RRA - Item 3 - Bid Protest (Rosemead Garvey Ave. Senior Housing And Community Centerf .
Memorandum
To: Frank G. Tripepi
from: Stephen Copenhaver
Dttc: December G, 2000
Subject Bid Protest • Rosemead Garvey Avenue Senior
Rousing and Community Center
The. Rosemead Redevelopment Agency has received two bid protest letters
pertaining to the Garvev Avenue Community Center and Senior Citizen
Housing bid process. Both letters of protest are from Sinanian
Development, Inc. and they request that the apparent loco bidder.
Fassberg Construction Company ("Fassberg") be rejected. Sinanian
Development, Inc. (°Sinanian") is the apparent second lowest bidder and
their protest letters are attached for the Board's consideration. .
Attached, also please find a letter from Onyx Architects. Inc.. the
Agency's architect, responding to the request to reject the Fassberg bid.
This letter presents the staff position on the subject matter discussed in
the protest letters.
Procedure for Consideration of Protest Letters
1. The Agency,Board should allow Sinanian. an opportunity to
present their protest and provide any required explanation of
their position on the bid process
2. Following Sinanian's presentation, Onyx Architects %vill present
their response to the Agency Board.
Recommendation
It is recommended that the Agency Board, pursuant to the provisions
contained in its bid document, waive any informalitics or irregularities in
the bid submitted by Fassberg and find that Fassberg met the submittal
deadline on the bid date.
AGENICY AGENDA
DEC 12 2000
ITERA No. -3
Aosemead/garveyigarvey
~dml SIN'ANIAN DEVELOPM
_ ENT, INC,
18980 VENTURA BLVD., STE. 200, TAIZANA. CA S1356(518) 9469666. FAX: (818) 7057914
November 30, 2000
Mr. Don Wagner
Assistant Manager
Rosemead, City Hall
8838 Vlley Blvd.
Rosemead, CA 91770
RE: ROSEMEAD AND GARVEY SENIOR HOUSING PROJECT
BID PROTEST
Dear Mr. Wagner:
1 am in receipt of the copies of the bids for the above referenced project. However, the point I
tried to make earlier was that Fassberg's bid should be rejected on grounds that it was
submitted after the deadline to submit bids. This requirement was spelled out in Paragraph 4.3.2
SUBMISSION OF BIDS of .the Instructions to Bidders which reads "Ends shalt be deposited at
the designated location prior to the time and date for receipt of Bids. Bids received after the time
and date for receipt of Bids will be retumed unopened. " This requirement must be enforced to
this bid as it is to all public bids.
I have made numerous requests to personally verify the stamp on Fassberg's envelope. The
initial request I made was at the bid openino at which time I was told that the only way I can
examine the bids was by making a written request for an appointment. On November-22, 2000, 1
made the written request to examine the bids. That letter was answered by a Fed Ex package
containing copies of all of the bids (except SDI's). The only thing thal'was missing was what I
wanted to examine in the fist place, which was the: time on the stamps on the envelopes. At ihis
point, 1 would like to make a formal request for an appointment to examine the envelopes and
verify the time on the stamps.
In addition to the lack of timeliness of the bid, we are also protesting the bid on the grounds that
it is non-responsive. There were major errors in the "Bid Cost Breakdown" sheet by Fassberg.
The "Bid Cost Breakdown" sheet was required to be submitted with the bids and to be on the
forms provided by the City of Rosemead. The bidding documents and the addenda provided:
Addendum 6 Paragraph 1.2 SPECIFICATIONS; A.I. BID FORM: The Bid Cost
Breakdown form will remain 'a requirement at the time bids are submitted. The
Total Bid figure will determine the low bidder. .
Addendum C Paragraph 1.2 REVISIONS TO ADDENDUM B.. A. L, 1.2, A.1. BID
FORM: The Bid Cost Breakdown form will remain a requirement at the time bids
are submitted. The Total Bid figure will determine the low bidder.
The spreadsheet had four columns as indicated below. The first column indicated the
description of the worn for which a price was being submitted. The second colu n indicated the
price for the Senior Housing portion of the work, the third column indicated the price lur the
Community center portion, and the fourth column summed the second and third columns.
rrors in Bid:
In the Suspended Acoustical Ceilings line item there is a $10,000 discrepancy between their
costs and the subtotal.
SINANIAN DEVELOPMENT, INC.
• The total whicn they put for the Senior Housing Column is 55,276,461.00. This once should
have been $5,476,248 if they did their math correctly.
• The total which they put for the Community Center Column is $2,;47,42,00. This price
should have been $3,024,587.00 if they did their math correctly.'
• Then the spreadsheet asked fur prices for the General Conditions and for the Bonds. Their
prices were $1,,727,079 and $110,973.00 respectively. If you add their sums as they
indicated you get the following: $5,276.461.00 + $2,347,242.00, $1,727,079 + $110.973.00
+ $773,720.00' = $10,235,475.00 However, they wrote $11,354,418.
