Loading...
CC - Item 2G - Zapopan Park Improvement - Award of ContractROSEMEAD CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT TO: THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL FROM: JEFF ALLRED, CITY MANAGER qW DATE: APRIL 12, 2016. SUBJECT: PROJECT NO. 41008 (ZAPOPAN PARK IMPROVEMENT) — AWARD OF CONTRACT SUMMARY As a part of the Fiscal Year 2014 -15 (FY 14 -15) Budget, the City Council approved the Zapopan Park Improvement Project (Project No. 41008), and allocated $1,050,000 in redevelopment bond (RDB) funds for the design and construction effort. The City has since obtained approval from Southern California Edison (SCE) for the improvements, as well as completed the construction documents. On March 3, 2016, the City advertised Project No. 41008 for construction bids. On March 30, 2016, the City received and publicly opened 9 bids; and the lowest responsive bidder was Green Giant Landscape, Inc. The City Council is now ready to consider awarding a construction contract to the lowest responsive bidder. Staff Recommendation It is recommended that the City Council: 1. Approve the plans and specifications for Project 41008 (Zapopan Park Improvement). 2. Reject the bid submitted by CEM Construction Corp. for being non - responsive. 3. Award the construction contract to Green Giant Landscape, Inc. in the amount of $1,230,000, and authorize a construction contingency of $170,000 (14 %), for a total of $1,400,000. 4. Approve Resolution No. 2016 -15 allocating an additional $480,000 in redevelopment bond funds for the Project. DISCUSSION Zapopan Park is approximately 7 acres of open park space located below an existing SCE transmission corridor adjacent to Garvey Avenue, between San Gabriel Boulevard and Walnut Grove Avenue. Project No. 41008 (Zapopan Park Improvement) includes the following: a new 1/3 -mile rubberized surface pedestrian trail, security lighting, landscaping, irrigation, new restroom facilities, parking lot renovation and expansion, repainting existing picnic shelters and furnishings, renovation of existing basketball court and the northerly playground, relocation of existing volleyball court, Garvey Avenue entryway beautification and access enhancement. APPROVED FOR CITY COUNCIL AGENDA: ITEM NO. 2.G City Council Meeting April 12, 2016. Page 2 of 3 On January 6, 2016, the City conducted a community workshop at the Public Safety Center, for which nearby residents were invited to attend and provide input on the Project. On February 9, 2016, after receiving a design and schedule update, the City Council directed staff to proceed with finalizing the construction documents and advertise Project No. 41008 for bids. On March 30, 2016, the City publicly received and opened 9 bids, as summarized below. RANK CONTRACTOR LOCATION Total Bid 1 CEM Construction Corp. Downey, CA Non - Responsive 2 Green Giant Landscape, Inc. La Habra, CA $1,230,000.00 3 PUB Construction Diamond Bar, CA $1,243,299.00 4 Kasa Construction Chino, CA Non - Responsive 5 California Landscape & Design Inc. Upland, CA $1,378,248.00 6 C.S. Legacy Construction, Inc. Pomona, CA $1,581,628.00 7 Ampco Contracting, Inc. Anaheim, CA $1,622,145.30 s A and Y Construction Glendale, CA Non - Responsive 9 Ian Thomas Group, Inc. Glendale, CA $1,895,245.00 Notes: (1) Non - Responsive, proposal read $1,176,555. t2) Corrected bid amount, proposal read $1,243,249. ( Non - Responsive, proposal read $1,249,790. ( Corrected bid amount, proposal read $1,388,348. ( Non - Responsive, proposal read $1,652,477. (1) (2) (3) ( (5) Of the 9 bids received, three were non - responsive due to not submitting the required Addendum No. 01. Specifically, Addendum No. 1 states "Failure to acknowledge receipt of addendum will disqualify the Bidder." Of the remaining 6 bids, Green Giant Landscape, Inc. (GGLI) of La Habra, California was the lowest responsive bidder with a bid of $1,230,000. If awarded by the City Council, construction is anticipated to commence in May 2016, and be substantially complete by November 2016. FINANCIAL REVIEW The adopted FY 14 -15 Budget contains a total of $1,050,00 in Redevelopment Bond (RDB) funds for the Zapopan Park Project. Of this amount, approximately $60,000 has been expended for design with a balance of $990,000 available for