HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 06111991 - D.3 C6)
TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
FROM: J. MICHAEL WALFORD, PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR
DATA: June 11 1991
SUBJECT: Contract Award Recommendation:
Miranda Avenue Bike Route Project
Project No. 0662-6134128-89, Alamo Area
Specific Request(s) or Recommen ation(s) &Background&Justification
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
AWARD the contract for furnishing labor and materials for the subject project to Vintage Grading &
Paving, Inc., the low bidder, who has also met the requirements of the County's Minority and Women
Business Enterprise Contract Compliance Program, in the amount of$370,951.95, and at the unit prices
submitted;WAIVE minor irregularities in the bid submitted and REQUIRE the contractor to present surety
bonds for Payment and Faithful Performance in the amounts of$185,475.97 and$370,951.95,respectively.
DIRECT the Public Works Director to prepare the contract for the project.
AUTIIORIZE the Public Works Director to sign the contract on behalf of the 13oard subject to the
Director having reviewed and found sufficient all required documents, including the contract signed by the
contractor, the aforementioned surety bonds, and a certificate of insurance.
DIRECT that, in accordance with the project specifications and/or upon the execution of the contract by
the Public Works Director, any bid bonds posted by the bidders be exonerated and any checks or cash
submitted for bid security be returned.
Pursuant to Public Contract Code Section 4114, the Board DELEGATES its functions under Public
Contract Code Sections 4107 and 4110 to the Public Works Director or his designee.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
The project, including engineering and appropriate overhead charges, is funded by Road Funds (35%),
State Transportation Development Act Funds (19%), Deferred Improvement Agreemr (9%) and the
Alamo Area of Benefit (37%).
Continued on attachment: X yes SIGNATURE:
_ RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE
APPROVE OTHER:
SIGNATURE(S):
ACTION OF BOARD ON:JUN 11. 1991 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED X OTHER
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS
5 UNANIMOUS (ABSENT =L
AYES: NOES:
ABSENT: ABSTAIN:
Orig. Div.: PW(Constr)
cc: County Administrator
Auditor-Controller I hereby certify that this Is a true and correct copy of
Public Works an action taken and entered on the minutes of the
- Design Board of supervlap&olaja d1,yp�m.
- Accounting, R. Gilchrist ATTESTED: JJ�uJI1j1
- R. Bruno PHIL BATCHELOR,Clark of the Board
Contractor of Supervisors and Cou Administrator
By -. y Deputy
RB:tt
c:\BO\MBR-4.t6
Miranda Avenue Bike Route Project,
Project No. 0662-6R4128-89
Board Date: June 4, 1991
Page 2 of 2
RECOMMENDATION/BACKGROUND:
The plans and specifications were approved and the project advertised for bids by the Board of
Supervisors on April 23, 1991. The bids were received and opened at 255 Glacier Drive, Martinez,
California, on Thursday, May 23, 1991. The construction bids received were as follows:
1. Vintage Grading & Paving, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $370,951.95
2. Bay Cities Paving & Grading, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 411,149.95
3. William G. McCullough Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 431,452.65
4. O.C. Jones & Sons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 449,998.45
5. EMSCO of San Francisco . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 461,411.00
6. Fanfa, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 473,387.29
7. Gateway Landscape Construction, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 498,359.25
8. D.W. Young Construction Company, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 525,519.70
9. Joe Carone, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 653,501.85
The Engineer's estimated construction cost was $530,821.00.
The low bidder, Vintage Grading & Paving, Inc., did not submit Addendum No. 1 with the bid.
Inasmuch that the addendum aimed only to re-emphasize the MMBE requirements of the Special
Provisions and the low bidder has complied with those requirements, the lack of submittal of
Addendum No. 1 is of no consequence.