HomeMy WebLinkAbout8 Contract 2014 Water Replacement project Agenda Item # 8
TRUCKEE i
DONNER
PUblic Utility District
ACTION
To: Board of Directors
From: Neil Kaufman
Date: April 02, 2014
Subject: Consideration of the Award of a Contract for the 2014 Water
Pipeline Replacement Project
1. WHY THIS MATTER IS BEFORE THE BOARD
Board approval is required for expenditures in excess of$15,000.
2. HISTORY
The Water Department has an ongoing need to replace existing water pipelines that
fall into two basic categories.
1) Pipes that are in poor condition and require repeated repairs.
2) Pipes that are old, undersized (typically 4-inch diameter and smaller) and have
exceeded their useful life.
Historically, the District had undertaken an annual pipeline replacement project. Board
workshops were held in September 2013 and February 2014 to discuss the planned
District Pipeline Replacement- 2014 project. The project covers about 4,350 feet of
main at a number of locations:
• Boca Street from Prosser Drive to Sierra Drive
• Sierra Drive from Prosser Drive to Martis Street
• State Route 89 north of West River Street
• Sanders Well yard piping
• Rainbow Drive from Snowshoe Circle to Whiskey Jack Court
• Whitetail Lane from Blue Jay Lane to Rainbow Drive
• Snowshoe Circle east of Rainbow Drive
• Lakeview Court from Rainbow Drive to end
• Johnson Lane from 15800 Donner Pass Road to end (Additive Alternate)
• Willow Street service laterals & meter boxes (Additive Alternate)
The work at Donner Lake (Johnson Lane and Willow Street) was included as an
additive alternate in the bid documents.
3. NEW INFORMATION
The bid opening was held at 2:00 PM on March 20, 2013. Six bids were received. A
summary of the bids is given below:
BASE BID ONLY
Bidder Location Amount Responsive
Civil Engineering Construction Loomis, CA $1,013,186.00 Yes*
Campbell Construction Sparks, NV $1,145,095.00 Yes
A&K Earthmovers Sparks, NV $1,168,330.00 Yes
Hansen Brothers Grass Valley, CA $1,185,724.00 Yes
AM-X Construction & Excavation Truckee, CA $1,226,413.00 Yes
Rapid Construction Carson City, NV $1,542,751.10 Yes
* responsive with a minor irregularity
BASE BID WITH ADDITIVE ALTERNATE A
Bidder Location Amount Responsive
Civil Engineering Construction Loomis, CA $1,112,419.00 Yes*
Campbell Construction Sparks, NV $1,261,563.60 Yes
A&K Earthmovers Sparks, NV $1,282,000.00 Yes
Hansen Brothers Grass Valley, CA $1,308,195.00 Yes
AM-X Construction & Excavation Truckee, CA $1,374,650.00 Yes
Rapid Construction Carson City, NV $1,709,313.00 Yes
* responsive with a minor irregularity
It should be noted that the bid opening began at 2:00 pm as indicated in the contract
documents. At about 2:02 pm, an additional bidder attempted to submit a bid. That bid
was not accepted by the District and was not opened.
The bidding documents call for the submittal of a Debarment Certification as part of the
bid. This Debarment Certification requires the bidder to attest that it has not been
debarred, suspended or declared ineligible from performing public works projects by any
federal, state or local agency. This Debarment Certification is not required by the public
contract code, but has been part of the District's bidding documents for a number of years.
Civil Engineering Construction did not submit a Debarment Certification with its bid. A
subsequent telephone conversation with the company president determined that the
company has not been debarred and the certification was completed and transmitted to
the District on March 24, 2014. The District has encountered this situation in the past, and
the District's counsel has determined that the late submittal of the debarment certification
can be considered a minor irregularity that does not require a bid to be rejected.