the construction phase. The total estimated cost for the construction phase (including contingencies, contract administration, design support, and inspection) is $1,470,000, as tabulated below. Therefore, an additional allocation of $480,000 in RDB funds is required. Council Meeting it 12, 2016. le3of3 ESTIMATED PROJECT COST Bid Amount $1,230,000 Contingencies (14 %): $170,000 Total Contract Work: $1,400,000 Contract Administration (5 %) $70,000 (Inspection, Testing, Design Support, and Staff) Total Project Cost: $1,470,000 PROJECT FUNDING FY 15 -16 CIP Budget Balance (RDB Fund) $990,000 Additional Appropriation (RDB Fund) $480,000 Total Project Funding: ' $1,470,000 The City has previously set aside a total of $1,878,500 in RDB funds for the Rosemead Community Recreation Center (RCRC) Project. This Project is substantially complete, and a net savings of $678,500 is realized from not constructing a new building next to the RCRC. On March 22, 2016, the City Council approved allocating $187,000 RDB funds for the Rosemead Skate Plaza project; leaving a balance of $491,500 in RDB funds, which is sufficient to cover the $480,000 required for the Zapopan Park Project. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15301 (a) of the CEQA Implementing Guidelines. PUBLIC NOTICE PROCESS This item has been noticed through the regular agenda notification process. Prepared Rafael M. Fajardo City Engineer Submitted by: k�L —n uM, � Anthony La Interim Public Works Director k Curtis Cannon Special Projects Manager Attachments: (1) Resolution 2016 -15 (2) Rendering ATTACHMENT 1 RESOLUTION NO. 2016 -15 A RESOLUTION OF THE ROSEMEAD, CALIFORNIA CITY COUNCIL APPROPRIATING ADDITIONAL FUNDS FROM THE REDEVELOPMENT BOND FUNDS FOR THE ZAPOPAN PARK IMPROVEMENT PROJECT WHEREAS, appropriations are the legal authority for a City to spend its funds; and WHEREAS, from time to time it is necessary to amend the budget with additional appropriations; and WHEREAS, the City desires the construction of improvements at Zapopan Park; and WHEREAS, the Zapopan Park Project is funded through proceeds from Redevelopment Bond funds and currently has an estimated budget balance of $990,000; and WHEREAS, the total cost for construction of this project is estimated at $1,470,000, which is $480,000 more than currently budgeted; and NOW THEREFORE, $480,000 is appropriated in the Capital Improvement Programs for Expenditures related to the Zapopan Park Improvement Project as defined below: Fund Organization Account Project Description Amount Appropriation 301 6005 5395 41008 Construction $480,000 Transfer (Memo) 315 0000 5960 Transfer Out <$480,000> 301 0000 4860 Transfer In $480,000 The additional appropriation is made a part of the approved FY 2015 -16 budgets as though it were a part of the initial budget fully set forth. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this 12 day of April 2016. Sandra Armenta, Mayor ATTEST: Carol Cowley, Interim City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Rachel Richman, City Attorney W O a z a 0 a ATTACHMENT 2 G GIANT LANDSCA STATE LIC. AS-C -27, # 670478 RECEIVED CITY OF ROSEMEAD APP 0 6 2016 April 6, 2016 City of Rosemead Public Works Department, Engineering Division 8838 E. Valley Boulevard Rosemead, CA 91770 Attn: Mr. Rafael Fajardo Re: Zapopan Park Improvements Project, No. 41008 Dear Mr. Fajardo, CITYCLE °S OFFICE BY: This letter serves as Green Giant Landscape, Inc.'s notice to protest three bidders on the above mentioned project. On the bid results dated March 30, 2016, there were three (3) bidders that did not acknowledge Addendum 1 dated March 23, 2016. This addendum clearly states, "Failure to acknowledge receipt of addendum will disqualify the Bidder." Green Giant, Landscape, Inc. respectfully asks that CEM Construction, A & Y Construction and KASA Construction be. disqualified from the bid results. We have attached a copy of the addendum and the posted Bid results. Green Giant Landscape, Inc. has attempted to contact the City to confirm that they, in fact, will be the Contractor awarded the project. We have had no response. Since today, Wednesday, April 6, 2016 is legally our last day to file a protest, we felt we have no other option since we have not heard back from the City. Sincerely, Donald