIDAVIT OF DEBRA LUHNOW
I, Debra Luhnow, am the chief estimator for Jaynes Corporation of California. I
was involved in the compilation and submittal of the bid by Jaynes to Carlsbad Public
Financing Agency (“CPFA”) for the Golf Course Buildings for the City of Carlsbad.
This affidavit is submitted to address two irregularities in the Subcontractor Listing
Form.
On June 22,2005, the day of submitting the bid, my responsibilities included
telephoning the bid runner, Rene Barrera, and giving him the final subcontractor listing
information, as well as other information including the bid numbers.
On bid day the subcontractor bids for the fire sprinklers were reviewed in order to
determine which subcontractor to list. Jaynes’ lowest bid for this scope of work was
from J. G. Tate, and that is the subcontractor we decided to list. On bid day, as the
deadline approached, I telephoned Jaynes’ bid runner, Rene Barrera and told him to list
“Tate” on the Subcontractor Listing form for the fire sprinklers, along with the bid
number provided by Tate, $137,300.
Also on bid day the subcontractor bids for the site utilities were reviewed. We
learned late in the process that Burtech’s bid was not complete and by adding the missing
work this made their bid higher than our next bidder, Underground Utilities. I telephoned
Rene and told him to scratch out Burtech, along with the other information, and list
Underground Utilities for site utilities, for the rounded price of $294,100.
Now that I’ve learned our bid runner correctly crossed out Burtech, its location and
price, on the Subcontractor Listing, and correctly added the location and price provided
by our designated subcontractor, Underground Utilities, but failed to write in
Underground Utilities’ name, I believe Rene misunderstood my reference to
“underground utilities” to be a reference to the scope of work, rather than the name of the
subcontractor.
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California the
foregoing is true and correct. l
Dated: July 5, 2005 kI;.db
Debra A. Luhnow
CALIFORNIA ALL-PURPOSE ACKNOWLEDGMENT
! State of California 1
' County of
&rsonally known to me
0 proved to me on the basis of satisfactory
evidence
to be the perso
subscribed to
acknowledged to
the same in
capacity &,
signature on the
the entit 8 u on be
acted, executed the instrument.
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
so., Dego CL?*?,
--rLy.,- -%? . -%p
Place Notary Seal Above
OPTIONAL
Though the information below is not required by law, if may prove valuable to persons relying on the document
and could prevent fraudulent removal and reattachment of this form to another document.
J
Description of Attache
Title or Type of Document:
Document Date:
Signer(s) Other Than Named Above: L/.n_mLo )
Number of Pages: /
Capacity(ies) Claimed by Signer
Signer's Name:
0 Individual
0 Corporate Officer - Title(s):
0 Partner - 0 Limited 0 General
0 Attorney in Fact
0 Trustee
0 1997 National Notary Association * 9350 De Soto Ave , PO Box 2402. Chatsworth, CA 91313-2402 Prod No 5907 Reorder Call Toll-Free 1-800-876-6827
24
Ta: Estimdting
From: J.Q. Tab Fire ProtectIan Systems, inc.
t 2600 Stowe Dr. wit8 1 1
poway, CA 92064 858-48&.0600. (F) 6584880950 Cell Phone 780445-5650
Prop Name: Csrlslrtd Municipal Golf Cwne Clubhouse
Caflsbad, CA
mi#*: will wN
Included In our base bid proposal is the following, Furnish design, material and labor to Install we2 pipe fire sprinkler systems in the 24&~ clubhouse buildlng and single dory mlntsnance building. StartJng at a flange above grade.
Electrical wiring, fire alarm system, central monitoring, kitchen hood fire ptotedIon systems,
dry standpipe, fire 0xtfngUhhera, deafllng OT palnhg of Idphg, patching and underground swPb fvng.
ExClUSf OW:
Th'ur prrrpml Is valid @
A cQ,m
f? %$06
(# 9,sm
E 4,w
t v
PROJECT:
BIDS:
AOOENDUMS: ONE
CITY OF CARLSBAD GOLF COURSE CLUBHOUSE
Junc 23, ZOOS Q 430 p.m.
SUBLISTINO: NAME, LccAnord, TOTAL DOLLAR AMOUNT i . _-
Project: Cadsbad Manictpal Golf Course
Bid By: Ted Wodrids
Bid Per: P&ns provided to UUI snd UUI'S pr&ved scope
Undeqpmnd Utdidta, Inc. b
a Certified D.V.B.E. Connunv
* Note: Attached bid condlhons are a part of this bid and am not. be dekted
or meed unless sgteed loin wriblng by authorized UUI personneL
Lkm
NO. Description Quantity
S0R.M DWN
3.