The pipeline on State Route 89 is in good condition and would not normally be scheduled
for replacement. However, the Town of Truckee will be constructing a paved multi-use
path along State Route 89 from Deerfield Drive to West River Street. This path is currently
scheduled for construction in the sof 2015. The path will be located along the eastern
edge of the existing pavement section and will involve construction of a pedestrian/bicycle
tunnel underneath the Union Pacific Railroad. Along the frontage of the Donner Creek
Mobile Home Park, it will be necessary to construct a retaining wall that will be up to 10
feet high. Construction of this retaining wall will compromise the integrity of the existing
water pipeline.
After discussions with the Town of Truckee, it was determined that the best course of
action would be to construct a new water pipe farther to the west and abandon the existing
water pipe in place. In the course of these discussions, it was agreed that the District and
the Town would share the cost of the pipeline relocation on a 50-50 basis. The Town will
also perform some additional pavement restoration work that would have normally been
the responsibility of the District. It was also agreed that if the Town does not proceed with
construction of the path within five years, the District will be reimbursed for the District's
share of the construction cost.
In addition to the construction contract, the District will retain outside consultants to
perform environmental services, geotechnical testing and surveying during the
construction period. The costs for this work are:
• Environmental Services - Inland Ecosystems - $3,960
• Geotechnical Testing - Holdrege & Kull - $58,326
• Surveying - MAPCA - $7,250
The current project schedule is:
• Bid Opening - March, 20 2014
• Bid Award - April 2, 2014
• Begin Construction - May 1, 2014
• Complete Construction - October 2014
4. FISCAL IMPACT
The bid price for the work on State Route 89 South is $105,925.00. Per the
reimbursement agreement discussed above, this cost will be split 50-50 with the Town of
Truckee. Therefore, the cost to each party is $52,962.50.
There is currently a balance of$70,763.37 in the Sewer Assessment District No. 5 (SAD 5)
restricted fund. The monies in this fund must be spent of work in the Armstrong Tract and
Biltz Tract area. It is proposed to spend the entire balance of this fund to pay for a portion
of the work on Boca Street and Sierra Drive.
Once the Town's contribution and the SAD 5 fund is considered, the amount to be funded
from the Capital Replacement Fund is either $889,460.13 or $988,693.13, depending
upon whether the additive alternate is pursued. As discussed in the workshops, the
Water Department has allocated $1,000,000 for the construction contract. Therefore, it is
recommended that the base bid and the additive alternate be awarded.
The proposed funding sources for the project are:
Funding Source Amount
SAD 5 Restricted Fund $70,763.37
Town of Truckee $52,962.50
Water Department Capital Replacement Fund $988,693.13
Total $1,112,419.00
5. RECOMMENDATION
a) Award the District Pipeline Replacement- 2014 to Civil Engineering Construction in
the amount of$1,112,419 plus a 10 percent change order allowance for a total amount
not to exceed $1,223,600.
b) Approve the reimbursement agreement between the District and the Town of Truckee
regarding relocation of the 12-inch water pipeline in State Route 89 South.
c) Authorize the transfer of the entire balance of the Sewer Assessment District No. 5
restricted fund to the Water Department General Fund.
d) Authorize the transfer of up to $1,099,874.10 from the Water Department Capital
Replacement Fund to the Water Department General Fund.
s
Michael D. Holley
General Manager/Water Utility Manager
Louis A. Basile Catherine E. Blaber*-
Kelley R. Carroll*t Ravn R.Whitington+
Peter H. Cuttitta*
Steven C. Gross* P ® R T E R S I M Q N Dennis W. De Cuir,A Law
Brian C. Hanley* Corporation, Of Counsel
Stephen C. Lieberman A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
James L. Porter,Jr.* f Certified Specialist in Estate
James E.Simon Planning, Trust&Probate Law
Also licensed in Nevada
•Also licensed in Oregon
+Also licensed in Colorado
MEMORANDUM
TO: Board of Directors and General Manager
Truckee Donner Public Utility District
FROM: Steven C. Gross, General Counsel
DATE: March 26, 2014
RE: District Pipeline Replacement—2014 Project
Acceptance of Bid with Inconsequential Discrepancy
I. Background
The District held the bid opening for the District Pipeline Replacement—2014 Project at
2:00 PM on March 20, 2013. Six bids were received. Civil Engineering Construction, located in
Loomis, California, is the apparent low bidder.
