SAN IPSE CAPITAL OF SILICON VALLEY

Transcription

1 COUNCIL AGENDA: 11/8/16 ITEM: CITY OF SAN IPSE CAPITAL OF SILICON VALLEY Memorandum TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL FROM: Jim Ortbal Barry Ng SUBJECT: AWARD OF 2016 DOT GENERAL DATE: October 17, 2016 ENGINEERING CONTRACT Approved Date lofzcollto RECOMMENDATION Report on bids and award of an on-call contract for the " DOT General Engineering Contract" to the lowest responsive bidder, Pacific Electric Contracting, Inc., in an amount not to exceed $1,500,000, with no individual task order for the construction of a public works project to exceed $100,000. OUTCOME The proposed contract would allow for the installation of miscellaneous small-scale projects of various traffic and pedestrian safety enhancements through the issuance of task orders, none of which will exceed $100,000 for any individual public works project. BACKGROUND The Department of Transportation (DOT) routinely uses an on-call contract to retain the services of a contractor to supplement existing in-house staff to construct small projects that enhance traffic and pedestrian safety. These projects include the installation of enhanced crosswalks, flashing beacons, radar speed signs, ADA ramps, median islands, bulb-outs, road humps, and other traffic calming elements. An on-call contract is a bit unique in that it does not contain a specific scope of work. The oncall contract itself sets forth only the general kind of work the contractor may be asked to perform, along with general terms and conditions, and a maximum amount of compensation the contractor can be paid under the contract. The actual specific scope and location of work, and the compensation for such work is set forth in individual task orders that are issued in accordance with the general terms and conditions of the on-call contract. Base compensation in a task order is either a negotiated lump sum or based

2 HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL October 17, 2016 Subject: Award of 2016 DOT General Engineering Contract Page 2 on actual time and materials. The product of the base compensation multiplied by the overhead and profit markup is added together to determine the total project costs. The City awards on-call construction contracts based on the contractor that submits the lowest percentage markup and not the cost of any specific scope of work. Charter Section 1217 requires that an actual scope of work be competitively bid for all public works projects exceeding $100,000. Accordingly, under an on-call contract, no individual task order for construction of a public works project can exceed $100,000. The proposed contract would supplement DOT's in-house maintenance staff and enable DOT to more quickly complete projects already identified, and allow DOT to provide more reliable scheduling and completion of future traffic and pedestrian safety enhancement projects. ANALYSIS Bids were opened on September 15, 2016 with the following results: BIDDER'S NAME CITY OVERHEAD & PROFIT % MARKUP Pacific Electric Contracting, Inc. San Jose 1.59% Redgwick Construction Co. Oakland 1.88% Gradetech, Inc. San Ramon 2.00% Graniterock Company San Jose 8.00% The bid documents have been evaluated and found to be in order. The low bid submitted by Pacific Electric Contracting, Co. is for 1.59% Overhead and Profit Markup. The bid is considered acceptable for the type of work involved and staff recommends that the construction contract be awarded to Pacific Electric Contracting, Co. Assignment of tasks are scheduled to begin in January 2017 and the General Engineering Contract would be in effect for two (2) years or until total billings equal $1,500,000, whichever comes first. Bid Protest: The third low bidder, Gradetech, Inc., protests that the bids submitted by Pacific Electric Contracting, Inc. and Redgwick Construction Co. are not responsive (Attachment A). Specifically, Gradetech argues that Pacific Electric violated the subcontractor listing requirements by failing to list a subcontractor to perform concrete work. Additionally, Gradetech argues that the bid of Redgwick Construction Co. is not responsive because the List of Subcontractors form was blank. The protest is without merit and should be rejected.

