HomeMy WebLinkAboutResolution 2021-191 N.C.S. 12/06/2021Resolution No. 2021-191 N.C.S. 1
Resolution No. 2021-191 N.C.S.
of the City of Petaluma, California
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING AWARD OF CONTRACT FOR THE LUCCHESI TURF FIELD PROJECT: LED LIGHTING UPGRADE TO SACTOWN CONTRACTORS CORP. DC ELECTRICS GROUP INC.’S BID PROTEST
WHEREAS, City staff has prepared construction bid documents and advertised for
construction for the Lucchesi Turf Field Project: LED Lighting Upgrade, Project Number:
C16501412 (“Project”); and
WHEREAS, in accordance with the City of Petaluma Charter and Municipal Code,
California Public Contract Code Section 20162 and other applicable law, City staff solicited bids
for the Project; and WHEREAS, the Project was bid on September 23, 2021, and three (3) bids were received and opened on October 14, 2021, in accordance with applicable law; and
WHEREAS, the lowest responsible base bid for the Project was submitted by SacTown Contractors Corp. (“SacTown”), from Antelope, CA for $59,010.00 with a bid alternate #1 of $33,600.00 for a total bid of $92,610.00; and
WHEREAS, a contingency of $15,000 is added to the contractor’s estimate and results in a
total budgeted contract cost of $107,610.00; and WHEREAS, on October 21, 2021, DC Electric Group, Inc. (“DC Electric”), the second lowest bidder filed a protest of SacTown Contractor’s bid, protest letter is attached to the staff
report as Exhibit 2; and
WHEREAS, DC Electric’s protest letter alleges that SacTown’s bid was unresponsive as: 1. SacTown included a photometric design not within the Description of Work’s specifications of an “average foot-candle across the field within the
range of 30 to 50 footcandles”.
2. SacTown did not email their bids by 2:00 PM on Thursday October 14, 2021, to the City Clerk as directed in Addendum No. 1; and 3. SacTown did not sign Addendum No. 1; and
WHEREAS, in Section 18 of the Notice Inviting Bids document: the City expressly reserves
its rights to evaluate bid compliance and to waive minor bidding errors:
“The City reserves the right to reject any or all bids, to waive any minor
irregularity in a bid, and to make awards to the lowest responsive,
responsible bidder as it may best serve the interest of the City; and
DocuSign Envelope ID: F80A98FE-F9EB-4729-BA95-2D283BAB1CDE
Resolution No. 2021-191 N.C.S. 2
WHEREAS, a public entities discretion to waive inconsequential informalities
or Irregularities, is well-established under California law: “[I]t is further well-
established that a bid which substantially conforms to a call for bids may, though it is
not strictly responsive, be accepted if the variance cannot have affected the amount
of the bid or given the bidder an advantage or benefit not allowed other bidders or, in
other words, if the variance is inconsequential.” (Bay Cities Paving & Grading, Inc.
v. City of San Leandro (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 1181, 1188 (“Bay Cities”); and
WHEREAS, in general, issues of responsiveness are determined by looking exclusively at
the face of the bid, (Great West Contractors, Inc. v. Irvine Unif. Sch. Dist. (2010) 187
Cal.App.4th 1425, 1453) and therefore, allegations that go beyond the face of the bid are
generally not relevant for determining responsiveness.
WHEREAS, allegations of non-responsiveness must be evaluated from a practical, rather
than speculative or hyper-technical perspective, and based on the public interest:
“They must also be viewed in light of the public interest, rather than the private
interest of a disappointed bidder. It certainly would amount to a disservice to the
public if a losing bidder were to be permitted to comb through the bid
proposal...of the low bidder after the fact, [and] cancel the low bid on minor
technicalities, with the hope of securing acceptance of his, a higher bid. Such
construction would be adverse to the best interests of the public and contrary to
public policy.” (Bay Cities, supra, at 1189; internal quotation marks omitted.)
WHEREAS, as explained in the Protest Response Letter, attached to the staff report as
attachment three the protest lacks merit as they did not provide an advantage to SacTown nor is
there any evidence that it disadvantaged DC Electric or the other bidders; and
WHEREAS, in response to DC Electric’s first allegation that SacTown’s bid did not comply
with the Description of Work, the Description of Work, states that a new lighting system “will
need to be designed” but nowhere in the bid documents does it state that that the bidders needed
to provide this design with the submitted bid for which SacTown complied with by providing a
cost to accomplish this design, which SacTown may accomplish after the awarding of the bid; and
WHEREAS, alternatively in response to DC Electric’s first allegation, SacTown did provide
a design, attached as Exhibit 1 to the Protest Response Letter, averaging 31.8 footcandles “across
the field” which is within the range of 30 to 50 fc stated in the Description of Work; and
WHEREAS, in response to DC Electric’s second allegation that SacTown did not email their
bids by 2:00 PM on Thursday October 14, 2021, to the City Clerk as directed in Addendum No.
