Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report 3.D 01/23/2012 AR�esada/Item#3 p $L U.Lr a aon• t�9 �1�R. 285e, DATE: January 23, 2012 TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council through City Manager FROM: Remleh Scherzinget, P.E. —Interim Director, Water Resources & Conservation SUBJECT: Resolution Approving the Project Budget and Authorizing Award of Contract for the East WashingtonStreet 18"Water Main Replacement (Hwy 101 to Edith Street) RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the.City Council adopt the attached Resolution approving the project • budget:and authorizing award of contract for the East Washington Street 18" Water Main Replacement (Hwy 101 to Edith Street) to Ranger Pipelines, Inc. (Ranger). BACKGROUND This project involves replacingeapproximately 2,700 feet of old and deteriorated 6, 8 and 10-inch cast iron and steel water mains with a new 18-inch water transmission main on East Washington Street between Highway 101 and Edith Street. The project also involves installation of new water services and fire hydrants. The existing water mains are over 70 years=old, are in poor condition, and need to be replaced. Recent failures in these lines have made this a top priority for water main replacement. This project will improve service by reconnecting the eastside and westside water systems and will reduce repair and maintenance costsdue to failure. The project location is shown on Attachment 2. DISCUSSION The Notice Inviting Bids was issued on October 27, 2011. On November 3b, 2011, nine bids were received as follows: Name of-Bidder Bid Total Ranger.Pipelines, Inc. $ 1,414,100 Lowest Responsible Bidder Argonaut,Constructors $ 1,427,710 W.R. Forde, Inc. $ .1,443;146 Mountain Cascade, Inc. $ 1,449;850. Sierra Mountain Construction, Inc. $ 1,565,895 Team Ghilotti, Inc. $ 1,584,349 Agenda Revi City Attorne Finance Director City Manager-�` 1 KJ Woods Construction, Inc. $ 1,648,000 Terra Con Pipelines, Inc. $. 1,896,340 Ghilotti Constriction Co. $ 1,963,530 Engineer's Estimate S 1,781,600* , *The low hid was significantly lower than the Engineer's Estimate and the CIP Budget for construction due town aggressive bidding climate. The lowest responsible bidder, Ranger Pipelines, Inc., has performed similar projects for the Cities of San Jose, San Francisco, and Palo Alto, and the Fire District of Los Gatos. Staff verified that Ranger possesses'a'valid Class A California Contractor's License, license number 417996, which expires on February 28, 2014, that qualifies Ranger to perform the work. A bid protest was submitted by Argonaut Constructors (Argonaut) on December 6, 2012 (see Attachment 2). The bid protest was reviewed, and the City Attorney and the Director have determined that Ranger Pipelines, h c's bid to have a minor non-conformity that can be lawfully waived. Argonaut argued that Ranger failed to provide, in their bid package, two documents which are specifically required in the "Instructions to Bidder's". These were the "Certified Evidence of Bonding Capacity and "Proof of Admitted Surety". In the discussions with the City Attorney, it was felt that these two documents represented no material bidding advantage to Rangers bid over the others and so the other bidding parties were undamaged as a result of the omission. Further, the City Attorney has determined that it is Within the City's ability to waive these two issues given that they presented no bidding advantage to Ranger as a result. Ranger has since provided these documents'to the satisfaction of the City. Itis requested that City Council waive the two conformity'issues and award the contract to Ranger. The project is included in ihe.201''1-2012 C1P (C67401001) for implementation in the current fiscal year. Construction is,scheduled to begin in March of 2012 and is anticipated to be completed by August of 2012.. FINANCIAL IMPACTS The FY 11/12 approved project budget for the East Washington Street 18" Water Main Replacement is $2,089,000, and $108,600 has been expended':to date. The proposed,project budget%isl$2;016,100. The following is a breakdown of the project budget: Contract Phase CIP Budget Award Budget Construction Contract (low bid) $1,500,000 $1,414,100 Design $ 232,000 $ 150,000 CIP Overhead $ 19,000 $ 2,000 Construction Management & Inspection $ 150;000 $ 200,000 Contingency $ 254,000 $ 250,000 TOTAL: $2,155,000 $2,016,100 