Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 06141988 - 2.2 CORREC'CED COPY, PLEASE ..� DESTROY PREVIOUS ISSUE 2.2a THE HOARD OF SU4.V:ESORS OF CONTRA COSTA WAY, CALIFORNIA Adopted this Order on June 14, 1988 by the following vote: AYES: Supervisors Pov:ers, Fanden, McPeak, Torlakson and Schroder NOES: !Ione ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None - SUBJECT: Award of Contract for ) '* West County Justice Center ) Resolution No. 88/354 Project B, Richmond ) Budget No. 4411-4101 Authorization No. 0928-WH101B Bidder Base Bid ( Item 1 ) Total Bid Bond Amounts Walsh Construction Co. $28 , 947 , 600 $30, 394 , 380 Payment 7820 Folsom Boulevard $14 ,473 ,800 Sacramento, CA 95826 Faithful Performance $28,947 ,600 S. J. Amoroso, Construction Co. , Inc . , Foster City, CA Lathrop Construction Associates, Inc. , Benicia, CA Hensel Phelps Construction Co. , Santa Clara, CA Continental Heller Corporation, Redwood City, CA Swinerton & Walberg, San Francisco, CA NVE Constructors , Inc. , Sacramento, CA Roebbelen Engineering, Inc. , E1 Dorado Hills , CA Dillingham Construction N.A. , Inc. , Pleasanton, CA Stolte, Inc. , Oakland, CA Blount Construction Group, Montgomery, AL Perini Corp. , San Francisco, CA The above-captioned project and the specifications therefor being approved, Addenda Nos. A, B, C, D, E, F and G being issued and bids being duly invited and received by the Director, Justice System Programs; and The County Affirmative Action Officer having determined that the lowest responsible bidder has satisfied the MBE/WBE "good faith efforts" as defined by the California Public Contract Code; and The Director, Justice System Programs, recommending that the bid listed first above is the lowest responsible bid and this Board concurring and so finding; NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVEEthat the contract for the furnishing of labor and materials for said work is awarded to said first listed bidder at the listed amount and at the prices submitted in sufficient surety bonds as indicated above; and that the County Administrator' s Office shall prepare the contract therefor; and Resolution No. 88/ 354 TtJ: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 2.2a- 1 C<ntra FROM: Phil Batchelor, County Administrator Costa DATE: June 13 , 1988 Cam" "1 SUBJECT: West County Justice Center, Project B Report on Bidding and- Contractor Evaluation Specific Request(s) or Recommendations(s) & Background & Justification RECOMMENDATION ACCEPT the County Administrator ' s report describing the major activities during the West County Justice Center, Project B bidding phase leading to the determination that Walsh Construction Co. is the lowest responsive and responsible bidder. I. BIDDING On March 1, 1988 , the Board of Supervisors approved the West County Justice Center, Project B plans and specifications and authorized that it be issued for bidding. The bid opening was scheduled for April 20. A legal notice was issued by the Clerk of the Board. In addition, project notices were published in the West County Times, the Tribune and the Post newspapers. The County directly mailed the project notice to over 250 contractors, subcontractors, suppliers, builder's exchanges and plan holders ' rooms (eight of which provide technical assistance to minority, women-owned and disadvantaged businesses) . During the bidding period, 107 contractors and subcontractors purchased bidding documents (eleven were businesses located within Contra Costa County) . On March 25 , the West County Justice Center Advisory Group hosted a Preliminary Bid Workshop at the Richmond Auditorium. This workshop provided an opportunity for contractors and subcontractors to meet and talk about the project. There were over 65 in attendance. A pre-bid conference was held on March 29 with approximately 57 attending. The announcements for the workshop and conference were advertised in the West County Times, Contra Costa Times, and Tribune. As a result of the issuance of a large contract addendum, coupled with requests to allow more time for subcontractor "networking" , on April 19 the Board of Supervisors extended the bid opening two weeks to May 4. This time extension was publicly announced in a legal notice and an addendum was issued to all plan holders. On May 4, bids from twelve general contractors were opened. The bid was the total of the base bid and six alternates. A synopsis of the bids is attached to this report as Exhibit A. The bids are in effect for 45 calendar days after opening. l�� CONTINUED ON ATTACHI4ENT: X YES Signature: