HomeMy WebLinkAboutAGENDA REPORT 1999 0203 CC REG ITEM 10FCITY OF MOORPARK
AGENDA REPORT
—IDS, ' C) (- c i
ITEM ., -0 --��
CITY OF 'NIOORFARK, CALIFORNIA
City Council'�iecting
of 2 _ 3
ACTION:. r 4 UPaI S
Yecornnnen, 1Ct+i an
g�O.o t ed I:eso . N o . �iq -1571
BY:
TO: The Honorable City Council
FROM: Kenneth C. Gilbert, Director of Public Works 1
DATE: January 27, 1999 (Council Meeting 2 -3 -99)
SUBJECT: Spring Road Bridge Reconstruction Project: a) Consider
Bids for the Award of Construction Contract; b)
Consider Approval of the Selection of a Civil
Engineering Firm to Provide Construction Engineering
Services For Said Project; and, c) Consider Adoption of
a Resolution Amending the FY 1998/99 Budget by
Increasing the Appropriations (Fund 244 & Account
#210.900) for the Subject Project and Approving an
Inter -fund Loan from the Local Transportation 8A (Fund
203) to the Spring Road / Tierra Rejada Road AOC
(Account 210.900)
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
on November 11, 1998, the City Council authorized staff to re-
advertise the subject project for receipt of bids. This presents
the results of the bid opening held on January 7, 1999, and
recommends the award of a construction contract. This report also
recommends selection of a consultant to provide contract
administration and inspection services.
DISCUSSION
A. List of Exhibits
Exhibit Description
1 Background: Design Development
2. Background: June 1998 Re -Bid
3. Bid Results
4. Fiscal Impact
5. Letter to Sedcon re: Disqualification
6. Resolution re: Budget Amendment
B. Project Design
For a summary of the various design elements of the project,
please refer to Exhibit 1.
spgbrg12 ad2
000037
Spring Road Bridge
January 26, 1999
Page 2
C. June 1998 Re -Bid
For a summary discussion of the factors leading to the City
Council decision last June to reject all bids and re- advertise
the project, please refer to Exhibit 2.
D. Bid Results
Bids for the subject project were received and opened on
January 7, 1999. A summary of the bid results is attached as
Exhibit 3.
E. Disadvantaged Business Enterprise Requirements (DBE)
The Federal HBRR grant requires the bidders to submit to the
City subsequent to the bid opening, documents which demonstrate
that their proposal meets the Federal DBE requirements. Each
bidder is required to make a "Good Faith Effort" to secure
material suppliers and /or sub - contractors which are Caltrans
certified DBE firms. The DBE goal established by the City is
ten percent (10%) . That is, the successful bidder is required
to do the following:
(1) to present documents which demonstrate that they have
retained the services of DBE firms to provide work or
services exceeding ten percent (10%) of the contract
amount [Note: Only sixty percent (60o) of the cost of
supplies is DBE eligible]; or in the event they fail to
reach that goal,
(2) to present documents which demonstrate that they made a
Good Faith Effort to secure DBE firms [Note: the contract
documents provide minimum standards and guidelines
regarding what constitutes a Good Faith Effort.
F. Rejection of Apparent Low Bidder
On the date of the bid opening, the apparent low bidder was
Sedcon Engineers, Contractor, Inc., with a bid of
$2,218,325.50. As required by the bid documents, Sedcon
submitted it's DBE documents to the City subsequent to the bid
opening date. After an extensive review and evaluation of those
documents, staff concluded that said documents failed to
demonstrate that Sedcon met the loo DBE goal. Staff also
concluded that said documents failed to demonstrate that Sedcon
undertook a sufficient and adequate Good Faith Effort to secure
the services of DBE subcontractors and /or suppliers. Attached
as Exhibit 5 is a copy of the letter sent to Sedcon advising
them of the intent of staff to recommend rejection of their
bid.
spgbrg11
000038
Spring Road Bridge
January 26, 1999
Page 3
It should be noted that Sedcon made a request to the City that
they be allowed to use a "DBE" sub - contractor which was not
listed in their Proposal. It was the view of Sedcon that the
use of this firm would better enable Sedcon to comply with the
DBE requirements. Sedcon was advised by staff that the Public
Contracts Code prohibits the use of any sub - contractors (doing
more than !-�° of the work) which is not identified in the
Proposal submitted by the prime contractor.
Based on the findings set forth in the letter attached as
Exhibit 5, it is recommended below that the City Council (a)
declare Sedcon Engineers, Contractors, Inc. unresponsive to the
requirements of the bid documents; and, (b) reject the bid
submitted by Sedcon.
G. Recommended Contractor
On the date of the bid opening, T M Engineering was the
apparent second lowest bidder. Should the City Council concur
with staff's recommendation and declare Sedcon unresponsive,
T M Engineering will become the lowest responsive bidder, with
a bid price of $2,352,424.60.