2 ATTACHMENTS 1. Resolution 2. Argonaut Constructors' bid protest letter dated December 6, 2011 3. City response letter to bid protest dated January l 1, 2012 4. Location Map 3 Attachment 1 RESOLUTION APPROVING THE;PROJECTBUDGET AND AUTHORIZINGAWARD OF CONTRACT FOR.THE EAST WASHINGTON STREET 18" WATER MAIN REPLACEMENT(H WY•1'01 TO EDITH STREET) CITY PROJECT NUMBER C67401•001 WHEREAS, City staff has prepared construction bid documents and advertised for construction of this 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 October 27, 2011, and nine (9)bids were received and opened on November 30, 2011 in accordance with applicable law; and WHEREAS, thelowest responsible bid for the Project was submitted by Ranger Pipelines, Inc. (Ranger) from San Francisco, CA for $1,414,100; and WHEREAS, the bid protest from Argonaut Constructors was reviewed by the City and the minor non-conformity issues havebeen lawfully waived and Ranger has resolved those issues; and WHEREAS, staff has determined that the Contractor's bid'satisfies the bidding requirements for the Project; and WHEREAS, staff has verified that Ranger possesses a valid California Contractor's License, Class A, number 417996 that qualifies Ranger to perform the Project; and WHEREAS, the Project is categorically exempt pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") andTitle 14, the California Code of ReulatiOn ("CEQA Guidelines"), Section 15302, because the project consists,of replacement and reconstruction of existing utility systems and/or facilities involving negligible or no expansion of capacity. NOW; THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City hereby: 1. Approves the amended project budget of$2,016,100. 2. ln'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 Ranger for the East Washington Street 18" Water Main Replacement(Hwy 101 to Edith Street), Project No. C6740100I, finds the bid of $1,414,100 to be the lowest, responsive bid and further finds that Ranger is the lowest responsible bidder. • 3. Awards the contract for the East Washington Street 18" Water Main Replacement (Hwy 101 to Edith Street), Project No. C67401001 to Ranger in the amount of$1,414,100, the amount of the lowest responsive bid, conditioned on Ranger's timely executing the 4 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. 4. Directs staff to issue a notice of award to Ranger. • 5. Authorizes and directs the City Manager to execute the,project contract on behalf of the City of Petaluma upon timely submission by Ranger 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. 5 Attachment 2 • H i M CONSTRUCTORS A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION 1236 CENTRAL AVE P.O.BOX 639 CONTRACTORS.LICENSE NO:171432. SANTA ROSA,CA 95402-0639 TEL:(707)5424862 FAX:(707)542-4897 December 6,2011 City of Petaluma 11 English St. Petaluma,California 94952 Attn.:John C. Brown, City Manager Cc: Remleh Scherzinger, Interim Director-WR&C Re:East Washington St. 18"Water Main Replacement Edith St.to Hwy 101 City Project'#C67401001 Dear Mr. Brown, This letter shall serve,asra formal protest by Argonaut Constructors, Inc. (Argonaut) as to the award Of the contract for the Washington St. 18" Water Main Replacement Edith St. to Hwy 101 project to the second apparent low bidder; Ranger Pipelines, Inc. (Ranger). Argonaut understands that the contract has not been formally awarded and that the,initial apparent low bidder on bid day, November 30th, Bay Pacific Pipelines, has withdrawn their erroneous bid proposal and that Ranger Pipelines, Inc. is the apparent second low bidder with a bid price of$1,414,100.00 and Argonaut is the apparent third low bidder with.a bid price of$1,427,710.00. This protest is based upon.Ranger's failure to comply with submitting the paper work required by the Bid Specifications for the project. 1.) In the INSTRUCTION TO BIDDERS, paragraph 12.1, BIDDING CAPACITY it clearly states"Additionally, Bidder shall provide certified evidence of its current bonding capacity."Ranger did not submit the required Certification from'their bonding company stating their bonding capacity with their bid package. 