("The $773,720.00 is for the first six items of the Cost Breakdown. These prices
were to be included in the fourth column only.)
• If you ignore their summations at the bottom of the spreadsheet, and add the iterns one by
one you get $11,112,558.00.
If you only look at the fourth column and sum up the subtotals you gel $11,102,598.00.
Page C-1 of the Bid Form states as follows: "in the case of discrepancies in the amounts bid,
words shall govern over figures."Fassberg left the portion of the bid where you are supposed to
write in your bid amount in words and figures empty. They only completed the Cost Breakdown
spreadsheet.
Also. they made a spreadsheet somewhat similar to the spreadsheet in the Bidding Documents
and replaced it with the Cost Breakdown sheet which was provided by the City. This shouid of
not been done. Prior to the bid, Mr. Doug Joyce front ONYX - the Architects on this job, told me
over the phone that none of the forms in the bidding documents shall be substituted. We were
only allowed to use the forms provided to us with the Bidding Documents in order to avoid any
problems which may arise from discrepancies between the two forms.
As a result of.the foregoing, we additionally protest the award of the contract to Fas=_berg as
their bid was non-responsive. In light of the foregoing, we request a hearing on our protest prior
to the award of the contract. Please advise us as to the time and place of the hearing on our
protest.
Regards,
Gerard Sinantan
CC; Mr. Frank Tripepi, Manager, City of Rosemead
Mr. Douglas D. Joyce, ONYX
Mr. Gordon Hunt, Esq., Hunt. Ortrnann, Blasco, Pal y & Rossell, Inc.
Face 2 of 2
iiml SINANIAN DEVE
tL0
PMENT, INC.
18980 VENTURA BLVD., STE. 200, TARZANA, CA 91356 (818) 9969666, FAX: (At8)
November 22, 2000
Mr. Don VVaoner
Assistant Manager
City of Rosemead
8838 East Valley Blvd.
Rosemead, CA 91770
RE:- ROSEMEAD AND GARVEY SENIOR HOUSING PROJECT
SUBJECT: BID PROTEST
Dear Mr. ,.agner:
The Notice Inviting Bidders for the above referenced project states that the Agencv will accept
bids "until 2:00 PM'. I was personally present on the day bids were to be presented. Our bid
was submitted at 1:50 pm. your clerk staled that we barely met the deadline. After 2:Oo pm,
Fassberg submitted its bid and therefore it was untimely. If there is one principle that governs
public bidding, it is that bids submitted after the deadline must be rejected.
On the basis of the foregoing, this letter will constitute our protest of your acceptance of
Fassberg's bid. 11 was submitted after 2:00 pm (based upon my personal observation) and
therefore, should have been rejected.
Paragraph 4.12 SUBMISSION OF BIDS of the Instructions to Bidders of the bidding
documents reads as follows: "Bids shalt be deposited at the designated location prior to the tirne
and date for receipt of Bids. Bids received after the time and date for receipt of Bids wX be
returned unopened."
It is only fair that all bidders be held to the same standards, and the terms of the bid submittal
process be enforced to all seven contractors who submitted a price for this project. Thus, I am
formally protesting the bid submitted by Fassberg, and requesting that it be rejected nn the
basis that it was not submitted on time.
The courts have clearly held that where the bid is received after the deadline for submitting bids,
it must be rejected. See the cases attached nereto.
Also, I am hereby making a request for an appointment lc come to the City Hall and review all of
the bids which were submitted.
Regards,
GEtrard Sinanian
CC: Mr. Frank Tripepi, Manager, City of Rosemead
t'9r. Gordon Hunt, Esq., Hunt, Ortmann. Blasco, Palffy & Rossell, Inc.
I
Unyubkthed B-I 41611, JAAfES L FERRY AND SONS, INC.:
X 7W B-181611. 74-2 CPD P ZZ
MATTER OF: JAMES L FERRY AND SONS,
INC:
NOV 7, 1,974
WHERE PROTESTERS REPRESENTATIVE
DELIVERED HAND CARRIED BID 3 WffUMS
LATE TO ROOM WRERE BIAS WERE BEING
OPENED, SUBSTANTIAL CAUSE OF DELAY
WAS REPRESENTATIVE'S FAILURE TO ALLOW
SUFF70ENT TIME FOR DEIJYBRY. HENCE
LATENESS IS NOT . ATTXIBUTABLE TO
EXTRAORDINARY DELAY OR MISDIRECT70N
BY GOlTRNIIENT PERSONNEL AND BID MAY
NOT BE CONSIDERED FOR A WARD.
JAMES L. FERRY AND SONS, INC. PROTESTS
THE REFUSAL OF THE BUREAU OF
RECLAMATION TO OPEN In BID SUBMITTED
IN RESPONSE TO INl?TATIO.N FOR BIDS (IFB)
NO. 100G9" ITS PROTEST IS PREMISED ON
THE ASSERTION THAT THE DETERNINAT70N
THAT ITS BID WAS LATE WAS IMPROPER IN
VIEW OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES
SURROUNDING THE SUAVISSION OF ITS
HA,YD-CARRIED BID.