1.
2
3.
4.
5.
6.
1.
2.
3" PYC DRAIN LINE
ATRlZlMDRhIN - -w
SANI'ICARY sm%B
ss blA.NH0f-E
6" PVC SEWER LINE!
4" PVC SEWER LlNE smmR CWOLT
CDNSECT WSTCI'O SlUB
SlREET WhTNECTION
DOMFSTlC WATER
2' PVC 'IVATeRLzNE
CONhTEa TO EXISTING
568.000 Lp
12,000 EA
1.900 EA
5.000 EA
&297.000 Lf
27.000 Lp
2.ooo EA
1.m %A
52.2.QtiO Lp
1,364.Mx1.LP
3.000 EA
Page 1 of2
P- 4
JlJl 01 ?no5 9:42HM JAYNES CORPORATION OF CHL 16193234-4090
: p-undorground-UtiliW, I&-------- -- ---I H&l64-9-- -p.6 -- - -.- !:H1 -y35-4wz ..
3W.000 LF
2.000 Ezi
Zoo0 EA
1.000 EA
2.000 EA
1.000 EA
1.000 LS
1.17170 cs ,/p==--~.%
The above Line Ltcms comprise the full scope of ourbid. Theso line hms are
hid conditions. Any requirements beyond thls scope or the attached bid ccmdiHans am wdn
Pap 2 of 2
._____-__ . . ... ~ -- . ._.- - - ..
- 20
JlJL 01 2005 10:57HM JHYNES CORPORATION OF CHL l613)234-4OYU
.J
___ --
-
I ! I
- -1- -- -- __
~ k: _.-_-
-
I
%
-
-.
j
I I
I
I
1 I
I I
~._~ !- I
I I I
I _- I
a ay WC Sower hlain
Qnty. unit 1 Ea
, 487 u
-, 1,7n7 u '6 ti 14 Ea 3 E7 3 Ea 3 Ea
7 Ea 7 E3
' 2 E0 1CQ Sf . ib
Unk Prim 0,om.oo 27.00 2!j5.CO 800,CO 8OO.CD 4,&63.00 603 00 5W.CO
500.00 6OO.CO 1 ,BOA00 25.00
I.D~.CO
lE4 6pO.40
Attmau - not included in Wl for thls prcjecr
6'' Atrium Grae ' IO. Pa
WCD ratnage ' Pip P 'fa. ct 22w 11,OOQ.OO 5ao.w 9.OOO.tXl
J.G. Tate Fire Protection Systems Inc.
12600 Stowe Drive, Ste 11, Poway, CA 92064
858-486-0900 fax-858-486-0950
License 8800609 C16
July 1,2005
City of Carlsbad
Public Works Department
1635 Faraday Avenue
Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314
Attn: Kevin Davis
Subj: Golf Course Buildings
Carkbad Municipal Gvzf Course
Contract No. 39721-3
Dear Mr. Davis,
Our firm, JG Tate Fire Protection Systems, Inc., submitted a proposal to Jaynes
Corporation of California for the fire sprinkler system work on the Golf Course Buildings
on June 22,2005. Please see attached scope of work faxed out to Jaynes Corporation on
June 22,2005. We called Jaynes Corporation prior to the bid time the following price: One Hundred Seventeen Thousand Three Hundred Dollars & 00/ 100 ($1 17,300.00). Add price
for the halfway house and two (2) comfort stations (if needed): Twenty Thousand Dollars 8&
00/ 100 ($20,000.00). We were notified by Jaynes Corporation that we were their listed
subcontractor for this trade. They also informed us that it is their intent to award us a
subcontract for this work upon receipt of their contract with the Owner.
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct and that this
affidavit was executed on July 1, 2005.
Sincerely,
JG TATE FIRE PROTECTION
SYSTEMS/INC.
JG/tb
File: Carlsbad Municipal Golf Course
. UNDERGROUND UTILITIES,
9102 Harness Street Suite B Spring Valley, CA 91977 (619) 461-9500 Fax (619)461-959! INCORPORATED
California Class *A" General Engineering License #580460
A Disabled Veterans Business Enterprise
July 1,2005
City of Carlsbad
Public Works Department
1635 Faraday Avenue
Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314
Attention: Kevin Davis
Subject: Golf Course Buildings
Carlsbad Municipal Golf Course
Contract No. 39721-3
Dear Mr. Davis,
Our firm, Underground Utilities, Inc., submitted a proposal to Jaynes Corporation of
California for the Sewer, Water, and Storm Drain site utilities work on the Golf Course
Buildings on June 22,2005, in the amount of $294,189.00. A copy of this proposal is
attached for your reference (Urn Bid #062205-2 and Bid Conditions dated June 22,2005).