2.) In the.BID BOND, second page under NOTICE, it clearly states,"Also,verify that Surety is an"Admitted Surety""(i.e.,qualified to do,business in California),'and attach proof of verification.." This required attachment was notpart of Rangers bid proposal package. The City inserts these requirements into the specifications.so,that they may accurately ascertain the competency and resources of the:bidding contractors. We as contractors, in order to be a responsible and responsive bidder, make sure to fill out all required paper work that an Agency may require in order to fulfill our contractual obligation. The issue is whether a bidder is responsible even though they can perform the work. A bid is responsive if it promises"to do what the bidding instructions require. Here, Ranger Pipelines did not have the appropriate;paper work required by the contract documents The bidding instructions and requirements are clear and precise in their language. The failure of Ranger Pipelines to present a compliant bid package should disqualify them from further consideration of award. California law requires a public Agency to adhere to and enforce the rules of engagement it has established for bidding its projects. In that regard, a basic rule of competitive bidding is that bids must conform to the specifications,and that if a bid does not so conform, it may not be accepted. • 6 January 11,2012 For the foregoing reasons,Argonaut respectfully requests that the!City of Petaluma reject the proposal of Ranger Pipelines, Inc.as non-responsive and further requests:thafthe Cityaward the project to Argonaut Constructors as the lowest responsible bidder. If you have any questions, please give me a call at 707-542-4862. Best regards, Stephen Langhals Sr. Estimator Argonaut Constructors Cc: Ranger Pipelines fax:415-822-3703 W.R. Forde&Assoc. fax: 510-215-9867 • o Page 2 7 Attachment 3 4 1 CITY OF PETALUMA a itin may , POST OFFICE,BOX 61 1858 PETALUMA,CA 94953-0061 • David Glass Mayor VIA U.S. MAIL AND FACSIMILE: (707) 542-4897 . Chris Albertson Teresa,Barrett Mike Harris M,, ke Ile ly January 11, 2012 Gabe:Kearney Tiffany:Renee Caunctfiniiubers Stephen Langhals, Senior Estimator Argonaut Constructors 1236 Central Avenue Santa Rosa, California 95402-0639 Re: East Washington Street 18" Water Main Replacement Project Bid Protest Submitted by Argonaut Constructors Dated December 6, 2011 Dear Mr. Langhals: This is in response to the bid protest you submitted on behalf of Argonaut Constructors concerning award,of the East Washington Street 18" Water Main Replacement project ("Project"). In your letter you object to award of the project to Ranger Pipelines, Inc:, the second apparent low bidder on the project. (The apparent low bid of Bay Pacific Pipelines was withdrawn due to bidder error.) You have objected to award of the project to Ranger Pipelines, arguing that Ranger Pipelines did not submit certification of its bonding capacity with its bid, and that Ranger Pipelines did not attach to its bid verification that the Ranger Pipelines' bid bond surety is an admitted surety in California. The City Attorney and staff have concluded that your objections lack merit, and that the Ranger Pipelines bid is responsive and/or that any minor non-conformity in the Ranger Pipelines bid may lawfully be waived. Staff intend to recommend that the.City Council:award the Project contract to Ranger Pipelines at the January 23, Water Resources& 2012 City Council meeting. We discuss each of your objections below. Conservation 202 N.McDowell Boulevard Petaluma,CA 94954 Objection that Ranger Pipelines, Inc., failed to mclude bonding capacity Phone(707)778-4546 certification hi its•bid Fax(707)778-4508 E7Matf Section 12.1 in the Instructions to Bidders, which were included as part of the rim c a)ci.aetaluraa.ca.us Project contract documents,requires that each bid must be accompanied by a list of Ellis week Water projects currently being performed by the bidder. In addition, section 12.1 requires Recycling Facility that bidders-provide certified evidence of their current bonding capacity. 3890 Cypress Drive Petahnna, CA 94954 Phone(707) 776-3777 Fax(707) 776-3746 8 Response to Argonaut Constwctors Bid Protest for E. Washington Water Main Project Page 2 Section 12. 1 clearly requires that current project lists be included in,each bid. Section 12. 