THE IFB, TO WHICH WAS APPENDED
SPECIFICATION NO. 140G94, P)tOVIDEDTHAT
SEALED BIAS WOULD BE RECEIVED AT THE
ADMINISTRATION BUILDING, TRACY
PUMPING PLANT, IN THE OFFICE OF THE
CHIEF, .TRACY F7ELD DTVLSION, BUREAU OF
RECLAMATION, UNTIL I&00 A.M. LOCAL
TIME. THE PROTESTER MAINTAINS THAT
ITS REPRESENTAMT ARRIVED AT THE
DISIGNATED BUILDING SEVERAL MINUTES
BEFORE lO.W A.M. AND SAT IN HIS CAR
UNTIL JUST BEFORE 9.S9, AT WHICH TIME
HE ENTERED THE EUILDING, THERE IS
SOME DISP07 AS TO THE ESACT TIME AT
WHICR THE REPRESENTATIVE ENTERED
THE BUILDING INASMUCH AS PERSONNEL IN
THE ADMINISTRATION BUILDING AT 774E
TIME RECOUNT THAT THE TIME WAS ONLYA
FEW SECONDS BEFORE 10.00 A.M.
NEVERTHELESS, BOTH PARTIES ARE IN
GENERAL AGREEMENT AS TO THE EVENTS
THAT OCCURRED THEREAFTER.
THE OFFICES WITHIN THE
ADMINISTRATION BUILDING ARE LOCATED
O.N TWO FLOORS. WITH THE ENTRANCE
Pole I
LOCATED MIDWAY BETWEEN. THE
INFORMATION TELEPHONE OPERATOR'S
OFFICE IS LOCATED AT THE HEAD OF THE
STEPS TO THE F1RS7 FLOOR DIRECTLY
ACROSS THE HAIL FROM THE OFFICE OF
THE CHIEF'S SECRETARY, WHICH IN TURN IS
LOCATED JUST OUTSIDE THE OFFICE OF
TIE CHIEF . THE MAIL AND FILE OFFICE IS
LOCATED TO THE RIGHT SIDE OF THE FOOT
OF THE STAIRS ON THE BASEMENT FLOOR,
WITH THE CONFERENCE ROOM LOCATED
APPROXIMATELY 60 FEET ALONG THE
CORRIDOR FROM THE FOOT OF THE STAIRS
ON THE BASEMENT FLOOR..
UPON ENTERING THE BUILDING THE
PROTESTER S REPRESENT'ATTVB PROCEEDED
IV THE HEAD Of THE FIRST FLOOR STAIRS
AND ADVISED THE OPERATOR TWAT HE WAS
THERE FOR THE BID OPENING. AT THAT
POINT THE REPRESENTATIVE WAS JUST
OUTSIDE THE ENTRY AREA TO THE OFFICE
OF THE CHIEF WHICH HAD BEEN
DESIGNATED AS THE PLACE PON BID
DELAERY. HALING VERIFIED THAT
NEITHER OF THE BUREAU PERSONNEL
CONNECTED WITH THE BID OPENING WAS IN
HIS OFFICE AND SNOWING THAT THE CHIEF
WAS NOT IN THAT DAY, THE INFORMATION
TELEPHONE OPERATOR QU7CXLY CALLED
FOR THE MAIL AND FILES SUPERVISOR TO
HELP THE REPRESENTATIVE FIND AIR.
OTW;AY. ACCORIXNG TO THE MAIL AND FILE
SUPERVISOR, SHE TOLD 771B OPERATOR
THAT SHE BELIEVED THAT AIR. OTWAY WAS
AT THE BID OPENING AN'D COULD NOT BE
CALLED OUT, WIIEREIPON THE OPERATOR
RESPONDED STATING THAT SHE BELIEVED
THAT THE REPRESENTATIVE HAD A BID. AT
THAT POINT THE MAIL AND FILE
SUPERVISOR REPORTS THAT SHE LOOKED AT
THE CLDCK AND, UPON DETERMINING THAT
IT WAS 1"2, TOLD THE OPERATOR THAT
THE REPRESENTATTVE WAS TOO LATE BUT
THAT SHE WOULD SEE HIM. THEREFORE
SHE RAN TO THE CONFERENCE ROOM AND
ASLTD....WHETHEL - THE--REPRESENTATIVE
SHOULD BE SENT IN. HAVING SEEN TOLD
THAT THE INDIVIDUAL SHOULD BE
BROUGHT TO THE CONFERENCE ROOM, SHE
RAN BACK DOWN THE HALLWAY AND HALF
WAY UP THE STAIRS AND BECKONED THE
REPRESENTATIVE TO FOLLOW. HE ARRIVED
AT THE CONFERENCE. ROOM A.YD
SUBMTTED HIS BID AT lb.-N.