L. Henderson President Green Giant Landscape, Inc. 941 -A Macy Street • La Habra, CA 90631 -3400 • (562) 69.0 -6208 • Fax (562) 690 -5029 E- Mail: greengiantinc @aol.com 1 greengiantoffice@aol.com ADDENDUM No. 01 ZAPOPAN PARK IMPROVEMENT PROJECT Project No. 41008 To All Prospective Bidders: Please note the following revisions on the plans and specifications for the above project: 1. Section 0700, "General Conditions," of the Contract Specifications, Page GC -1: The first paragraph is hereby amended to read "Standard Specifications. The Work hereunder shall be done in accordance with the Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction ( "Greenbook') ; 2012 Edition including all current supplements, addenda, and revisions thereof (hereinafter referred to as "Standard Specifications "), these General Conditions and the Specifications and Drawings identified in the Contract Documents.° 2. This Addendum No. 1 forms a part of the Contract Documents for the above described project and shall supplement or supersede reference sections of original plans and specifications. This Addendum No. 1 must be signed by the Bidder and submitted along with the Bidder's Proposal. By signing the Bid Proposal, the Contractor acknowledges receipt of this Addendum No. 1. Failure to acknowledge receipt of addendum will disqualify the Bidder. BY ORDER OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD Date: March 23, 2016. r By afael M. Fajardo, P.E. City Engineer Acknowledgement: Bidder: Title: Company Date: City of Rosemead Zapopan Park Improvement Project Project No. 41008 Bid Opening Date: Wednesday, March 30, 2016 at 11:00 a.m. I Addendun Issued Name of Bidder Addendum Bid Bond Total Bid Amount 1 CEM Construction Corp.. X ✓ $1,176,555.00 2 Pub Construction, Inc. ✓ ✓ $1,243,249.00 3 California Landscape & Design ✓ ✓ $1,385,348.00 4 A & Y Construction X ✓ $1,652,477.00 5 Green Giant Landscape, Inc. ✓ ✓ $1,230,000.00 6 AMPCO Constructing, Inc. ✓ ✓ $1,622,145.30 7 Ian Thomas Group ✓ ✓ $1,895,245.00 8 C.S Legacy Construction, Inc. ✓ ✓ $1,581,628.00 9 KASA Construction X ✓ $1,249,790.00 8207 BROOKGREEN RD. DOWNEY, CALIFORNIA 90240 C E M 5621708 -0016 Lic. # 951234 G0NSTRUGT10N April 6, 2016 Mr. Rafael M. Fajardo P.E. City Engineer, Public Work City of Rosemead 8838 E. Valley Blvd. Rosemead, CA 91770 Re: Zapopan Park Improvement Project, Project No. 41008 Dear Rafael, CEM Construction Corp. would like to first express our gratitude for allowing us the opportunity to participate in the Bid for Zapopan Park Improvement Project. Unfortunately, after providing all required delivery information, CEM Construction Corp. was never emailed a copy of Addendum No. 1. We have reviewed Addendum No. 1 and it has no effect on the final cost we submitted. Pursuant to paragraph 21 of the bid documents of the City of Rosemead — Zapopan Park Improvement Project, Project No. 41008 ( " Project "), CEM Construction Corp. ( "CEM "), hereby protests any disqualification due to CEM's bid not including Addendum No. 1. Addendum No. 1 states "By signing the Bid Proposal, The Contractor acknowledges receipt of this Addendum No. 1." CEM signed the "Bid Proposal" which it submitted on the bid due date, therefore, acknowledging the Addendum No. 1 by the statement above. Furthermore, Addendum No. 1 contradicts itself by first stating "By signing the Bid Proposal, The Contractor acknowledges receipt of this Addendum No. 1." Then in the following line stating: "Failure to acknowledge receipt of addendum will disqualify the bidder." These statements contradict each other and therefore the city should void this document. In addition, the content of this addendum does not qualify for an addendum and should have been issued as a notice of clarification. The context of the Addendum No. 1 is a clarification and does not alter the construction specifications. Addendum No. 1 will not change CEM's bid proposal amount submitted. In paragraph 5 of the bid document it states: "Each prospective bidder shall provide Owner a name, address and facsimile number to which Bid Document Addenda may be sent, as well as a telephone number by which the Owner can contact the Bidder. Copies of Addenda will be furnished by telex, telegram, facsimile, first class mail, express mail or