HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Statement 1979/08/07 Item 19CITY OF CHULA VISTA
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT Item No. 19
For meeting of ~/~ /79
Resolution 9~/~ Rejecting Bids for the
ITEM TITLE Construction of The Park way Community Center,
Chula Vista, California
SUBMITTED BY City Engineer
Director of Parks & Recreation G /'
ITEM EXPLANATION (4/5TH'S VOTE REQUIRED YES NO x )
At 2:00 p.m. on June 27, 1978, in Conference Room 2, the
City Engineer received sealed bids for "The Construction of
the Park way Community Center, Chula Vista, California." The
scope of the work included the construction of a new framed
building complete with heating, ventilating, and air
conditioning system, plumbing system, electrical system,
fixtures and equipment.
Bids were received from two contractors as follows:
1. Raymond D. Haas & Son, $559,847.00
Lemon Grove
2. Fritz A. Nachant Inc. $035,000.00
San Diego
The low bid submitted by Raymond D. Haas & Son is above the
Architect's estimate by $169,847.00. This low bid is above
the Architect's estimate of $390,000 by 43.6.
SLH:nr/JP004
(continued on supplemental page)
txhi~ii5
Agreement Resolution x Ordinance Plat Notification List
Other Letter ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT: Attached Submitted on
FINANCIAL IMPACT
N.A.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
City Council reject the bids and direct staff to re-advertise
with modified plans.
BOARD/COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
COUNCIL ACTION .~
~~ ,.,~-,,,~~,•,~~.~il b
', r_ ~:: l ,~ r
yy ~ t' ~ ~ "Zic1
~~;~ 9
Form A-113 (Rev. 5/77)
Agenda Item No. 19
For Meeting of 8/7/79
Supplemental Page Two
There appear to be two main factors contributing to the high
bid (inflation and construction activity). First, the
building was originally designed and estimated by Victor
Wulff more than three years ago. Funding was obtained based
on Mr. Wulff's estimate. When the new architect, Tom
Williamson, took over the project, his instructions were to
stay within the budget and still maintain the functional
characteristics of the design. Then, major changes had to
be made to the exterior of the building to meet the
requirements of the Town Centre Design Review Committee.
During this three year time period, the San Diego area
experienced extraordinary inflation, and it is suspected
that the building industry experienced even higher inflation
than general commodities.
Secondly, the construction activity in the San Diego area is
presently very high. This suspicion is certainly borne out
by the fact that only two bids were received on a building
project the size of the Community Center.
Taking these two factors into consideration, the architect
still believes that the bids are too high. A letter
outlining the Architect's recommendations is attached.
In light of the Architect's recommendation and staff
analysis we recommend the bids be rejected, the plans be
modified as recommended by the Architect, and the project be
readvertised for bids.
Should the construction activity remain high in the San
Diego area even with some modifications in the plans, the
architect believes the cost of the project will still be
between $440,000 and $490,000. Unless there is a slowdown
in the construction activity in the San Diego area bid s
lower than this amount may not be possible. Since the
budgeted amount is $390,000, Council may need to appropriate
more money for this project if the next bid is higher than
budgeted.
~~~g
~ ~.
THOMAS WILLIAMSON, ARCHITECT
1819 Fifth Avenue
San Diego, CA 92toi
(714) 234-260
July 30, 1979
Mr. Emerson Hall
Parks and Recreation Dept.
City of Chula Vista
P.0. Box 10$7
Chula Vista, Ca 92012
Dear Emerson:
I am writing with reference to the proposals submitted to
the c~_ty on June 27s 1979, for the construction of the new
community center on Park Way designed by this firm. In my
opinion the two bids received from Haas & Sons and Fritz A.
Nachant, Inc., for $559,$47.00 and $635,000.00, respectively,
should be rejected as too costly, the contract documents changed
to incorporate certain cost-saving features described below
and the job should be put out to bid a second time. If the
job were rebid at a time of less construction activity alla~ring
more contractors to participate, the proposals should be more
competitive to the advantage of the city.
Since the time that this project was awarded to this firm in
1978, the San Diego region and its construction industry has
suffered an inordinate rate of inflation. We originally felt
that the budget of under $400,000.00 was realistic and this
figure was born out by a cost estimate prepared by Architects
and Contractors Estimating Service in December, 1978. A post
bid review of the costs involved has indicated that the effect
of the year's inflation has indeed carried the anticipated cost
well over $400,000.00. I would currently estimate, considering
the recent inflationary surges that an acceptable cost range
for this project, utilizing the cost-saving measures listed
below would be between $41+0,000.00 and $490,000.00.
There follows a list of changes we intend to make to the
contract documents as a result of our meeting with members of
the city staff on July 17, 1979• We believe that these measures
will reduce the construction cost by between $45,300 and $52,800.
1. Change the General Conditions to clarify city's role in
directing construction.
2• Incorporate Part I of Standard Specifications for Public
Works Construction for the General Conditions of the Ameri-
can Institute of Architects.
K~~~
page 2
. r
3. Identify all governmental forms to be executed by the
contractor, indicating that the filling out of any addl-
. - tional forms will be compensated by change orders.
4• Specify that retention of payments will be on a line-item
basis by sub trades as work is approved by the city instead
of for the entire job.
5. Specify that the contractor does not have to start construc-
tion for 60 days from date of executing contract with the
city and that the contract time for completion starts
when construction starts.
6. Substitute inorganic wall coating for fiberglass panels
at the lower portion of the walls of the new gymnsaium.
7. Substitute words "WIC quality" for"WIC Certified Compliance
Grade Stamp" in millwork specifications.
8. Add additional manufacturers 'to specifications for metal
roofing as part of base bid.
9• Substitute composition shingles for metal roofing as an
alternate.
10. Substitute narrow stile for medium stile at entrance doors.
11. Change clerestory windows so that only upper four-foot
portion is openable.
12. Change manufacturer of clerestory window controls to
Muschong Metal and Manufacturing Co.
13. Eliminate locks on cabinet drawers and doors.
14. Omit Vi-Tex underlayment at vinyl asbestos tile.
15. Substitute textured finish for smooth for gypsum bosrd.
16. Include Korok as acceptable manufacturer for basketball
backstop.
17. Clarify specifications as to controls to be furnished by
contractor for heating equipment.
18. Clarify costs for utility services to be paid by contractor.
We are ready to make any changes that the city may approve to
the contract documents in order that the project may be put
out to bid again.
E