The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutMINUTES - 09262006 - C.61 .. s----L•:o TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS CONTRA FROM: MICHAEL J. LANGO, DIRECTOR OF GENERAL SERVICES ot. COSTA DATE: SEPTEMBER 26, 2006coo--- COUNTY S>a ns{ SUBJECT:AWARD OF CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT FOR THE NEW DISTRICT ATTORNEY OFFICE BUILDING PROJECT AT 950 WARD STREET, MARTINEZ (WH224Y) SPECIFIC REQUEST(S)OR RECOMMENDATION(S)&BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATIONS: 1. AWARD and AUTHORIZE the General Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract in the amount of $20,136,000 with Lathrop Construction Associates, Inc. ("Lathrop"), Benicia, the lowest responsive and responsible bidder for the New District Attorney Office Building project at 950 Ward Street, Martinez, and OVERRULE the bid protest filed by Taber Construction, Inc. 2. DETERMINE that Lathrop, as the lowest responsive and responsible bidder, has documented an adequate good faith effort to comply with the specifications and requirements of the County's Outreach Program, and WAIVE any irregularities in such compliance. 3. FURTHER DETERMINE that Lathrop, as the lowest responsive and responsible bidder, has entered into a Project Labor Agreement with the Contra Costa Building and Construction Trades Council to comply with the requirements of the County's Project Labor Agreement policy. 4. AUTHORIZE the General Services Director, or designee, to exonerate any bid bonds posted by the bidders and return any checks or cash submitted for security, after execution of the contract. 5. AUTHORIZE the General Services Director, or designee, to sign any escrow agreements prepared for this project to permit the direct payment of retentions into escrow or the substitution of securities for moneys withheld by the County to ensure performance under the contract, pursuant to Public Contract Code Section 22300. 6. ORDER that the Director of General Services, or designee, is authorized to execute any changes to the contract pursuant to Section 20142 of the Public Contract Code. 7. DELEGATE, pursuant to Public Contract Code Section 4114, the Board's functions under Public Contract Code Sections 4107 and 4110, with regards to subletting and subcontracting, to the General Services Director, or designee. CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: X YES SIGNATU 0/11--,711 ✓F2ECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECO MMENDATION OF BOARD MITTEE -"APPROVE OTHER r SIGNATURE(S): ACTION OF BOA APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER VOTE OF SUPERVISORS UNANIMOUS(ABSENT ) AYES: NOES: ABSENTS: ABSTAIN: MEDIA CONTACT:MICHAEL J.LANGO(313-7100) Originating Dept.:General Services Department cc: General Services Department I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS ISA TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF N ACTION TAKEN Capital Projects Management Division AND ENTERED ON THE MIU ES OF THE BOARD Accounting OF SUPERVISOflS ON THEtATESHOWN. CPM File: 250-0512/C.1.1 250-0512/A.5 ATTESTED County Administrator's Office J N VLLEN.CLERK OF THE BOARD O SUPERVISORS County Counsel A COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR Auditor Controller Lathrop Construction Associates,Inc.(via CPM) BY �— DEPUTY Taber Construction, Inc.(via CPM) H:\2005\2500512\05L012126brev.doc SJ:tb Page 1 of 3 M382(10/88) AWARD OF CONTRACT FOR THE NEW DISTRICT September 26, 2006 ATTORNEY OFFICE BUILDING AT 950 WARD STREET, MARTINEZ 8. DECLARE that, should the award of the contract to Lathrop be invalidated for any reason, the Board would not in any event have awarded the contract to any other bidder, but instead would have exercised its discretion to reject all of the bids received. Nothing herein shall prevent the Board from re-awarding the contract to another bidder in cases where the successful bidder establishes a mistake, refuses to sign the contract or fails to furnish required bonds or insurance in accordance with Public Contract Code Sections 5100-5107. FINANCIAL IMPACT The estimated total cost for the proposed District Attorney's ("DA") Office Building is $26.9 million. Funding for the project would come from a combination of existing capital projects funds totaling $9.2 million, new revenue sources totaling $2.5 million, and a secured loan in the amount of $15.2 million. The existing capital projects funds include $4.8 million in Criminal Justice Construction Funds that are restricted for use on criminal justice facilities projects. The financing plan is summarized in the chart below. Project Financin Plan in millions of dollars Existing Capital Funds: Current Budgeted Appropriations $4.4 Criminal Justice Construction Funds 4.8 Sub Total $9.2 Revenue: Excess Proposition 172 funds 1.0 Unclaimed Real Estate Fraud funds 1.5 Sub Total $2.5 Future Bond Proceeds*: 15.2 $15.2 Total $26.9 *See debt service financing plan below. The $15.2 million in future bond proceeds recommended to finance this project