HomeMy WebLinkAbout2011/03/22 Item 6CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA STATEMENT
~~~ CITY OF
~-~ CHULAVISTA
3/22/11, Item
ITEM TITLE: RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA REJECTING THE BID OF THE FIRST LOWEST
BIDDER AS NON-RESPONSIVE AND AWARDING THE
CONTRACT TO THE SECOND LOWEST BIDDER FOR THE
"SIDEWALK REPLACEMENT AT VARIOUS LOCATIONS IN
THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CA FY2010-2011 (CIP JY065Q)"
PROJECT TO PALM ENGINEERING CONSTRUCTION
COMPANY INC. IN THE AMOUNT OF 73,158
SUBMITTED BY: DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS
ASSISTANT DIREC OF ENGIN
REVIEWED BY: CITY MANAGER /
ASSISTANT CITY NAGER X7/1
4/STHS VOTE: YES ^ NO
SUMMARY
On February 9, 2011, the Director of Public Works received twelve (12) sealed bids for the
"Sidewalk Replacement at Various Locations (JY065Q)" project. The project was included in
the annual Public Works Street Maintenance budget to remove and replace curbs, gutters,
sidewalks, and driveways displaced by street trees on various City streets.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The Development Services Director has reviewed the proposed project for compliance with the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and has determined that the project qualifies for a
Class 1(c) categorical exemption pursuant to Section 15301 [Existing Facilities] of the State
CEQA Guidelines because the project consists asphalt and concrete repair work within existing
street right-of--way. Thus, no further environmental review is necessary.
RECOMMENDATION
Council adopt the resolution.
BOARDS/COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
Not applicable.
6-1
3/22/11, Item
Page 2 of 3
DISCUSSION
This annual Public Works Street Maintenance, sidewalk replacement project is funded in the
fiscal year 2010-2011. Project design staff prepazed specifications and location plats and
advertised the project on January 21, 2011.
On February 9, 2011, the Director of Public Works received twelve (12) bids as follows:
CONTRACTOR BID
1 YBS Concrete Inc. -Chula Vista, CA $71,041.50
2 Palm Engineering Construction Company, Inc. -San Diego, CA $73,158.00
3 El Camino Construction & Engineering Corporation -Long Beach, CA $73,293.00
4 MJC Construction -Bonita, CA $73,575.00
5 Ramona Paving & Construction Corporation -Ramona, CA $74,198.75
6 Tri-Group Construction & Development, Inc. -San Diego, CA $87,995.00
7 PAL General Engineering Inc. -San Diego, CA $88,512.50
8 Portillo Concrete, Inc. -Lemon Grove, CA $92,029.00
9 Jose Pereira Engineering & Mechanical Inc. - El Cajon, CA $96,995.98
10 Koch-Armstrong General Engineering, Inc. -Lakeside, CA $98,632.10
11 New Century Construction, Inc. -Lakeside CA $102,359.00
12 Kirk Paving, Inc. -Lakeside, CA $191,428.65
Although YBS Concrete, Inc. was the first lowest bidder, their submittal did not include valid ,
Bid Bond. Therefore, their bid proposal is deemed incomplete and non-responsive per the
contract specification.
The second lowest bidder, Palm Engineering Construction Company, Inc. bid is above the
Engineers estimate of $72,593 by $565 or 0.7%.
The Contractor's License No. 853930 is current and active. Staff has verified the references
provided by the Contractor and determined them to be satisfactory.
Staff has reviewed and determined that the bid package is complete. Therefore, staff
recommends awazding a contract in the amount of $73,158 to Palm Engineering Construction
Company, Incorporated of San Diego California.
DECISION MAKER CONFLICT
Staff has reviewed the decision contemplated by this action and has determined that the decision
concerns repairs, replacement, or maintenance of existing streets or similaz facilities and,
therefore, there is not a material financial effect of the decision on the property holdings of the
6-2
3/22/11, Item
Page 3 of 3
City Council Members pursuant to California Code of Regulations sections 18704.2(b)(2) and
18705.2(b)(1).