It has been determined that T M Engineering is qualified to
perform the work. It has also been determined that the DBE
submittal by T M Engineering is acceptable. T M Engineering has
confirmed that their bid is valid and that they are prepared to
proceed with the construction of the project.
H. Cost Comparisons
spgbrgll
1. Rejection of Sedcon's Bid: In order to fully inform the
City Council of the impacts of the recommended actions,
staff has prepared a comparison of the Sedcon and the T M
Engineering bids, listed as follows:
Item Total {$)
T M Engineering Bid Price 2,352,425
Less Sedcon Bid Price 2,218,326
Cost Increase 134,099
2. Net Grant Proceeds: Normally, DBE provisions are not a
part of the contract documents for City project. In that
this project is partially funded by a Federal Grant, it
was necessary to include these requirements. The failure
of Sedcon to meet these requirements has caused staff to
recommend rejection of their bid -- resulting in the cost
increase described above. In addition, there are other
real and hidden costs associated with the "red- tape" and
restrictions required by the Federal HBRR grant. Listed
below is a summary of a number of those factors with the
actual or estimated costs related to each. The net
000039
Spring Road Bridge
January 26, 1999
Page 4
proceeds expected to come from the
estimated to be as follows:
Item
Grant Amount
Less delta cost for T M Engineering
Adjusted Construction Costs
Less estimated contractor cost
Less other costs (est.):
Added Staff Time:
Added Design Effort:
Added Inspection:
Net Grant Proceeds
I. Bid Alternate: K -Rail
Federal HBRR grant is
Total ($)
404,800
(134,099)
270,701
(4,000)
(5, 000)
(2,000)
_(111000)
269,701
* ** undetermined
As discussed below in Section H -3, the contractor will place
"K- rail" on the New Los Angeles Avenue bridge to provide a
"protected area for bicycles and pedestrians. Should the City
elect to purchase the "K- Rail" at the end of the project, and
leave it in place, the City would pay the Bid Alternate price
of $10,000 less the $3,000 bid price for removal (net $7,000).
It is the intent of staff to seek Caltrans funding of this
additional cost.
If this option is selected, there would be no change to the
ranking of the bidders.
J. South Approach Costs
As discussed in Exhibit 2 (June 1998 Re -bid), Carlsberg's plans
for the construction of improvements to Spring Road had
extended all the way to, and merged with, the City's bridge
reconstruction plans. When the City's bridge project was
delayed, it was necessary for Carlsberg to omit the northerly
two hundred feet (2001) from their project. The design for this
new roadway segment was not compatible with the alignment and
elevation of the existing south bridge approach. The
reconstruction of the south bridge (the "deleted" segment of
the Carlsberg design) was then added to the City's Bridge
replacement project prior to re- advertising the project. All
City costs related to the design, construction and inspection
of this added work will be funded by Carlsberg. When received,
those monies will be received as miscellaneous revenues to the
Spring Road / Tierra Rejada Road AOC Fund. All costs discussed
in this report include the cost of the south approach.
spgbrg11
000040
Spring Road Bridge
January 26, 1999
Page 5
A summary of the estimated costs to be reimbursed by Carlsberg
is as follows:
Element
Design
Construction (no contingency)
Contract Admin. & Insp.
Total:
Selected
City Project
Costs ($)
105,838
2,352,425
K. Comparison to June 1998 Bids
140,599
2,598,862
Less
Carlsberg's
Costs ($)
(5,000)
(19, 929)
(33,838)
Net City
Costs ($)
100,838
2,332,496
131,690
2,565,024
The bid submitted by T M Engineering, adjusted to delete the
Carlsberg reimbursement, is approximately 4% higher than the
amount of the apparent low bid (C. A. Rasmussen) last June. A
comparison of those bids is as follows:
Item Total ($)
Feb 1999 Bid Amount 2,352,425
Less Carlsberg reimbursement (construction only) (19, 929)
Adjusted Construction Costs 2,332,496
Less June 1998 Low Bid (2,238,807)
Cost Increase / (Savings) 93,689
L. Construction Engineering
spgbrgll
Last Spring staff solicited proposals from three civil
engineering firms to provide construction engineering services
(contract administration and inspection) to the City for the
subject project. It was determined that all three firms were
fully qualified to provide the required services. A summary of
the fee amounts proposed by each of those firms is as follows:
Percent of
Construction
Firm Fee Amount ($) Contract
VCE Civil Engineering 140,599 5.98%
Harris & Associates 185,810 7.90%
Charles Abbott Associates 194,000 8.250
Last June staff was prepared to recommend selection of VCE
Engineering to provide the required services. This firm
provided both design and construction engineering services for
the Arroyo Vista Park Access Bridge.
In recent discussions with VCE, staff explained the minor
increase in the scope of work for the subject project. Although
no fee increase was proposed by VCE for this change, an
increase of $1,100 was requested to cover an increase in the
000041
Spring Road Bridge
January 26, 1999
Page 6
sub - consultant fees for soils testing. The $140,599 fee noted
above includes that increase.
