HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report 4.B 07/01/2019Agenda Item #4.B
zs5$
DATE: July 1, 2019
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council through City Manager I 1
FROM: Jason Beatty, P.E. — Assistant Director, Public Works and Utilities Department
Ken Eichstaedt, P.E.- Senior Engineer, Public Works and Utilities Department
SUBJECT: Resolution Authorizing Award of Contract for the Runway Electrical
Improvements Project
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council adopt the attached Resolution Authorizing Award of
Contract for the Runway Electrical Improvements Project to Saint Francis Electric LLC in the
amount of $597;840 (Attachment 1).
BACKGROUND
Each year the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) offers general aviation airports entitlement
grants to fund part of their Airport Improvement Program (Alp). In addition to federal funding,
California Department of Transportation Caltrans Division of Aeronautics offers a 5% matching
grant to supplement the AIP program. To apply for FAA grant funding, the City must provide a
resolution authorizing the grant application prior to submittal. The City Council provided this
authorization in Resolution 2017-024 N.C.S. on February 27, 2017.
The FAA considers and approves Grant eligible projects initiating with the runway and runway
related items. Once the FAA is satisfied with the safety of the runway environment, the FAA
will consider other Grant eligible projects. Past grants the City received from the FAA include:
DATE
PROJECT
AMOUNT
9/13/10
Installation of Pilot Controlled Lighting and Replacement of the
$52,250
Rotating Beacon
1/24/11
Design of Aircraft Apron Phase I Rehabilitation Project and the
$118,750
Southwest Taxiway Pavement Rehabilitation Design Project
3/19/12
Replacement of the Airfield Runway Lighting Voltage Regulator
$45,000
8/4/14
Runway Rehabilitation and Overlay Project
$633,764
9/14/15
Airport Layout Plan Update and Terrain Survey
$32,670
3/21/16
Pavement Management Program Study
336,300
Current
Runway Edge Lighting and Airfield Guidance Signage
$519,975(to be
Grant
updated)
The FAA has determined this project to be Categorically Excluded from the requirements of the
National Environmental Policy Act of (1969) ("NEPA") pursuant to FAA Order 1050 as
documented in letter to the City dated April 1, 2019 from Camille Garibaldi, FAA
Environmental Specialist. The project is also categorically exempt from the requirements of the
California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") pursuant to Section 15301 of the CEQA
Guidelines as the operation, repair, maintenance, or minor alteration of existing public facilities
and mechanical equipment involving negligible or no expansion of use beyond that existing at
the time of the lead agency's determination, including exterior alterations involving such things
as electrical conveyances and restoration or rehabilitation of deteriorated or damaged structures,
facilities or mechanical equipment to meet current standards of public health and safety.
DISCUSSION
The existing runway edge lights were installed in 1984 when the runway was constructed and
over time have required increased maintenance. Upgrading the runway edge lighting to light
emitting diode (LED) fixtures will reduce the electrical and maintenance costs, provide increased
illumination and increased safety. The project also includes replacement of the direct buried
cable that has degraded.
Permitting, design and public outreach, primarily through the Airport Commission, for the
Runway Electrical Improvements has been conducted. A pre-bid notice was issued March 28,
2019 with the formal Notice Inviting Bids sent out on April 25, 2019. Five (5) bids were
received on May 22, 2019.
Name of Bidder Bid Total
St. Francis Electric, LLC. $597,840
Studebaker Brown Electric, Inc. $628,718
Vellutini Corp./Royal Electric Co. .$633,994
WBE $637,286
Kobo Utility Construction Co. $787,800
Engineers Estimate $508,000
Lowest Responsive Bid
The lowest bid was submitted by St. Francis Electric, LLC. in the amount of $597,840 ($90,000
or 15% or higher than the engineers estimate of $508,000). The notice inviting bids specified
that the City would determine the lowest bidder to be the bidder that submitted the lowest
.combined bid price for the base bid and Alternate 1 covering the cost of completing the work at
night (allowing for the runway to be open during the day). The three lowest bids were within 7%
of each other indicating good competition.