CURRENT YEAR FISCAL IMPACT
FUNDS REQUIRED FOR CONSTRUCTION
A. Contract Amount $73,158
B. Contingencies $ 6,842
TOTAL FUNDS REQUIRED FOR CONSTRUCTION ~ 80,000
The General fund (GTSWI l) will offset staff costs for design and inspections, estimated at
$20,000. The contract amount of $73,158 plus the contingencies and remaining funds in the
project results in a total construction cost of $80,000, which is budgeted in the Street
Maintenance budget.
ONGOING FISCAL IMPACT
Upon completion of the project and one-year contractor maintenance period, the improvements
will require only routine normal maintenance of the street facilities and storm water best
management practices.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Location of Work
2. Contractor's Disclosure Statement
Prepared by: Mari Malong, Associate Engineer, Public Works Department
J: IEngineerlAgendalCAS2011103/15/1I IJY065Q Award doc
6-3
aTrac~nEN-r ~
SIDEWALK REPLACEMENT FY2010-2011 JY-065Q
APPENDIX "A"
~ 9t
3
~
.a
STREET
N0.
ADDRESS O
~
W,
G LL
N
~ p 3
c~a
~ ~ v
in {j O^
c~
f 3
io G . O O Y.
~~
~ ~ ~
ip ~ U LL
~
~
U d
~~°
~ y
4 U
1 1 472 MONTCLAIR ST 180 15
2 2 367 KEARNEY ST 360 ~ 32
3 3 564 ROOSEVELT ST I 132 20
4 4 1179 ACROSS FROM FOXBORO
AVE 63
5 5 892 MYRA AVE 100 1
7 6 296 H ST /THIItD SIDE 62
8 7 367 SIERRA WAY 24 56
8 8 396 SIERRA WAY 64
2 9 770 GARRETT AVE 128 20 20 1
2 10 744 GLOVER AVE/KEARNEY
SIDE 180
9 I I 713-715 J ST 20
6 12 11ZS CUYAMACAAVE 30 90
6 13 74 EAST EMERSON ST 30
10 14 796 ASH AVE/K ST SIDE 21
11 15 184 7 ST 230
10 16 844 FIFTH AVE 55 30
12 17 176-182 MADRONA ST 375 30 15
i 18 374 MONTCALM ST 100-
5 19 889 MYRA AVE 80
13 ~0 665 MYRA AVE 60
7 21 82 SHASTA ST 140
14 22 OTAY LAKES W/O
RUTGERS 100
IS 23 528 PALOMAR ST ~ 38 3
t 1 24 735.745 DEL MAR AVE 475 160 140
6 25 I ]22 HILLTOP DR 270 35
16 ~ 26 391 FIFTH AVE 200 ~ 30 24
I 27 353 INKOPAH ST 80 1
12 28 265 DEL MAR AVE 125 10
5 29 883 MYRA AVE 20
5 30 898 MYRA AVE 100
5 31 888 MYRA AVE 140
5 32 882 MYRA AVE 108 30
vta/mtt man 1 Of 3
6-4
SIDEWALK REPLACEMENT FY2010-2011 JY-065Q
APPENDIX "A"
a ~
~
STREET ~
u .~. GV~1 ..
~ ~ '~ °c °'
~ `~
' ° ou.
3 c " a v m
~
G
~
No. ADDRESS
W
N
~~d ~
f3
c3~
c~ y
~
~ ~ C a in V `°° ~pmv V CV
17 33 I 46 MONTEBELLO ST 150
6 34 160 JAMU7. AVE 70
5 35 63 EL CAPITAN DR 80 22
4 36 1010 OSSA AVE/IIQICOPAH SIDE 80
18 37 514 MCINTOSH ST 100
18 38 518 MCINTOSH ST 80
18 39 518 MCINTOSH ST (Walhtivay) I50
18 40 510 MCINTOSH ST 250
7 41 490 CORTE HELENA AVE 160
19 42 1045 SOUTHVIEW/WOODCREST 225
1 43 464 SAMUL CT 45
7 44 102 SHASTA ST 6
7 4~ 112 SHASTA ST 84
7 46 122 SHASTA ST 36
CONTRACT TOTALS 4,453 325 90 860 657 6
ina/ton man 2 Of 3
6-5
APPENDIX "A"
SIDEWALK REPLACEMENT FY?010-2011 JY-065Q
SUPPLEMENTAL LIST-If funds are available, these locations may be added to the scope of work.