other proper , means of delivery without charge to all parties who have obtained a copy of the Bid Documents and provided such current information ". CEM provided its Company Name, Address, Contact Person, Phone Number, and an Email Address. The provided email address was the same email address that received the sign in sheet from the, March 17' 2016, Project mandatory site walk sent by the City of Rosemead. Please see the second page of attachment for CEM's provided information. CEM along with two other prospective bidders did not receive Addendum No. 1, while the rest of the prospective bidders received Addendum No. 1 from the City of Rosemead. It is unreasonable to disqualify CEM for missing Addendum No. 1 in the bid proposal since CEM never received Addendum No. 1. CEM has review Addendum No. 1 and is willing to sign and submit without changing its bid. Also, in paragraph 5 of the bid documents it states: "Failure to acknowledge receipt of all Addenda may cause its Bid to be deemed incomplete and non - responsive." As you can see it is not an absolute disqualification and as stated above CEM is willing to sign the Addendum without changing its bid. CEM strongly recommends that the work be awarded to CEM as they are the apparent lowest bidder and responsive contractor. Please contact our office with any concerns regarding this matter. Respectfully, CEM Construction . Emigdio Carrillo Jr., M.S., P.E. Project Engineer IWO- w tA t O 0 z § ww a M \wo ¥dam /% oz < CL } }� \ § � § z $ to \ / _ , \ E { 0 0 0 x \ / _ \ - E 2 , _ ( w a E \ & 0 \ >E ` § ` 0 ` * a) \j / E \/ E a) /e } }%) 2t § \ co C.0 ) \ \ \ \ 0 A CD m e » 'IT / \ \ \ \ m \ \ § CO _ /a }\ \ z \ E 3 { ƒ \ \ j �� �° 0 -� � G/ \ \// / /< \ \ y � § # Cl) 4 / > % / cc) .\ �J \� \\ \\ \ \ 0 C) o cu C) z z J\ /g § 3` z eem )ƒJa< r � \\ � R4 ]= K/ a] � 7 C LU [ - \ t ) - , s \ ®§ 2 _ >) ± 2{ Q \/ < \\ \ -- x 2 7m [ /k _± 2 S \{ \) j) / }\ ƒ\ < \ / \ } (D E ; § E / D CY § \ cm - (§ ) ® - § § - m )) - / \ y/ 0 �� 0 �\ \� \§ \ ) : 2 e = o - !! R k \ R\ R i 2 \ \ \ CD N 00 \ \ § ) ° § /\ / I / / a Lu C \ \ \ % % E b \ \ \ j \ _ / ) - \ § C) \ / § f / k \ 2 E J L) / k / -a \ 2 { E ¥ _ \ = G \ ) $ § ƒ / U- 3 ƒ 7 . k )0 LO § \w U) ƒ g.( co S )o // E m< $) o - a /) < 2 G w � \\� )\ P < k / //< elf / j\ ) & \/ \/ \/ /< (a 0 < C) )\ C /\ \$§ \/ m& ) ) `w< -e © a ) S$ G\ 2{(D ° \ \( /2 c)CO 2j 22 (.0Z )} a63meo%» j K cm § _ _ g - - - - - _ ( \ k ) 2 ) / / \ ) \ ) ] / f j 5 3 3 6/ 3 § \ \ \ \ \ § / \ < < \ § ) ) / \ } } j _ \ \ _ § § 0 cu cl } - ] ) / \ _ // k / _/ m q§ M 5 § E 0 - - \ \ C6 C) Jo \ I \\ }\ 2 3\ u q \ 3 j \ ) Iq G E § \ \ / Nt \ \ ^ « N \ \ \ k % \ \ \ F-- 0 \ ] / m / \ \ C) @ < 3 R £ _ § ) ' E \ i § 2 ) 2 A k $ ) 2 m 2§ �§ o ) k §¢\ a/ J\ e / -3 / o 2 S iG / 7 \ %c § ° G ƒ / \ o< / < 3 oG M @ h \/ // J ip) \° ea _o / 2\ {a 50 /& /® \f\ )\ 33 G\ s »�2� � @\ 0< ® 6 Lo )) ()\ /\ j} \j /j \{ ° \ o - u } - \ � � \ � \ 0 � ) o < a § \ } \ \ \ j j j } j < } j MAYOR: MARGARET CLARK MAYORPROTEM: SANURAARMENTA COUNCIL MEMBERS: WILLIAM ALARCON POLLY Low STEVEN LY April 6, 2016 fi M City of Rpsemead 1; 11 :101­ MINNI 8838 E. VALLEY BOULEVARD P.0 BOX 399 ROSEMEAD, CALIFORNIA 91770 TELEPHONE (626) 569.2100 FAX (626) 307 -9218 Donald L. Henderson President Green Giant Landscape, Inc. 941 -A Macy Street La Habra, CA 90631 Dear Donald L. Henderson: Re: City of Rosemead Zapopan Park Improvement Project City staff has reviewed the bid Green Giant submitted to the City as it relates to the above described project. This letter is to inform you that at the City Council meeting of April 12, 2016, City staff will be recommending that the Council reject as non - responsive the bid from CEM for failure to submit addenda No. 1 and to award the contract to Green Giant as the lowest responsive bidder. The City Council will meet on April 12, 2016, at 7:00 p.m. to consider the award. all luc c`Y, I - Rafael M. Fajardo, P.E. Curtis Cannon City Engineer Special Project Manager MAYOR: MARGARET CLAN( MAYOR PRO TEM: SANDRA ARMEWA COUNCIL MEMBERS; WILLIAM ALARCON POLLY LOW STEVEN LY April 6, 2016 W Elise M. Michel President CEM Construction, Corp. 8207 Brookgreen Road Downey, CA 90240, Dear Ms.: Michel Re: City of Rosemead Zapopan Park Improvement Project City staff has reviewed the bid CEM