Authorize Rejection of All Bids for Contract No. 2006-B-1, Golden Gate Bridge Seismic Retrofit Phase IIIA North Anchorage Housing/North Pylon

In a report to Committee, Deputy District Engineer Ewa Bauer, District Engineer Denis Mulligan and General Manager Celia Kupersmith provided staff’s recommendation to authorize rejection of all bids for Contract No. 2006-B-1, Golden Gate Bridge Seismic Retrofit Phase IIIA North Anchorage Housing/North Pylon.

The report stated that implementation of the Golden Gate Bridge Seismic and Wind Retrofit Project has been divided into three phases. The scope of Contract No. 2006-B-1 involves construction of various modifications to these two bridge structures, including strengthening the North Anchorage Housing and North Pylon foundations and external walls, strengthening the North Anchorage Housing internal concrete frame system, replacing the Anchorage Housing concrete roof that serves also as a bridge roadway and sidewalks, and performing various modifications to utilities.

The report also stated that the District advertised for bids on January 31, 2007, and on May 31, 2007, two bids were received and publicly read, as follows:

The Engineer’s construction contract cost estimate was $46,800,000. The Engineering staff and Attorney have evaluated the bids and recommend the rejection of all bids. Staff will revise the bid documents and re-advertise the project in two months. A copy of the report is available from the Office of the District Secretary and on the District’s web site. 11

At the meeting, Denis Mulligan summarized the staff report, noting that only two bids were received for Contract No. 2006-B-1, and that both bids amounted to more than twice the Engineer’s estimate. He further noted that the District has received no bid protests to staff’s recommendation to reject all bids for Contract No. 2006-B-1. He stated that staff intends to re-advertise the project in two months after making some changes to the contract specifications that will hopefully enhance competition and reduce the bid prices.

Discussion ensued, including the following:

• Director Grosboll made the following inquiries:
  • He inquired as to whether there was a scarcity of bidders due to the fact that the District required too many bidder qualifications in the project specifications. In response, Mr. Mulligan stated that the bidder qualifications required for Contract No. 2006-B-1 were similar to those required for Contract No. 99-B-5, Golden Gate Bridge Seismic Retrofit (Phase II), South Approach Structures, a project for which the District received six bids. Mr. Mulligan explained unique factors associated with Contract No. 2006-B-1, such as the inherent risk involved with bridge structural construction work and cost of labor for such projects. He further provided examples of changes that staff contemplates making to the contract specifications that could encourage more competitive bids for the project.
  • He inquired as to the estimated completion time for Contract No. 2006-B-1. In response, Mr. Mulligan stated that as currently written, Contract No. 2006-B-1 specifies 1100 working days, and that staff will increase the estimated completion time when the contract is re-advertised.

Staff recommended and the Committee concurred by motion made and seconded by Directors HERNÁNDEZ/STROEH to forward the following recommendation to the Board of Directors for its consideration:

RECOMMENDATION

The Building and Operating Committee recommends that the Board of Directors authorize rejection of all bids for Contract No. 2006-B-1, Golden Gate Bridge Seismic Retrofit Phase IIIA, North Anchorage Housing/North Pylon.

Action by the Board – Resolution
NON-CONSENT CALENDAR

AYES (7): Chair Eddie; Vice Chair Reilly; Directors Hernández, Martini, Middlebrook and Stroeh; President Moylan
NOES (0): None
ABSENT (2): Directors Ammiano and Boro

Approve Actions Relative to the Professional Services Agreement with HDR Engineering, Inc., Regarding Contract No. 2004-B-6, Design and Prepare Bid Documents for Golden Gate Bridge Seismic Retrofit Phase IIIA, North Anchorage Housing/North Pylon

In a report to Committee, Deputy District Engineer Ewa Bauer, District Engineer Denis Mulligan and General Manager Celia Kupersmith provided staff’s recommendation to authorize execution of two amendments to the Professional Services Agreement with HDR Engineering, Inc., regarding Contract No. 2004-B-6, Design and Prepare Bid Documents for Golden Gate Bridge Seismic Retrofit Phase IIIA, North Anchorage Housing/North Pylon to revise plans and specifications, as well as provide design support during the advertising period, relative to the Golden Gate Bridge Seismic Retrofit Phase IIIA (Phase IIIA) project.