Recommendation of County Administrator Recommendation of Board Committee Approve Other Signature(s) : Action of Board on: JUN 14 1999 Approved as Recommended ✓ Other Vote of Supervisors: I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN Unanimous (Absent ) AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE Ayes: Noes: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON DATE SHOWN. Absent• Abstain• Attested: JUN 14 1988 CC: CAO, Justice System Programs Phil Batchelor, Clerk of CAO the Board of Supervisors County Counsel and County Administrator By: , DEPUTY Report on Bidding and Contractor Evaluation Page Two II . BID PROTEST Shortly after the bids were opened, Lathrop Construction Associates filed a bid protest claiming that the first (S.J. Amoroso Construction Co. ) and second (Walsh Construction Co. ) low bidders had not listed subcontractors in accordance with State law and the requirements of bidding documents. A three member panel was formed to determine whether the Amoroso and Walsh bids were responsive. A hearing was held on May 24 with representatives from Amoroso, Walsh and Lathrop given an opportunity to present their written and oral testimony. In addition, the panel allowed Walsh and Lathrop to provide supplemental written information and arguments following the hearing. The panel issued its findings and determinations on June 6 . They found that Amoroso' s bid was non-responsive and that Walsh' s bid was responsive. A copy of the panel' s decision is attached as Exhibit B. A second bid protest was made by Dillingham Construction echoing the Lathrop protest. In addition, Dillingham claimed that bids were accepted late and proposed that the project should be re-bid. The County responded to Dillingham' s protest by letter, a copy of which is attached as Exhibit C. III . RESPONSIBILITY CHECK The bidding documents required that the apparent low bidder must be both responsive and responsible in order to be awarded the contract. Walsh Construction Co. was required to provide evidence of competence, timely documentation of their "good faith effort" -> to meet MBE/WBE goals, a cost breakdown of their bid and a disclosure of their intention to use local labor and purchase American products. A. Competence Within the time limit established by the County, Walsh provided the following documentation: 1. Copy of their California Contractor' s license (Class A, B and C-10) . 2. Corporate Annual Report, Financial Statement, and bank and bonding company references. 3 . Preliminary project schedule and bar chart showing the Walsh Western District' s current major projects. 4. List of current and past projects along with both owner and Architect/Engineer references for each project. List includes jail/prison projects--the most recent being the California Department of Corrections Supply Facility, Del Norte County. 5 . Company organization charts and resumes of the Project Manager and Project Engineer. 6 . Inventory of the company' s major equipment and small tools. The County' s reference checks confirmed the contractors competence. B. "Good Faith Effort" Walsh provided the schedule of MBE/WBE participation at the time of bid and supplemental information within 48 hours after the bid opening, as required in the Instructions to Bidders. Several listed MBE/WBE subcontractors were not certified in accordance with the contract requirements, thus requiring Walsh to document their good faith effort in accordance with the criteria set forth in the bidding documents. This documentation was submitted within 48 hours after bids were opened. Staff has concluded that Walsh made a good faith effort to comply with the County' s goals and requirements. The summary of Walsh' s good faith effort is attached as Exhibit D. Walsh' s documentation was also reviewed by the West County Justice Center Advisory Group' s chair who Report on Bidding and Contractor Evaluation Page Three reported to the group that he is reasonbly convinced that Walsh is committed to affirmative action in the project and is continuing to work toward achieving the County' s goals (Exhibit E) . C. Cost Breakdown Walsh provided a cost breakdown of their bid by specification section as required. This data is a requirement of the Board of Corrections and shall be included in the County' s contract with the State. D. Disclosure Statements In response to the requirement that the contractor disclose his intentions and the intentions of his subcontractors to utilize local work forces on the project, Walsh provided the following: The following statement of