submitted to the City as it relates to the above described project. This letter is to inform you that at the City Council meeting of April 12, 2016, City staff will be recommending that the Council reject your bid as non - responsive for failing to include and verify receipt of Addenda No 1. Sections 27 and 28, as well as other sections of the Bid Documents, provide that submission of the addenda is necessary to be responsive. Section 27 BIDDER'S RESPONSIVENESS states in part: A Bid not meeting the requirements of the responsiveness checklist may be rejected Immediately upon opening, and returned to the Bidder's representative. Section 28 BIDDER'S RESPONSIVENESS CHECKLIST states: The Owner's initial responsiveness evaluation will consider the following: A. Completed and properly executed Bid Letter (Including a completed Total Bid Price, completed Bid Bond amount, acknowledged addenda completed state of incorporation or partner /joint venturer information (if applicable), completed license number, and signature by authorized company officer); In addition, the Addendum itself states: "Failure to acknowledge receipt of addendum, will disqualify the Bidder" City staff will be recommending to the City Council that your bid be rejected as non - responsive and that the contract be awarded to the next lowest responsive bidder for the reasons stated above. The City Council will meet on April 12, 2016, at 7:00 p.m. to consider the award. If you would like to appeal my decision such written appeal must be received by 9:00 am Monday April 11th, 2016. Sincerely, _ '`Rafael M. Fajardo, P.E. City Engineer Curtis Cannon Special Project Manager MAYOR: MARGARET CLARK MAYOR PRO TEM: SANDRAARMENTA COUNCIL MEMBERS: WILLIAM ALARCGN SANDRA ARMENTA STEVEN LY April 7, 2016 Emigdio Carrillo, M.S., P.E. Project Engineer CEM Construction Corp. 8297 Brockgreen Rd. Downey, CA 90240 Dear Mr. Carrillo: City of 1psemead 8838 E. VALLEY BOULEVARD P.0 BOX 399 ROSEMEAD, CALIFORNIA 91770 TELEPHONE (626) 569 -2100 FAX (626) 307 -9218 I have carefully reviewed and considered your appeal letter dated April 6, 2016. Please consider this letter a response to your bid protest appeal of the Project Engineer's notice of rejecting CEM's bid as non - responsive. As to your comments regarding whether you received the addenda from the City, please note the following language in the Instructions to Bidders: "Section 5. Addenda ", end of 2nd Paragraph: "Please note: Bidders are primarily and ultimately responsible for ensuring that they have received any and all Addenda. To this end, each Bidder should contact the Development Services Department to verify that he has received all Addenda issued, if any. " In addition, in reviewing email correspondences from Ericka Hernandez, Assistant to the City Clerk, it indicates the following: (1) an email transmitting Addendum 1 was sent to " cemconstructionna live.com on 3/23/16 3:46 pm, and (2) an email receipt confirming the email was read by " cemconstructionglive.com " on 3/23/16 6:48 pm. Although this may be a different CEM email address than you listed on the projects an email message was sent and received by CEM's office and that email address has been used in the past by the City to communicate with CEM on bids. Further, the Addenda was posted on the City website. The City is permitted to require strict compliance with the bid documents. See Taylor Bus Service, Inc. v. San Diego Board of Education (1987) 195 Ca1.App.3d 1331, 1342. Further, the City also has the discretion as to whether it may waive or refuse to waive certain deviations. See MCM v. City & County of San Francisco, 66 Cal.AppAth 359, 373 (1998) In this case the addenda was not submitted with the bid documents which makes the bid nonresponsive. Based on the above and prior correspondence, City staff will be recommending that OEM's bid be rejected as non - responsive. As noted in the prior letter, the City Council will be considering this action at its City Council meeting of April 12„ 2016 at 7:00 pm. Sincerely, Jeff Allred City Manager cc Elisa M. Michel, President CEM Construction Corp Rachel Richman, City Attorney, Burke, Williams and Sorensen Anthony La, Interim Director of Public Works Rafael Fajardo, City Engineer Curtis Cannon, Special Projects Manager