3 HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL October 17, 2016 Subject: Award of 2016 DOT General Engineering Contract Page 3 A responsive bid is one that conforms to the material terms of the bid package. Whether a bid is responsive is determined from the face of the bid. Gradetech's protest is without merit because the bid submitted by Pacific Electric, on its face, conforms to the material terms of the bid package. In accordance with the subcontractors listing requirements, a contractor must list in its bid all subcontractors who will perform work amounting to more than A of one percent of the total bid. A contractor must self-perform all work amounting to more than A of one percent of the total bid and for which no subcontractor is listed. Pacific Electric wrote "None" on its subcontractor listing form. Accordingly, Pacific Electric must self-perform all of the work, including the concrete work. Gradetech argues that, based on its "experience with" Pacific Electric, Pacific Electric does not have the resources to self-perform concrete work. Pacific Electric has an appropriate contractor's license to perform concrete work and has selfperformed concrete work on past City projects. In its response to the protest, Pacific Electric confirmed that it intends to self-perform the concrete work and that it has the capacity to do so (Attachment B). Therefore, staff recommends rejecting this protest item. There is no need to address the protest involving Redgwick's bid if the Council follows staffs recommendation. In any event, the blank list of subcontractors submitted by Redgwick is - at best - a minor bid irregularity that could be waived. Additionally, in its response to the protest, Redgwick confirmed that it intended to self-perform the entire project (Attachment C). Staff recommends rejecting this protest item and the entire protest. EVALUATION AND FOLLOW-UP DOT will coordinate and provide updates on traffic and pedestrian safety enhancement projects with each Council Office as they are programmed and implemented. PUBLIC OUTREACH/INTEREST This memorandum will be posted on the City's website for the November 8, 2016 City Council Agenda. To solicit contractors, this project was listed on BidSync and advertised in the San Jose Post Record. When the project commences, appropriate advance notice will be provided to affected businesses, residents and motorists of upcoming construction activities, and potential lane closures and traffic delays.

4 HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL October 17, 2016 Subject: Award of 2016 DOT General Engineering Contract Page 4 COORDINATION This project and memorandum has been coordinated with the Department of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement, the City Attorney's Office, and the City Manager's Budget Office. COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION/INPUT There was no commission recommendation on this action. FISCAL/POLICY ALIGNMENT This project supports the Transportation and Aviation Services City Service Area goals to Preserve and Improve Transportation Assets and Facilities, and to Provide Safe and Secure Transportation Systems. COST IMPLICATIONS 1. COST OF PROJECT: Project Delivery Construction Contract $150, $ TOTAL PROJECT COSTS: $1,650, SOURCE OF FUNDING: Building and Structure Construction Tax Fund Construction Excise Tax Fund 3. FISCAL IMPACT: The annual operating budget impact for this project begins in in the amount of $11,000, increases to $23,000 in , $24,000 in , and $25,000 in

5 HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL October 17, 2016 Subject: Award of 2016 DOT General Engineering Contract Page 5 BUDGET REFERENCE The following table identifies the fund and appropriation that will fund the proposed contract; including project delivery, construction, and contingency costs. Fund # Appn # RC # Appn. Name Safety - Pedestrian Improvements Total Appn Previous Fiscal Year Carryover $248,000 Amt for Contract Adopted Capital Budget Page $600,000 V-741 Last Budget Action (Date, Ord. No.) 6/21/ Total Current Funding Available $848,000 Funding to be Appropriated $650, Safety Pedestrian Improvements Previous Fiscal Year Carryover $446,000 Total Current Funding Available $1,246,000 $800,000 V-741 Funding to be Appropriated $1,000,000 6/21/ TOTAL $2,094,000 $1,650,000* * Total project costs include $1,500,000 (Construction Contract) and $150,000 (Project Delivery). CEOA Exempt, Section Existing Facilities, File No. PP /s/ BARRY NG Director of Public Works /s/ JIM ORTBAL Director of Transportation For questions please contact Zahir Gulzadah, DOT Traffic Safety Division Manager, at (408) Attachments

6 Attachment A September 16, 2016 Mr. Greg Card Procurement Manager Director's Office - Department of Public Works 200 E. Santa Clara St. San Jose, CA Tel. Number: (408) Address: gregorv.card@,sanioseca.gov Re: NOTICE OF INTENT TO AWARD CONTRACT DOT GENERAL ENGINEERING CONTRACT Introduction Please note Gradetech protests the City of San Jose's intent to award above referenced project to Pacific Electric Construction. Pacific Electric listed "None" on the Sub-contractor page of the bid documents and as the project scope listed in the technical specifications section 4 include concrete work for which Pacific Electric has not listed any concrete sub-contractors. The concrete work will be the major portion of this project and appears to be greater than 50% of the proposed work for which Pacific Electric listed "None" for a subcontractor. Gradetech's experience with Pacific Electric is they historically employ no masons to do the concrete, do not self-performed concrete work but subcontract concrete work out. Therefore, Pacific Electric should be deemed an invalid bid and be rejected by City of San Jose per City specifications section as Pacific Electric listed "None" for (Concrete) subcontractors on bid and would need to sub-contract to perform this major scope of the work. Additionally, Gradetech protests any attempts for the City of San Jose's intent to award above referenced project to Redgwick Construction. Redgwick Construction's bid should be deemed unresponsive by the City of San Jose as the Bid was not completely filled out and left with blank pages. Specifically, the Sub-Contractor page was left blank with no subcontractors. If Redgwick intended to self-perform all the work it should have written in "None or N/A" but choose to leave the sub-contractors bid Sheet blank and thus un-responsive. As such Redgwick Constructions bid should be deemed un-responsive and be rejected by City of San Jose per City specifications section 2.1. Due to the above error or omissions in bid documents, Gradetech Inc. should be deemed the lowest responsible bidder and awarded the project. Sincerely $ fccci Sam Rivinus, Pres. GRADETECHINC