Jaynes Corporation notified us that we were their listed subcontractor for the above trades.
They also informed us that it is their intent to award us a subcontract for this work upon
receipt of their contract with the Owner.
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of California that the foregoing is true
and correct and that this affidavit was executed on July 1,2005.
Underground Utilities, Inc.
General Manager
37,
!
UNDERGROUND UTILITIES,
INCORPORATED 9102 Harness Sbeet Suite B Spring Valley, CA 91977 (619) 461-9500 fax (619) 461-9595
California Class "A' General Engineering license #580460
A Disabled Veterans Business Enterprise
Date: June 22,2005
Bid To: Japes Corp
111 Elm St, Fourth FI
San Diego, CA 92101
Attn. Chip
Phone 619-233-4080
Fax 619-234-4090
Project: Carlsbad Municipal Golf Course
Bid By: Ted Woolridge
Bid Per: Plans provided to UUI and UUI's perceived scope.
* Note: Attached bid conditions are a part of this bid and can not be deleted
or modified unless agreed to in writing by authorized UUI personnel.
Bid # 062205-2
Underground Utilities, Inc. is
a Certified D.V.B.E. Comaanv
Item
No. Description Quantity
STORM DRAIN
1.
2.
3.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
1.
2.
3" PVC DRAZN LINE
ATRIUMDRAIN
RIP RAP
SANITARY SEWER
SS MANHOLE
6" PVC SEWER LME
4" PVC SEWER LINE
SEWER CLEANOUT
CONNECT EXISTING STUB
STREET CONNECTION
DOMESTIC WATER
2" PVC WATERLINE
CONNECT TO EXSTING
568.000 LF
12.000 EA
1.000 EA
5.000 EA
522.000 LF
2,297.000 LF
27.000 LF
2.000 EA
1.000 EA
1,364.000 LF
3.000 EA
Page 1 of 2 33
?
FIRE WATER
1. 6” FIRE LINE
2. FDCTIV
3. BACKFLOW PREVENTER
4. 8X6HOTTA.P
5. CONNECT TO EXISTNG
GENERAL
1. MOBILIZATION
2. MEET LOCATOR & MARKOUT
3. POTHOLE EXISTING UTILITIES
384.000 LF
2.000 EA
2.000 EA
1,000 EA
2.000 EA
1.000 EA
1.000 LS
1.000 LS
Bid Total: $294,189.00
The above line items comprise the full scope of our bid. These line items are specifically based on the attached
bid conditions. Any requirements beyond this scope or the attached bid conditions are excluded.
Page 2 of 2 34
UNDERGROUND UTILITIES,
INCORPORATED 9102 Harness Street 9 Suite B * Spring Valley, CA 91977 (619) 461-9500 * fax (619) 461-9
California Class "A" General Engineering License #580460
A Disabled Veterans Business Enterprise
Date: June 22,2005
UNDERGROUND UTILITIES, INC.
BID CONDITIONS
Bid # 062205-2
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
Bid conditional upon execution of a mutually agreeable contract and schedule betweel2
Underground Utilities, Inc. and Contractor or Owner.
Prices figured for this bid will be held for 30 days.
All work to be done in one continuous operation. Any phasing, stoppage or additional 1110~s
beyond one (1) move-in will be extra.
Bid does not include any staking, engineering, permits, inspection fees, concrete tests,
compaction tests, or any other type of testing.
Bid excludes bonds of any type.
Attached are limits of UUI's insurance. Any cost associated with additional insurance
requirements shall be added to the contract.
Bid based on Underground Utilities, Inc. completing their phase of work after completion of
grading and before other trades begin work on site (other than grading contractor).
Bid based on adequate machine accessibility and lay-down area.
Underground Utilities, Inc. will conduct our work in accordance with Cal/OSHA standarcls
Any safety policies or practices above or beyond CaI/OSHA standards will be accornplishecl
on a time and material basis. If "tying-off" of personnel is required, additional cost will be
added to the contract value.
Bid excludes rock excavation. Rock is defined as material, which cannot be excavated bv a
45,000 Ib. Excavator and/or rock/ boulders larger than acceptable for backfill material.
If any excavated soil from the trench area is
pipe zone, it will be hauled away, properly
basis.
All excess spoil will be spread out evenly
others.