A bid protest was received from Studebaker Brown Electric, Inc., the second lowest bidder, on
May 23, 2019 (Attachment 2). It stated that the apparent low bid of St. Francis Electric was non-
responsive because it did not list any disadvantaged business enterprise (DBE) subcontractor on
sheet PF -22, "DBE Utilization," that was contained in the bid documents. In response to the
Studebaker Brown Electric bid protest, St. Francis Electric, LLC. submitted a response to the
City on May 24, 2019 (Attachment 3)stating that the St. Francis Electric bid did meet the DBE
requirements because material suppliers count towards the DBE goal, and that Logistical
Enterprises, the supplier St. Francis Electric intended to use to satisfy the DBE goal, as a
2
material supplier, did not need to be listed as a subcontractor. On May 28, 2019, Studebaker
Brown sent the City further correspondence (Attachment 4) continuing to assert that St. Francis
Electric should have listed Logistical Enterprises on sheet PF -22 as a subcontractor. On May 29,
St. Francis Electric sent the City a further letter (Attachment 5) continuing to dispute that it was
necessary or appropriate to list Logistical Enterprises as a subcontractor in its bid.
As a federally -funded project, the City's Runway Electrical Improvements Project is subject to
federal grant regulations, and more specifically, the regulations that apply to recipients of FAA
grant funding. As required, the bid documents that the City issued for bidders on the Runway
Electrical Improvements Project included all the Required Federal Contract Provisions for FAA
Airport Improvement Program Projects. The FAA contract provisions were included in Section
IV, Special Provisions, of the bid documents. The project DBE requirements were included at
page FP -12 of the bid documents (part of Section IV), and on page NIB -6 (part of the Notice
Inviting Bids). Page NIB -6 specified a DBE participation goal of 5.48%.
To implement the FAA grant requirements for the project, the bid forms that the City included
with the bid documents provided to bidders included page PF -22, Disadvantaged Business
Enterprise Utilization, and PF -23, DBE Letter of Intent. St. Francis Electric completed form PF -
22 indicating it would satisfy the DBE goal of 5.48% for the project, and completed form PF -23
indicating that Logistical Enterprises would participate in the project as electrical supplier and
provide materials in the amount of $56,831.98. The form was signed by Andrew Amador, Vice
President. St. Francis Electric included with form PF -23 a quote from Logistical Enterprises in
the amount of $56,831.91. St. Francis Electric also included with form PF -23 a copy of a search
result indicating that Drivera Enterprises, Inc., dba Logistical Enterprises is a certified DBE
electrical goods supplier, Firm ID 39438 (Attachment 6).
According to FAA regulations, bidders on contracts subject to confirmed DBE goals must submit
information establishing DBE compliance, including: the name and address of the participating,
certified, DBE entity; the dollar amount of the participation; a description of the work to be
performed; and written confirmation from the DBE firm of its participation. (See, 49 CFR
26.53(b).) FAA regulations also provide that 60% of the amount of materials that bidders
commit to obtain from eligible DBE suppliers that are not manufacturers counts toward
fulfillment of DBE goals for FAA -funded projects. (See 49 CFR 26.55(e)(2).)
To be considered responsive, California law requires that bids for public works projects must
conform to the material terms of the bid package. DeSilva Gates Constr. v Department of
Transp. (2015) 242 CA4th 1409; Menefee v Countv of Fresno (1985) 163 CAM 1175. A bid is
responsive if it promises to do what the bidding instructions demand. Williams v Clovis Unified
Sch. Dist. (2007) 146 CA4th 757; Vallev Crest Landscape Inc. v City Council (1996) 41 CA4th
1432, 1438. Responsiveness should be determined from the face of the bid. Great W.
Contractors, Inc. v Irvine Unified Sch. Dist. (2010) 187 CA4th 1425. The St. Francis Electric
bid included completed DBE forms as required. The forms indicate that St. Francis Electric will
obtain electrical supplies from Logistical Enterprises, that Logistical Enterprises is a certified
DBE firm and that the supplies they will provide satisfy the applicable DBE participation goal in
accordance with applicable FAA regulations. The St. Francis Electric bid does not indicate that
Logistical Enterprises will participate as a subcontractor, but it does not need to, because
participation of DBE material suppliers can satisfy FAA DBE requirements.