intent shall be included in each subcontract issued by Walsh Construction Company for this project, and shall be required to be included in subcontractors at all levels: "It is the intention of Walsh Construction Company, its subcontractors, and sub-subcontractors at all levels to, wherever possible, 1) utilize available local work forces and, 2 ) utilize competitive businesses in Contra Costa County for the direct purchase of general items such as stationery, business forms, copy services, office supplies, lumber/hardware, small tools, consumables , and so forth. " In response to the requirement that the contractor disclose his intentions and the intentions of his subcontractors to purchase building supplies and equipment from American businesses or manufacturers, Walsh responded with the following: "At this time, to the best of our knowledge, no foreign manufactured permanent materials are proposed for use on this project. " EXHIBIT A BID SYNOPSIS tl M M w A 08 �71MOMM88808 N . •N P N M N N M M A INi N I� �1 N n n h IN1 S M M M M M M M N 44 N M M M n J h I~I N I~f � h M n INI n n K M M N M N M M M M N M N p 1 „ � 25 25M 2SNN Yi MM F 2 v v w M .] M O e N " a n ....M M N M s � _ N N N N N N N M N M N N M N M • N O ti A M 0 N M O O �1 n n X11 n n N h n n n M n M M M M M M M M M M M N D N N Al rH _ - EXHIBIT B Contra GENERAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT ohectaaoo General Services Costa Architectural Division Costa Lease Management Division supsRo�t A�itect C '� 1220 Morello Avenue, Suite 100 (e 15)372-2148 M•� Martinez, California 94553-4711 "G&W& r24.19M Lease Manager (415)372•+1818 135-8606/B.4 June 6, 1988 E' Contra Costa County West County Justice Center, Project B (WH101B) DECISION ON BID PROTEST OF LATHROP CONSTRUCTION CO./LATHROP CONSTRUCTION ASSOCIATES, INC. On May 24, 1988, the County of Contra Costa ("County") held a hearing on the bid protest of Lathrop Construction Co./Lathrop Construction Associates Joint Venture ("Lathrop") dated May 6, 1988. The purpose of the hearing was to determine whether Lathrop's protest has merit. The hearing was held before a panel composed of Barton J. Gilbert, Robert M. Rygh, and Robert Hill , who are employees of County's Department of General Services, not involved in the bidding process. Lathrop was represent- ed at the hearing by Roy Van Pelt and James W. Nelson. S. J. Amoroso Con- struction Co. , Inc. ("Amoroso") was represented by Peter Sartorio. Guy F. Atkinson Co. (acting by and through its Walsh Construction Division) ("Walsh") was represented by Leslie E. ,Fay and Harry L. Justice. Oral presentations were made by the various representatives at the hearing. In addition, the panel considered the following written materials submitted by the parties: 1. Letter from Fred A. Van Pelt (Lathrop) to Director, Justice System Programs (County) dated 5-6-88. 2. Letter from James W. Nelson (Lathrop) to Director, Justice System Programs (County) dated 5-6-88. 3. Letter from Leslie E. Fay (Walsh) to Gerry MacClelland dated 5-5-88. 4. Letter from J. M. Paxton (Amoroso) to Gerry MacClelland dated 5-6-88. 5. Letter from J. M. Paxton (Amoroso) to Gerry MacClelland dated 5-10-88. 6. Letter from Leslie E. Fay (Walsh) to Robert Hill (County) dated 5-24-88. Pagel of 3 Contra Costa County 135-8606/B.4 West County Justice Center June 6, 1988 DECISION ON BID PROTEST OF LATHROP CONSTRUCTION CO./LATHROP CONSTRUCTION ASSOCIATES, INC. 7. - Letter from James W. Nelson (Lathrop) to Robert Hill (County) dated 5-26-88. 8. Proposals (Bid Forms) submitted by Amoroso, Walsh, and Lathrop. 9. Project Manual for West County Justice Center dated March 1, 1988, including Addenda A, C, and F. Having carefully considered the oral and written materials presented by the parties, the undersigned hearing panel finds and determines as follows: 1. The bid submitted by Amoroso is non-responsive. Reasons include the following: a. During the hearing, Peter Sartorio, as representative of Amoroso, conceded that his company's bid was non-responsive, and withdrew the Amoroso letter dated May 10, 1988 to Gerry MacClelland, AIA, Project Manager. b. The bid submitted by Amoroso failed to list a subcontractor approved to perform work specified under Division 17, as required by the Instructions to Bidders (Division B, Section 2) . 