Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutRESOLUTIONS - 03272001 - 2001-179 i 11 TO: Board of Supervisors FROM: John Sweeten, County Administrator DATE: March 21, 2001 SUBJECT: Family Law Center Project, 751 Pine Street, Martinez Authorization No. 4033-4408; Project No. 0928-WH408B RESOLUTION NO. 2001/ 179 SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATION(S) A. RATIFY issuance of the bid addendum extending bid opening date to April 19,2001 forthe above project. B. Forthe reasons listed below, DIRECT the County Administrator or his designee(with assistance from County Counsel) to prepare, for the Board's consideration, an additional bid addendum requiring the negotiation of a project labor agreement on the terms described below. FINANCIAL IMPACT There is no anticipated impact to the General Fund. Bond proceeds of$11.5 million have been set aside for this project. The debt service for these bonds is covered primarily from revenues generated from Courthouse Construction and Criminal Justice Construction Funds. BACKGROUND/REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS On January23,2001,the Board approved plans and specifications for the Family Law Centerand directed the solicitation of construction bids forthe project. The project consists of a two-story steel frame structure, approximately 40,000 square feet in area,and is estimated to cost$11.5 million. Pursuant to the Board's direction, the project was advertised, and bids originally were schedule to be submitted and opened on March 22, 2001. On March 15, 2001,Addendum No. 2 was issued to extend the bid opening date to April 19, 2001. It is recommended that the Board ratify that bid addendum. This Board has directed the preparation and presentation of this resolution for its further consideration concerning the above subject and related matters. Forthe following reasons, it is desirable to require the negotiation of a project labor agreement for this project: CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: X YES SIGNATURE _ RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR _ RECOMMENDA �BO17TEffT APPROVE OTHER SIGNATURE(S): ACTION OF BOARD ON marcriAPPROVED AS RECOMMENDED AA OTHER See the attached Addendum for Board action . VOTE OF SUPERVISORS I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN XX UNANIMOUS(ABSENT — — — — — ) AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD AYES: NOES: OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN. ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTESTED: JOHN SWEETEN, CLERK OF THE BOARD OF Contact: George Roemer,(925)335-1055 SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR Orig.Dept.: County Administrator's Office cc: County Counsel Auditor/Controller GSD Accounting-Terry Mann 0 n March 27 , 2001 Contra Costa Building&Construction Trades Council O'Brien Kreitzberg(Via CAO) Depu y lerk:- Family Law Center Project, 725 Court Street, Martinez Authorization No. 4033-4408 March 21, 2001 Project No. 0928-WH408B BACKGROUND/REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS (continued) (a) It is estimated that this construction project will require 17 months and will involve numerous contractors and employees in different trades. (b)Satisfactory performance will require a skilled and properly trained work force to construct the project because the project must be completed on time so that the court will be available to provide much- needed judicial services to the citizens of the County. (c)Satisfactory performance will also require that construction proceed without the disruptions that can occur on long-term projects both from external labor relations problems and from the frictions that often arise when a large number of contractors and their employees work in close proximity to one another on a job site. (d)In the private sector, project laboragreements have been used foryears on large constructions projects to achieve satisfactory performance and the economic benefits that result from having a guaranteed source of skilled workers and from avoiding disruptions in work. (e) The United States Supreme Court held in Building & Construction Trades Council v. Associated Builders & Contractors of Mass./R.I., Inc. (1993) 507 U.S. 218(Boston Harbor), that public entities can enjoy the substantial benefits that project labor agreements can provide and the public entities may"choose a contractor based on that contractor's willingness to enter into a pre-hire [project labor] agreement." The validity of project labor agreements also has been upheld by the California Supreme Court in Associated Builders & Contractors, Inc. v. San Francisco Airports Commission (1999) 21 CalAth 352. (f)In order to ensure satisfactoryand timely completion of the project, itis necessary that County staff charged with the fiscal administration and responsibility for this construction project take all appropriate actions necessary to assure that this construction project will not exceed its budget in any manner because of the requirements of this resolution. (g) Based upon testimony and materials previously received and matters otherwise know to the Board and its members, the is an urgent need to expeditiously construct this court facility. In order to implement a project labor agreement for this project, it is recommended that the Board direct the County Administrator and project staff(with the assistance of the County Counsel's office)to prepare for the Board's further consideration a further bid addendum with substantially the following provisions: (a)The apparent lowest responsible monetary bidder,as a condition of being awarded the contract, shall negotiate a project labor agreementwith the Contra Costa Building and Construction Trades Council ("Council") so that the contractor and its subcontractors can utilize the hiring halls maintained by the Council's constituents and can utilize the Council and its constituents for resolving labor disputes during the term of the project. The project labor agreement shall be negotiated with the Council within 14 days after the bidder (general contractor) has been notified of its apparent status by the County; (b)The project labor agreement shall cover all work on the project that is within the scope of the contract between the County and the general contractor and shall run for the duration of the project; (c) The project labor agreement shall include provisions for the following: (1)recognition of the Council and/or its affiliates as the exclusive bargaining agent(s)for all workers on the job so that the general contractor knows who to deal with regarding any labor matters that may arise during the course of construction; (2)referral of workers from the hiring halls maintained by the constituents of the Council in order to ensure a reliable source of skilled workers for the project; Resolution 2001 /179 -2- Family Law Center Project, 725 Court Street, Martinez Authorization No. 4033-4408 March 21, 2001 Project No. 0928-W H408B (3) a no-strike provision for the duration of the project and a final and binding grievance and arbitration procedure in orderto prevent disruptions and delays of the project arising from internal/external labor relations disputes, including jurisdictional disputes. (d)The general contractor shall require all of its subcontractors, as a condition of working on the project, to become parties to the project labor agreement. (e)(1)In the event that the general contractor and the Council are unable to agree upon the terms of a project labor agreement within the time limits setforth in paragraph 4(a)above,they shall immediately proceed with arbitration of the matter in a timely fashion. The general contractor and Council shall schedule a hearing before the arbitrator which shall be held within 10 days. The primary arbitrator to be utilized will be specified in the bid addendum. The hearing shall be completed within a single day and if post-hearing briefs are requested by either party they shall be filed within 3 days of the hearing. The cost of the arbitrator and any court reporter shall be borne equally by the general contractor and the Council. (2) The arbitrator shall decide the terms of the project labor agreement which shall include provisions as described in paragraphs(c)and(d)above. In deciding the other terms of the project labor agreement,the arbitrator shall select in toto either the last proposal made by the general contractor or the last proposal made by the Council. (3)The arbitrator shall issue his written award within 7 days of the completion of the hearing and send copies of it to the general contractor,the Council,and the County. The arbitrator's decision shall be final and binding on the general contractor and the Council. (4) If the general contractor refuses to proceed to interest arbitration or to be bound by the arbitrator's award, itwill not be awarded the contract and the County may select a new general contractor. If the Council refuses to proceed to interest arbitration orto be bound bythe arbitrator's award,the general contractor shall be excused from the requirement that it negotiate a project labor agreement with the Council in order to be considered for award of the project contract. Resolution No . 2001 /179 -3-