would result in an annual debt service obligation to the County of approximately $1.22 million. This annual debt service cost would be paid from the following revenue streams: $600,000 in annual Criminal Justice Facility Construction Funds, restricted for expenses associated with construction of criminal justice facilities; $395,000 in annual operating savings to the District Attorney's budget resulting from consolidation of four offices into one centralized location and other operational efficiencies; and $225,000 to $375,000 in annual occupancy cost savings that the County would realize upon vacating several leased and/or debt financed facilities currently occupied by the District Attorney. The range of occupancy cost savings, and resulting cost to the DA's budget if savings are not realized, depends on the County's ability to find replacement tenants for the DA's current office spaces. Should the County be unsuccessful in finding a replacement tenant for all locations, the District Attorney's Office will absorb the incremental annual cost within its operating budget. The CAO has confirmed that the DA's budget can support this incremental added cost, if necessary. BACKGROUND The project plans and specifications were previously filed with and approved by the Board of Supervisors, and bids were duly invited from a pool of six pre-qualified general contractors. Three bids were received and opened by the County Capital Projects Management Division on August 31, 2006, and the bid results are as follows: H:\2005\2500512\05L012126brev.doc Page 2 of 3 M382(10/88) AWARD OF CONTRACT FOR THE NEW DISTRICT September 26, 2006 ATTORNEY OFFICE BUILDING AT 950 WARD STREET, MARTINEZ AME OF BIDDER BASE BID ALT NO. 1 ALT NO. 2 ALT NO. 3 ALT NO. 4 ALT NO. 5 ALT NO. 6 1 Lathrop Construction Associates, Inc. $19,897,000.00 23,000.00 (36,000.00) 208,000.00 154,000.00 141,000.00 121,000.00 001 Park Road Benicia, CA 94510 2 Taber Construction, Inc. $20,314,000.00 30,000.00 (39,000.00) 200,000.00 160,000.00 167,000.00 125,000.00 P.O. Box 1309 Martinez, CA 94553 3 S.J. Amoroso Construction Co., Inc. 390 Bridge Parkway $20,437,000.00 11,000.00 (30,000.00) 230,000.00 140,000.00 121,000.00 290,000.00 Redwood Shores, CA 94065 Per the bid documents, the County announced the priority of the bid alternates prior to opening the bids. Determination of the low bidder is based on the base bid plus any alternates to be awarded, pursuant to the announced priority of the alternates. In determining the low bidder, the top three priority alternates (alternate numbers 6, 4, and 2) were considered. Alternate numbers 2, 4, and 6 involve, respectively, using cast glass in lieu of the curtain wall system, installing the second elevator, and using "Tubex" piles instead of the driven "H" piles. Under the above or any allowable scenario, the low bidder is Lathrop. The recommended contract award amount, which includes the base bid plus alternate numbers 2, 4, and 6, is $20,136,000. The bidder listed first above, Lathrop, has submitted the lowest responsive and responsible bid of$20,136,000, which is $424,000 less than the next lowest bid. The second low bidder, Taber Construction Inc. ("Taber") filed a bid protest claiming that Lathrop's and S.J. Amoroso's ("SJA") bids were non-responsive because they were submitted late. Taber's bid protest letter, dated September 1, 2006, and follow-on letter, dated September 5, 2006, are attached for reference. Staffs letter responses, dated September 1 and September 6, 2006, are also attached for reference. In summary, the County disagrees with Taber's claim that Lathrop submitted a late bid. Lathrop's bid was submitted on-time and can be attested to by County staff and the Lathrop representative. Regarding the SJA bid, since they were the high bidder, Taber's protest of their bid is moot. County staff finds Taber's bid protest to be without merit and recommends that the Board overrule Taber's protest, and award the contract to the low responsive and responsible bidder, Lathrop. The Contract Compliance Officer has reported that Lathrop has documented an adequate good faith effort to comply with the requirements of the County's Outreach program. The Director of General Services therefore recommends that the contract be awarded to Lathrop. The general prevailing rates of wages, which shall be the minimum rates paid on this project, are on file with the Clerk of the Board, and copies are available to any party upon request. H:\2005\2500512\05L012126brev.doc Page 3 of 3 M382(10/88) ABER C40NSTRUCTMN INC- September 1, 2006 Mr. Rob Lim Contra Costa County Capitol Projects Management 1220 Morello Avenue Suite 100 Martinez CA 94553 Re: Contra Costa County District Attomey's"Office Subject: Bid Protest Dear Mr. Lim, Proposals for the Contra Costa County District Attorney's Office were received on August 31, 2006 at 2:00 PM by Contra Costa County. Bids were required to be submitted no later than 2:00 PM; three offeror's were present at the County office where the bids were to be