Co,Tri'& (c) Wert G,oq 1998 No cwx m odrinal VS. Cn K. w kj
UEPu081Med B-1 dl ti11, JAMES L FERRY AND SONS, INC.:
ON THE BASIS OF THESE FACTS, THE
PROTESTER CONTENDS THAT ITS BID WAS
NOT LATE BUT THAT ITS REPRESE'rTA77VE
WAS AT THE APPOINTED PLACE,. THE
l.OCATJON OF TIfE,Q E_QF_TIM CHIEF,
BEFORE THE APPOINTED 10.•00 DEADLINE.
THE PROTESTER FURTHER SUGGESTS THAT
THE LATENESS OF THE BID DELIVER.T WAS
DUE NOT TO ANY FAULT ON ITS TART, BUT
TO THE FACT THAT THE GOVERNVENT
OFFJCIALS WERE NOT AT THE ROOM
DESIGNATED FOR BID DELIVERY BUT HAD
REMOVED THEMSELVES TO THE
CONFERENCE ROOM ON THE LOWER FLOOR
Of THE BUILDING. THE BUREAU OF
RECLAMATION, ON THE OTHER HAND, IS OF
THE OPINION THAT THE BID WAS NOT
DELIVERED TO THF. RECEIVING OFFICE BY
10.00 A.M. INASMUCH AS THE.PROTESTER S
REPRESEN7A71VE AT NO TIME ENTERED
THE OFFICE OF THE CHIEF OR THE OFFICE
ADJACEAT THERETO IN WHICH THE
SECRETARY TO THE CHIEF WAS LOCATED.
IN SUPPORT OF THIS POSITION, THE
SECRETARY TO THE CHIEF HAS SUBMITTED
A MEMOXANDUaf STATING THAT HER
OFFICE IS POSITIONED SO AS TO INTERCEPT
ALL TRAFFIC LEADING TO AND FROM THE
C RIEF'S OFFICE AND THAT FOR THE PERIOD
OF TIME FROM APPROYJWATELY 0;30 A.M.
TO 1030 A.M. NO ONE LOOKED INTO THE
OFFICE OR EN7ERED THE OFFICE FOR THE
PURPOSE OF DELIVERING A BID ON
INQUIRING WHERE IT SHOULD BE
DELIVERED, WHILE APPARENTLY
CONCEDING THAT ITS REPRESENTATIVE DID
NOT ENTER THE DESIGNATED OFFICE, THE
PROTESTER MAINTAINS THAT ITS
REPRESENTATIVE WAS LU FACT AT THE
OPERATORS OFFICE . WITHIN A FEW STEPS
OF THE CHIEF'S OFFICE - AND WOULD HAVE
DELIVERED THE BID TO THAT OFFICE HAD
HE NOT BEEN USHERED TO THE
CONFERENCE ROOM IN RESPONSE TO HIS
REQUEST FOR DJRSCTIOAS TO THE PUCE
OF BID OPENING.
•73766 IN SUPPORT OF ITS REFUSING TO
OPEN THE BID SUBMITTED BY JAMES L
FERRY AND SONS, INC., THE BUREAU OF
RECLAMATION CITES OUR HOLDING AT 39
COMP. GEN. 134 pRS8), FOR THE
PROPOSITION THAT IT IS THE
RESPONSIBILITY OF . THE BIDDER
SUBMITTING A HAND-CARRIED HID TO SEE
paer 1
THAT ITS BID IS DELIVERED TO THE
DESGNATED OFFICE PRIOR TO THE 77AIE
SPECIFIED FOR RECEIPT.
IN A.TTZkfl! 7NG T0._DIS.U..N~LIISA 3d CQMP.
GEN. 23,, SUPRA, FROM ITS SITUATION, THE
PROTESTER CONTENDS THAT ITS BID WAS
DELIVERED TO THE DESIGNATED OFFICE BY
THE APPOINTED TIME. LV ESSENCE, THE
PROTESTER CONTENDS THAT. THE INSTANT
SITUATION 1S SIMILAR TO THAT WHIC1115
THE SUBJECT OF OL9t HOLDING IN 34 COMP.