2. The bid submitted by Walsh is responsive. Reasons include the following: a. Neither the specifications (Project Manual , including addenda) nor State statute requires the listing of suppliers of deten- tion equipment (Division 11). b. None of the bidder's various subcontracts for aluminum windows, glass, and glazing (Division 8) exceeds 1/2 of 1% of the bid price, so listing was not required. (Pub. Contract Code, Section 4104. ) C. Walsh's bid complies with the requirement that one firm be responsible for providing all work specified in Sections 11190, 11191, 11192, and 11194, because Walsh is using a single supplier for the work specified in these sections. Page' 2 of 3 Contra Costa County 135-8606/6.4 West County Justice Center June 6, 1988 DECISION ON BID PROTEST OF LATHROP CONSTRUCTION CO./LATHROP CONSTRUCTION ASSOCIATES, INC. d. Walsh does not require a Class C license to perform glazing work (Division 8), because this project requires at least three unrelated building trades or crafts. (See Cal . Code Regs. , Tit. 16, Section 834.) CONTRA COSTA COUNTY By: Barton J. Gilbert Director of General Services By: jz 0• -'�a Robert M. Rygh Assistant Director of General Services By: 17A� 1W Robert D. Hill Supervising Architect 13506R06.06A RDH:dp Page. 3 of 3 EXHIBIT C County Administrator °o�'°"��"°� PWNM Juafte System Programs Costa TOM 651 Pirw Street Sth Floor �G�F-1 d- MarrineL California 94553 COUrmy (4t S) 646-4855 Hobert t Schroder 3rd Dismal Ph/eatchwor County Administrator . su"1e weight U~ % ah District Tan Torlakson June 10, 1988 `fir sa'District Mr. W. Nugteren Vice President Dillingham Construction P.Q. Box 1089 Pleasanton, CA 94566-4071 Subject: West County Justice Center, Project B Bid Protest Dear Mr. Nugteren: Phil Batchelor asked me to respond to your May 20 letter. Enclosed is a copy of the administrative panel's decision resulting from the bid protest hearing on May 24. As you will note, the panel concluded that S. J. Amoroso's bid was not responsive. Copies of your protest letter were furnished to the panel and affected general contractors at the hearing. Your request to reject all bids on the grounds of "irregular receipt of bids that occurred at the bid opening" was not considered by the panel since it did not relate to the issue at the hearing (contractor responsiveness). The panel did, however, question the three general contractors at the hearing on your claim that the County accepted late bids. None of the contractors was able to support your claim. In investigating ,your claim with the project manager, his staff and county staff overseeing the bid process, I have been assured that all bids were received on time. I am confident that the bid process was both fair and correctly administered. Therefore, your request to reject all bids and re-bid the project is denied. The County has no "bidding procedures" other than those described in the Project Manual to Bidders and consistent with State statute. Sincerely, George r, Director Justice ystem Programs 0192.1tr EXHIBIT D MINORITY BUSINESS ENTERPRISE AND WOMEN-OWNED BUSINESS ENTERPRISE CONTRACT COMPLIANCE PROGRAM The Affirmative Action Office has reviewed the three lowest bids for the West County Justice Center. The lowest bidder was Amoroso, a non-minority firm located in Foster City. The bid amount was $29,678, 350. This firm was challenged for not being responsive and the company was eliminated from further consideration. The next lowest bidder was Walsh Construction Company, a non-minority firm located in Sacramento. The bid amount is $29,847,160. This firm did not meet the goal for Minority Business Enterprise participation nor Women-Owned Business Enterprise (MBE/WBE) participation; therefore, their "good faith efforts" were evaluated. None of the twelve bidders met the County' s MBE/WBE goals. At the time of bid, Walsh listed seven MBE/WBE firms, whose work totalled $5,097 , 307 ; of which $4,502,060 ( 15. 5%) were MBE' s and $595, 247 ( 2 . 1%) were WBE' s. Of the seven firms listed, four were not certified with any of the certifying agencies, therefore the County agreed to evaluate these firms to determine eligibility. The work of these four companies totalled $4,658, 482, 91% of the listed MBE/WBE total. As a result of this review,, it appears that two firms (Contra Costa Electric and Oakland Fence) are not certifiable, one is not a licensed business (Advanced Landscaping Industry) and must be replaced and one may be certifiable (Valverde and Sons) upon receipt of additional documentation. Walsh Construction Company has made a "good faith effort" to comply with the goals and requirements in accordance with the criteria set forth in the bid documents (Public Contract Code Section 2000) . The following presents the "good faith effort" and analysis of Walsh's efforts: a. Criterion: The bidder attended