The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2009/01/20 Item 3 CITY' cau NCI L AGENDA STATEMENT ~ \ ft.. CITY OF '''::~ (HULA VISTA ITEM TITLE: SUBMITTED BY: REVIEWED BY: 1/20109, Item .3 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COlJNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA ACCEPTING BIDS ANTI AWARDING CONTRACT FOR THE "PALOMAR GATEWAY COJ'vlNflJi\'lTY TRA1"iSIT AREA PROJECT FOR PALOMAR STREET At'ID INDUSTRL'\L BOULEVARD IN THE CITY OF CHULA VTST A, CALIFORNIA, CTP NlJlYlBER: STL-280, FEDERAL PROJECT NUi'vlBER: RPSTPLE - 5203 (022),At"iD CALTRANS EA NLwlBER.: 11-212874 L" PROJECT TO HILLCREST CONTRACTING, INe. IN THE At\10UNT OF $1,606,789.30 At'ID AUTHORIZING THE EXPEND~TU' OF ALL AVAILABLE FUNDS IN THE PROJECT , DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS , ASSISTAt"iT CIT~M N GER CITY MANAGER 4/STHS VOTE: YES 0 NO [g] S UMlYlARY On December 24, 2008, the City received thirteen (13) sealed bids for the "Palomar Gateway Community Transit Area Project for Palomar Street and Industrial Boulevard in the City of Chula Vista, California (STL280)" project. This project will improve a major entrance to the southwestern area of the City. In addition, this project will beautify the Community Transit Area on industrial Boulevard and Palomar Street by the addition of visual enhancements, including area landscaping, parkways, and medians. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The Enviromnental Review Coordinator has reviewed the proposed project for compliance with the California Enviromnental Quality Act and has determined that the project qualifies for a Class 1 categorical exemption pursuant to Section 15301(c) (Existing Facilities) of the State CEQA Guidelines because the project involves no expansion of an existing street use. Thus, no further enviromnental review is necessary. in addition, the Enviromnental Review Coordinator has reviewed the proposed project for compliance with the National Enviromnental Policy Act (i'iEPA) and has determined in conjunction with the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) that the proposed project qualifies for a Programmatic Categorical Exclusion pursuant to NEPA Guidelines as implemented by the US Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration. Thus, no further environmental review is necessary. 3-1 I I I I I I I I , ! I I I il Ii 1/20/09, Iteml Page 2 of 5 RECOMMENDATION Council adopt the resolution BOARDS/COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION Not applicable. DISCUSSION On February 14, 2006, by Resolution No. 2006-044, Council accepted a grant from SANDAG's Pilot Smart Growth Incentive Program to enhance the Palomar Gateway' District Streetscape at Palomar Street and Industrial Boulevard. This project can be viewed as the initial phase of a larger development strategy to guide the development for the Palomar Gateway district neighborhoods identified in the General Plan Update and is a significant investment in the Southwest Chula Vista community. During the early and middle design phases of the project, City staff met on three occasions with the community to discuss various aspects of the project, obtain their input, understand their concerns, and incorporate that input where possible. Dates and summaries of each meeting are as follow: . October 6, 2005, Harborside Elementary School -- The primary purpose of this meeting was to discuss the "Pumpkin Patch" development project, but the Palomar Gateway was also discussed. In general, members of the community expressed concerns about traffic congestion and intersection traffic safety. Staff feels that the project design -- including enhanced crosswalks, a traffic circle, installation of medians, etc. -- appropriately. addresses these concerns. . September 28, 2006, Harborside Elementary School - This meeting also discussed both the Pumpkin Patch and the Palomar Gateway project; a PowerPoint presentation was given on Palomar Gateway. Citizens expressed concerns about traffic congestion, lack of landscaping, the need to widen the 1-5 overcrossing, and the difficulty in making left turns at Frontage Road and Palomar Street during peak traffic hours. The project will provide enhanced landscaping and incorporate traffic calming measures to improve safety. Staff explained that the project's scope, as approved by SANDAG and the California Transportation Commission, did not include the freeway overcrossing or signal improvements at Frontage Road; future development in the area, such as the Pumpkin Patch project, will require the installation of a traffic signal at Frontage Road and Palomar Street. An 1-5 corridor study by the City and SAJ.'lDAG will address the ultimate requirements for the bridge overcrossing. . November 7, 2007, Templo Ebeneezer - This project specifically discussed Palomar Gateway and a PowerPoint presentation was also given. The full project and landscaping concepts were presented at this meeting. The landscaping concept was generally supported by the community, except for 50-feet high poles with blue lights on top that were intended to draw freeway users to the area; therefore, this design feature was eliminated from the project plans. The other issue involved the construciion of a raised median that will prohibit left turns at Trenton Avenue; one resident of Trenton Street opposed the median, but it remains in the project due to significant safety concerns. 