3
The purpose of the competitive bidding laws in California is to protect the public, not
contractors. Domar Electric Inc., v. City of Los Angeles (1994) 9 C4th 161. The purposes of the
California subcontractor listing laws are to protect the public and subcontractors (not
contractors) from the ills of bid shopping and bid peddling. Synergy Project Management Inc. v.
City of Sunnyvale (2019) 155 CA4th 525. The public would not be well served by a rule that
required rejecting a bid that did everything the bid documents required and complied with
funding agency requirements, with the result that the public would be charged an additional
$30,878 for the same work. In view of the above, staff conclude that the St. Francis Electric bid
satisfies the DBE participation requirements that apply to the Runway Electrical Improvements
Project, as well as the requirements of the City's bid documents, and that the Studebaker Brown
Electric, Inc. protest is without merit and should be rejected.
PUBLIC OUTREACH
Airport and Capital Improvement Project (CIP) staff have been proactive to address concerns
from tenants and clients at the airport for this important project. Airport users include two flight
schools, two aviation maintenance organizations, whose customers fly in/out, several
corporate/business aircraft, FEDEX cargo flights, and multiple charter flights. These are in
addition to the recreational flights that take place almost exclusively during business hours.
Daytime closures would also significantly impact the aviation fuel sales revenue for the City.
Initial design efforts had limited Airport day closures. This project was discussed at two Airport
Commission meetings. The feedback received was that day time closures were deemed
unacceptable to many airport users. Thus, staff reevaluated options and added a bid alternate in
which work could be performed at night with no daytime closures. The current design and base
bid option is for all night work to take place with no daytime closure. This alternate will
increase the overall project cost by $27,000 (or approximately 5% based on St. Francis Electric,
LLC.'s bid) but is necessary to minimize disruption to airport operations.
The Airport Commission was updated on the project bid status on June 6, 2019, and
recommended approval of the increase in monies from the Airport Operating funding to award
the project as described below.
FINANCIAL IMPACTS
The project is included in the FY 18/19 CIP Budget as C61501604 with an approved project
budget of $653,000. Funding was projected to be provided by the State and Federal government
at $605,000 with a City contribution of $48,000. The grant funding is now projected to be
$597,000. The revised low bid construction amount is for $597,840, this increase, coupled with
the reduction in grant funding will require Airport operating funds of $119,840 (an increase of
$71,840) with a reduced contingency of 2.5%. City staff has requested the additional funds and
based on discussions with the FAA on June 26, 2019, they have indicated that the monies should
be available. They are drafting a revised agreement with the updated bid amount.
11
EXPENDITURES
FY 18/19 CIP
Revised Project
C61501604
Estimate
Planning/Environmental
$3,000
$1,000
Design
$50,000
$50,000
Legal Services
$2,000
$1,000
Admin
$2,000
$1,000
Construction Contract
$525,000
$597,840
Construction Management
$35,000
$45,000
Contingency
$30,000
$15,000
CIP Overhead
$6,000
$6,000
Total
$653,000
$716,840
FUNDING SOURCES
FY 18/19 CIP
Revised Project
C61501604
Estimate
Airport Operating. Fund
$48,000
$119,840
State AIP
$80,000
$29,000
FAA Grant
$_525,000
$568,000
Total
$653,000
$716,840
ATTACHMENTS
1. Resolution
2. Studebaker Brown Protest Letter 5/23/19
3. St. Francis Electric Response to Protest Letter 5/24/19
4. Studebaker Brown Reply Letter 5/28/19
5. St. Francis Electric Reply Letter 5/29/19
6. St. Francis Electric DBE Forms
5
ATTACHMENT 1
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE AWARD OF CONTRACT FOR THE RUNWAY
ELECTRICAL IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT
WHEREAS, the City of Petaluma, California Department of Transportation and the
Federal Aviation Administration are parties to Federal Airport Improvement Program (AIP)
grant 3-06-0186-27 for the Runway Electrical Project and Airfield Guidance Signage; and