Bid excludes removal
requires a manifest for
contaminated or unsuitable for backfill above the
disposed of and replaced on a time and material
along trench area or stockpiled for removal b\*
and/or disposal of any Hazardous Material or other material, which
transportation or disposal.
Page 1 of 2 35
*r UNDERGROUND UTILITIES.
INCoR,.PoRATED 9102 Harness Street Suite El Spring Valley, CA 91977 (619) 461-9500 fax (619) 461-9
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21,
22.
23.
24.
California Class "A General Engineering License #ti80460
A Disabled Veterans Business Enterprise
Pipe installed will be stubbed a minimum of five (5) feet outside of any structure. Connections
at building(s) are excluded.
Construction water shall be supplied and paid for by the developer.
All dewatering will be done on a time and material basis.
Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plans, erosion control and desilting shall be done by others
Bid excludes paving.
Bid excludes traffic control, sawcutting, and concrete and asphalt replacement.
Bid does not include the removal of any non-native material other than asphalt/concrete
paving, curbs and sidewalks.
Bid excludes vegetation removal and restoration, irrigation removal and restoration,
perforated wall drains and brow ditches.
Backflow preventers and post indicator valves (PIVs) do not include any electrical switches.
Potholing limited to existing utilities as shown on the civil plans and properly marked out b\.
Underground Service Alert. Underground Utilities, Inc. is not responsible for any other
existing utilities.
After installation of storm drain pipe and structure, Underground Utilities, Inc will not be
responsibie for earth, rock, or other foreign material, which may enter into pipe or structure b\.
natural or other causes.
Underground Utilities, Inc.
Ted Woolridge,
Estimator
Page 2 of 2 36
EXHIBIT 8
City - of .. . Carlsbad . ... ____ ~-
July 7, 2005
Debra Luhnow
Jaynes Corporation of California
Fourth Floor
1 I1 Elm Street
San Diego CA 921 01-2649
BY FAX AND MAIL
EVALUATION OF BID, RESPONSE TO LETTERS AND CLARIFICATION
AFFIDAVITS
Your submission in response to the request for bid titled Carlsbad Municipal Golf
Course Project - Buildings, Contract 39721-3, has been evaluated. This letter
will inform you of our findings and of actions City staff will take regarding
recommendations for award.
As noted in your letter to us dated June 23, 2005, we noticed that the grand total
of the bid from douglas e. barnhart (barnhart) did not equal the sum of the
individual Schedules “A through ”F”. Since it is clearly stated in the bid
documents that “The basis of award will be the sum of Schedules A, B, C, D, E &
F...”, the number used to rank their bid must be $1 1,211,324.00 which is the sum
of the schedules. This number places barnhart at the level of second lowest
bidder .
City staff found your clarification affidavits acceptable and helpful in determining
your intention to list the proper subcontractors. We will recommend that the City
Council consider J. G. Tate and Underground Utilities Incorporated to be
subcontractors should the contract be awarded to your organization.
Considering the corrected total of the barnhart bid and the timely submission of
your clarification affidavits, City staff will recommend that the City Council award
the bid for this contract to Jaynes Corporation. As of today, the target date for
City Council consideration will be July 19, 2005. Please call me if you have any
questions.
KEVIN DAVIS
Buyer
1635 Faraday Avenue - Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 (760) 602-2730 0 FAX (760) 602-8562
\
EXHIBIT 9
e
30
OFFICE
OFFICE
HOT GRILL
PATIO
PRO SHOP
0
b d
? io b
r
r
c-
GOLF COURSE
CITY OF CARLSBAD
TEMPORARY CLUBHOUSE FLOOR PLAN
(7,500 s.f.)