3-2 1/20/09, Item--3- Page 3 of 5 The project will promote development efficiency and encourage the use of local and regional transportation by enhancing pedestrian access to the existing transit station at Palomar Street and Industrial Boulevard. Project improvements include landscaped parkways and travel ways, installation of bikeways and pedestrian-level lighting, a new drop-off lane for the City's transit passengers, as well as a beautified traffic roundabout, which will also serve to calm traffic in the area. On July 24, 2008, the funds for this project were allocated by the California Transportation Commission (CTC) with a requirement to award the constmction contract within six months (January 24, 2009). Due to State cash flow issues, the City did not receive authorization from Caltrans to proceed with advertisement of the project until November 14, 2008; the project was advertised on November 28, 2008. On December 24, 2008, the City received thirteen (13) bids for the project. All proposals were contingent upon a base bid submittal and submittals of required Federal, State, and local documentation. Staff carefully analyzed the thirteen (13) bids submitted. The bids from the thirteen (13) contractors, as well as any noted discrepancies, are as follows: CONTRACTOR SUBMITT AL TOTAL RESULTS SUBMITTED 3D Enterprises, Inc., i\rlisslng signed 1 San Diego, CA documents pg. 13; 15 $1,563.818.00 & siened addendum Palm Engineering, Inc., Mathematical errors $1.591,186.50 2 Actual bid sum: San Diego, CA $1,590,988.50 offby $198.00 3 I Hillcrest Contracting, Inc., All requirements met $1,606,789.30 Corona, CA Portillo Concrete, Inc., Nlissing signed 4 San Diego, CA documents: No signed $1,693,310.00 Fed. documents 5 I L. B. Civil Construction, Inc., All requirements met I $1,724,46245 San Diego, CA HT A Engineering and Construction, Inc., Mathematical errors I $1,730.297.80 6 Actual bid sum: Po way, CA $1,731,797.80 I offby $1,000.00 7 Elite Landscaping, Inc., All requirements met $1,755,027.00 Clovis, CA 8 Western Rim Constructors, Inc., Mathematical errors $1,794,000.00 Escondido, CA Rounded numbers UD Hazard Construction Company, Inc., Missing signed 9 documents: Did not $1,860,642.50 San Diego, CA submit pao-e 13, 15 10 Landmark Site Contractors, Inc., All requirements met $1,868,151.00 Perris, CA 11 Scheidel Contracting and Engineering. lnc., Mathematical errors $1,890,313.50 La Mesa. CA No Fed doc signed 12 I Heffler Company. Inc., Mathematical errors $1,915,538,81 National City, CA 13 West Coast General Corporation, All requirements met $1,997,891.78 Poway, CA 3:-3 I ,., 1/20/09, Item2- Page 4 of 5 I :1 , I , I I The apparent low bid proposal in the amount of $1,563,818.00 was submitted by 3D Enterprises, Inc. San Diego, California. During the review of the bid proposal, staff found that 3D Enterprises had submitted an incomplete bid. DBE forms and contract addenda were not submitted. Because the bid package submitted by 3D Enterprises is incomplete, the bid specifications renders its bid non-responsive and staff, therefore, recommends that 3D Enterprises bid be rejected. Staff then reviewed the apparent second low bid proposal in the amount of $1,591,186.50, submitted by Palm Engineering, Inc., San Diego, California. During review of Palm Engineering's bid proposal, staff found that the contractor had incorrectly summed the bid items. The bid documents for this project state that "...proposals may be rejecred ifrhey show any alterations of form, additions not called for, conditional or alternarive bids. incomvlete bids, erasures, or irre'Zularities of any kind (emphasis added). Because the error made by Palm Engineering, Inc is clerical in nature, Palm Engineering, Inc. would be able to withdraw its bid without forfeiting its bid bond. The failure of Palm Engineering, Inc" to properly respond to the bid specifications renders its bid non-responsive and staff, therefore, recommends that Palm Engineering, lnc.'s bid be rejected. In addition, staff also does not consider Palm Engineering to be a responsible bidder under California Public Contract Code. section 1103 because its principals have previously prosecuted work on behalf of the City of ChLlla Vista that resulted in cost ovemms and litigation. The third low bid proposal submitted by Hillcrest Contracting, Inc., Corona, CA met all of the requirements stated within the contract documents and in