Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Statement 1980/09/02 Item 8 COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT Item 8' Meeting Date 9-2-80 ITEM TITLE: Resolution/,",?~ Rejecting bids for the maintenance of Town Centre No.1 Street Lighting and Landscaping District No. 1980-81 and determining per Section 1009 of the City Charter that this project shall be exempted from the provisions of that section of the... C~ Y Charter SUBMITTED BY: Ci ty Eng ineer I.Tfv (4/5ths Vote: Yes~No_) Director of Community Development On June 17, 1980, Council awarded the maintenance contract for this district to Mazon, Inc. of Torrance California. Due to the default on the part of Mazon to enter into the contract, on July 24 Council directed staff to readvertise for bids. On August 13, bids were received by the City Engineer for the maintenance of the landscaping on Th i rd Avenue between "E" and II P" Street. It is my RECOMMENDATION: That Council approve the resolution rejecting bids for the contract maintenance and determine that the maintenance should be performed by City forces. BOARD/COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: The Town Centre project Area Committee recommends that the project be continued to be maintained by the part- time contract employee presently maintaining the district.. DISCUSSION: The bid proposal was based upon a lump sum amount for the maintenance of the landscaping and street furniture. There was an additive item for painting of the ironworks for the benches and tree guards. The results of the bids are as follows: Contractor LANDSCAPE MAINTE- NANCE LUMP SUM PAINTING OF METAL WORK EA. APPLICATION TOTAL WITH 1 PAINTING APPLICATION Ca1scape, Inc. C.A. Redden A.E. Rodriguez $11,030 10,866 8,500 $ 375 1,112 7,496 $11,405 11,978 15,996 It is intended by the Landscape Architect that the metal work will be painted at least once during the contract period and probably twice. The low bidder would be the same whether the grates were painted once or twice. Using the alternative of painting the grates once, the low bidder would be Calscape, Inc. in the amount of $11,405. In order to award this contract to Ca1scape, Inc. the expenditure account 5298 (Other Contractual Services) for the maintenance district /ozf/& Form A-113 (Rev. 11/79) Page 2, Item Meeting Date 8 9/2/80 would need to be increased by an additional appropriation of $2,500. Because of the increased costs to the maintenance district and the fact that the assessments have already been spread based upon the original Mazon contract, we looked at other alternatives to providing the maintenance for the district. On an emergency basis, for the last 6 weeks a contract employee has been maintaining the district. He is doing an excellent job and the Town Centre project Area Committee and City staff are very satisfied with the work he has accomplished. Total costs for his services are slightly over $600.00 per month or $7,200 annually. Below are the advantages and disadvantages of rejecting the bids and instead, having the district maintained by a contract employee. Advantages: 1. During the period of the contract the labor cost for the contract employee would be approximately $6,000 whereby the total cost for the contractor would be approximately $11,500. The difference would not be that great because the City would be required to provide paint for painting the metal work and certain fertilizers, tools, and brooms for maintenance supplies. However, we estimate the total cost for these supplies would be less than $1,500. 2. In 0 rder to awa rd the con tr ac t f the Ci ty wo uld need to appropriate an additional $2,500 from the unapproriated balance of the maintenance district proceeds. The district presently is very tight financially and the district would not be able to pay back the City for previous expenses until a later date, were we to award the contract. 3. We have an experience record of six weeks with the present contract employee and are very satisfied with his work. The quality of work by Calscape, Inc. at this point is unknown. Although, we have no reason to believe that Calscape's work would be inferior, the point is that the contract employee will do a good job. 4. It's anticipated in the next fiscal year, as the beautification project is extended between "F" and "G", that there will be enough work for a full time Town Gardener. We were originally intending on studying this alternative for the district during next fiscal year. This provides us the opportu- nity to evaluate this alternative for one year. Disadvantages: 1. We have advertised for bids with the intention of awarding the bid to the lowest contractor for the project. Rejecting the bids, in the eyes of the contractor, would certainly not be in his best interest. ID z l(~ Page 3, Item Meeting Date 8 9-2-80 2. We have no guarantee that the current employee will continue with the City for the remainder of the contract period. Whereas, with the contract, the contractor would suffer financially if he were to not complete the contract. The City's Landscape Architect is convinced that the present contract employee will continue throughout the contract period. The City Council, did in good faith, originally advertise this contract and award it to the lowest bidder. Based upon that, the assessment spread was made for the district in order to receive a fixed amount of revenues for next year. Since the contractor would not complete the contract documents the City was in the predicament of finding another way of maintaining the maintenance district and/or readvertising. It is my recommendation that: 1. Since we have experienced excellent work from the current contract employee, 2. Since the cost to do the work by a contract employee is significantly less than by a licensed contractor, and 3. Since the district really cannot afford financially to award the contract: That bids be rejected for this district per Section 1009 of the City Charter. The City Manager, based upon the above information and actual contract costs, recommends that this project be exempted from the requirements of Section 1009 of the City Charter and that the Council declare and determine that the work can be performed more economically by the City with its own contract employee. We plan to locate the contract employee in the Community Development department and be supervised by the Landscape Architect. FISCAL IMPACT: ALTERNATIVES COST AMOUNT AVAILABLE ACCT. 575-5298 BALANCE 1. Award contract $11,405 $9,470 -$1,935 2. Contract employee Supplies 6,000 1,500 $7,500 9,470 +$1,970 /07.A~ . -,' '-'.C- '_u,. 1 ~ ~ ~" .- i~ - ... ~ t . - I ~ ',' f.. ;1 -$'8 d ~ .J., .__ . .. ...._._......__ ~~.........__-z,....::........,;;;....:~_""'"".;>&;,.......____...~ _ JPL:fpw