June 20,2005
37
BUILDING COSTS
Clubhouse: 7,500 s/f
Cart barn: 10,000 slf
Total
GOLF COURSE
CITY OF CARLSBAD
TEMPORARY CLUBHOUSE AND CART BARN
as of June 20,2005
PURCHASE OPTION
MODULAR I METAL SHED FRAMED TENT
slf cost extension slf cost extension
7,500 $ 75.00 562,500 7,500 $ 50.00 375,000
10,000 !$ 75.00 750,000 10,000 $ 50.00 500,000
1,312,500 875,000
EXHIBIT ii
1
2
3
4
I
5 IOTHER CLUBHOUSE COSTS
100,000 1 100,000
~~~
50,000
50,000
0
72,000
6,000
80,000
5,000
7,500
15,000
10,000
10,000
15,000
1
1
0
9,000
1,200
4,000
1
5,000
5,000
1
1
1
1 -
~~
1
1
7,500
9,000
1,200
4,000
1
5,000
5,000
1
1
1
~~~~
$ 50,000.00
$ 50,000.00
$ 12.00
$ 8.00
$ 5.00
$ 20.00
$ 5,000.00
$ 1.50
$ 3.00
$ 10,000.00
$ 10,000.00
$ 15,000.00
$ 100,000.00
6
7
8
9
IO
I I
12
13
14
15
16
17
Utilities
Fine grading & drainage
Building foundation
concrete paving - exterior
a/c cart path
Patio cover
Barbeque*
Irrigation
Landscape planting
Signage
Lighting modifications
Security system
$ 50,000.00
$ 50,000.00
$ 12.00
$ 8.00
$ 5.00
$ 20.00
$ 5,000.00
$ 1.50
$ 3.00
$ 10,000.00
$ 10,000.00
$ 15,000.00
$ 100,000.00 18
19
50,000
50,000
90,000
72,000
6,000
80,000
5,000
7,500
15,000
10,000
10,000
15,000
FF&E
Total 420,500 510,500
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
PURCHASE OPTION TOTAL I $ 2,475,950 I $ 2,076,325
OTHER CART BARN COSTS
Utilities 1 !$ 50,000.00 50,000 1 $ 50,000.00 50,000
Fine grading & drainage 1 $ 50,000.00 50,000 1 $ 50,000.00 50,000
Filtration basin and equipment 2 $ 15,000.00 30,000 2 $ 15,000.00 30,000
a/c paving 1,000 $ 5.00 5,000 1,000 $ 5.00 5,000
Golf cart electrical, racks, & equip 1 $ 75,000.00 75,000 1 $ 75,000.00 75,000
Security system 1 $ 15,000.00 15,000 1 $ 15,000.00 15,000
FF&E 1 $ 25,000.00 25,000 1 $ 25,000.00 25,000
Total 370,000 370,000
Building foundation 10,000 $ 12.00 120,000 10,000 $ 12.00 120,000
*Includes hook-ups, lighting, gas, and water service.
30
31
Entitlements and Permits 50,000 50,000
Contingency (15%) 322,950 270,825
EXHIBIT I2 CARLSBAD CITY GOLF COURSE PROJECT
PERMENANT VERSUS TEMPORARY CLUBHOUSE
ADVANTAGES / DISADVANTAGES ISSUES
June 28,2005
PERMANENT CLUBHOUSE BUILDING
- Construction cost based upon bids is
$5,920,016; (Jaynes bid used for comparison)
- City supplied and installed fixtures,
furnishings, and equipment (“FF&E”)
estimated at $ 1,450,000;
- Fully permitted and entitled;
- Design complete and ready for construction
bid award;
- Full service food and beverage operation;
- Restaurant can serve up to 300 people inside
and another 250 in outdoor special event area;
- Desirable location for special events, group
meetings, and public activities;
- Full service retail pro-shop;
- Adequate interior storage for entire facility;
- Adequate number of interior restrooms and day
use locker facilities for public;
- Full integration of golf cart storage, re-charging,
TEMPORARY CLUBHOUSE BUILDING
- Estimated construction cost in 2005 dollars is
$2,475,950; structure(s) would be installed in 2007;
- Minor FF&E costs included in above estimate:
- No current approvals; requires amended CUP and
California Coastal Commission permit amendment;
- Will require formal site planning, design, building
permits, and solicitation of construction bids;
- Limited food and beverage operation;
- No inside restaurant service; exterior patio and
outdoor event area available but require outside
food and beverage service brought to the site;
- Limited special event capabilities; limited season
evening events only;
- Limited retail pro-shop area;
- Limited interior storage for entire facility;
- Fewer restroom facilities and no day use lockers;
- Requires design, approval, and construction of a
and maintenance area on building’s ground floor; temporary golf cart storage structure separate and
away from the temporary clubhouse location;
- Completes entire City Golf Course Project with - Requires phased, future construction of permanent
clubhouse at increased cost for same building; will
require new permits, approvals, and code changes;
estimated to occur in 2017 (IO years from 2007).
defined costs on current schedule;
- Unanimously recommended by the City
Council appointed Golf Course Steering
Committee.
- Not recommended by Steering Committee.