GEN. ISO (19541 IN WHICH IT WAS FOUND
THAT THE LATENESS OF THE HAND-
CARRIED BID WAS DUE TO EXTRAORDINARY
DELAY- CAUSED BY GOVEMWENT
PERSONNEL AND TEE BID COUTII THUS BE
CO-NSUWXED. IN THAT CASE THE BILIUER'S
REPRESENTATIVE HAD IN FACT' DELIVERED
ITS BID TO THE USUAL A,ND DESIGNATED
BID DEPOSITORY BY THE APPOINTED HOUR;
HOWEVER, THE GOVERNMEAT EMPLO)7E
AT THAT LOCATION HAD RETURNED THE
BID TO THE . REFRESEMATTVE AND
REDIRECTED HIM TO A CONFERENCE ROOM
WHERE THE BID OPENING WAS TO TAKE
PLACE. HE ARRIVED AT THAT LOCATION 3
MINUTES AFTER THE TIME DESIGNATED
FOR DELIVERY OF BIDS,
WHILE IN CERTAIN RESPECTS THE
SITUATION INVOLVED IN 3I COMP. GEN. 150,
SUPRA; BEARS A RESEMBLANCE. TO THE
CASE AT aAND, IT IS DISTINGUISHABLE IN
OAT CRITICAL U.GARD._ SPECIFICALLY, THE
PROTESTER'S REPRESENTATIVE DID NOT
DELIVER ITS BLD TO THE DESIGNATED
ROOM PRIOR TO 10:00 A.M. AS TO
PROTESTER'S SUGGES7708 THAT DEUVERY
TO THE DESIGNATED ROOM WAS
PRECLUDED BY THE AC77ONS OF BURE4U
PERSONNEL REMOVING THEMSELVES TO
THE CONFERENCE ROOM, WE POINT OUT
THAT THE SECRETARY TO TILE CHIEF WAS
IN THE ANTP_ROOM TO THE CHIEF'S OFFICE
PRIOR TO AND AT 10;00 A.M. WHILE, AS THE
PROTESTER CONTENDS, IT MAY HA YE BEEN
INAPPROPRIATE FOR ITS REPRESENTATIVE
TO ENTER THE CHIEF'S OFFICE WITHOUT
HAWNG BEEN FIRST 'INVITED TO DO SO,
THERE IS NO INDICATION THAT HE
ENTERED T11E AA7EROOM TO THAT OFFICE
OR ATTEMPTED TO MATE DELIVERY TO
THAT LOCATION. AND, N02'147TJISTANDING
THAT THE BID OPENING WAS OCCURRING IN
Coorick R) Wcl Grvbw 1998 No alaLw to vjrL l U.S. Gow. wrlr
UiPubfisW Li18J612, LANES L. FERRY AND SONS, INC.:
THE CONFERENCE ROOM, THE FACT
REMAINS THAT THE CHIEF'S SECP,ETARY
WAS IN A POSITION TO RECEIVE BIDS
DELIVERED TO 771E CHIEF'S OI'FICE.
UPON A REVIEW OF . ALL THE
CIRCUMSTANCES OF 77175 CASE, IT APPEARS
THAT -A SIGNIFICANT CAUSE OF THE LATE
DELIVERY *AS THE FAILURE OF THE
PROM M'S REPRESENTATIVE TO ALLOW
SUFFICIENT 77ME FOR DELIVERY. IT IS
ARGUABLE THAT THE 2 MINUTES WHICH
T71E PROTESTER CLAIMS WAS ALLOWED
FROM THE TIME OF ENTERING THE
BUIL DLYG WOULD HAVE BEEN SUF117CIENT
FOR TIMELY DELIVERY, GIVEN DELAYS IN
OBTAINING DIRECTION'S. MOREOVER,
PROTESTERS C087EN77ON THAT ITS
REPRESENTATIVE ENTERED THE BUILDING
Al 9:S8 IS DISPL7ED BY STATEMENTS OF
THE INFORALA770H TELEPHONE OPERATOR
Pape3
AND THE MAUL AND FIf.ES SUPERt7SOR
INUCA77NG THAT THE REPRESENTATIVE
ENTERED 'THE BUILDING OhZY A FEW
SECONDS BEFORE IU.-W A- M.
INASMUCH AS THE PROTESTERSS FAILURE
TO A77TMYT DELIVERY TO THE
DESIGNATED ROOM, COUPLED WITH HIS
FAILURE TO ALLOW SUFFTCIEN7 TIME,
APPEAR TO RE THE SUBSTANTIAL CAUSES
OF LATE DELIVERY, WE CANNOT' CONCLUDE
TW IT RESULTED EITHER FROM SUCH
EXTRAORDINARY DELAY OR 31ISDURECTION
BY GOVERNMENT PERSONNEL AS TO PERMIT
ITS EXCEPTION FROM THE RULE THAT A
LATE BID MAY NOT BE CONSIDERED FOR
AWARD. CF. B-178984, OCTOBER IO, 1973,
AND Si CORP. GEN. 69 (1971). THEREFORE,
TILE PROTEST OF JAMES L FERRY AND
SONS, INC IS DENIED.
CoPlritk (e) Weu Group 1998 No cigum IF w4taw U.S. Gm. warb
65 Comp. Gta 71, Arnold Rooter, 1mc.
•36116 65 Coatp. Ceet. 71, 8220197, 85.1
CPD 1'574
MATTER OF: Arnold Rootrr, Inc
Novemtber 29, J9g5
DIGEST
1. WAen the ontr evidence of eke stwc that Une
bLfdrr'c rapuxtcarah'rc arrived d tie coraaaing
.LTI" Canrtay of a staeemnt of JAW ptrottstar that (k
reprsserladva arrived priv to tkt bad opening dwe
and a rsaemmant of Aar coxerwitV agency that the
mpruewtaw arrived q&r than djw, the protester
has failed to sustain lu brasleA-0 provost that tike
bid was sat Left.
