HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 05031988 - T.3 eiie: i55-o6Uite)/C.1.1.1
T AS EX OFFICIO THE GO' WMNG BODY OF THE
To BOARD OF SUPEk . 1gARS MORAGA FIRE PROTECTIU.,,VISTRICT
FROId : BARTON J. GILBERT, DIRECTOR OF GENERAL SERVICESDE
�
.Jl It
C
DATE '. MAY 3, 1988 co
CONSENT TO THE SUBSTITUTION OF A SUBCONTRACTOR STRUCPURALL
SUBJECT: InpROVFXNTS AT FIRE STATIONS NO. 1, 1280 NORAGA WAY, AND NO. 2,
331 RHEEM BOULEVARD, NORAGA, AND ADDITION AT FIRE STATION NO. 2
(AUTHORIzATION NO WPE388)
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACMROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
I.
RECOMMENDATION:
CONSENT-to the substitution of Anchor Roofing, Walnut Creek,
for Redwood Roofing Service, Inc. , San Rafael, the roofing
subcontractor listed in the bid proposal by the prime
contractor, TJ Construction Co. , Inc. , for the project,
Structural Improvements at Fire Stations No. 1, 1280 Moraga
way, and No. 2,... 331 Rheem Boulevard, Moraga, and Addition at
Fire Station No. 2 (Authorization No. WPE388) , as requested.
by the prime contractor, and in accordance . with Public
Contract Code Section 4107 .
II. FINANCIAL IMPACT:
None.
III. REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATION/BACKGROUND:
A. On July 14, 1987 , the Board, as ex officio the governing
body of the Moraga Fire Protection District, awarded a
construction contract for the subject project to the
prime contractor, TJ Construction Co. , Inc. , Moraga,
California.
B. The prime contractor, in a letter dated April 4, 1988,
requested approval to substitute American Design Roofing,
Pleasant Hill, for the roofing subcontractor listed in
the bid proposal, Redwood Roofing Service, Inc. The
reason given for the requested substitution was failure
to perform the subcontract.
C. The General Services Department Architectural Division,
in a letter dated April 5, 1988, notified Redwood Roofing
Service, Inc. of the prime contractor's request for
substitution. The notification gave five working days
within which to submit written objections to the
substitution. Failure to file such written notice would
have constituted consent to the proposed substitution.
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: X YES tyRRSIGNATURE:
ACTION ,OF BOARD ON MAY 1988 EuPROVED AS RECrJMMENDED OTHER
Gerald Bender of the County General Services Architectural Division
introduced the item. The Chair declared the hearing opened. Roland
Johnson appeared on behalf of Redwood Roofing Service, Inc. of San
'Rafael and reviewed the events that had taken place to date. Mr.
Westernoff of TJ Construction, the general contractor, appeared and
urged that substitution be allowed. Keith Andy of Anchor Roofing, Sam
Long of CalShake, and Chief Ed Lucas of the Moraga Fire Protection
District appeared and testified. Gerald Bender and Roland Johnson
appeared for rebuttal and the hearing was closed. The Board approved
the recommendation of staff set forth above.
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS
1 HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE
UNANIMOUS (ABSENT ) AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN
AYES: NOES: AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD
ABSENT: ABSTAIN: OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN.
cc: Architectural Division ATTESTED MAY 3 1988 _
Administrator' s Office PHIL BATCHELOR. CLERK OF THE BOARD OF
County Counsel SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
Moraga Fire Protection District (Via A.D. )
TJ Construction (Via A.D)
M382%1-83
Redwood Roofing Service (Via A.D. �y ,DEPUTY
_
File: 255-8601(F)/C. 1
D. Redwood Roofing Service, Inc. , in a letter dated April 7,
1988 , did object to the substitution and TJ Construction
Co. , Inc. , in a letter dated March 12, 1988 (sic) ,
affirmed its desire. : to substitute another roofing
subcontractor. Subsequently, in a letter dated April
19, 1988, TJ Construction corrected the date of its
letter of March 12 to April 12, and gave notice that -it
intends to replace the listed roofing subcontractor with
Anchor Roofing, Walnut Creek, instead of American Design
Roofing.
E. Since Redwood Roofing Service, Inc. filed written
objections to the substitution, it was necessary for the
Board to conduct a hearing on May 3, 1988, where County
staff and the prime contractor presented evidence on why
the Board should consent to the request for substitution,
and the listed roofing subcontractor presented evidence
on why the Board should not consent to the substitution.
F. The listed roofing subcontractor has argued that the
substrate conditions, which were provided by the prime
contractor, prohibited him from installing the roofing in
a satisfactory manner and that he is qualified to correct
any mistakes he might have made.
G. The prime contractor has contended that the listed
subcontractor has failed to perform a portion of its
subcontract and that a roofing subcontractor* with more
experience in the application of the type of roofing in
question must complete the roofing work, for a
satisfactory installation.
H. The Director of General Services has reported that
shingle roofing work performed by the listed
subcontractor is substantially unsatisfactory and not in
substantial accordance with the plans and specifications,
and that the subcontractor has substantially delayed or
disrupted the progress of the work. The Director has
recommended that the Board consent to the substitution
requested by the prime contractor.
IV. CONSEQUENCES OF NEGATIVE ACTION:
Failure to approve this recommendation might result in
further delay in completion of the project and in
unsatisfactory work.
25501B04.20B
RDH:pg
i
i
Page 2 of 2 °