It is recommended that VCE be selected to provide construction
engineering services for the subject project.
M. Traffic Impacts
1. Road Closure: The alignment for the new bridge approved
by the City Council places the new bridge at the center
line of Spring Road. This will require the complete
removal of the existing bridge as one of the first
elements of work. Accordingly, Spring Road will be closed
during the construction of the project.
2. Science Drive: The plans and specifications include
requirements for the placement of signs to Detour traffic
to use Science Drive between New Los Angeles Avenue and
Peach Hill Road.
3. Pedestrian Traffic: Even though the existing bridge only
has two feet (21) wide sidewalks, the bridge has been used
by pedestrian traffic, especially school -aged pedestrian
traffic traveling to and from Mesa Verde School. The
removal of the bridge will eliminate this pedestrian route
until after the new bridge is completed and opened to the
public. In order to address this matter, the project
plans provide the detour of pedestrian traffic to Science
Drive as well as vehicular traffic. The Caltrans Permit
requires the contractor to place "K- rail" wall along the
south side of the New Los Angeles Avenue bridge, to
provide a "protected" walkway /bikeway. There are
provisions in the specifications for leaving the K -rail in
place after the project, to provide for this "protected
walkway until after the New Los Angeles Avenue bridge is
widened. It is the intent of staff to seek a commitment
from Caltrans to fund any costs related to leaving the K-
rail in place after the completion of the Spring Road
Bridge project.
N. Temporary Sewer Line
The removal of the bridge will require Ventura County
Waterworks District No. 1 to install a temporary sewer line to
serve the area south of the bridge until the new bridge is
constructed and the new sewer line, to be installed in one of
the utility cells of the bridge, has been completed. Staff has
been advised by Ventura County Waterworks District No. 1 that
it requires eight (8) weeks from the date of notification of
award of contract to the date the temporary sewer line is
installed and functioning.
spgbrgll
000042
Spring Road Bridge
January 26, 1999
Page 7
0. Fiscal Impact
A full analysis of the fiscal impact of the subject project is
attached as Exhibit 4. Some of that information is re- capped
below as follows:
1. Total Project Costs Estimate:
Element Total ($)
Construction 2,352,425
Contingency 235,242
Sub -Total Construction 2,587,667
Design Cost 105,838
Design Support Costs 31,441
Admin & Inspection Costs 142,500
Total 2,867,446
* $140,599 Contract, plus contingency
2. Current Fiscal Year Estimated Costs:
Element
Total ($)
Construction
2,352,425
Contingency
235,242
Sub -Total Construction
2,587,667
Design Cost
25,423
Design Support Costs
4,077
Admin & Inspection Costs
142,500
Total
2,759,667
3. FY 1998199 Budget Amendment:
Element
Total ($)
Spring Road / T R Rd AOC
Current Budget
102,625
Proposed New Appropriation
2,252,242
Sub -Total
2,354,867
Federal Grant
404,800
Total
2,759,667
4. Inter -fund Loan from Los Angeles Avenue AOC Fund to Spring
Road / Tierra Rejada Road AOC Fund:
Spring Rd / T R Rd AOC Total ($)
Current Reserve 934,082
Loan Amount 1,322,242
Sub -Total 2,256,324
Less New Appropriation (2,252,242)
Total 4,082
spgbrgll
(}00043
Spring Road Bridge
January 26, 1999
Page 8
P. Design vs. Design Support
The design costs identified above only include charges from
Dwight French & Associates and Charles Abbott Associates for
the design efforts required to produce the plans and
specifications for the project. Design support costs include
all other costs required to bid the project, including:
• environmental clearance (EDAW);
• Fish & Game Permit (EDAW);
• Water Quality Control Board permit (EDAW);
• U. S. Army Corp of Engineers permit;
• VCFCD permit;
• Printing costs; etc.
Q. Schedule
The anticipated
follows:
• 02/03/99:
• 02/02/99:
• 02/15/99:
• 03/01/99:
• 04/15/99:
• 12/01/99:
schedule for project construction is as
Contract awarded (VCWWD #1 notified to install Temp. Sewer)
Pre - construction meeting
Limited Notice to Proceed (for removal of
vegetation from Arroyo only)
Limited Notice to Proceed (work in Arroyo
subject to VCFCD approval)
Proceed with work in the Arroyo
Complete
RECOMENDATIONS (Roll Call Vote)
Staff recommends that the City Council take the following actions:
spgbrg11
1. Declare Sedcon Engineers, Contractors, Inc. unresponsive
to the requirements of the bid documents and, on the basis
of said finding, reject the bid submitted by Sedcon
Engineers, Contractors, Inc.