Addendum 1. Hillcrest Contracting, Inc.'s submitted bid of $1,606,78930 is $284,531.70 (15%) below the Engineer's estimate of $1,891,321. The Engineer's estimate was based on average prices for similar types of work completed during the last two years. This Contractor has hot done any work previously for the City; however, staff conducted a detailed reference check and all references were satisfactory. After reviewing all submitted bids, and based upon Federal, State, and local contracting guidelines, staff recommends awarding a contract in the amount of $1,606,789.30 to Hillcrest Contracting, Inc., Corona, CA. The Contractor's License Number is 471664 and is current and active. Also for consideration is the authority of the Director of Public Works to approve change orders over and above existing policy limits. Under City Council Policy No. 574-01, if an individual chancre order causes the cumulative increase in change orders to exceed the Director's authoritv c '"' ~ ("Maximum Aggregate Increase in Change Orders"), then City Council approval is required. The contract amount for the subject project is $1,606,789.30. The corresponding maximum aggregate contract increase that may be approved by the Director of Public Works under Policy No. 574-01 is $103,339.45. Approval of tonight's resolution will increase the Director of Public Works' authority to approve change orders as necessary up to the contingency amount of $200,000, an increase of $96,660.55 and will authorize staff to expend all available contingencies and to increase the value of the contract, as necessary, as a result of unforeseeable conditions and unit quantity adjustments. Unforeseen conditions include such items as utility conflicts, hazardous materials, unexpected underground conflicts, etc. . If the contingency funds are not used, then they will be returned to the proj ect fund balance. Wage Statement The contractors who bid on this project are required to pay prevailing wages to persons employed by them for the work performed under this project. A "Notice to Contractors" was sent to various trade publications in order to encourage disadvantaged businesses to bid on the 3-4 ':1.. 1120/09, Item~ Page 5 of 5 project The wage decision number and lock in dates is General Decision Number CA20080001, Modification Number 16, Publication Date 12/05/2008. Disclosure Statement Attached is a copy of the Contractor's Disclosure Statement (Attachment 1). DECISION MAKER CONFLICT Staff has reviewed the property holdings of the City Council and has found no property holdings within 500 feet of the boundaries of the properties which are the subject ofthis action. FISCAL IMPACT The majority of construction (89.53 %) is covered by the grant received from SA..l\!DAG. The rest of the construction (11.47%) and all the soft costs (survey, design, ROW, environmental, engineering) have been covered by other funds. . The money from this grant will be reimbursed to the City as payments are made to the Contractor. To mitigate any cash flow deficiencies, it is staffs intent to request reimbursement on a bi-monthly basis during construction. The budget breakdown and costs follow: FUNDS REQUIRED FOR GONSTRUGITON A. Contract Amount $ 1,606,789.30 B. Continaencies 12% $ 200,00000 C. Utility Relocation $ 90,000.00 D. StatTeosts Survey, Design, ROW, Environmental, Administration 26% $ 475,00000 Construction Inspection and Engineerincr 14% $ 247,000.00 TOTAL $ 2,618,789.30 FUNDS AVAILABLE FOR CONSTRUCTION A. Gas Tax $ 200,000.00 B. Trans Sales Tax $ 200,000.00 C. Transit Cap $ 50,000.00 D. So. WestlTwn Ct $ 500,000.00 E. Trans Partner Fd $ 125,000.00 F. Transportation Enhancement (TE) Federal/State Grant $ 2,000,000.00 TOTAL $ 3,075,000.00 Upon completion of the project, the improvements will require only routine City open space mamtenance. ATT ACHiVIENTS 1. Contractor's Disclosure Statement Prepared by: Roberto Yano. Sr. Civil Engineer, Department afPublic Works M:\Genera\ Services\GS Administration\COllllcil Agenda\STL280 Polormar G:Hewoy\STL280 A 113 Polom<lr Gatew<lY 0 I 202009 r6_doc 3-5 RESOLUTION NO. 2009- RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF . CHULA VISTA ACCEPTING BIDS AND AWARDING CONTRACT FOR THE "PALOMAR GATEWAY COMMUNITY TRANSIT AREA PROJECT FOR PALOMAR STREET AND INDUSTRIAL BOULEVARD IN THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORt'JIA, CIP NUMBER: STL-280, FEDERAL PROJECT NUMBER: RPSTPLE - 5203 (022), AND CALTRAt'lS EA NUwillER: 11-212874 L" PROJECT TO HILLCREST CONTRACTING, INe. IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,606,789.30 AND AUTHORIZING THE EXPENDITURE OF ALL A V AILABLE FUNDS IN THE PROJECT WHEREAS, this project will beautify the Community Transit Area on Industrial Boulevard and Palomar Street by the addition of visual enhancements in the area landscape, parkways and medians; and WHEREAS, the project will include all labor, materials, equipment, transportation, protection