7 Since 1977 PACIFIC ELECTRIC CONTRACTING INC. Attachment B CA Lie. # (A, C-10) TRAFFIC SIGNALS STREET LIGHTING GENERAL ENGINEERING September 21,2016 City of San Jose-DPW Greg Card 200 E. Santa Clara St. San Jose, CA, City of San Jose-DOT Alex Sbkouratoff 200 E. Santa Clara St. San Jose, CA RE: 2016 DOT General Engineering Contract- Project ID. #8306 In response to Gradetech Inc. Bid Protest Greg: This is in response to the Gradetech Bid Protest dated 9/16/16. Pacific Electric Contracting is a licensed General Engineering Contractor (License Class "A") and a licensed Electrical Contractor (License Class C-10) 1. In response to Pacific Electric Contracting Inc. (PECI) not listing a concrete subcontractor as stated in the Gradetech letter- PECI performs its own concrete work. 2. Gradetech's assertion that 50% of the proposed work will be concrete work- The entire argument is not valid and has no merit in regards to a Bid protest Gradetech has no way of knowing what percentage of this contract will be concrete work as the percentages are not in the bidding documents nor are there plans or bid items where one could derive an approximate value. Two of the items listed in the Scope of Work- RRFB's and Radar Speed Signs have been determined by the City's Contract Compliance section to be performed by Electricians in which Gradetech has listed "None" for their Electrical sub. The entire contract "could" be RRFB's and Radar Signs since they are listed in the Scope of Work. Gradetech does not hold a C-10 "Electrical" license. 3. Gradetech's assertion that and or "experience with" PECI historically employ no masons, do not selfperform concrete work and subcontract concrete work out- The entire argument is not valid and has no merit in regards to a Bid pro test,_gradetech has extremely limited direct experience with PECI- (Two minor subcontracts at least ten years ago), Gradetech is not an authority on tracking what PECI does or has done. The City has references, has direct experience with PECI and is currently performing and has already performed all of the items listed in the Scope of Work for this project. In addition, the City's Contract Compliance section has records from previous projects that show that Cement Masons are employed when performing concrete work for the City of San Jose. In addition, PECI has also subcontracted out some concrete work in the past in complete accordance with Public Contract Code Section Thaffk Yj T^ajjlrTTCarnacho Jr., President Pacific Electric Contracting Inc. w w w. I mj a c i f i c - e l e c t r i c. n e t 330 Phelan Ave. San Jose, CA pit fax

8 Attachment C REDGWICK Redgwick Construction Company September 21, 2016 Mr. Greg Card Procurement Manager Director's Office - Department of Public Works 200 E. Santa Clara Street San Jose, CA Sent Via Gregorv.card@sanioseca.gov Re Contract DOT General Engineering Contract Subject: Greadetech Inc. Bid Protest of Redgwick's Bid Dear Mr. Card Redgwick Construction Company (Redgwick) has reviewed Gradetech Inc. (Gradetech) protest letter of September 16 th, 2016 received on September 21, The subcontractor listing sheet is inserted in the bid documents for the General Contractor to list its subcontractor's that are above $10,000 or half of one percent of the bid amount whichever is greater. Redgwick Construction Company did not list any subcontractors since it is planning to self-perform the entire project. Nowhere in the bid documents does it state that the General Contractor should write "N/A" on the subcontractor listing sheet when it is planning to selfperform the work. Gradetech's bid protest should be ignored as it has no merit. Sincerely Bob Ruheii Bob Rahebi President 21 HEGENBERGER COURT OAKLAND CA T F