WHEREAS, the California Department of Transportation, pursuant to the Public
Utilities Code section 21683.1, provides grants of 5% of Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)
grants to airports; and
WHEREAS, replacing the current Runway Edge lighting at the Petaluma Airport
(Airport) with LED lighting would decrease the cost of operations and maintenance, and increase
safety; and
WHEREAS, replacing the Airfield Guidance at the Airport would satisfy the FAA
Lighting, Directive AC 150/5340-18; and
WHEREAS, at the February 27, 2017, City Council meeting, the Council adopted
Resolution 2017- 024 N.C.S approving the application for FAA Grant Funding and a 5% grant
matchfrom the California Department of Transportation (CALTRANS) and authorizing the City
Manager to accept grant funding from both agencies and execute all grant related documents for
Runway Electrical Project and Airfield Guidance Signage; and
WHEREAS, the projected construction cost of the Runway Electrical Project is
$597,820, of which the FAA grant portion is $520,000 and the CALTRANS match is $29,000;
and
WHEREAS, the remaining local match of $119,840 will be. adjusted in the Airport CIP
budget for FY 19/20; and
WHEREAS, the FAA has determined this project to be Categorically Excluded from the
requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act of (1969) ("NEPA") pursuant to FAA
Order 1050 as documented in letter to the City dated April 1, 2019 from Camille Garibaldi, FAA
Environmental Specialist; and
WHEREAS, the project is also categorically exempt from the requirements of the
California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") pursuant to Section 15301 of the CEQA
Guidelines as the operation, repair, maintenance, or minor alteration of existing public facilities
and mechanical equipment involving negligible or no expansion of use beyond that existing at
C
the time of the lead agency's determination, including exterior alterations involving such things
as electrical conveyances and restoration or rehabilitation of deteriorated or damaged structures,
facilities or mechanical equipment to meet current standards of public health and safety;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of
Petaluma hereby:
1. Declares the above recitals to be true and correct and incorporated into this resolution as
findings of the City Council.
2. Determines that the project is categorically excluded from the requirements of the
National Environmental Policy Act pursuant to FAA Order 1050 and categorically
exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act or CEQA
pursuant to Section 15301 of the CEQA Guidelines.
3. Approves an Airport operating fund contribution of $119,840 toward the Electrical
Improvements Project, City Project Nos. 61501604 as needed to supplement FAA and
CAL DOT grant funds totaling $597,000 to fully fund the Electrical Improvements
Project, City Project Nos. 61501604 in the amount of $716,840.
4. In accordance with the City of Petaluma Charter and Municipal Code, California Public
Contract Code Section 20162 and other applicable law, waives any and all non-
conformance in the bid of St. Francis Electric, LLC. for the Runway 11/29 Electrical
Improvements Project, City Project No. 61501604, rejects the bid protest dated May 23,
2019 submitted by Studebaker Brown Electric, Inc., the second lowest bidder, finds the
bid of $597,840 submitted by St. Francis Electrical, LLC to be. the lowest, responsive bid
and further finds that St. Francis Electrical, LLC. is the lowest responsible bidder.
3. Awards the contract for the Runway 11/29 Electrical Improvements Project, City Project
Nos. 61501604 to St. Francis Electric, LLC, in the amount $597,840, and authorizes and
directs the City Manager to execute the project contract on behalf of the City of Petaluma
conditioned on St. Francis Electric LLC timely execution and submission of the project
contract to the City along withall other all required contract documents, including but not
limited to, executed bonds, certificates of insurance and endorsements, in accordance
with the project bid.
4. Directs staff to issue a notice of award to St. Francis Electrical, LLC in accordance with
and including a certified copy of this resolution.
7
Studebaker Brown Electric, Inc.