4/
CITY OF CARLSBADGOLF COURSECITY OF CARLSBADCITY OF CARLSBADGOLF COURSEGOLF COURSE
BID PROTESTBID PROTESTBID PROTESTContract No. 39721-1: Mass Grading & Utilities •Received from FlemmingEnvironmental, Inc.•Issue 1: Lack of insurance certifications•Issue 2: Listed costs for retaining wall structures•Recommendation:Deny bid protest and award to Sema Construction, Inc.Contract No. 39721Contract No. 39721--1: Mass Grading & Utilities 1: Mass Grading & Utilities ••Received from Received from FlemmingFlemmingEnvironmental, Inc.Environmental, Inc.••Issue 1: Lack of insurance certificationsIssue 1: Lack of insurance certifications••Issue 2: Listed costs for retaining wall Issue 2: Listed costs for retaining wall structuresstructures••Recommendation:Recommendation:Deny bid protest and Deny bid protest and award to award to Sema Sema Construction, Inc.Construction, Inc.
BID PROTESTBID PROTESTBID PROTESTContract No. 39721-3: Golf Course Buildings•Received from the Jaynes Corp.•Issue 1: “Flip-Flopping” of 2 bid values•Issue 2: Mathematical error in bid total•Recommendation:Uphold bid protest and award to the Jaynes Corp.Contract No. 39721Contract No. 39721--3: Golf Course Buildings3: Golf Course Buildings••Received from the Received from the Jaynes Jaynes Corp.Corp.••Issue 1: “FlipIssue 1: “Flip--Flopping” of 2 bid valuesFlopping” of 2 bid values••Issue 2: Mathematical error in bid totalIssue 2: Mathematical error in bid total••Recommendation:Recommendation:Uphold bid protest and Uphold bid protest and award to the award to the Jaynes Jaynes Corp.Corp.
FINAL BID RESULTSFINAL BID RESULTSFINAL BID RESULTS•Contract 39721-1: Mass Grading & UtilitiesSemaConstruction, Inc.: $ 7,721,463•Contract 39721-2: Golf Course ConstructionWadsworth Golf Construction: $16,727,761•Contract 39721-3: Golf Course BuildingsThe Jaynes Corporation: $10,661,052•TOTAL CONTRACTS: $35,110,276••Contract 39721Contract 39721--1: Mass Grading & Utilities1: Mass Grading & UtilitiesSemaSemaConstruction, Inc.: $ 7,721,463Construction, Inc.: $ 7,721,463••Contract 39721Contract 39721--2: Golf Course Construction2: Golf Course ConstructionWadsworth Golf Construction: $16,727,761Wadsworth Golf Construction: $16,727,761••Contract 39721Contract 39721--3: Golf Course Buildings3: Golf Course BuildingsThe The Jaynes Jaynes Corporation: Corporation: $10,661,052$10,661,052••TOTAL CONTRACTS: $35,110,276TOTAL CONTRACTS: $35,110,276
CLUBHOUSE OPTIONSCLUBHOUSE OPTIONSCLUBHOUSE OPTIONS1. Permanent Clubhouse with underground cart storage;2.Temporary Modular Clubhouse with separate metal shed cart storage;3.Temporary Framed Tent Clubhouse with separate metal shed cart storage.1. 1. Permanent Clubhouse with underground cart Permanent Clubhouse with underground cart storage;storage;2.2.Temporary Modular Clubhouse with Temporary Modular Clubhouse with separate separate metal shed cart storage;metal shed cart storage;3.3.Temporary Framed Tent Clubhouse with Temporary Framed Tent Clubhouse with separate metal shed cart storage.separate metal shed cart storage.
