The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About13 2015 Pipeline Replacement ProjectAgenda Item #13 T o: From: Date: Subject: Board o f Directors Neil Kaufman April 15 , 2015 Consideration of the Award of a Contract for the 201 5 W ater Pipeline Replacement Project ACTION 1. WHY T HIS MAT T ER IS BEFORE T HE BOARD Board approval is requi red for expendi tures in excess of $15,000. 2. HIST ORY The W ater Department has an ongoing nee d to replace existing water pipelin es that f all into two basic cate gories. 1) Pipes th at are in poor condition and require repeated repairs. 2) Pipes that are old, unde rsized (typically 4-inch diamete r and smaller) and have exceeded their useful lif e. Historically, the District h ad undertaken a n annu a l p ipeline replacement project. A Board workshop was held in Februa ry 2015 to discuss the planned District Pipeline Replacement -20 15 project. The project covers a bout 4,900 f ee t of ma in at three locations along Northwoods Boulevard. Th e project also in cludes the installation of about 7,850 feet of f iber optic inner duct at two location s along Northw oods B oulevard. 3. NEW INFORMAT ION The b id opening was held at 2:00 PM on March 31, 2015. Six bids were received. A summary of th e bids is given b elow: BASE BID ONLY Bidder Location Amount Responsive Newland Entities Yuba City, CA $1,176,355.16 Yes AM-X Co n struction & Excava tion Truckee, CA $1,478,273.75 Yes Civil Engineering Construction Loomis, CA $1,514,780.00 Yes A&K Earthmovers Sparks, NV $1,717,000.00 Yes Gerhardt & Berry Sparks, NV $1,777,680.55 Yes Rapid Construction Carson City, NV $1,789,987.10 Yes On the morn ing of April 1 , 2015 , a telephone call was placed to Mr. Robert Cervantes (President of Newland Entities). The purpose of th e call was to request references and contact inf ormation f or the prior projects tha t N ewland Entities listed on the experience statement that was submitted as part of its bid. Mr. Cervantes stated that he would f o rward th e re quested information. Du rin g the telephon e call, Mr. Ce rvan tes also stated that h is company had made an erro r on its bid. Mr. Cerv antes stated that the unit price listed on Bid Item No. 3B should have been $125.00 and not $12.50. I respo n ded that I would bring th is error to the attention of the District’s General Man ager. Af te r discussions with the General Manager, the matter was ref erred to the District’s Legal Counsel. The District’s Legal Counsel then revie wed the appropriate statutes a nd case law. It was determined that the District cannot acce p t a bid that was modif ied af ter the bid opening. On the morning of Ap ril 2, I spo ke with Mr. Kevin Mad ison of Newland En tities by te lephone and inf ormed him that the District could not accept a modified bid. On April 3, Mr. David Murray (lawyer f or Newland Entities) sent a letter to the District regarding the error on Ne wland En tities bid. Mr. Murray and the District’s Legal Counsel later discusse d the matter by telephone. Follo wing th is telephone co nversation, Newland Entities submitted a second letter to the District req uesting that its bid b e withdrawn in accordance with Section 5103 of the Public Contract Code. The withdrawal of Newlan d En tities bid leave s the District with two op tions: 1) Award the contract to the secon d lowest re sponsive and resp onsible b idder 2) Reject all bids and rebid the project As noted in the table a b ove, AM-X Constructio n a nd Exca vation (AM-X) is the second lowest resp onsive and responsible bidder. AM-X ha s perf o rmed satisf actory work f o r the District in th e past. The to tal bid price from AM-X is about $1.48 million. The project schedule under th is alternative is: Bid Award -April 15, 2015 Begin Constru ction -May 2015 Complete Construction -October 201 4 If the project were re bid, it would allo w Newland Entities to submit a new bid that addressed th e error in its original bid. However, it is also quite likely that Ne wland Entities (and the other bidders) would f urther adjust the ir bid s based upo n the informa tion that is curren tly available . If the project were re bid, the proje ct sch e dule wou ld be as f ollows: Bid Opening -May 7, 2 0 15 Bid Award -May 20, 2 015 Begin Constru ction -June 2015 Complete Construction -October 201 4 Tele phone conversations with the seco nd and third lowest b idders indica te d that there is suff icient f loat within the pro ject schedule to allow a Ju ne start of con struction. Michael D. Holley General Manager / W ater Utility Manage r In additio n to the constru ction contract, the District will retain outside co nsultants to perf orm environmental services, geotechnical testing and surveying during the construction period . The costs for this work are: Environmental Services -Inlan d Ecosystems -$1,650 Geotechnical Testing -Holdrege & Kull -$60 ,104 Surveyin g -SCO Planning & Engin e ering -$5,800 4. FISCAL IMPACT W ith the withdrawal of the Newland Entities bid, the lowest responsive and responsible bid is $1,428,273.75 f rom AM-X. As discussed at the February workshop, th e water pipeline work would be f u nded by the W ater Department and the innerduct work would be f unde d by the Electric Dep artment. If the b id were award ed to A M-X the planned f unding sources would be: Funding Source Amoun t W ater Capital Replace ment & Operating Reserve s $ 1,313,200.00 Electric Department General Fund $ 165,073.75 Total $ 1,478,273.75 If the bid is awarded, it is recommended that a 10 percent change order allowance be established. 5. RECOMMENDAT ION Reject all bids and direct staff to rebid the District Pipeline Replacement -2015 project.