any presentation or pre-bid meetings that were scheduled by the County to inform all bidders of the minority and women business enterprise program requirements for the project for which the contract will be awarded. The County may waive this requirement if it determines that the bidder is informed as to those program requirements. Response: Walsh Construction Company sent three representatives to a scheduled pre-bid meeting on March 29, 1988 in Richmond, California. They also requested and obtained lists of minority and women-owned contractors who participated in a minority/women contractors pre-bid workshop on the West County Justice Center the previous week ( 3/25/88) . b. Criterion: The bidder identified and selected specific items of the project for which the contract will be awarded to be performed by minority or women business enterprises to provide an opportunity for participation by those enterprises. Response: The contractor (Walsh) identified work in all sections in the contract specifications and made them available to MBE/WBE firms for participation. C. Criterion: The bidder advertised, not less than 10 (ten) calendar days before the date the bids are opened, in one or more daily or weekly newspapers, trade association publications, minority or trade oriented publications, trade journals, or other media such as Daily Construction Service, the Daily Pacific Builder and the Small Business Exchange. Response: The contractor advertised a minimum of four weeks before the bid opening in trade association publications, minority or trade oriented publications for minority and women-owned businesses. Some of the journals were: Small Business Exchange, East/West Chinese Journal, E1 Tecolete, Asian Week, Daily Pacific Builder, Sun Reporter and Daily Construction Services. Ten Building Exchanges were also notified such as Building Exchange of Alameda, Peninsula, Main, Humboldt, Solano-Napa County, Sacramento, North Coast, etc. d. Criterion: The bidder provided written notice of his or her interest in bidding on the contract to minority or women business enterprises licensed to provide the specific items of the project not less than 10 (ten) calendar days prior to the opening of bids. The Local Small and Minority Construction Related Business Directory and information regard- ing other resources will be available to the bidder through the One Stop Center located in City Hall, Room 101, Richmond, California. Response: The contractor contacted minority and women-owned businesses through certified mail beginning on March 23, six weeks before bid opening. The number of MBE/WBE contacted was more 2 - than 200 with approximately 150 responses received. e. Criterion: The bidder followed up initial solicitations of interest by contacting the enterprises to determine with certainty whether the enterprises were interested in performing specific items of the project. Response: Walsh Construction followed up initial NIDE/WBE contacts to determine whether they were interested in performing specific items on the project. Approximately 149 telephone contacts were made with more than 85 follow-up calls. f. Criterion: The bidder provided interested minority and women business enterprises with information about the plans, specifications, and requirements for the selected sub-contracting or material supply work. Response: Walsh Construction provided interested MBE/WBE with information about the West County Detention Project specifications, plans, and requirements for the selective subcontracting of material supply work by identifying specific items of the project where necessary. Copies of specification sections were supplied to subcontractors. g. Criterion: The bidder requested assistance from minority and women community organizations; minority and women contractor groups; local, state, or federal minority and women business assistance offices; or other organizations that provide assistance in the recruitment and placement of minority or women business enterprises, if any are available (see Section 35.b. 8) . Response: Walsh Construction requested assistance from minority and women-owned contractors group; minority and women community organizations; local business assistance offices whose emphasis includes the recruitment and development of minority and women-owned businesses. Some of the agencies contacted are: - San Francisco/Oakland Minority Business Development Center - Minority Contractors of Northern California - Golden State Business League - Homitz Allen Associates - One Stop Center - Technical Data - Contra Costa County