3t
~
~ at
C
'
~
STNDEET
ADDRESS z
C~C
W
c
v
?~
~
C~
g~ v
intj
C {~
S ~
(oo
O OIL
~ c~
~oNC`ni
IL
~
v
y~
m H
au
7 1 129 Shasta Street 144 16 50
7 2 134 Shasta Stree[ 96 34
7 3 148 Shasta Street - q5
7 4 171 Shasta Street I _ 16 15
7 5 176 Shasta Street 700 20
7 6 177 Shasta Street 24
7 7 180 Shazta Street 104 I 40
7 8 184 Shasta Street SO 10
7 9 188 Shasta Street 140 - 1
20 10 1373 Eckman Ave-(Decowlk Prn) 100
20 11 1379 Eckman Avenue g0
2I 12 2371 Fenton Street ~ 200 60
22 13 2148 Hamden Drive 24 96
9 14 591 Douglas Street 60 IS 21
23 IS 1495 IadeCourt ZS 8
i 17 43 K Street (Decowalk) 28 90 72 -
~4 I B 18 J Street ~ 150 - 25 1
1 19 465 Montcalm Street I 40 50
4 20 1169 Ocelot Avenue 100 1
14 21 1682-1692 Gotham Street 104
25 22 582 Azalea Street 25
9 23 836 Lori Lane 180 1
20 24 121 East Prospect Street 240 60
26 26 452 East J Street 100 '
27 27 1482 Judson Way 30
4 28 1143 Foxboro Avenue 20
I4 29 1615 Gotham Street 112
4
'1 Medical Ctr and E Naples
(WBtNsideofENaples)
400
_
2g 32 2718 Sadlers Creek Road 40
27 33 157 ~Rivera Court (Gutterline) 30 1
CONTRACT TOTALS 2,704 81 150 209 375 6
tn42ott man 3 Of 3
6-6
ATTACI-IMENT ~
CITY OF CEi[JLA VISTA DISCLOSTTRE STATEMENT
Pursuant to Council Policy 101-01, prior to any action upon matters that will require discretionary action
by the Council, Planning Commission and all other official bodies of the City, a statement of disclosure of
certain ownership or financial interests, payments, or campaign contributions for a City of Chula Vista
election must be filed. The following information must be disclosed:
List the names of all persons having a financial interest in the property that is the subject of the
application or the contract, e.g., owver, applicant, contractor; subcontractor, material supplier.
~c~ow~ S~~h ~~ZI k~~~
2. If any person* identified pursuant to (1) above is a corporation or partnership, list the names of all
individuals with a $2000 investment in the business (corporation/parmers~ip) entity.
S cis- ;~
3. If any person* identified pursuant to (1) above is anon-profit organization or trust, list the names
of any person serving as director of the non-profit organization or as trustee or beneficiary or
trustor of the trust.
(~- l~-
4. Please identify every person, including any agents; employees, consultants, or independent
contractors you have assi®ed to represent you before the City in this matter.
~~?rt~~--~1 S~r~tl~~j'tZj
5. Has any person* associated with this contract had any financial dealings with an offtoial** of the
City of Chula Vista as it relates to this contract within the past 12 months? Yes_ No X
N I1~
IS
Desien on'cirywide3000'(Q)\Engineering\AII Praj ectsUY`SYp65Q\SPECSUY065QSpecs
s-7
tf Yes, briefly describe the aantre of the financial interest the of-ticial* * may have in this contract
6. Have you made a contribution of more than $2~0 within the past twelve (IZ) months to a current
member of the Chula Vista City Council? No)~ Yes _ If yes, which Council member?