May 23, 2019
Attachment 2
Protest Letter: City of Petaluma Runway 11-29 Electrical
Improvements Bid 5/22/19 '
Dear City Manager,
Please consider this letter, Studebaker Brown Electric's formal protest of the
apparent low bidder St. Francis Electric's bid proposal.
Sheet PF -22 "DBE Utilization" located in the proposal package must have the
prime contractors DBE Subcontractors listed in order to be considered as a
responsive bidder.
St. Francis Electric failed to list any DBE subcontractors which makes their bid
package non-responsive.
Respectfully submitted,
David Studebaker
Studebaker Brown Electric, Inc.
6643 32nd Street, Suite 106
North Highlands, Ca.95660
0:916-678-4660
F:530-820-9616
daves@studebakerbrownelectric.com
V5
RE: Date: May 24t' 2019
Project: Petaluma Airport Runway 11-29 Electrical Improvements
Bid Opening Date: 5/22/19
Dear Mr. Eichstaedt,
In response to the protest filed by Studebaker Brown (Studebaker) Saint Francis Electric (SFE) would like to
point out the error in logic of Studebaker's protest. SFE utilized Logistical Enterprises (Logistical) to meet
the DBE goal. Logistical is a material supplier of electrical materials as we stated in our DBE documents
and backed up with a quote from Logistical showing the material that they would be supplying.
To be considered a subcontractor they would have to be registered with CSLB and have a contractor's
license. This is not needed for Logistical as they are a material supplier only and thus would not need to be
listed under a subcontractor reporting form.
By Studebaker's logic, if material suppliers needed to be listed under the subcontractor documents then all
bidders would be required to list out every single supplier being utilized on the job that would exceed one
half of one percent of the total bid on PF -12.
Subcontractors are companies that are licensed with CSLB and will be performing actual physical work on
the job. This does not include material suppliers. The Department of transportation (DOT) allows for
material suppliers to count towards the DBE goal for a project so long as only 60% of the total dollar value is
used to meet the goal. We showed this breakdown on the Logistical quote showing that even after the 60%
is applied SFE met the DBE goal.
Per 49 CFR 26.55 - If the materials or supplies are purchased from a DBE regular dealer, count 60 percent of
the cost of the materials or supplies toward DBE goals.
The reason for this 60% is because they are not a subcontractor performing work.
In conclusion, DBE material suppliers do not need to be listed on a subcontractor reporting form as they do
___not_possess-a contractor -license and -are therefore not a -subcontractor. --Per the DOT-; material suppliers can
count towards the DBE goal so long as only 60% of their total is used to meet that goal. Studebaker's protest
holds no merit and award of the contract should be given to St. Francis Electric.
From the desk of Andrew Amador
9
If you have any questions or need further clarifications please do not hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,
Andrew Amid
Vice President
St. Francis Electric
510-566-8094
From the desk of Andrew Amadoa•
Attachment 4
Studebaker Brown Electric, Inc.
May 28, 2019
Response to SFE Letter: City of Petaluma Runway 11-29 Electrical
Improvements Bid 5/22/19
Dear Mr. Eichstaedt,
Paragraph 1,2,4 of SFE's response letter.
SBE respectfully disagrees with SFE's definition of what a subcontractor is.
A subcontractor does not only include licensed contractors it includes the
suppliers who have purchase orders (PO) written to them for the purchase of
materials for specific projects. Once a PO is written and an order is placed, the
supplier now has many of the same legal rights as a licensed subcontractor.
Like the mechanics lien process/stop payment notice process/or payment bond
process.
This is typical in.our industry, especially when payment to the supplier is based off
monthly progress billings.
SBE believes SFE should have recognized that their supplier should have been
listed sheet PF -22 "DBE Utilization Form" because that was what the owner was
requesting.
SBE disagrees with paragraph 3 of SFE's response in its entirety. My protest does
not state that all suppliers should be listed as a subcontractor.
My protest specifically address sheet PF -22 and the fact that no DBE
subcontractors/suppliers were listed on that sheet.
Paragraph 5,6, and 7 explain how DBE supplier purchases are calculated and
count towards goals set by the owners. I don't find this relevant to SBE's protest.