2. Declare T M Engineering the lowest responsive bidder and
award a contract to same firm in the amount of
$2,352,424.60 for the construction of the subject
projects;
3. Approve a construction contingency in the amount of
$235,242 for the project and authorize the City Manager to
approve additional work, if required, for an amount not to
exceed ten percent of the contract;
4. Authorize the Mayor to sign necessary contract documents;
000044
Spring Road Bridge
January 26, 1999
Page 9
5. Approve selection of VCE Engineering to provide
construction engineering services (contract administration
and inspection) for the project for a fee not to exceed
$140,599;
6. Adopt Resolution 99- amending the FY 1998/99 Budget by
a) increasing the appropriations (Fund 244 & Account
4210.900) for the subject project and b) approving an
inter -fund loan from the Los Angeles Avenue AOC Fund
(Account 210.901) to the Spring Road / Tierra Rejada Road
AOC (Account 210.900)
spgbrgll
000045
Exhibit 1: Background: Design Development
January 8, 1999
Page 1
1. Design Engineer: In September 1994, the City Council selected
the firm of Dwight French and Associates (DFA) to prepare the
design plans and specifications for the replacement of the
Spring Road Bridge across the Arroyo Simi. When Dwight French
& Associates was absorbed by Charles Abbott Associates (CAA),
CAA assumed the responsibility for completing the design.
2. Existing Bridge Dimensions:
• Bridge Length:
• Bridge Width:
• Travel Lanes:
• Median:
• Bike Lanes:
• Sidewalks:
3. Future Bridge Dimensions:
• Bridge Length:
• Bridge Width:
• Travels Lanes:
• Median:
• Bike Lanes:
• Sidewalks:
122'
28'
2 ea. 14' wide
None
None
2 ea. 2' wide
150'
50'
2 ea. 12'
wide
1 ea. 4'
wide
2 ea. 8'
wide
2 ea. 8'
wide
4. Bridge Support: The existing bridge is supported by the bridge
abutments plus three sets of pier columns placed in the water
course. The new bridge will be supported by the bridge
abutments plus only one center pier wall. Unlike the sets of
pier columns, the center pier wall is designed to prevent the
collection of debris.
5. Piles: The foundations for the bridge abutments, as well as
the center pier wall, will require driving approximately 2,600
linear feet of piles.
6. Design Requirements: The development of the project design
required undertaking and completing a number of tasks
including:
• Survey
• Roadway alignment
• Right -of -Way acquisition
• Utility conflict Identification and resolution
• Hydrology & Geotechnical Analysis
• Seismic / liquefaction analysis
• Bridge structural design
• Interface with future trail system
• Preparation of plans / profiles
• Traffic control (road closure analysis)
• Construction cost estimate
• Cost est. for bridge widening (basis for grant amount)
• Road widening northwest of bridge
• Striping plans
Spgbigll. awd
OG04f�
Exhibit 1: Background: Design Development
January 8, 1999
Page 2
7. Levee Trail: One of the transportation goals of the City is to
have a Levee Trail along the Arroyo Simi through the City,
similar to the "river- side" trail in the City of Simi Valley.
The City has received approval of a grant to perform a study to
determine the feasibility of extending this trail system
easterly to Madera Road in the City of Simi Valley. The bridge
design provides for this future levee trail system by including
trail ramps which will go under the bridge on the north side of
the Arroyo.
8• Street Improvements North of the Bridge: The project includes
the construction of full -width street improvements on the west
side of Spring Road just north of the bridge. These
improvements include the construction of a storm drain to
replace the current open culvert, and the construction of
street widening to include a sidewalk to connect the sidewalk
on the new bridge to the sidewalk along the frontage of Gateway
Plaza shopping center.
9. Center Median: The Spring Road street improvements to be
constructed by the developer of the Carlsberg Specific Plan
include the construction of a raised center median along the
entire length of Spring Road south of the bridge. As mentioned
above, the bridge replacement project includes the construction
of a center raised median on the bridge. The project also
includes the extension of the raised center median north of the
bridge.
The design of the existing and future roadway just south of the
bridge has both a horizontal and a vertical curve. Due to these
geometrics of the roadway, as well as the fact that the median
is not wide enough to accommodate left turn lanes, the median
to be constructed south of the bridge will not have any median
breaks to allow left turn movements into and out of driveways
located on both sides of the street just south of the bridge.
Turning movements into and out of these driveways will be
restricted to right turns only. This design is consistent with
the median design near the Tierra Rejada Road bridge.
10. Future Channel Widening: The project design is compatible with
both the existing arroyo channel as well as the proposed design
for a future project by the Ventura County Flood Control
District (VCFCD) to widen and lower the channel to hold 100
year storm flows. Said future improvements will include a drop
structure just upstream of the bridge.
11. Street Right -of -Way: The VCFCD has granted the City a street
easement deed which provides for full -width street right -of -way
on the east side of Spring Road across the arroyo. This
easement was required for the construction of the bridge
project.
12. Temporary Construction Easement: A -C Construction, the owner
of the property on the west side of Spring Road just north of
the Arroyo, granted the City a temporary construction easement
Spgbrgll.awd 000047
Exhibit 1: Background: Design Development
January 8, 1999
Page 3
required for the proposed street and related improvements in
that area. When the project was postponed it was necessary to
obtain a new temporary easement for the anticipated 1999
construction schedule.