Have you provided more than $340 (or an item of equivalent value) to an o$cial** of the City
of Chula Vista in the pasttwelve (12) months? (This includes being a source of income, money to
retire a legal debt, gift, loan, etc.) Yes _ No~~
If Yes, which official** and what was the nature of item provided?
Vim' ~~
Date: ~ Li nCl ~ ~ ~ L~~
Signature of Contractor/Applicant
Print or type name o Contractor/Applicant
Person is defined as: any individual, firm; co-partnership, joint venture, association, social club;
fraternal organization, corporation; estate, trust; receiver, syndicate, any other county, city,
municipality, district, or other political subdivision, -or any other group or combination acting as
a unit.
** Official includes, but is not limited to: Mayor; Council member; Planning Commissioner,
Member of a board, commission, or committee of the City, employee; or staff members.
16
Design on `cigwide2D00'(Q)~EneineeringWl ProjectsUYUY065Q'SPECSUY065QSpecs
6_8
RESOLUTION NO. 2011-
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA REJECTING THE BID OF THE FIRST
LOWEST BIDDER AS NON-RESPONSIVE AND AWARDING
THE CONTRACT TO THE SECOND LOWEST BIDDER FOR
THE "SIDEWALK REPLACEMENT AT VARIOUS
LOCATIONS FY2010/2011 (CIP JY065Q)" PROJECT TO
PALM ENGINEERING CONSTRUCTION COMPANY INC. IN
THE AMOUNT OF $73,158
WHEREAS, on February 9, 2011, the Director of Public Works received sealed bids for
the "Sidewalk Replacement at Various Locations (JY065Q)" project; and
WHEREAS, the City received bids from twelve (12) contractors as follows:
CONTRACTOR BID
1 YBS Concrete Inc., Chula Vista, CA $71,041.50
2 Palm Engineering Construction Company, Inc., San Diego, CA $73,158.00
3 El Camino Construction & Engineering Corporation, Long Beach, CA $73,293.00
4 MJC Construction, Bonita, CA $73,575.00
5 Ramona Paving & Construction Corporation, Ramona, CA $74,198.75
6 Tri-Group Construction & Development, Inc., San Diego, CA $87,995.00
7 PAL General Engineering Inc., San Diego, CA $88,512.50
8 Portillo Concrete, Inc., Lemon Grove, CA 91945 $92,029.00
9 Jose Pereira Engineering & Mechanical Inc., El Cajon, CA $96,995.98
10 Koch-Armstrong General Engineering, Inc., Lakeside, CA $98,632.10
11 New Century Construction, Inc., Lakeside CA $102,359.00
12 Kirk Paving, Inc., Lakeside, CA $191,428.65
WHEREAS, the bid of the first lowest bidder was deemed incomplete and non-
responsive per the contract specification; and
WHEREAS, second lowest bidder, Palm Engineering Construction Company, Inc. bid is
above the Engineer's estimate of $72,593 by $565 or 0.7% ;and
WHEREAS, staff has verified the references provided by the Contractor and determined
them to be satisfactory; and
6-9
Resolution No. 2011-
Page 2
WHEREAS, the project was included in the annual Public Works Street Maintenance
budget to remove and replace curbs, gutters, sidewalks, and driveways displaced by street trees
on various City streets; and
WHEREAS, there is currently $80,000 in the Street Maintenance budget (16731-6401)
which is composed of Gas Tax funds to fund this project; and
WHEREAS, the General Fund (GTSW11) will offset staff costs for design and
inspections, estimated at $20,000.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Chula
Vista does hereby reject the bid of the first lowest bidder as non-responsive and award the
contract for the "Sidewalk Replacement at Various Locations Fiscal Year 2010/2011 CIP
JY065Q" project to Palm Engineering Construction Company Inc. in the amount of $73, X58.
Presented by Approv~ftlas to
Richard A. Hopkins
Director of Public Works
G. Moog
Attorney
6-10