Permanent Clubhouse with underground cart storagePermanent Clubhouse with Permanent Clubhouse with underground cart storageunderground cart storage
Permanent Clubhouse floorplanPermanent Clubhouse floorplan
Temporary Modular ClubhouseTemporary Modular ClubhouseTemporary Modular Clubhouse
Temporary Metal Shed Cart StorageTemporary Metal Shed Cart StorageTemporary Metal Shed Cart Storage
Temporary Framed Tent ClubhouseTemporary Framed Tent ClubhouseTemporary Framed Tent Clubhouse
Permanent vs. Temporary Clubhouse OptionsPermanent vs. Temporary Permanent vs. Temporary Clubhouse OptionsClubhouse Options•Permanent Clubhouse $ 5,920,016CPFA Provided FF&E $ 1,450,000Total Permanent Clubhouse $ 7,370,016•Temporary Modular Clubhouse $ 2,475,950with Metal Shed Cart StorageMinor FF&E included•Net Cost Reduction $ 4,894,066••Permanent Clubhouse $ 5,920,016Permanent Clubhouse $ 5,920,016CPFA Provided FF&E CPFA Provided FF&E $ 1,450,000$ 1,450,000Total Permanent Clubhouse $ 7,370,016Total Permanent Clubhouse $ 7,370,016••Temporary Modular Clubhouse Temporary Modular Clubhouse $ 2,475,950$ 2,475,950with Metal Shed Cart Storagewith Metal Shed Cart StorageMinor FF&E includedMinor FF&E included••Net Cost Reduction $ 4,894,066Net Cost Reduction $ 4,894,066
CARLSBAD CITY GOLF COURSE PROJECTPERMENANT VERSUS TEMPORARY CLUBHOUSEADVANTAGES / DISADVANTAGES ISSUESPERMANENT CLUBHOUSE BUILDINGTEMPORARY CLUBHOUSE BUILDING-Construction cost based upon bids is $ 5,920,016; (Jaynesbid used for comparison) -City supplied and installed fixtures, estimate; furnishings, and equipment (“FF&E”) estimated at $ 1,450,000;-Fully permitted and entitled;-Design complete and ready for constructionbid award;-Full service food and beverage operation;-Restaurant can serve up to 300 people inside and another 250 in outdoor special event area;outdoor special event area;-Desirable location for special events, group meetings, and public activities;CARLSBAD CITY GOLF COURSE PROJECTPERMENANT VERSUS TEMPORARY CLUBHOUSEADVANTAGES / DISADVANTAGES ISSUESPERMANENT CLUBHOUSE BUILDINGTEMPORARY CLUBHOUSE BUILDING-Construction cost based upon bids is $ 5,920,016; (Jaynesbid used for comparison) -City supplied and installed fixtures, estimate; furnishings, and equipment (“FF&E”) estimated at $ 1,450,000;-Fully permitted and entitled;-Design complete and ready for constructionbid award;-Full service food and beverage operation;-Restaurant can serve up to 300 people inside and another 250 in outdoor special event area;outdoor special event area;-Desirable location for special events, group meetings, and public activities;-Estimated construction cost in 2005 dollars is$ 2,475,950; structure(s) would be installed in 2007;-Minor FF&E costs included in above estimate; -No current approvals; requires amended CUP andCalifornia Coastal Commission permit amendment;-Will require formal site planning, design, buildingpermits, and solicitation of construction bids;-Limited food and beverage operation;-No inside restaurant service; exterior patio andoutdoor event area available but require outsidefood and beverage service brought to the site;-Limited special event capabilities; limited seasonevening events only;-Estimated construction cost in 2005 dollars is$ 2,475,950; structure(s) would be installed in 2007;-Minor FF&E costs included in above estimate; -No current approvals; requires amended CUP andCalifornia Coastal Commission permit amendment;-Will require formal site planning, design, buildingpermits, and solicitation of construction bids;-Limited food and beverage operation;-No inside restaurant service; exterior patio andoutdoor event area available but require outsidefood and beverage service brought to the site;-Limited special event capabilities; limited seasonevening events only;
CARLSBAD CITY GOLF COURSE PROJECTPERMENANT VERSUS TEMPORARY CLUBHOUSEADVANTAGES / DISADVANTAGES ISSUESPERMANENT CLUBHOUSE BUILDINGTEMPORARY CLUBHOUSE BUILDING-Full service retail pro-shop;-Adequate interior storage for entire facility;-Adequate number of interior restrooms and day use locker facilities for public;-Full integration of golf cart storage, re-charging,and maintenance area on building’s ground floor;-Completes entire City Golf Course Project with defined costs on current schedule;-Unanimously recommended by the CityCouncil appointed Golf Course SteeringCommittee.CARLSBAD CITY GOLF COURSE PROJECTCARLSBAD CITY GOLF COURSE PROJECTPERMENANT VERSUS TEMPORARY CLUBHOUSEPERMENANT VERSUS TEMPORARY CLUBHOUSEADVANTAGES / DISADVANTAGES ISSUESADVANTAGES / DISADVANTAGES ISSUESPERMANENT CLUBHOUSE BUILDINGPERMANENT CLUBHOUSE BUILDINGTEMPORARY CLUBHOUSE BUILDINGTEMPORARY CLUBHOUSE BUILDING-Full service retail pro-shop;-Adequate interior storage for entire facility;-Adequate number of interior restrooms and day use locker facilities for public;-Full integration of golf cart storage, re-charging,and maintenance area on building’s ground floor;-Completes entire City Golf Course Project with defined costs on current schedule;-Unanimously recommended by the CityCouncil appointed Golf Course SteeringCommittee.-Limited retail pro-shop area;-Limited interior storage for entire facility;-Fewer restroom facilities and no day use lockers; -Requires design, approval, and construction of a temporary golf cart storage structure separate and away from the temporary clubhouse location; -Requires phased, future construction of permanent defined costs on current schedule; clubhouse at increased cost for same building; will require new permits, approvals, and code changes; estimated to occur in 2017 (10 years from 2007).-Not recommended by Steering Committee.-Limited retail pro-shop area;-Limited interior storage for entire facility;-Fewer restroom facilities and no day use lockers; -Requires design, approval, and construction of a temporary golf cart storage structure separate and away from the temporary clubhouse location; -Requires phased, future construction of permanent defined costs on current schedule; clubhouse at increased cost for same building; will require new permits, approvals, and code changes; estimated to occur in 2017 (10 years from 2007).-Not recommended by Steering Committee.