submitted. Taber Construction Inc (Taber) of Martinez, California submitted its bid at 1:59:00 PM; Lathrop Construction Associates Inc (Lathrop) of Benicia, California submitted its bid at 2:00:05 PM and SJ. Amoroso Construction Co., Inc (Amoroso) of Redwood Shores, California submitted its bid at 2:00:10 PM. Section 10168 of the California Public Contract Code states "Whether or not bids are opened exactly at the time fixed in the public notice for opening bids, a bid shall not be received after that time." Both Lathrop and Amoroso failed to submit their bids within the time fixed in the public notice for opening bids. Taber verbally notified County staff that according to the clock identified by the County for receipt of bids that the bids offered by Lathrop and Amoroso were submitted after the time indicated in the public notice for opening bids and that their bids should be rejected. The County staff understood the claim and elected to open all of the bids, citing that the actual bid results may make the late submittal problem a moot point. Taber believes that both Lathrop and Amoroso should be considered non-responsive. Both Lathrop and Amoroso failed to submit their bids in accordance with the proposal requirements. Any issuance of the contract is an illegal act by the County,the County has no authority to accept a late bid. Taber has not had the opportunity to review other aspects of Lathrop and Amoroso's proposals. Correspondence regarding this protest should be directed to Taber Construction Inc,Ann Bret Taber, 2278 Pike Court Concord CA 94520. SingTaber ret Taber Construction Inc. P.O. Box 1309 • Martinez,. California 94553-7309 TELEPHONE (925) 682-6133 FAX (925) 682-6122 License 855768 CONTRA .:COSTA COUNTY General Se>vtces Department 4 - Michael J. Lango k I tC 4 hCAPITAL PROJECTS MANAGEMENT Director v,111X1220 MorellolAve ue,,,Suite 100 Terry Mann MartiOez,yCarlrforia 94553-4711 Deputy Director (925)313 72fT0Phbne Rob Lim, PE (925) 313-7 6_4,•Fax Manager September 1, 2006 Mr. Bret Taber Taber Construction Inc. P.O. Box 1309 Martinez, CA 94553-7309 VIA FAX 925-682-6122&U.S. MAIL Subject: Contra Costa County District Attorney Building Project; Response to Bid Protest Dear Mr. Taber: In your September 1,2006 bid protest letter,you claim that Lathrop Construction Associates ("Lathrop") and S.J. Amoroso Construction Company ("SJA") submitted their bids after the specified time of 2:00 p.m. Having carefully reviewed your letter, I respond as follows. Regarding Lathrop's bid, the County disagrees with your claim that their bid was submitted late. The County received Lathrop's bid before 2:00:00 p.m. This can be attested to by the County clerk receiving the bid and by the Lathrop representative. With regard to SJA's bid, their bid was clocked in at 2:00 p.m. by the clerk who received it. Since the specifications do not indicate the bid time to the extent of seconds and the notation indicates that the bid was submitted at 2:00 p.m., SJA's bid adequately complied with the specifications and was not late. Even assuming that SJA submitted its bid a few seconds after 2:00 p.m., they were stuffing their bid in the envelope and gained no competitive advantage during those few seconds. Moreover, since SJA's bid turned out to be the highest, your protest against their bid would appear to be moot. At the bid opening, you complained to the County staff present that SJA's bid was 10 seconds late but made no complaint about Lathrop's.bid. In fact, you stated that"if both of us [referring to Taber and Lathrop] could turn our bids in on time, why couldn't they [referring to SJA]." Thus, you acknowledged in front of various witnesses that Lathrop's bid was turned in on time. The statute you cite in your letter—Public Contract Code Section 10168—applies to State agencies, not to the County. It does not support your bid protest. Given the above facts, I find that your bid protest is without merit. At the Board meeting on September 26, 2006 (if not September 26,then October 3, 2006), which begins at 9:30 a.m., our ? department plans to recommend that the contract be awarded to Lathrop, as the lowest Page 2 of 2 responsible bidder, and that your bid protest be overruled. Should you disagree with that recommendation, you may appear and address the Board at that time. The County appreciates your interest in this project and hopes you will participate in other bidding opportunities in the future. Please feel free to contact me should you have any questions. Sincerely, /Rob Lim,P.E. Capital Projects Division Manager vi) r!1'�puA•v.�.r,41'i:'.h:::�!IvTe,nN�'n]r..IrU_'!I�'/:1.1'a .+�\"ul;;''( .