13. Environmental Clearance: In April of 1997 the City Council
approved Resolution No. 97 -1306 approving the Mitigated
Negative Declaration for the subject project and adopting a
Mitigation Monitoring Program related thereto.
14. Permits: The City retained the services of a consultant to
obtain certain permits required for this project. Those efforts
included submittal of applications and the securing of permits
(where required) from a number of agencies including:
• the U. S. Army Corp of Engineers: permit not required;
• the State Regional Water Quality Control Board: permit
issued; and,
• the California Fish & Game Department: permit issued.
In addition to those consultant efforts, staff sought and
obtained permits from the following agencies:
• Caltrans (traffic detour signs); and,
• VCFCD Encroachment Permit.
15. Utility Cells: There are eight (8) utility cells located
within the bridge structure. Four of the cells are to be used
for utilities and four will remain empty and available for
possible future use. The cells to be occupied will be used for
gas, telephone, water and sewer.
16. Utility Conflicts:
• Water:
- County Waterworks District No. 1: An existing water
line on the bridge will be abandoned during the bridge
reconstruction project. A new water line will be
placed in one of the utility cells within the bridge
structure. The City's project will include the
placement of a sleeve within a utility cell to receive
the future new water line. All City design and
construction costs for this work will be reimbursed by
the District. The work required to place the new
water line will be done by a separate contractor
retained by the District.
- Calleguas: There are no Calleguas facilities within
the existing bridge or planned to be placed within the
future bridge. Calleguas recently completed the
reconstruction of an east -west water distribution line
located just south of the bridge.
• Sewer: There is an existing sewer line attached to the
east side of the existing bridge. This facility will be
replaced by County Waterworks District No. 1. The City's
project will include the placement of a sleeve within one
of the utility cells within the bridge structure, to
receive the future new sewer line. All City design and
Spgbrgll.awd
000048
Exhibit 1: Background: Design Development
January 8, 1999
Page 4
construction costs for this work will be reimbursed by the
District. All work required to remove the old sewer line,
place a temporary sewer line and install the new sewer
line will be done by a separate contractor retained by the
District.
• Gas: There is a gas main attached to the existing bridge.
This facility will be abandoned during the bridge
reconstruction project. The Southern California Gas
Company will install a new gas line to be located within a
utility cell in the bridge structure. All work will be
done by the utility company.
• Shell Oil: The Shell Oil Company recently abandoned a
fuel transport line attached to the bridge and constructed
a new replacement line which extends under the Arroyo.
• Telephone: Existing telephone conduits located under the
Arroyo immediately upstream of the bridge will remain in
place. Bridge structural elements have been designed to
"bridge" these facilities. The City Council has approved
a "Build Over" Agreement between the City and Pacific Bell
Company regarding this element of the work.
• Electrical: All existing electrical facilities in the
vicinity of the bridge are overhead and are not effected
by the project. No additional street lights are proposed
to be installed on or near the bridge. Should there be a
need for the placement of underground electrical
facilities at any point in the future, such lines could be
placed in an empty utility cell, if one is still
available.
Cable T. V.: There are no existing cable facilities in
the vicinity of the project.
Spgbrgll.awd 00004b
Exhibit 2: Background: Discussion of June 1998 Re -Bid
January 8, 1999
Page 1
A. Background
• On January 7, 1998, the City Council authorized staff to
advertise for receipt of bids.
• On May 14, 1998, bids were opened and tabulated.
• On June 3, 1998, the City Council considered and then
rejected the bids due to construction scheduling problems,
and directed that the project be re- advertised in the fall
for the project to commence construction in the early
spring of 1999.
• On June 3, 1998, the City Council also asked staff to
evaluate the cost effectiveness of re- designing the
bridge.
B. Resection of Bids
The primary reasons for the June 1998 staff recommendation that
the bids be rejected and the project re- advertised, are as
follows:
1. Due to circumstances beyond the control of the City, the
schedule had slipped from that originally anticipated.
When this project was first authorized for bid in January
of 1998, it was anticipated that the construction contract
would begin in April of 1998, giving the contractor
adequate time to complete the construction prior to the
end of the dry season [October 19981. An award of a
contract in June would require the contractor to proceed
with a construction schedule that would require the bridge
deck falsework to still be in the arroyo at the peak of
the rainy season. To proceed with that schedule would have
placed both the City and the Contractor at risk.
2. Last June the Science Drive Detour Route was not available
and was not expected to be available for a number of
months. As you know, Science Drive south of New Los
Angeles Avenue was only recently opened.
3. Only three bids were received (it was hoped that there
would be more bidders).
4. It was thought that a delay in the project might reduce
the amount of an inter -fund loan needed to proceed with
construction.