2. b L char bidder's rcspt,aribllby to cure wb &
arrival of 67'bid at the place 41 bid opeabtt, aped a
bid that it lam Attause the Mdder failed to allow
J40kkat Cmc for delivety.of -the bid way acv be
considered for cw=t 71r foe that bide had not
bun opened when the Late bid war wciwd is
lrrtlevaw, sine.- dw Lnsprrtu s of maimai slat the
WegM of the cewperfave biddoq iysuat owtlt)u
asu wsomdw7 saving rid mitN be obtained by
easutdvInt a late hid , . -
Arenld Ra-w, Inc. (ARI) proew.; aw rriccuoa a
tare of ter bid under brvUdom for bid (IFB) No.
F1162345--B-0053, trsmed by char Depev swnt of eke
Air Farm to Lest and real toe tardtary sewer system
® Scaa AD Force Bare, Itbnois, We derp the.
protesd.
Bid opt" *at scbedukd for 3 p.n as
Scotasber J6, _ I.M. ARJ -dktcs that to
reprertntartYe was prctew d she bast entreats
o kj prior to the 3 p a dead&w and tendered Its
bid to the procureaurm clert The clerk trtforBwd
ARl's represewadw rha a MStr Yoegk would have
to h tail dfrow she bid apesdng roew. According
b slat prtsenar, It was 3:01 p.m when Vsgt )CaejG
come oat, and im rFivrcd to accept fie bld hem"
the ar= tine for the opealtsg a bids had patted
ARl comendi that the ltd should have been
acerpttd duce h was glyered to Me clerk befort 3
p.w. AJU, whore rcpresematve weer to Uw bed
aptu6ig tvosa amd need the tm old had yd Aeea
opened, farther w7wi rkar no advantW towed havt
been gained by ARJ if kr bid were xupely and tk¢
6 p=Lng fom am rubrtauc eke torrrnmu[ !ores
Pate I
the S47,00 by wh(cb ARI'J bid alletedb it below
the low aeeeptad tae. (IAe firw's atormry -holds the
bid, w4lc4 the rovernnieev never. gwned)
AttardLtd to the Air Force prucureettse cheek who
war tAe fbst person oonfaded by ARI, AR1't
represewarim arrind a[ 3:03 p.w. Wkem ARl
eared hs beat, Ae Air Porte umu, rAe procsv ~w
dent advtraf AJU that tike bid war late, bvI coned
MSgt Raegk to Ike Q,pSu to talk to ARJ's
mpuemralm. - AdSO X"lle atso advLad ARJ Usd
the bid wu late and could nor be accepted.-- A, A?
Force farther allspes that dw...ARJ.. reprviciuain
aedwowLdted to tevrrai people m time bid opening
thm lee was Lac bataY3e gf nvffk cDH&&m and
doe mby W tutting tAe building and neon.
Rhea ike en'y evidence m an 4sae q/ face co,uisis
of ronRktlrtg stateAttmt v rte proksorr and Out
agency, the protester Aar not selv'kd Its bard-x of
proof. Unico, Ire., &216592. Jane S, 1985, d5-1
C.P.D. ( 6CJ. h7ur0twc, abiaugk AJU caamadr
Usat W rcprestmfaclx arrtvrd at tkc eonvWming
oplte prior to Ike blot opening riaw, we are
comoviwed to accept the Ab, Force's garmsew 149
the represeatacfk firn arrtvrd a eke reeeyrdna desk 3
nimaks after the time for bid operant, and rim' the
bid thus van tae.
hlorcorer, b it nor rekwv the badr had mot yet
been ope eat when AR/'s loll wm receired. 77ne
bedding rukt end "I almdow are clear rim k b the
bidder's respaas Mo to arrrrt dweti arrival of as
bed at !it pearl of bid opcnlal, amd a bid that it late
because the btddcrfailed so allow egffic sw dace to
dt2mr the bed mm net be consUercd for award.
Sec Jawu L Fury and Sons, enc., B-111612, Nor.