The bidding documents call for the submittal of a Debarment Certification as part of the
bid. This Debarment Certification requires the bidder to attest that it has not been debarred,
suspended or declared ineligible from performing public works projects by any federal, state or
local agency. This Debarment Certification is not required by California law, but has been part
of the District's bidding documents for a number of years.
Civil Engineering Construction did not submit a Debarment Certification with its bid.
The bid was otherwise responsive in all respects. Upon notification that it had not submitted a
Debarment Certificate, Civil Engineering Construction promptly transmitted a completed and
executed Debarment Certificate to the District.
II. Question Presented
May the District determine that a bid submitted without the Debarment Certification has
an inconsequential discrepancy(i.e. -minor irregularity) and accept that bid?
III. Answer
Yes, the District may, in its discretion, determine that a bid submitted without the
Debarment Certification has an inconsequential discrepancy (i.e. - minor irregularity) and accept
that bid. The District is not required to reject the bid as non-responsive.
{00427352.DOC 1 }
TRUCKEE 4[1 O Truckeo Airport Road,Teuckee,_CAfornid 96161 phCiiie (53Q).587-2002 fax(530.)587:-1316
TAHOE CITY s RENO
Page 2 of 2
IV. Law and Analysis
A bid must conform to the material terms of the bid package. Menefee v. County of
Fresno (1985) 163 CA3rd 1175. A bid is responsive if it promises to do what the bidding
instructions demand. Williams v Unified Sch. Dist. (2007) 146 CA4th 757; Valley Crest
Landscape Inc. v City Council (1996) 41 CA4th 1432, 1438. Responsiveness should be
determined from the face of the bid. Taylor Bus Serv., Inc. v San Diego Bd. of Educ. (1987) 195
CA3rd 1331.
A bid may be responsive even if there is a discrepancy in the bid, as long as the
discrepancy is inconsequential. The court in Konica Business Machs. U.S.A., Inc. v Regents of
Univ. of Cal. (1988) 206 CA3rd 449, at 456-57 (quoting 47 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 129, 130-131
(1966), explained this principle as follows:
"A basic rule of competitive bidding is that bids must conform
to the specifications, and that if a bid does not so conform, it may
not be accepted. [Citations.] However, it is further well established
that a bid which substantially conforms to a call for bids may,
though it is not strictly responsive,be accepted if the variance
cannot have affected the amount of the bid or give a bidder an
advantage or benefit not allowed other bidders or, in other words,
if the variance is inconsequential ..."
Other courts have further defined what it means for a discrepancy in a bid to be
inconsequential. The discrepancy is inconsequential provided that it does not: (1) affect the
amount of the bid; (2) give a bidder an advantage over others (e.g., give a bidder an opportunity
to avoid its obligation to perform by withdrawing its bid); (3) be a potential vehicle for
favoritism; (4) influence potential bidders to refrain from bidding; or (5) affect the ability to
make bid comparisons. Ghilotti Constr. Co. v City of Richmond (1996) 45 CA4th 897. A bid
which contains only an immaterial deviation may be accepted, but is not required to be accepted,
at the public agency's discretion. MCM Construction, Inc. v City and County of San Francisco
(1998) 66 CA4th 359, at 373-74.
In the present case, the failure of Civil Engineering Construction to submit a Debarment
Certification with its bid did not affect the amount of its bid or give it an advantage over other
bidders by giving it the opportunity to avoid its obligation by withdrawing its bid without
forfeiting its bid bond or otherwise. There are no facts that waiving this discrepancy gives rise to
favoritism or has, or would, prevent other bidders from bidding. The discrepancy has not
affected the District's ability to compare the bids it received for this project. It is my opinion
that the District may, in its discretion, determine this discrepancy to be minor and
inconsequential and accept the bid of Civil Engineering Construction.
{00427352.DOC 1 }