C. Re- Design
Last June, mindful of suggestions that a different bridge
design might realize some cost savings, the City Council
directed staff to look into the feasibility of redesigning the
bridge. The City had received input that a pre -cast beam bridge
design might be less costly than the cast -in -place box girder
Spgbrg11.awd
0000�U
Exhibit 2: Background: Discussion of June 1998 Re -Bid
January 8, 1999
Page 2
bridge design called for by the plans. The delay in the re-
advertising to the Fall of 1998 allowed the City to look at
this option.
On August 19, 1998, the City Council considered a report on
this matter. In that report there was a discussion of the pros
and cons of both a re- design and of leaving the design
unchanged. The conclusions reached were that little or no cost
savings would be derived from a redesign and that any benefits
posed by a redesign were outweighed by the costs and risks
associated with that course of action.
D. Minor Changes
Although there was no major re- design of the project, minor
changes were made to the plans and specifications for the
following reasons:
1. South Bridge Approach: Carlsberg's plans for the
construction of improvements to Spring Road had extended
all the way to, and merged with, the City's bridge
reconstruction plans. With the postponement of the City's
bridge project, it was necessary for the Carlsberg plans
to be revised to omit the northerly approximately two
hundred feet (2001) of their project. The design for that
segment of the Carlsberg improvements was compatible with
the revised alignment and elevation of the approaches for
the new bridge - not the existing bridge. This "deleted"
south approach was added to the City's project, with the
cost (design, construction and inspection) of same to be
funded by Carlsberg.
2. Minor Corrections: The plans and specifications for the
re- advertised project included certain minor changes to
incorporate certain comments received from plan holders
from last June.
Spgbrg:'_.awd
000051
City of Moorpark
Exhibit 3
Bid Results
Page 1 of 6
Spring Road Bridge
Bidder » »>
Vendor 1
Vendor 2
January 7, 1999
Name:
Engineces Estimate
Sedcon Engineers
TM Engineering
Address:
1230 Aron Dr 1#111
19301 Ventura
Blvd [ #2001
Cit, State:
Sierra Madre, CA
91024 -1567
Tarzana, CA 91356
Tel. No.:
626 -355 -1194
818- 343 -8844
Contact Person:
Mort Jafari
Masoud Moetazedi
st -L m
Total Bid
nptton
unit cost
tit Cost
Total Bid
nit Cost
Total Bid
1 Mobilization
1 LS
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
2 4" PCC Sidewalk
3,977 SF
4.00
15,908.00
8.00
31,816.00
3.00
11,931.00
3 Drive Approach
145 SF
5.00
725.00
20.00
2,900.00
4.00
580.00
4 8" PCC Curb/Gutter
240 LF
12.00
2,880.00
15.00
3,600.00
17.00
4,080.00
5 6" PCC Curb
402 LF
6.00
2,412.00
10.00
4,020.00
10.00
4,020.00
6 6" PCC Curb /Gutter
383 LF
10.00
3,830.00
15.00
5,745.00
14.00
5,362.00
7 A/C Construction
237 Tons
45.00
10,665.00
42.00
9,954.00
45.00
10,665.00
8 AB Construction
87 CY
36.00
3,132.00
20.00
1,740.00
40.00
3,480.00
9 Remove Guardrail
93 LF
10.00
930.00
12.00
1,116.00
10.00
930.00
10 Type G O Inlet
2 EA
2,000.00
4,000.00
1,800.00
3,600.00
2,200.00
4,400.00
11 8" Ch1P
10 LF
30.00
300.00
100.00
1,000.00
40.00
400.00
12 Remove CMP
1 LS
1,500.00
1,500.00
2,000.00
2,000.00
1,200.00
1,200.00
13 Adj M H
1 EA
300.00
300.00
300.00
300.00
400.00
400.00
14 Striping
1 LS
1,200.00
1,200.00
2,000.00
2,000.00
3,000.00
3,000.00
15 Remove Walls
1 LS
2,500.00
2,500.00
10,000.00
10,000.00
1,500.00
1,500.00