7, 1974, 912 C.P.D. 1-245; -Federal Acqutrtlon
Rrealadoe% 48 C_F.R. J 14.341 (1984). We
wmis tally krw sak.en the p011:10n that these
rv,Uv Lmt Atari be eq/orced rtriao, sbwt
mQhW niag corltidemae W tkc MtetrOy of the
compeiCtn biddiat rysata otawdthr cup morA%wy
savings Ad osigkt bw ebrdmed by wmlderatdon of a
face M4 51 CoegtGem, 173 (I971); Chestnra HUI
Carutradl n. Inc., &216891, Apr. 11, 1985, 834
C.P.D. 1443.
rke Prosau ti dtn44
Nary X Van L7ew
General Ce ucl
CopyritAr (c) Wen Group 1998 No claim to original U.S. Gott worts
ME
00
4 December 2000
City of Rosemead
Redevelopment Agency Board
8838 East Valley Boulevard
Rosemead, CA 91770
RE: Rosemead Garvey Avenue Senior Housing and Community Center
ONYX Project No. P98073
Members of the Board:
SUBJECT: Bid Protest Letters
This correspondence will serve as a response and background to the two "bid protest" letters
submitted by Gerard Sinanian of Sinanian Development, Inc., dated November 22, 2000, and
November 30, 2000. In their bid protest letters, Sinanian Development, Inc. requests that the
Fassberg Construction Company ("Fassberg") bid be rejected on the following basis:
1. That the bid was not submitted prior to 2:00 p.m. on November 21, 2000.
2. That there were math errors on the bid form.
3. That the total bid amount was left off of the front sheet of the bid form.
4. That a substitute form for the bid package was used.
Sinanian Development, Inc., was the apparent second lowest bidder.
To date, the lowest responsible bid has not been selected by the Agency Board. It will be our
recommendation to the Agency Board that the Fassberg bid receive all due consideration and not
be rejected as requested. Rosemead bid procedure requires that the Agency Board allow the
author of the bid protest to state his firm's case directly to the Board and ask for a decision in
their favor. Therefore, the Board will'be able to consider both perspectives.
The project team has discovered minor errors in all of the seven bids received on the project.
Section 5.3.1 of the AIA A701 Instructions to Bidders (a pan of the bid package) states that "The
Owner shall have the right to waive informalities or irregularities in a Bid received and to accept
the Bid which, in the Owner's judgement, is in the Owner's best interest." With this provision in
O N Y X A R
PR cwA
ROBERT H. CARFE P, AIA
DAI F W. BRowN, AIA
\ Assocwi PNNCBAI C
ST rH A. KucHE m, AU
Doucus D. ]oVcE m, AIA
CH ONC V. Nco, Am
1 KENNETH P. SCOFIEID, AIA
H I T E C T S
V 626.405.8001
F 626.405.8150
16 NORI MARENCo No. 700
PASADENA, CAuFOMN
91101
www.ONYXARCHIE CTS. COM
City of Rosemead Redevelopment Agency
4 December 2000
mind, Onyx Architects explanation and recommendations pertaining to the specific bid protest
issues are as follows:
Bid Submittal Time
in the minutes prior to the bid, closing, the project team consisting of the Architects, the Owner's
construction management representatives, GRC, as well as City officials were making
preparations. A GRC representative approached the reception desk in City Hall where bids were
being delivered to observe the final moments of the bid submittals and to check the clocks. The
receptionist stated that several bids were already submitted and logged in. Inquiries had been
made by some of the bidders about what was the actual time. The receptionist had been informed
that the deadline for receiving bids was 2:00 p.m. and she had set her clock by telephone time.
By this clock setting, at 1:59:30.p.m. the receptionist announced that thirty seconds remained.
Thereupon the GRC representative walked directly to the front door of City Hall (about 25 feet
away) and informed those outside the door that there was thirty seconds to go. The one
remaining bidder left to submit, Fassberg, walked immediately to the reception desk and turned
in their bid. The receptionist, not having a time stamp, rounded-up to the next minute and
logged the Fassberg bid at 2:00 p.m. The last bid was received approximately 10 to 20 seconds
before the hour utilizing the clock that had been selected and set by the receptionist. Therefore,
it is our. opinion that Fassberg had met the bid submittal deadline.
Bid Form Math Errors
Sinanian Development made a detailed explanation in their protest letter regarding the Fassberg
bid breakdown and its apparent math errors. It is not a requirement for the bidders on their
breakdown sheets to present perfect math. The purpose of the breakdowns was for the
construction management team to analyze the sub categories of each bid to determine if there
would be any problems with the low bidder. Sinanian Development's quotation of language in
Addendum B and C is a misinterpretation of the intent of these documents. Note the last
sentence of their Addendum C quotation: "The Total Bid figure will determine the low bidder".
The total or "bottom line" figure is what determines the apparent low bidder. Therefore, it is our
opinion that this issue is not sufficient to disqualify the Fassberg bid.
0 N Y X A R C H I T E C T S
City of Rosemead Redevelopment Agency
4 December 2000
Page 3
Total Bid Amount was left Off the Bid Form
Sinanian Development protests that the bid amount was not shown on the top sheet of the bid
form. However, the bid amount was easily determined as identified on the bid breakdown sheet.
As to Sinanian Development's protest that "words shall govern over figures" in determining the
submitted bid amount, as discussed above, math errors are not considered to constitute a
discrepancy. Therefore, it is our opinion that this issue is not sufficient to disqualify the Fassberg
bid.
