HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Statement 1980/01/22 Item 16CITY OF CHULA VISTA
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
7~,~ .
Item No. 16 ~ ~
For meeting of 1-22-80
ITEM TITLE Resolution ~/,jy Rejecting Bid for the Construction of
Remodeling of Parkway Gymnasium, Parkway at Fourth
Avenue, Chula Vistas California
SUBMITTED BY Cit Engineer and Director of Parks & Recreation r
~~
ITEM EXPLANATION (4/5TH'S VOTE REQUIRED YES NO x )
At 2:00 p.m. on December 12, 1979, in Conference Room 5, the
City Engineer received sealed bids for "The Construction of
Remodeling of Parkway Gymnasium, Parkway at Fourth Avenue,
Chula Vista, California". The scope of the project was the
construction of new facia and trellis assembly with masonry
columns connecting gymnasium to community center,
construction of wood and metal awnings over certain door and
windows of existing gymnasium, and painting of existing
gymnasium exterior.
A bid was received from one contractor. This bid was
submitted by Trepte Brothers Development Company,
Incorporated in the amount of $59,50.00 for tkie base bid.
Alternate 1, which was a deduct item, included deletion of
the installation of metal roofing, but provided for all
materials and labor to install composition shingles as
specified. Deduct from the basic bid for Alternate 1 was,
$800. The base bid is $21,150 or 53.3 above the revised
Architect's estimate of $38,500. Thomas Williamson, the
Architect, was asked to review this bid and make a
recommendation. At-.tached is a letter from him dated January
8, 1980.
SLH:fpw/JP004
Agreement Resolution x
tXli l Ji 1 I ~ -
Ordinance
Plat Notification List
Other Letter ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT: Attached Submitted on
FINANCIAL IMPACT
None
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
City Council reject the bid and direct staff to re-advertise
the project with the understanding of funding the project
with residential construction tax funds.
BOARD/COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
COUNCIL ACTION
~~~ 1
by the amity Council of
Chula Vista, Ca~ifiornla
Dated ~""~- ~ ~~-
Form A-113 (Rev. 5/77)
r~
Agenda Item No. 16 ~ '
For Meeting of 1 22/80
Supplemental Page Two
The Architect believes the bid is excessive arrd the factors
leading to this are:
1. Only ore firm submitted a bid .
2. That the paperwork caused by the Federal government's
involvement in funding the project caused concern to
Contractors and reflected in fewer and higher
proposals.
$20,000 in block grant funds ~~as budgeted for this project.
It is clearly evident that this project is going to cost at
least double this amount. Since contractors do generally
submit higher bids when Federal funds are involved and
considering the additional funds required to proceed with
this project, it seems appropriate to finance with another
source of funding.
Engineering and Parks & Recreation staffs recommend that the
bid be rejected and the project be rebid with the idea,of
funding with residential construction tax funds.
jA
THOMAS WILLIAMSON, ARCHITECT
t 8 z g Fifth Avenue
San I~ie~;o, CA y2-c~-
(714) ~3t~ 233-1515 Et
January 8, 1980
Mr. Emerson Hall
Director of Parks and Recreation
City of Chula Vista
P.O. Box 1087
Chula Vista, Ca 92012
Dear EYr-erson:
Since the opening of bids for
Way Gymnasium on December 12,
breakdown of the only bidder,
estimate of December, 1978•
the remodeling of the Park
1979, I have reviewed the cost
Trepte Brothers, and our cost
The review of our estimate revealed that the square-foot unit
cost used for the fascia and trellis structure was too low.
py r~ rr~s-:11t, oitr 1`?78 e`,tim=+t,r, ~>hc~uld have tot,<jled $?1,000 in
instead o.t' $2l),U~JC) and a..l~l~,~wiiig i'ur t,l~~; acl,uul .i~~l'fri.~,1.~~t1 i~:~t'
this region in the construction industry since then, the 1979
estimate should have been $38,500.
The Trepte Brothers bid of $59,650, being $21,150 in excess
of this estimate, seems excessive. Factors leading to this
higher bid would seem to be that only one firm submitted
a bid and that the paperwork caused by the federal government's
inwlvement in funding the project caused concern to contractors
reflected i.n fewer and higher proposals.
In consideration of these factors and with the understanding
that the city has determined that improving the appearance
of the old gymnasium is essential, we would recommend that the
Trepte Brothers bid be rejected. We feel that it would be
in the best interest of the city to negotiate with the con-
tractor currently constructing the adjacent community center
to do the gymnasium remodeling work on a cost basis.
TTW:djl
r~ q 3~
~t'-~y~~