16 Remove A/C Berm
245 LF
4.00
980.00
5.00
1,225.00
1.00
245.00
17 Install Guard Rail
143 LF
45.00
6,435.00
70.00
10,010.00
40.00
5,720.00
18 Install 48" CMP
40 LF
90.00
3,600.00
80.00
3,200.00
80.00
3,200.00
19 Constr 8" Inlet & Pipe
1 EA
2,500.00
2,500.00
1,000.00
1,000.00
1,300.00
1,300.00
20 Const Catch Basin
1 EA
3,500.00
3,500.00
6,000.00
6,000.00
4,500.00
4,500.00
21 Junction Structure
1 EA
1,500.00
1,500.00
2,000.00
2,000.00
800.00
800.00
22 Transition Structure
1 EA
5,000.00
5,000.00
1,500.00
1,500.00
3,000.00
3,000.00
23 6 -6x4 RC Box
130 LF
300.00
39,000.00
300.00
39,000.00
400.00
52,000.00
24 6 -6x5 RC Box
152 LF
340.00
51,680.00
320.00
48,640.00
480.00
72,960.00
25 Replace Rip Rap
1 LS
6,000.00
6,000.00
5,000.00
5,000.00
5,600.00
5,600.00
26 Constr Joint Detail
1 LS
2,000.00
2,000.00
2,000.00
2,000.00
800.00
800.00
27 Constr 3" PCC Ditch
296 LF
15.00
4,440.00
18.00
5,328.00
15.00
4,440.00
28 ChannelBackfdl
1,017 CY
10.00
10,170.00
18.00
18,306.00
12.00
12,204.00
29 Concrete Bike Path
3,028 SF
5.00
15,140.00
10.00
30,280.00
3.25
9,841.00
30 Concrete Cutoff Wall
279 LF
45.00
12,555.00
150.00
41,850.00
15.00
4,185.00
31 Ret. Wall Cone
288 CY
300.00
86,400.00
300.00
86,400.00
220.00
63,360.00
32 Ret. Wall Steel
17,505 LB
0.81
14,179.05
0.70
12,253.50
0.52
9,102.60
33 Per. Backfill Ret. Wall
68 CY
35.00
2,380.00
30.00
2,040.00
25.00
1,700.00
34 Excavation Ret. Wall
1,306 CY
45.00
58,770.00
18.00
23,508.00
7.00
9,142.00
(�UdU52
City of Moorpark
Exhibit 3
Bid Results
Page 2 of 6
Spring Road Bridge
Bidder » »>
Vendor 1
Vendor 2
January 7, 1999
Name:
Engineer's Estimate
on ngmeers
TM Engineering
Address:
1230 Aron Dr [
#bj
19301 Ventura
Blvd [ #200]
Cit, State:
Sierra Madre, CA
91024 -1567
Tarzana, CA
91356
Tel. No.:
626 -355 -1194
818- 343 -8844
Contact Person:
Mort Jafari
Masoud Moetazedi
st t M-
Item caption
Unit Cost
I otal Did
nit Cost
Total Bid
Unit Cost
Total Bid
1,233 CY
50.00
61,650.00
18.00
22,194.00
15.00
18,495.00
35 Str. BackfillRet. Wall
36 Roadway Excavation
505 CY
15.00
7,575.00
18.00
9,090.00
6.00
3,030.00
37 Roadway Embankment
505 CY
15.00
7,575.00
12.00
6,060.00
12.00
6,060.00
38 Cable Railing
114 LF
15.00
1,710.00
30.00
3,420.00
12.00
1,368.00
39.1 CaltransPermit
1 LS
500.00
500.00
2,500.00
2,500.00
700
700.00
39.2 Placement of K -Rail
1 LS
3,000.00
3,000.00
5,000.()0
5,000.00
3,500
3,500.00
39.3 Removal of K -Rail
1 LS
3,000.00
3,000.00
3,000.00
3,000.00
1,000.00
1,000.00
39.4 Traffic Control
1 LS
10,000.00
10,000.00
10,000.00
10,000.00
13,000
13,000.00
40 Construction Survey
1 LS
5,000.00
5,000.00
15,000.00
15,000.00
10,500
10,500.00
41 Type B -1 Curb
230 LF
6.00
1,380.00
101111
2,300.00
10.00
2,300.00
42 Type A -2 Curb & Gutter
223 LF
12.00
2,676.00
12.00
2,676.00
18.00
4,014.00
43 Type R -7 Sign w/ Typ K
1 EA
150.00
150.00
2,000.00
2,000.00
300.00
300.00
44 Stamped Concrete
883 SF
6.00
5,298.00
12.00
10,596.00
5.00
4,415.00
45 Curb Opening CB
1 EA
2,000.00
2,000.00
1,000.00
1,000.00
4,500.00
4,500.00
46 8" CMP
38 EA
30.00
1,140.00
100.00
3,800.00
25.00
950.00
47 Saw Cutting
294 IF
1.06
311.64
2.50
735.00
1.50
441.00
48 Landscape / Irrigation
432 SF
1.70
734.40
12.00
5,184.00
9.00
3,888.00
49 Slotted Drain
20 LF
60.00
1,200.00
100.00
2,000.00
40.00
800.00
50 CB: APWA 300-2
1 EA
1,500.00
1,500.00
5,000.00
5,000.00
5,000.00
5,000.00
51 Rotate M H Cone
1 EA
1,260.00
1,260.00
2,000.00
2,000.00
600.00
600.00
52 Remove Median Curb
6 LF
150
21.00
200.00
1,200.00
10.00
60.00
53 Release
1 EA