1, SacTown did FedEx sealed bids in accordance with Section 2 of the of Addendum 1 by p.m.
on Thursday October 14, 2021. (See FedEx Receipt attached as Exhibit 2 to the Protest Response
Letter), Sactown’s FedExed bids were sealed, received timely, and not opened until the
designated opening of the bids; and
DocuSign Envelope ID: F80A98FE-F9EB-4729-BA95-2D283BAB1CDE
Resolution No. 2021-191 N.C.S. 3
WHEREAS, SacTown timely FedExing their bid as opposed to emailing their bid is an
inconsequential error as it did not provide Sactown an advantage nor is there any evidence that it
presented a disadvantage to any of the other bidders; and
WHEREAS, additionally, the City is not required to look beyond the face of Basic’s bid to
determine its responsiveness and determining whether a bid was emailed or FedExed is outside
the face of the bid; and
WHEREAS, in response to DC Electric’s second allegation that SacTown did not sign
Addendum No. 1, is an immaterial variance as it did not provide SacTown an advantage nor is
there any evidence that this disadvantaged any of the other bidders as the purpose of signing the
Addendum No. 1 was just to acknowledge receipt of the addendum; and
WHEREAS, accordingly, the bid submitted by SacTown Contractors Corp. was found by
staff to be fair and reasonable and satisfies the bidding requirements for the Project; and
WHEREAS, the Project is categorically exempt pursuant to California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA) and Title 14, the California Code of Regulations (“CEQA” Guidelines”),
Section 15302, because the Project consists of replacement and reconstruction of existing
lighting systems and/or facilities involving negligible or no expansion of capacity and there are
no cumulative impacts, unusual circumstances or other factors that would make the exemption
inapplicable pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15300.2; and
WHEREAS, staff has verified that SacTown Contractors Corp. possesses a valid California
Contractor’s License, Class C-10 (Electrical Contractor), number 1050461 that qualifies
Contractor to perform the Project; and
WHEREAS, the FY 21/22 CIP budget is sufficient to complete the project as bid. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Petaluma hereby:
1. Declares that the above recitals are true and accurate and are incorporated into this resolution as findings of the City Council. 2. Finds that the proposed action is categorically exempt pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and Title 14, the California Code of Regulations
(“CEQA” Guidelines”), Section 15302, because the Project consists of replacement and reconstruction of existing lighting systems and/or facilities involving negligible or no expansion of capacity and there are no cumulative impacts, unusual circumstances or other factors that would make the exemption inapplicable pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15300.2.
3. Finds that DC Electric’s bid protest lacks merit and rejects DC Electric’s bid protest as:
DocuSign Envelope ID: F80A98FE-F9EB-4729-BA95-2D283BAB1CDE
Resolution No. 2021-191 N.C.S. 4
a. SacTown did not need to submit a design of the photometrics with SacTown’s bid, and alternatively if required, SacTown’s design is within the specifications stated in
the Notice Inviting Bids; and
b. SacTown FedExing their bid as opposed to emailing their bid did not provide an advantage to SacTown, nor did it disadvantage any of the other bidders and this variance cannot be seen on the face of SacTown’s bid documents; and c. SacTown not singing Addendum No. 1, did not provide an advantage to them nor is
there any evidence that it disadvantages the other bidders.
4. Approves the project budget for the Lucchesi Turf Field Project: LED Lighting Upgrade, Project Number: C16501412. 5. 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 SacTown Contractors Corp. for the Lucchesi Turf Field
Project: LED Lighting Upgrade, Project Number: C16501412, finds that SacTown Contractors Corp., is the lowest responsible bidder with a base bid of $59,010.00 with a bid alternate #1 of $33,600.00 for a total bid of $92,610.00. 6. Awards the contract for the Lucchesi Turf Field Project: LED Lighting Upgrade, Project
Number: C16501412 to SacTown Contractors Corp., in the amount of $92,610.00, the
amount of the lowest responsive bid, conditioned on SacTown Contractors Corp.’s timely executing the project contract and submitting all required documents, including but not limited to, executed bonds, certificates of insurance, and endorsements, in accordance with the project bid documents.
7. Authorizes and directs the City Manager to execute the project contract on behalf of the
City of Petaluma upon timely submission by SacTown Contractors Corp., of the signed project contract and all other required document, including but not limited to, executed bonds, certificates of insurance, and endorsements, in accordance with the project bid documents.
8. Approves a construction contract contingency of $15,000.
Under the power and authority conferred upon this Council by the Charter of said City.
REFERENCE: I hereby certify the foregoing Resolution was introduced and
adopted by the Council of the City of Petaluma at a Regular meeting
on the 6th day of December 2021, by the following vote:
Approved as to
form:
__________________________
City Attorney
AYES: Mayor Barrett; Fischer; Healy; King; McDonnell; Pocekay
NOES: Vice Mayor Barnacle
ABSENT: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
ATTEST: ______________________________________________
City Clerk
______________________________________________
Mayor
DocuSign Envelope ID: F80A98FE-F9EB-4729-BA95-2D283BAB1CDE