I would like it noted that the proposal package did not instruct the prime bidders
to insert/add miscellaneous documents at bid time. SFE added subcontractor
quotes with handwritten formulas along with copies of certificates.
Page 1B-6 Section 14 specifically states that unauthorized conditions, limitations
or provisos attached to the bid shall render it informal and may cause it's
rejection as being nonresponsive. This would be another reason to disqualify the
apparent low bidder and award the project to the responsive bidder Studebaker
Brown Electric.
Please call/email with any questions or comments.
Respectfully submitted,
David Studebaker
Studebaker Brown Electric, Inc.
6643 32nd Street, Suite 106
North Highlands, Ca.95660
0:916-678-4660
F:530-820-9616
daves@studebakerbrownelectric.com
Q7-
Attachment 5
RE: Date: May 2911' 2019
Project: Petaluma Airport Runway 11-29 Electrical Improvements
Bid Opening Date: 5/22/19
Dear Mr. Eichstaedt,
This letter is in response of Studebaker Brown's (Studebaker) letter dated May 28°i 2019. Studebaker
attempts to argue that a subcontractor is the same thing as a supplier, but this is not the case. Studebaker
argues that a subcontractor who receives a contract to perform work is the same as a supplier who receives a
purchase order for materials, but then goes on to say that not all suppliers need to be listed as subcontractors.
The following excerpts are taken from Studebaker's letter
"A subcontractor does not only include licensed contractors it includes the suppliers who have purchase
orders"
Studebaker then goes on to say
"My protest does not state that all suppliers should be listed as a subcontractor"
Essentially what Studebaker is saying is that they (Studebaker) get to pick and choose who is considered a
subcontractor. In this case they feel it helps their argument to claim that Logistical is the same as a
subcontractor and should be listed under that, but that not all suppliers are subcontractors and thus don't need
to be listed on P-12.
Their argument is laughable as their own letter, contradicts themselves. Studebaker does not have the right to
pick and choose who is considered a subcontractor. It is standard practice on State projects to use DBE
suppliers, but they are not listed as subcontractors on bids to the state. The same applies here.
A supplier is not a subcontractor. Subcontractors have DIR numbers and are registered with CSLB.
Suppliers do not qualify as subcontractors as they do not possess DIR numbers, are not registered with
---CSL-B,-and-do not -perform actual work on the job site. _ - - -
As for their argument that including the supplier quote invalidates our bid, it should be noted that written.
confirmation of a DBE's participation from the DBE is required per NIB -6. The quote from Logistical is
their confirmation of participating in this contract thus including it does not invalidate our bid.
From the desk of Andrew Amador
13
In conclusion, Studebaker's attempt to get the City of Petaluma to pay out an additional $30,000 is
unjustified as they have failed to provide any legitimate argument on why SFE's bid should be considered
nonresponsive. The logic behind their arguments is severely flawed and they have already contradicted their
own argument in their last letter. Award of this contract should proceed to St. Francis Electric as we are the
low responsive bidder.
If you have any questions or need fiirther clarifications, please do not hesitate to contact me. .
Sincere ys--
Andrew Am dopa r
Vice President
St. Francis Electric
510-566-8094
From the desk of Andrew Amador
1q
1
p,ttachment 6
I
a
R
`
0.-
U.
p cn cn
0
U Pi O O
a 4.1
a� O
o
O
0
U
.U-.
�
a
•� �
tUd �C3" U cUd
�
Ory
N
U O U
Ln
Q10 U N
1
cUd O `n O O
`d) y
I
R
QUOTE
LOGISTICAL ENTERPRISES Date:
(SS9) 797-4034Quote# DR052119-PETALUMA MUNICIPAL
Expiration Date: 30 Days
To: St Francis
Ship to: 975 Carden St
San Leandro, CA
Petaluma
Petaluma Municipal Airport
Qty Bid ItemDescription Unit Price Total.