The report stated that Phase IIIA project involves seismic retrofitting the North Anchorage and North Pylon structures of the Golden Gate Bridge. The Board of Directors, by Resolution No. 2004-066 at its meeting of June 25, 2004, authorized execution of a Professional Services Agreement with HDR Engineering, Inc. (Consultant), to design and prepare bid documents for the Phase IIIA project. In a separate report presented to Committee, staff recommended rejection of all bids that were received on May 31, 2007, for Contract No. 2006-B-1, and recommended re-advertising the contract. Based on the evaluation of the bids that were submitted, staff recommends that the plans and specifications be revised to encourage greater competition and more bidders. In addition, staff conducted telephone interviews with numerous planholders and their input has been considered in determining the changes that would be most beneficial to the project. The Consultant’s assistance will be required to implement said changes to the contract’s plans and specifications. The Consultant provided a cost proposal, in the amount of $240,000, for the additional scope of work and staff has deemed the cost proposal to be appropriate.

Furthermore, during re-advertisement of the Phase IIIA project, the Consultant’s support will be required: (1) in responding to bidders requests for clarifications; (2) reviewing technical aspects of bid document changes under consideration; and, (3) producing revised plans and technical specifications for changes determined to be required. The cost of the Consultant’s support during the re-advertising period for construction bids has been estimated at $250,000.

Staff proposes that a contingency in the amount of $50,000 be set for the above-described services, which would enable prompt implementation of any additional or changed scope to Contract No. 2004-B-6 under the present General Manager’s authority limit for amendments to Agreements.

The report further stated that under both amendments, the Consultant will be compensated based upon actual time expended and expenses incurred, plus a fixed fee not to exceed the authorized amount. This project is included in the FY 06/07 Bridge Division Capital Budget at a total cost of $50,000,000 and is 100% grant funded. The total budget of the Professional Services Agreement with HDR Engineering, Inc., for Contract No. 2004-B-6, is $3,120,262.

A portion of funds which have already been authorized for this Agreement, in the amount of $140,000, remains available to help finance the cost of revisions made to the bid documents. An additional $400,000 is required to the total authorized budget amount for Contract No. 2004-B-6. Requisite Federal grant funds are budgeted in the FY 06/07 Bridge Division Capital Budget for the Phase IIIA project to finance the proposed cost increase to the Contract No. 2004-B-6. A copy of the report is available from the Office of the District Secretary and on the District’s web site.

At the meeting, Mr. Mulligan summarized the staff report, noting that as a result of staff’s recommendation to reject all bids for Contract No. 2006-B-1, staff also recommends amending the professional services agreement with HDR Engineering, Inc., to revise the plans and technical specifications for the Phase IIIA construction contract to encourage greater competition and more bidders, and to respond to bidders’ questions during the re-advertisement period.

Staff recommended and the Committee concurred by motion made and seconded by Directors MIDDLEBROOK/REILLY to forward the following recommendation to the Board of Directors for its consideration:

RECOMMENDATION

The Building and Operating Committee recommends that the Board of Directors approve actions relative to the Professional Services Agreement with HDR Engineering, Inc., regarding Contract No. 2004-B-6, Design and Prepare Bid Documents for Golden Gate Bridge Seismic Retrofit Phase IIIA, North Anchorage Housing/North Pylon:

with the understanding that requisite funds are available in the FY 06/07 Bridge Division Capital Budget.

Action by the Board – Resolution
NON-CONSENT CALENDAR

AYES (7): Chair Eddie; Vice Chair Reilly; Directors Hernández, Martini, Middlebrook and Stroeh; President Moylan
NOES (0): None
ABSENT (2): Directors Ammiano and Boro

[Note: With the arrival of Director Newhouse Segal, the Committee became a Committee of the Whole.]

Approve Actions Relative to Award of Contract No. 2007-FT-3, Larkspur Ferry Terminal Administration Building Improvements, to KCK Builders, Inc.

In a memorandum to Committee, Deputy District Engineer Ewa Bauer, District Engineer Denis Mulligan and General Manager Celia Kupersmith reported on staff’s recommendation to approve actions relative to award of Contract No. 2007-FT-3, Larkspur Ferry Terminal Administration Building Improvements, to KCK Builders, Inc.