1 does not require submission of bonding capacity evidence with the bid. Section 12.1 is silent on when such information must be submitted. Ranger Pipelines has provided the required bonding capacity certification-subsequent to submission of its bid, and the certification complies with Project requirements. Ranger,Pipelines' submission of bonding capacity certification after bid submission created no unfair advantage for Ranger Pipelines. (See Ghilotti Construction Company v. City of Richmond(1996)45 Cal.App.4th 897). Therefore, Ranger Pipelines' submission of bonding.capacitycertification after bid opening was permitted under the Project contract documents and not a basis for treating the Ranger Pipelines bid as non-responsive. Accordingly, this objection of Argonaut Constructors lacks merit. Objection that Ranger Pipelines,Inc.,failed to attach to its bid verification that Ranger Pipelines' bid bond surety is an admitted surety in California A notice contained in the bid bond form included in the Project contract documents, and that bidders were required to use in providing bid security with their bids, directs that bidders should verify the bid bond surety is admitted in California and attach proof of the surety's admitted status. It is true that the Ranger Pipelines bid failed to include verification of the bid bond surety's admitted status. However, as the bid bond form itself indicates, surety status obtained by consulting the California Department of Insurance website. City staff have done so and confirmed that Safeco Insurance Company of America, the surety that executed the Ranger Pipelines bid bond, is an admitted surety insurer in California. It is a convenience that City staff appreciate when bidders attach verification of bid bond sureties' admitted status. However, it is ultimately a duty of City officials to determine the admitted status of sureties providing public works bid security. (See Cal. Pub. Cont. Code § 20170.) Because, as noted, the City's bid bond form directs that bidders attach verification of admitted status to bid bonds, failure to do so could be treated as rendering a bid non responsive. (See Valley Crest Landscape, Inc. v: City!Council of the City.of Davis (1996) 41 Cal.App.4t 1432.) However, such a non-conformity may lawfully be waived by the City. In submitting its bid, Ranger Pipelines was bound;by bidder's security issued by an admitted surety insurer in California. The City and the public were thus fully protected as required by law. (See Cal. Pub. Cont. Code §§20170, 20171). The mere inconvenience to City staff of confirming Safeco's admitted status,did not give Ranger Pipelines an unfair advantage, or make bid comparisons difficult,or discourage bidding on subsequent City projects. (See Ghilotti;Construction Company v. City of Richmond(1996)45 Cal.App.4`ih 89.7). It makes no sense thatadditional public funds in the;amountof $13,610 (the difference between the Ranger Pipelines and Argonaut bid amounts) would be required for the Project merely because City.staff were required to verify the status of the successful-bidder's bid bond surety: The law does not so require. The purpose of the California competitive bidding statutes into protect the public. (See Domar Electric; Inc..v. City of Los Angeles (1994) 9 Cal.4t 161.) Therefore, although a potential basis for deeming the Ranger-Pipelines' bid non responsive, Ranger Pipelines' failure to attach verification of the admitted status of its bid bond surety to the bid bond may lawfully be waived by the City. Staff will recommend that the City Council waive this minor bid nonconformity when the Council takes action on award of the Project. • 9 Response:to Argonaut Constructors')Btd-Protest'for E. Washington-Sgater Main Project Page.3 • Please b&advised that°City staff will recommend that tithe City Council at its January 23, 2012 meeting.,award the Project:contract+to Ranger Plpelines,yIne. as the lowest responsible bidder for the3Project, and..waive any non-confonmties m the9Rangernipelines bid as permitted by law. Sincer :_ .. • e eh' lie roger P Y, Intenjr Director Wate Resources.an. onse .tion;Department•• • ' SAO\WATER\C67401001'E;Wash`mgton,Water Main`.Replacement(Edith to Hwy1 el)\Correspondence\Petaluma-Response.to Argonaut:Constructors Bid=Protest for.East WashmgtonbWateiMain-ProjecfDOCt • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 10 Attachment 4 EAST WASHINGTON STREET WATER MAIN REPLACEMENT PROJECT HWY 101 TO EDITH STREET PROJECT NO. C67401001 LOCATION MAP _r 1 ... . • A .1. . , ,-,...._ f' Project >`:4 I I)•SAIFITh . ' , , f -y \ Si ` r 0 9 L BODEG``4 AVE \ ( ��!`' • Ec�S� \ �9 9 ._ +l. I A... f I . C) t , CRY ma `" .. . I N ` W 4 , W E dc M` S 11