--- --- - —_
LIGHTED X' - S -46,370.00 46,370.00
1 11 -LED L-806 L Style 1-6 Size 1 Wind Cone 3,180.00 $ r6e 3,180.00
$
ILI,
12 21 Electrical Juniction Can L-867 Size D $ 297.00 $ 3,564.00
`-34 22 L-861 R1W Edge Light and Base Can $ 606.00 $ 17,170.00
4 535.00 $ 2, 40.0--
0
L-861 E RNV Threshold Light and Bas -Can $ - - - --- -- . - ---- ?--
$
16 2,,---, 369.00 $ 5,9 4.60
4 L-861 T1W Edge Lightanase Can, ---- - ' T-
$ 7-
12
$ I
12 25 L -861E R1W Thr old Light and Base Can 405.00 $ 4.816 '00
7 -- 26 -- L-858 uidan Sign - and Pad $ 1,885.00 $ -13.1 0-
$
OPTIONAL: L861 Leveltrig Devise $ 975.00 $ 0
OPTIONAL: ConnectorKitand "Hea hrink $ 30.00 $ 30.0
$
Threshold
L'
_Ight an B---�
L-"- "-t- " old Lr
L -MB WL(
0
0
QUOTING BOM AS PROVIDED BY CUSTOMER.--- $ --
$ 97,388.00
Prices are net applicable sales tax. If I can be of further assistance,
please contact me at (559) 392-1124. Thank you .... Dennise Rivera
Thank you for your business!
PO Box 2831 Clovis, CA 93613 811 -A Purvis Clovis, CA 93612 (559) 797-4034
m
91
Skip to Dain Content Back To Query Form (IicenseForm.htm)
SIR iiil!!
Tue May 21 13:22:29 PDT 2019
Query Criteria
Certification Types: DBE
DBA Name: logistical
Firm ID
39438
DBA Name
DBA LOGISTICAL ENTERPRISES
Firm Name
DRIVERA ENTERPRISES, INC
Address Line1
811 -A PURVIS AVE
Address Line2
City
CLOVIS
State
CA
Zip Code1
93612
Zip Code2
Mailing
P.O. BOX 2831
Address Line1
Mailing
Address Line2
Mailing City
CLOVIS
Mailing State
CA
Mailing Zip
93613
Code1
Mailing Zip
Code2
Certification
DBE
Type
EMail
dennise@logisticalenterprises.com
Contact Name
DENNISE RIVERA
Area Code
559
Phone Number
797-4034
Extension
Alt Area Code
559
Alt Phone
392-1124
Number
Extension
Fax Area Code
559
Fax Phone
797-4034
Number
Agency Name
CITY OF FRESNO
Counties
00;
Districts
00;
17
DBE NAICS 423610;
ACDBE NAICS
C8701 BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION; F5060 ELECTRICAL GOODS; F5190 MISC
Work Codes NONDURABLE GOODS; F5090 MISC DURABLE GOODS; 18720 ACCOUNTING, AUDITIN
& BOOKKEEPING; 00686 ELECTRICAL & SIGNALS SUPPLIER;
Licenses
Trucks
Gender
Ethnicity HISPANIC
Firm Type DBE
DBE
LETTER OF INTENT
Name of bidder/offeror's firm: St. Francis Electric, LLC
Address:. 975 Carden street
City: San Leandro
State: CA
Name of DBE firm:
Address: t i) \j t v�-
City: CIO V 1 State: CA
Telephone: 559 - 9 ,1',-
Descrinttnn of work to be performed by DBE firm:
Zip: 94577
Zip:
The bidder/offeror is committed to utilizing the above-named DBE firm for the work described
above. The estimated dollar value of this work, is
AFFIRMATION
The above-named DBE firm affirms that it will perform the portion of the contract for the
estimated dollar value as stated above.
yr
tr ure) (Title)
If the bidder'/offeror does not receive award of the prime contract, any and all
representations in this Letter of Intent and Affirmation shall be null and void.
(Submit this page for each DBE subcontractor within 10 ,jays of request.)
END OF DBE LETTER, OF INTENT
PF -23 DISADVANTAGED BUSINESS ENTERPRISE (DBE) : Letter of Intent
IR