Substitution of Bid Form
Sinanian Development protests that Fassberg substituted a bid form for one that was originally
supplied in the bid package. When Sinanian Development made their telephone inquiry to Onyx
regarding substitution of bid forms, they were advised that a substitution could be made, but were
warned that creating a new form might be grounds to have their bid rejected. Fassberg made this
substitution for purposes of word processing. It is substantially the same as the form supplied in
the bid package. Therefore, it is our opinion that this issue is not sufficient to disqualify the
Fassberg bid. -
Sincerely,.
ONYX ARCHITECTS, INC.
Don Wagner
Steve Copenhaver
Dale Brown
0 N Y X A R C H I T E C T S
Memorandum -
To: Frank G. Tripepi
Fron Stephen Copenhaver
DaL: December 6, 2000
Subjcet Rosemead Garvey Avenue_ Senior Housing and
Community= Center
Receipt of Construction Bids
The bid opening for the Garvey Avenue. Senior Housing and Community
Center project occurred on November 21, 2000. In accordance with the
Invitation to Bid, the City Cleric received (7) seven bids by the 2:00 P.M.
deadline.
The staff has reviewed the bids and the results are as follows:
1. Fassberg Construction Company _ $111364;413
2. Sinanian Development, Inc $121351,205
3. Ellias Construction Co-, Inc.. $12.564.000
4. Martin-Harris Construction $12,875,755
5. HA Lewis, Inc. $13,273;000
6. Pinner Construction Company, Inc $13,514;000
7. JR Roberts Corporation $14,977,000
The low bid was received from Fassberg Construction Company and it
was submitted with the proper Bid Security, Non Collusion Affidavit,
Subcontractnr,list and Qualification Statement.
Fassberg Construction Company ("Fassbei.g")Owner, Abraham Fassberg.
met with Agency staff and architects on November 30, 2000.and discussed
the submitted bid. At this meeting, Fassberg supported his bid and
reviewed his qualifications. Their experience includes a similar
community center building built as a joint project for the cities of
Calabasas and Agoura Hills and a multitude of senior housing projects
throughout Southern California. The staff has been contacting Fassberg
references and have received positive recommendations. With respect to
their litigation history, the company has been involved in litigation with
subcontractors but has not been involved in major litigation with a project
sponsor nor has been removed from a construction job. Overall, the staff
believes that the firm is qualified to undertake the project.
Representatives of the construction company are scheduled to attend the
Agency meeting and they are providing.a copy of their company brochure
for review under separate cover.
Analysis of Bid Versus the Architect's Estimate
At a prior Agency meeting, the Board requested an explanation of the
variance between the original architect's estimate of approximately $10
million, and the low bid secured iu the formal bid process. Onyx
Architects have prepared a summary statement discussing the variance
from their perspective which is attached.
Generally, the original 'architect's bid was formulated several months
prior to the bid date and it did not include certain changes in the scope of
the project and allowances. No one category of'construction cost accounts
for the variance. For instance, the bid amount on soils compaction work
at slightly less than $700.000 is higher than in the original estimate but it
only accounts for a percentage of the variance. The same holds true for
the $200,000 allowance for FI'&E, changes to the meeting room, the
larger basement and upgn•aded structural changes resulting from the
third-party review of the earthquake hazard. A percentage of the change
appears to be related to the active construction market and rising costs.
Recommendation
It is recommended that the Agency Board award the subject contract to
Fassberg Construction Company and authorize the Board Chairman to
execute the required contract documents (the form of contract was
approved as part of the bid package). The staff' suggests that the final
contract include the optional premium amount for Earthquake. Insurance
of $+22,500 for a total contract amount of $11,386,918.
I
PROJECT BIDDING
_MEMO DATE 5 DECEMBER 2000 -PROJECT ROSEMEAD / GARVEY AVENUE SENIOR HOUSING
PAGES 1 OF 1 AND COMMUNITY CENTER
PROJECT NP98073
EXPLANATION OF ADDITIONAL COSTS OVER ORIGINAL COST ESTIMATE
The following items contributed to the difference between the Project estimate and the low bid:
• Additional grading to bring new compacted fill down to natural grade on 100% of the site.
Allowance placed in bid for Fixtures, Furniture, and Equipment (FF&E).
Upgraded structural design to conform to more conservative seismic zone proximity factor.
. Elect to construct full instead of partial basement under community center.
Active construction market: Bidders had difficulties getting mechanical, electrical, and plumbing bids.
- - - - '
P:\Jobs\C980]}.rsb\DoesVnsers\esh ritym-;o.001305.DJ}.Ot.doc - -
O N Y X A R"C H I T E C T S
V 626.405. 8001 16 NORTH MAitiLNQo No. 7W
F 626. 405. 8150 PASADENA. CAUrawb+
N`\4'K'.ONI'a AttCHI"1'CC'I'S CO Al 91101 \