Hispanic Chamber of Commerce - 3 - Contra Costa County Black Chamber of Commerce NECA of Northern California Plumbing, Heating and Cooling Contractors Associated General Contractors of California Associates Roofing Contractors Solano County Private Industry Council SMACNA, Greater Oakland Area h. Criterion: The bidder negotiated in good faith with the minority or women business enterprises, and did not unjustifiable reject as unsatisfactory bids prepared by any minority or women business enterprises, as determined by the County. Response: Walsh Construction negotiated in good faith with MBE/WBE and did not unjustifiably reject bids prepared by such firms. i . Criterion: Where applicable, the bidder advised and made efforts to assist interested minority and women business enterprises in obtaining bonds, lines of credit, or insurance required by the County or contractor. Response: Walsh Construction did not receive any specific requests for assistance from minority or women-owned businesses in obtaining bonds, lines of credit or insurance. If requested however, Walsh Construction would have advised and assisted MBE/WBE firm. j . Criterion: The bidder' s efforts to obtain minority and women business enterprise participation could reasonably be expected by the County to produce a level of participation sufficient to meet the goals and requirements of the County. Response: Walsh Construction Company, based on the documentation submitted, demonstrated a conscientious effort during the bidding process to assure that minority and women-owned businesses had the maximum practicable opportunity to provide bids as subcontractors and suppliers on this project. This effort included a comprehensive advertising and notification effort, follow-up with interested parties, and use of appropriate support groups and organizations. From the 149 companies contacted by telephone, Walsh received 72 bids from these apparent MBE and WBE firms, 14 of which were listed ( low bid) . Walsh has recently identified six (6) MBE/WBE subcontractors; four minority and two women 4 - subcontractors that will be added to the current project. The minority subcontracts price totals $2,339,972, and the women subcontracts price totals $74,805. These prices are in addition to the previous certified MBE price of $317,775, and WBE price of $121,050 (since J. R. Enterprises, D & H, certification is pending with Cal-Trans, we have included them in the cost as a WBE) . This gives us a total MBE participation of $2,657 ,747 or 9% of the total contract and WBE participation of $195,855 or .7%. This total will increase by $329, 285 if Valverde and Sons is certified and by an additional $430,000 * if the replacement to Advanced Landscaping is an MBE/WBE firm. Some of the items of work still to be performed that may include MBE/WBE's participation are: Earth Work Toilet Partitions Rough Carpentry Louvers and Vents Building Insulation Toilet & Janitorial Accessories Flashing & Sheet Metal Office Equipment Building Sealants Laundry Service Equipment Access Doors Hydraulic Elevator Cell Padding Pneumatic Tube Sys. In summary, Walsh Construction Company, based on their "good faith effort" , has met the county' s goals and requirements as set forth in the bid documents. - 5 - EXHIBIT E WEST COUNTY JUSTICE CENTER ADVISORY GROUP TO: Advisory Group Members DATE: June 9, 1988 West County Justice Center FROM: Lloyd Madden, Chair �/' SUBJECT: Review of MBE/WBE Participation WCJC Advisory Group West County Justice Center, Project B At the West county Justice Center Advisory Group meeting held on Wednesday, May 25, 1988, the Advisory Group authorized me to review the enclosed report prepared by Emma Kuevor, Affirmative Action Officer for the County. The purpose of the review was to determine whether or not the evaluation report results relative to MBE/WBE certification and level of participation are consistent with the established goals and secondly to review the Affirmative Action Officer's decision relative to the "good faith effort" of the general contractor. I have concluded my review of the report, met with Scott Tandy, Chief Assistant County Administrator, Emma Kuevor and Gerry MacClelland and have decided there is no need to call a special action meeting of the Advisory Group. I am reasonably convinced that the general contractor is committed to affirmative action in the project and is continuing to work towards achieving the County's established affirmative action goals. The contract award is scheduled for Tuesday, June 14, 1988. I hop you can attend. 2 . 