GOLF COURSE FINANCINGGOLF COURSE GOLF COURSE FINANCINGFINANCING
Financing SourcesFinancing SourcesFinancing SourcesIn millions$15.0$15.025.425.4$ 40.4$ 40.4$15.0$15.030.330.3$ 45.3$ 45.3Funding Sources:Funding Sources:Bond Proceeds Bond Proceeds AdvancesAdvances$ 37.8$ 37.82.62.6$ 40.4$ 40.4$ 42.7 $ 42.7 2.62.6$ 45.3$ 45.3Costs:Costs:Construction CostsConstruction CostsGrow in/Start Up CostsGrow in/Start Up CostsTemp Temp ClubhouseClubhousePerm Perm ClubhouseClubhouse
Bond ProceedsBond ProceedsBond Proceeds*Goal: Issue maximum amount possible that can be debt serviced by net income*Goal*Goal: Issue maximum amount possible : Issue maximum amount possible that can be debt serviced by net incomethat can be debt serviced by net income$28.3 million$28.3 million$17 million$17 million3.8%3.8%$32.3 million$32.3 million$13 million$13 million5.8%5.8%$30.3 $30.3 millionmillion$15 $15 millionmillion4.8%4.8%AssumedAssumedCity City AdvancesAdvancesBond Bond ProceedsProceedsInt. Int. RateRate
Industrial LotsIndustrial LotsIndustrial LotsApproximateApproximateValueValue$12.5 million$12.5 millionTotal ValueTotal Value$ 5.4 million$ 5.4 millionParcel 2: Parcel 2: 5.1 net acres5.1 net acres$ 7.1 million$ 7.1 millionParcel 1: Parcel 1: 7 net acres7 net acres
Golf Course is a BusinessGolf Course is a BusinessGolf Course is a Business•Not a required service or captive market like water, sewer.•Market driven, Competitive.Many other choices for customers.•No guarantee of success.If net income not achieved, General fund must subsidize.••Not a required service or captive Not a required service or captive market like water, sewer.market like water, sewer.••Market driven, Competitive.Market driven, Competitive.Many other choices for Many other choices for customers.customers.••No guarantee of success.No guarantee of success.If net income not achieved, If net income not achieved, General fund must subsidize.General fund must subsidize.
Potential Greens Fees(including cart rental)Potential Greens Fees(including cart rental)$99$99--125125$74$74--7575Sat Sat ––SunSun$84$84--105105$64$64--7575FridayFriday$75$75--9595$54$54--6363WeekdayWeekdayNonNon--ResidentResidentResidentResident*Other rate categories not shown may include seniors, juniors, twilight, county, etc. Greens fees recommendations will be made by operator and set by the JPA Board.*Other rate categories not shown may include seniors, juniors, twilight, county, etc. Greens fees recommendations will be made by operator and set by the JPA Board.
City Council AppointedGolf Course Steering CommitteeCity Council AppointedCity Council AppointedGolf Course Steering CommitteeGolf Course Steering Committee•PatKrimian•Leo Dulacki•Jim Smith•Eddie Susalla•Bill Hartley•Ed Fogel•Ted Vallas••PatPatKrimianKrimian••Leo Leo DulackiDulacki••Jim SmithJim Smith••Eddie Eddie SusallaSusalla••Bill HartleyBill Hartley••Ed Ed FogelFogel••Ted Ted Vallas•Irv Roston, Chairman••Al Sutton•Jack Schumaker•Irving J. Rich•John Mamaux•Tom Erwin•Irv RostonIrv Roston, , ChairmanChairman••Al SuttonAl Sutton••Jack Jack SchumakerSchumaker••Irving J. RichIrving J. Rich••John John MamauxMamaux••Tom ErwinTom ErwinVallas
CITY OF CARLSBADGOLF COURSECITY OF CARLSBADCITY OF CARLSBADGOLF COURSEGOLF COURSE