The report stated that the Larkspur Ferry Terminal Administration Building was constructed in 1976 to provide administrative office spaces in the second floor mezzanine and maintenance and storage spaces on the first floor. After over 30 years, the mezzanine offices are now in need of the following improvements:

1. The current HVAC system has severely deteriorated and no longer functions to provide cooling, heating or ventilation for the offices. The system needs to be replaced with a new HVAC system, with two new roof-mounted heat pump units and ductwork system, to comply with the current building code.
2. The mezzanine has only one stairway access to all the offices. A fire-rated exit corridor and a second stairway needs to be constructed to satisfy emergency egress requirements.
3. The first floor maintenance activities generate welding fumes and other exhaust which should be prevented from entering the administration offices. A fire-rated wall needs to be constructed to separate the air space of the first and second floors to satisfy this requirement.
4. The Ferry Division is in need of a conference room for meetings, as well as function as an Incident Command Center, when necessary. In addition, an additional office needs to be created for administrative staff per current Ferry Division organization, as well as a file room for storage of records. The conference room and file room will improve Ferry Division operations and efficiency.
5. The administration offices are in need of general remodeling, including painting, lighting, flooring, ceiling, data and audio/video, cabinet, wash sink and miscellaneous improvements.

The report stated that on May 8, 2007, Contract No. 2007-FT-3, was advertised for bids and on June 5, 2007, two bids were received, opened and publicly read. The Engineering staff, DBE Program Office and Attorney have evaluated the bids and concluded that the apparent responsive, responsible low bidder is KCK Builders, Inc., with a bid price of $412,000. No contract-specific Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) participation goal was established for this Contract; however, bidders were strongly encouraged to obtain DBE participation and were required to document their activities in the solicitation and selection of subcontractors and suppliers to ensure that the bidding process was carried out in a nondiscriminatory manner. The DBE Program Administrator has determined that KCK Builders, Inc. has complied with the DBE requirements applicable to the Contract. At this time, no DBE participation is anticipated during the performance of this Contract.

At the meeting, Mr. Mulligan summarized the staff report, and described the work associated with Contract No. 2007-FT-3, which will remodel the administrative offices at the Larkspur Ferry Terminal. He stated that staff recommends that Contract No. 2007 FT-3 be awarded to the apparent low bidder, KCK Builders, Inc. (KCK). He noted that the District had received a letter from the Northern California Electrical Construction Industry Labor-Management Cooperative Trust (NCECI), which letter staff has treated as a formal bid protest, even though NCECI is not a bidder or prospective bidder, the letter predated staff’s recommendation to award Contract No. 2007 FT-3. He stated that staff recommends rejection of the protest, which expresses concerns regarding Celestial Electric Technology, the electrical subcontractor chosen by KCK for Contract No. 2007 FT-3. He noted that, as with all the District’s public works projects, the District will ensure that KCK and all of its subcontractors will comply with all applicable contracting laws with respect to Contract No. 2007 FT-3.

Discussion ensued, including the following:

• Director Hernández commented that, as a member of the Building and Operating Committee, she often independently reviews the contractors and subcontractors prior to the recommendation of award. In her review of the documents for Contract No. 2007-FT-3, she found that one of the subcontractors for the recommended contractor, KCK, is subject to license suspension if its workers’ compensation insurance is not filed by July 11, 2007, and, in addition, the subcontractor has outstanding tax liens. Director Hernández stated that, in her opinion, the parameters that determine that a bidder is responsive and responsible are narrow. She acknowledged that the legal requirements technically have been complied with for this contract, but stated that, due to the concerns regarding the electrical subcontractor, she could not support award of this contract to KCK.

• Chair Eddie inquired as to whether KCK has changed any of its subcontractors since staff made its recommendation. In response, Mr. Mulligan stated that there has been no change in KCK’s subcontractors. He further stated that the process to evaluate bids includes the careful review of all documents that are submitted, including checking all licenses, to determine whether the lowest bidder is responsive and responsible. Mr. Mulligan also stated that the “List of Subcontractors” for KCK shows a subcontractor that presently has several allegations and assertions against them; however in review of its history, most of this company’s past liens have been cleared. He noted that the District is in the public sector and operates on a low bid environment and the lowest bidder, KCK, is responsive and responsible. He also noted that the District will enforce all prevailing wage laws and the quality of work pursuant to the contract plans and specifications.

