The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutStaff Report 3.F 06/04/2012 Ag-einclaiiteivn/ #3 ,,E. p'Lzr X85€: DATE: June-4; 2012 TO: Honorable;Mayor+and.Members of the City Council through City Manager • FROM Dan St.John, F.ASCE, Director—Public Works and`U ,lities of Larry Zimmer„P.E. --CapitaL_Improvements Division Mana_-r • • SUBJECT: Resolution Approving the Project Budget and Authorizing Award of Contract for the Sonoma MbuntainParkway Rehabilitation Project. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that.the City,Council:adopt'the attached-resolution'approving the project budget and authorizing':awardiof contract for the Sonoma Mountain Parkway Rehabilitation Project to Ghilotti Construction_Company. BACKGROUND On June 21, 2010, by resolution 2010=095, (he City Council authorized staff to apply for the • Federal;Surface Transportation Program(STP) funding for the,proposed rehabilitation of Sonoma Mountain Parkway from Wyndham Way to Riesling-Road. Thescope of the rehabilitation project generally includes grinding off the existing,6-inch asphalt pavement and • replacing with new asphalttpavement, upgrading to ADA compliant.curb ramps, replacing traffic signal loops, adjusting utility covers to,grade, arid're-striping. For the base bid, the rehabilitation starts from Wyndham Way to Campus Circle (south end). For the bid alternate, the rehabilitation starts from Campus Circle(south end)to Riesling Road. Since the low:bid for the base bid'plus,bid alternative:is not within the budget for the City, staff recommends award of the base bid only; Public Works and Utilities Department staffff prepared the bid,documents, and a Notice Inviting Bids_was issued'on March'20, 2012. Four bid's were.received en April 25, 2012, as follows: Agenda Revie. : City Attorn=■ Finance Director City>Mana Base Bid+ Bid, Name of Bidder _ - Base Bid-Amounts Alternate-Amounts Wyndham'to Campus'-Circle Wyndham to Riesling Ghilotti?Construction Co $1,362,059:50. $2,039,226.20 Team Ghilotti, Inc. $1,369,025:00 $2;025,176.70 • Argonaut Constructors $1,492,941.00 $2,212,353.00 Ghilotti;Bros,.Inc. $1,854,353.50 $2,533,620.70 The engineer's:estimates for construction.are $1,263,000.for'tl%&base,bid, and$1,850,000 for the base bid plus,theadditive"bid., With a'bid of$1,362,029.50 for the base=bid, Ghilotti Construction Company is the apparent low bidder. With a bid of$2,025,1761 70,for;the base bid plus bid alternate, Teain Ghilotti, Inc. is the apparent low-bidder for this combination in accordance with the pfoject bid documents and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)°rules for determining the low bidder. Staff has verifierf,that both Ghilotti Construction and Team Ghilotti possess valid California Contractor's Licenses; Class A,number 644515 and 895384 respectively,'which qualify them to perform the project.,Both contractors have satisfactotilyperformed similar work for various public agencies includingthe City of Petaluma. The proposed action meets Council Goal: "Plan for and implement priority capital projects as funding'permits°'. DISCUSSION The low bids for the base and,base plus alternate are higher than estimated in the FY 11-12 CIP budget and the original grant application primarily because the cost-of asphalt has,approximately doubled from June 2010, when theiCity submitted;the grant:application and cost estimate, to April when the+project was,bid.,Inaddition, the grant application wasi'originally based on a visual inspection of the pavement=condition and staff anticipated a'grinding of and replacing three inches of asphalt-concrete for'tlie cost estimate. During design; the City's pavement engineering consultant performed pavement deflection test:and.determined that the underlying asphalt concrete was in pooh condition and complete removal and placement of the.asphalt section is needed. Based on'the increased-unit cost and pavement thickness, staff revised the final design. cost°estimate,in,January-to $1,263,000: Staff considered several ways to bring the project intorbudget. Shortening the:project limits (reduced scope'of work), is not:acceptable to granting agency. Maintaining the original plan of grinding offthree inches leave three inches or less,ofexisting;asphalt. If that remaining asphalt is not structurally sound;as indicated by deflection testing, then'the underlying asphalt may crack or break apart during construction operations. These'cracks'will "reflect"`through to the new concrete. While engineered paving materials can be placed prior to placement of the new layer of asphalt to:resist reflective cracking,-the"three inches of new asphalt would not be able to carry the anticipated load ofthis-heavily traveled road, and'would fail.prematurely. Full 2 replacement°of the•ex sttnwasphalt sections while more costlythan anticipated, will'providethe least:expensive.life cycle cost of this roadway. Street maintenance funds.