�:1: . September 5,2006 YI.A FACSIMILE 925-313-7299 Mr.Rob L.isn Contra Costa County Capitol Projects Management 1220 Morello Avenue Suite 100 N fartinez CA 94553 Re: Contra Costa County District Anomey's Office Subject: CCCGSD letter dated September 1,2006 Dear Mr.Ling, We are in receipt of your letter dated September 1, 2006 regarding our Bid Protest for the Contra Costa County District Attorney's Office. Clearly it is the intention of the County to ignore the factual information and ptoceed in an unethical manner with the award of the contract. The correspondence submitted bythe Countycontains several inaccuracies. In your letter dated September 1, 2006 you clearly indicate that the bid subnutted by Amoroso was received late. The County staff wmiessed Amoroso completing their bid after the deadline for receipt of bids had expired; wherein you indicate "Lhcy were sniffing their bid in the envelope". In the Notice to Bidders,it clearly indicates that bids are to'be received by 2:00 PM;a bid received after 2:00:00 PM is late and must be considered non responsive_ Yet County staff ignored the matter and accepted Amoroso's bid. In your letter you indicate that I personally complaivaed about the timing of the bid submittals,in fact you include quotations of statements which I allegedly made. Your representations are totally false;I was not present at the bid opening. Clearly the County has no clear recollection of the facts that created this tttmwil. The only information I have presented is that which is contained in the original bid piotest letter. A member of our staff attended the bid opening and clearly notified the County staff of the late bids submitted by both Lathrop and Amoroso. Regardless of thedirect applicability to Section 10168 of the Public Contract Code, the principal of the code still applies to Counties as well as other public agencies. Clearly the County has elected to ignore the requirements contained within its own specifications and is intending to enter into a contract with a fine which should have been declared non-responsive at The time bids were received. It is disappointing that a County department with such high standards as your own would act with disregard for the proposal requirements. Zrer • y,Taber Taber Construction Inc. P.O. Box 1309 • Martinez, Collfornia 94553-7309 TELEPHONE (925) 682-6133 FAX (925) 682-6122 License 856768 CONTRACOSTA COUNTY General Services_ Department Michael J. Lango Director i CAPITAL PROJECTS MANAGEMENT 1220 Morello�Avenue', Suite 100 Terry Mann Martinez, California 94553-4711 Deputy Director (925) 313 720.0'Phone Rob Lim, PE (925) 313-729.9 Fax Manager VIA FAX 925-682-6122 & U.S. MAIL September 6, 2006 Mr. Bret Taber Taber Construction Inc. P.O. Box 1309 Martinez, CA 94553-7309 Subject: CONTRA COSTA COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY BUILDING PROJECT; Further Response to Bid Protest Dear Mr. Taber: In your September 5, 2006 letter, you again claim that Lathrop Construction Associates ("Lathrop") and S.J. Amoroso Construction Company ("SJA") submitted their bids after the specified time of 2:00 p.m. You also complain about inaccuracies in the County's September 1 response letter to you. The County is aware that Taber Construction's representative present at the bid opening was Brett Etchison. In referring to "you," our September 1 response meant Taber Construction not you (Bret Taber) personally. I apologize if that wording was confusing or made our response seem inaccurate. The County disagrees with your claim that Mr. Etchison "clearly notified the County staff of the late bids submitted by both Lathop and Amoroso." At the bid opening, Mr. Etchison complained to the County clerk receiving the bids that SJA's bid was submitted late. However, as noted in our September 1 response, Mr. Etchison said nothing about Lathrop's bid being submitted late. It was only in your September 1 bid protest letter, which was sent the day after the bid opening, that you first claimed Lathrop's bid was submitted late. Regarding Lathrop's bid, the County disagrees with your claim that their bid was submitted late. The County received Lathrop's bid before 2:00:00 p.m. This can be attested to by County staff and by the Lathrop representative. With regard to SJA's bid, the County's position was already stated in our September 1 response. Keep in mind that, since SJA's bid was higher than Taber Construction's, any complaint that you have about it probably is moot. i H:\2005\2500512\05L012127r.doc `Mr. Bret Taber September 6, 2006 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY DISTRICT Page 2 of 2 ATTORNEY BUILDING PROJECT Your September 5 letter does not change the County's position, which was explained in our September 1 response. Our department is preparing this matter for the September 26 or October 3 Board of Supervisors meeting, at which time we will recommend that the contract be awarded to Lathrop and that your bid protest be overruled. Should you disagree with that recommendation, you may appear and address the Board at that time. Although you are unhappy with the bid opening for this project, I am confident that it was conducted fairly and in compliance with the project specifications. We appreciate your participation on previous County projects and look forward to future bids and participation by Taber Construction. Sincerely, tobZrn,P.E. Capital Projects Division Manager RL:tb