2b THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Adopted this Order on June 14, 1988 by the following vote: AYES: Supervisors Powers, Fanden, McPeak, Torlakson and Schroder NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None -------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------- SUBJECT: County Jail Capital Construction Fund with ) Board of Corrections for Construction of ) Resolution 88/355 West County Justice Center ) Budget No. : 4411-4101 Authorization No. : 0928-WH101B In accordance with the County Jail Capital Expenditure Bond Act, on November 17, 1983 , the County made application to the California Board of Corrections for a grant to partially fund the construction of a 560-bed Type II detention facility to house sentenced and unsentenced inmates; and The Board of Corrections approved the grant application committing up to $36 , 570 , 521 to be used for the construction and purchase of equipment, but not to exceed 750 of total eligible project costs; BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of the County of Contra Costa that: a) The Chairperson of the Board of Supervisors is authorized to sign the contract, any amendments, or extensions between the County of Contra Costa and the California State Board of Corrections for the expenditure of $34 ,085 ,246 State and $11, 361,749 County funds for the construction of the West County Justice Center. b) Appoints Terry Mann to act as fiscal officer for the project. c) Appoints George Roemer to act as project director and contact person for the project. d) Appropriates the necessary matching funds for the project. e) Certifies the Board of Supervisors has reviewed the staffing needs of the new facility. I Hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: - -e. �9 'C7 PHIL BATCH LOR, Clerk of.ttte Beard of Supervisoo and County Administrator By . Deputy Orig. Dept: CAO, Justice System Programs cc: CAO GSD, Accounting Dept. Auditor-Controller 88/355 0tn10-1. 2 . 2c TOS BOARD OF SUPERVISORS FROM: Phil Batchelor, County Administrator lJwtra DATE: June 14, 1988 "Wa SUBJECT: Authorizing the Director, Justice System Programs To Execute Change Orders to West County Justice Center Construction Contracts Specific Request(s) or Recommendations(s) & Background & Justification RECONMUMDATION AUTHORIZE the Director, Justice System Programs, to order changes or additions in the work being performed under construction contracts subject to the provisions of Public Contract Code Article 3 .5 , commencing with Section 20121, provided such orders are in writing and the extra cost to the County for any change or addition to the work so ordered is within the limits specified in Public Contract Code, Section 20142. FINANCIAL IMPACT There are no financial impacts, except the recommended authorization will reduce paper work and make the administration of building construction contracts more timely and efficient. REASONS FOR RECOMENDATIONJBACKGROUND A. The Public Contract Code, Section 20142, specifies that, "The Board of Supervisors may, by board order, authorize the County Engineer, or other county officer, to order changes or additions in the work being performed under construction contracts" . Section 20142 requires that such orders shall be in writing and that the extra costs for any change or addition to the work so ordered shall not exceed ten percent of the amount of original contracts exceeding $50 ,000 , but in no event shall the extra cost of any change or addition to the work so ordered exceed $25 ,000. B. The construction contracts for both Projects A and B contain a . 5o Supplemental Work Allowance for change orders. No single changes exceeding $25 ,000 nor cumulative changes exceeding the Supplemental Work Allowance will be authorized without the Board of Supervisors ' approval. C. Authorization is needed so that the County can continue to process building construction contract change orders la a timely manner. 4�0111 CONTINUED ON ATTACH14ENT: YES Signature: Recommendation of County Administrator Recommendation of Board Committee Approve Other Signature(s) : Action of Board. on: JUN 14 1988 Approved as Recommended Other Vote of Supervisors: I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN Unanimous (Absent ) AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE Ayes: Noes: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON DATE SHOWN. Absent- Abstain- JUN 14 1988 Attested: cc: CAC, Justice System Programs Phil Batchelor, Clerk of General Services Department the Board of Supervisors Accounting and County Administrator By: DEPUTY