(Fund 2411) are available:,to meet the City's cost share;estimated;at $635,029. The City's cost share has increased by$473,029'from$162,000 in the current CIP: If the project is awarded as recommended, other streets projectscontemplated for FY 12-13, such as a pavement overlay project, street and traffic light upgrades would be postponed. Funding this project as recommended will rehabilitate this high'volume arterial, rotas a short term fix but a long term solution to the poor roadway condition and, as such, is viewed as the superior alternative. • Staff recommends that Council authorize the City Manager to enter into a contract with the low bidder, Ghilotti Construction,Company, for the base bid only,and approve the revised project budget. Instead of a rovtn the attached resolution,g' ,esolution, Council could consider the following actions: Reject,all bids and•re-bid'because the apparent low bids.for.base, and base plus alternate exceed;the project budget. Awarding the;base'bid plus altetnative'is not a viable•optiorrdue_torinadequate funding. FINANCIAL IMPACTS The following,table show •the current FY 11-12 CIP budget and the proposed revised project budget if the Council,approves staff recommendation to proceed with the Base Bid work, only. Requested Approved Budget by 11-12 CIP • this Budget Federal City Resolution Reimbursement Funds — (Estimated) Planning&'Design $54;500 $7;500 $62,000 $42,000 Connstruction Contract $981,500 $380;529 $1;362,029 $935,000 Construction Management $0 $50;000 $50,000 $84,000* &';Inspection Geotechnical'Testing $0 $20;000 $20;000 Contingency $0 .$13.6;00,0 $136,000 $107,000 ,CIP-;Overhead, $41,000 , $41,000 $30,000 TOTAL $1,036,000 $635;029 $1,671;029 1,198,000 * Listed in201,1,2012'CIP as salaries&benefits. The.estimated total project,cost,including planning;,;design,.construction, administration, inspection,testing, and.project contingency is $1,671,029. The project is funded.by Federal grant reimburserhent in the:amount of$1,036,000, and $635,029 in Street'Maintenance Funds (2411). • 3 ATTACHMENTS 1. Resolution 2. Location,Map I ! 4 Attachment 1 RESOLUTION.APPROVING THE PROJECT BUDGET,AND AUTHORIZING THE AWARD:OF CONTRACT FOR THE SONOMA MOUNTAIN PARKWAY`REHABILITATION,PROJECT TO GHILOTTI CONSTRUCTION COMPANY. WHEREAS, City staff has prepared construction:bid documents and advertised for construction of the;Sonoma Mountain Parkway Rehabilitation Project Wont Wyndham Way to Campus'Circle (south end) (the "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 April 25, 2012, and fourbids•were received and opened in;accordance:with applicable law; and WHEREAS, the lowest bid for the Project was from Ghilotti Construction Company ("GCC") for $15362,029.50;'and WHEREAS, staffhas_de, termined that GCC's bid satisfies the'bidding requirements for the Project; and WHEREAS, staff has verified that GCC possesses a valid California Contractor's • License; Class A, number 644515 that`qualifies GCC to perform the Project; and WHEREAS,,the Project is exempt.pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") pursuant to Title 14,the California Code ofRegulations7("CEQA Guidelines"), fi Section 15301; as the repair and maintenance of existing public facilities. NOW, THEREFORE; BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City hereby: •1. Approves/the Project-Budget in the amount.of$1,671,029'includirig a-contingency of $136;000. 2. In acorn-dance-with the€City ofP,etaluma Charter and Municipal Code, California Public Contract Code Section 20162.and'other applicable=law,waives any and all non- conformance'in'the,bid of GCC for the Sonoma Mountain Parkway Rehabilitation Project,.finds tbe bid of$1,362,029:50 to be the lo_west, responsive bid and further finds that GCC:is the lowest responsible bidder.. 3. Awardsitheicontract for thetSonomaMountain Parkway Rehabilitation Project from • Wyndham Way to Campus Circle (southend)"to Ghilotti Construction Company, in the amount of$1,362,029:50,the amount of the lowest responsive bid, conditioned on 'Caltrans.concurrence of the•award and Ghilotti°Construction Company timely executing 5 the project contract and sutimitting,alltrequired documents,,includingibut not limited to, executed bonds„certificates of insurance, and',endorsements, iii accordance with the project-bid documents. 4. Directs staff to.issue a notice of award to Ghilotti Construction.Company. 5. Authorizes and,directs;the City Manager to execute:the project contract on behalf of the City of Petaluma upon'timely subinisSiorf by Ghilotti Construction Company of the signed projectcontract and all other,required;documents, including but not limited to, eNecutertibonds, certificates of insurance,•and iendorsements,,in accordance with the project bid documents. • • • 6 1 Attachment 2 WYNDHA'M .WAY _'ar-I I !_ 31 it 1C_01__i__ Ba l :Iu 'In gig' i 1111111 0111111 ' , tl Er - n1111nnnea nn mss+ .t . I al na rr ®iRE _ _ . mark," .4411111lid1 11si111wTi1111_ MA_ 111111111111Ij . ■C3 1111 4 2 11■1!e mg �. n.n nm_:Lam. 4� 71 N ''� m O INN Q W: _ . Saw : m Cn �. .t in c �g� .gym " `� n rum in11Gi1i' Z Q �i� P�S 111119e!!l IM, . r rn vow . .. nos, " A = re- �nni�r. a :swig� ,� . �. D 0 G'� O -tin':,''to 1,-.4.. 1101'1.a I rflVfl1 CIA h O O CO D 'K- —+ ,. a1 ■ii C_ L r K S - ' • ■ po pmt m m =i O . t9 ��D • slow' at,\; oa = _1 tyiet 0C) > cC �? . , ��,e r re , -1 -1 —I > Z c snit, it s z? = . a ZZ O D v m o /1 - ` —I — 0 macez: �vtly- m- O •' Z N › tcgr. . _ n (n -0 0 Z C� � � ~ 73 X 13 N p 411111 1D illtlit��el -1 z .w tig4 1, 111 w 11111 0 sp• L;k ;,_iii >* 4 W.4 4%,c Ind O r 1 IT X 3 17 i 13 7a-� 4a A t i —I Z C ;1 ` ate e N N D ru111111111111 um (.p D 0 ym ss3tmN■ g K ets..„ rant? gs , m.n iA r u / /akit 11 ,k b 5 1;20 \, a RIESLING ROAD