• Director Grosboll made the following comments and inquiries:
  • He inquired that if the Board or a Committee had concerns about the subcontractor, whether or not the Board could take that into consideration. In response, Attorney Patrick Miyaki stated that the Board of Directors, from a policy perspective, can consider a variety of factors when it makes its decision to award a contract. Mr. Miyaki noted that the legal parameters for evaluating the lowest responsible, responsive bidder had been looked at by the Attorney for the District, as well as staff, and the Attorney concurs with staff’s recommendation to reject the protest of NCECI and to award the contract to KCK. He also stated that the Board of Directors has a right to reject all bids if it so chooses, but cautioned against rejecting the bid of KCK and awarding Contract No. 2007 FT-3 to the next lowest bidder, since KCK had complied with all of the legal requirements for the contract.

• President Moylan inquired as to what would transpire if KCK’s subcontractor proceeded with the work for Contract No. 2007 FT-3 without complying with the labor regulations. In response, Attorney Miyaki stated that the contractor has an obligation to comply with the public contracting code, and with all labor laws, including prevailing wage rates, and to have all required insurance in place before starting work. Mr. Mulligan further elaborated that the District has a history and practices in place to ensure its contractors comply with all applicable labor laws and the public contracting code, and that the District aggressively manages its contracts.

• Director Martini stated that he would support staff’s recommendation to award Contract No. 2007 FT-3 to KCK, but that he appreciated Director Hernández’ concerns regarding KCK’s electrical subcontractor. He noted that by awarding the contract to KCK, it would provide an opportunity for Celestial Electric Technology to put right its past wrongs.

Staff recommended and a motion was made and seconded by Directors MIDDLEBROOK/STROEH to forward the following recommendation to the Board of Directors for its consideration:

RECOMMENDATION

The Building and Operating Committee recommends that the Board of Directors approve actions relative to the award of Contract No. 2007-FT-3, Larkspur Ferry Terminal Administration Building Improvements:

b.

AYES (5): Directors Cochran, Eddie, Martini, Middlebrook and Stroeh;
NOES (5): Directors Grosboll, Hernández, Newhouse Segal and Reilly; President Moylan

Motion Failed

Following the failure of the motion, the Committee concurred by motion made and seconded by Directors HERNÁNDEZ/STROEH to forward the following recommendation to the Board of Directors for its consideration:

RECOMMENDATION

The Building and Operating Committee recommends that the Board of Directors authorize rejection of all bids for Contract No. 2007-FT-3, Larkspur Ferry Terminal Administration Building Improvements.

Action by the Board – Resolution
NON-CONSENT CALENDAR

AYES (10): Directors Cochran, Eddie, Grosboll, Hernández, Martini, Middlebrook, Newhouse Segal, Reilly and Stroeh; President Moylan
NOES (0): None

Status Report from District Appointees on Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit (SMART) Board

The Committee was provided with a copy of the agenda for the June 20, 2007, meeting and the minutes of the May 16, 2007, meeting of the Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit District (SMART). Copies of these items are available in the Office of the District Secretary, as well as on the District’s web site.

At the meeting, Chair Eddie, one of the District’s representatives on the SMART Board of Directors (SMART Board), reported on the following topics discussed at the June 20, 2007 meeting of the SMART Board:

1. He stated that a lengthy discussion was held regarding the North Coast Railroad Authority’s (NCRA) plans to reopen freight service on a portion of the SMART railroad right-of-way. He also stated that the SMART Board discussed whether NCRA would have its freight service comply with the parameters of SMART’s Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR), or whether NCRA would need to amend the EIR. He noted that many Novato residents who live near the railroad right-of-way near Highway 37 have expressed concerns regarding the noise of freight trains.
2. He stated that if freight service is reopened on the northern section of the railroad right-of-way, it would require extensive and costly repairs to track through the Eel River Canyon.

Discussion ensued, including the following:

• Director Middlebrook inquired as to whether NCRA contemplates running more freight trains than was contemplated in the EIR, and Chair Eddie answered in the affirmative. He noted that NCRA would like to operate 60-car freight trains that would remove significant truck traffic off of U.S. Highway 101.

Action by the Board – None Required

Status Report on Engineering Projects

In a memorandum to Committee, Deputy District Engineer Ewa Z. Bauer, District Engineer Denis Mulligan and General Manager Celia Kupersmith reported on current engineering projects. A copy of the report is available in the Office of the District Secretary and on the District’s web site.

Action by the Board – None Required

Public Comment

There was no public comment.

Adjournment

All business having been concluded, the meeting was declared adjourned at 10:30 a.m.