of existing improvements and traffic control necessary for the project and other work necessary to render the new improvements complete and workable; and WHEREAS, the City received thirteen (13) sealed bids for the "Palomar Gateway Community Transit Area Project for Palomar Street and Industrial Boulevard in the City of Chula Vista, California (STL280)" project; and WHEREAS, the bids are as follows: CONTRACTOR SUBiVUTTAL TOTAL I RESULTS . SUBMITTED 3D Enterprises, Inc. Missing signed I San Diego, CA documents pg. 13, 15 $1,563,8]8.00 & signed addendum Palm Engineering; Inc., Mathematical errors $1,591,186.50 2 Actual Bid Sum: San Diego, CA $1,590,988.50 off by $198.00 " Hillcrest Contracting, Inc., All requirements met $1,606,789.30 0 Corona, CA Portillo Concrete, Inc., Missing signed 4 San Diego, CA documents: No signed $1,693,310.00 Fed. documents 5 L. B. Civil Construction, Inc., All requirements met $1,724,462.45 San Diego, CA J:\Attomey\Ff!"AL RES0S\20a9\OI 2Q09\Resal STL280 Rev OI-20-09REV VLdoc 3 _ 6 Resolution No. 2009- Page 2 Ii I HT A Engineering and Construction, Inc., Mathematical errors $1,730,297.80 6 Actual bid sum: Poway, CA $1,731,297.80 off by $1,000.00 7 Elite Landscaping, Inc., All requirements met $1,755,027.00 Clovis, CA 8 Western Rim Constructors, Inc., Mathematical errors $1,794,000.00 Escondida, CA Rounded numbers up Hazard Construction Company, [nc., Missing signed 9 San Diego, CA Documents: did not $1,860,642.50 submit pacre 13, 15 10 Landmark Site Contractors, Inc., All requirements met $1,868,151.00 Perris, CA 11 Scheidel Contracting and Engineering, Inc., Mathematical errors $1,890,313.50 La Mesa, CA No Fed doc signed 12 Heffler Company, Inc. Mathematical errors $1,915,538,81 National City, CA 13 West Coast General Corporation, All requirements met $1,997,891.78 Poway, CA WHEREAS, the apparent low bid proposal in the amount of $1,563,818.00 was submitted by 3D Enterprises, Inc. San Diego, CA. During the review of the bid proposal, staff found that 3D Enterprises had submitted an incomplete bid. DBE forms and contract addenda were not submitted; and WHEREAS, the bid package submitted by 3D Enterprises is incomplete, the bid specifications renders its bid non-responsive and staff therefore recommends that 3D Enterprises bid be rejected; and WHEREAS, the apparent second low bid proposal in the amount of $1,591,186.50, submitted by Palm Engineering, Inc., San Diego, CA. During review of Palm Engineering's bid proposal, staff found that the contractor had incorrectly summed the bid items; and WHEREAS, the failure of Palm Engineering, Inc. to properly respond to the bid specifications renders its bid non-responsive and staff, therefore, recommends that Palm Engineering, lnc.'s bid be rejected; and WHEREAS, staff also does not consider Palm Engineering, Inc. to be a responsible bidder under Cal. Public Contract Code section II 03 because its principals have previously prosecuted work on behalf of the City of Chula Vista that resulted in cost overruns and litigation and recommends that Palm Engineering, lnc.'s bid also be rejected on this basis in addition to the above; and J:\Anomcy\FINAL RESQS\2009\Ol 20 09IRcsol ST~280 Rev OI-20-09REVVl.doc 3 _ 7 Resolution No. 2009- Page 3 WHEREAS, staff has reviewed the third low bidder's document and found no discrepancies with Hillcrest Contracting, Inc. bid package, and the Contractor's License Number is 471664 and is current and active; and WHEREAS, staff reviewed the reference of Hillcrest Contracting, [nc., and found their work satisfactory; and WHEREAS, the low bid submitted by Hillcrest Contracting, Inc., Corona, CA is below the Engineer's estimate 01'$1,891,321.00 by $284,531.70, or approximately 15%; and WHEREAS, staff is recommending awarding the contract to Hillcrest Contracting, Inc. of Corona, CA in the amount 01'$1,606,789.30; and WHEREAS, the contractors who bid on this project are required to pay prevailing wages; and WHEREAS, the wage decision number and lock in dates is General Decision Number CA20080001, Modification Number 16, Publication Date 12/05/2008; and WHEREAS, approval of tonight's resolution will increase the Director of Public Works authority to approve change orders as necessary and authorizing the expenditure of all available funds in the project. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Chula Vista accept bids and award contract for the "Palomar Gateway Community Transit Area Project for Palomar Street and Industrial Boulevard in the City of Chula Vista, California (STL280)" Project to Hillcrest Contracting, Inc. in the amount of $1,606,789.30 and authorize the expenditure of all available funds in the project. Presented by . Approved as to form by Richard A. Hopkins Director of Public Works ~ 4-~~ art C. Miesf " City Attorney D - C> 'Zr(.,7~r C <,{ . J:\Attomcy\FINAL RESOS\2009\OI 20 09\Rcso\ STL2S0 Rev OI-20-09REV VLdoc 3 - 8