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Sub -Total Street Work
494,193.09
534,087.50
400,969.60
Bridge Work
54 Bridge Removal
1 LS
44,000.00
44,000.00
60,000.00
60,000.00
100,000
100,000.00
55 Bridge Sir Excavation
4,062 CY
34.10
138,514.20
18.00
73,116.00
54.00
219,348.00
56 Bridge Sir Backfill
1,995 CY
29.09
58,034.55
18.00
35,910.00
15.00
29,925.00
57 Provide Piling (Cl 45)
20,267 LF
10.14
205,507.38
10.00
202,670.00
15.00
304,005.00
58 Drive Piling (C145)
309 EA
937.00
289,533.00
1,316.00
406,644.00
1,000.00
309,000.00
59 PS CIP Concrete
1 LS
51,700.00
51,700.00
38,000.00
38,000.00
28,000
28,000.00
60 Conc. Bridge Footing
510 CY"
214.00
109,140.00
250.00
127,500.00
300.00
153,000.00
61 Bridge Concrete
1,082 CY
442.00
478,244.00
375.00
405,750.00
450.00
486,900.00
62 Joint Seal
113 LF
37.10
4,19230
20.00
2,260.00
35.00
3,955.00
63 Bridge Steel
314000 LB
0.55
172,700.00
0.65
204,100.00
0.66
207,240.00
64 16" Steel Casing
320 LF
76.25
24,400.00
110.00
35,200.00
50.00
16,000.00
65 Slope Protect (Rock)
500 CY
38.50
19,250.00
90.00
45,000.00
100.00
50,000.00
66 Chain LinkRai7mg
366 LF
20.10
7,356.60
40.00
14,640.00
42.00
15,372.00
67 Tubular Handrail
28 LF
60.07
1,681.96
150.00
4,200.00
70.00
1,960.00
68 Concrete Barrier
394 LF
50.68
19,967.92
67.00
26,398.00
65.00
25,610.00
69 Cable Railing
95 LF
50.16
4,765.20
...........................
30.00
2,850.00
..............................
12.00
1,140.00
........ ...............................
Sub -Total Bridge Work
1,628,987.11
1,684,238.00
1,951,455.00
Bid Alternate No. 1
10,000.00
10,000.00
7,000.00
Total Bid
2,133,180.20
2,218,325.50
2,352,424.60
Q00053
City of Moorpark
Exhibit 3
Bid Results
Page 3 of 6
Spring Road Bridge
Bidder » »>
Vendor 3
Vendor 4
Vendor 5
January 7, 1999
Name:
A Construction
MCM Construction
C. A. Rasmussen
Address:
4875 Spring Road
P O Box 620
2360 Shasta Way
Cit, State:
Moorpark, Ca 93021
North Highlands,
CA 95660
Sine Valley, CA
93065
Tel. No.:
805 -529 -3220
916- 334 -1221
805 -527 -9330
Contact Person:
Stephen Anderson
H D McGovern
Donald Gladden
Description
st pmts
1 LS
Unit Cost
0.00
Total Bid
Unit Cost
To-Q Bid
nit cost
'total Bid
1 Mobil action
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
2 4" PCC Sidewalk
3,977 SF
5.00
19,885.00
8.00
31,816.00
3.00
11,931.00
3 Drive Approach
145 SF
8.00
1,160.00
10.00
1,450.00
5.00
725.00
4 8" PCC Curb /Gutter
240 LF
22.00
5,280.00
15.00
3,600.00
17.00
4,080.00
5 6" PCC Curb
402 LF
15.00
6,030.00
13.00
5,226.00
13.00
5,226.00
6 6" PCC Curb /Gutter
383 LF
22.00
8,426.00
15.00
5,745.00
15.00
5,745.00
7 A/C Construction
237 Tons
70.00
16,590.00
100.00
23,700.00
69.00
16,353.00
8 AiB Construction
87 CY
110.00
9,570.00
50.00
4,350.00
78.00
6,786.00
9 Remove Guardrail
93 LF
16.50
1,534.50
15.00
1,395.00
13.00
1,209.00
10 Type G O Inlet
2 EA
2,500.00
5,000.00
2,000.00
4,000.00
2,600.00
5,200.00
11 8" ChiP
10 LF
45.00
450.00
70.00
700.00
69.00
690.00
12 Remove CMP
1 LS
1,100.00
1,100.00
10,000.00
10,000.00
2,000.00
2,000.00
13 Adj M H
1 EA
450.00
450.00
1,000.00
1,000.00
1,000.00
1,000.00
14 Striping
1 LS
4,000.00
4,000.00
3,000.00
3,000.00
3,400.00
3,400.00
15 Remove Walls
1 LS
1,500.00
1,500.00
5,000.00
5,000.00
1,900.00
1,900.00
16 Remove A/C Berm
245 LF
5.50
1,347.50
5.00
1,225.00
3.00
735.00
17 Install Guard Rail
143 LF
60.50
8,651.50
50.00
7,150.00
51.00
7,293.00
18 Install 48" CMP
40 LF
60.00
2,400.00
150.00
6,000.00
80.00
3,200.00
19 Constr 8" Inlet & Pipe
1 EA
1,200.00
1,200.00
5,000.00
5,000.00
3,800.00
3,800.00
20 Const Catch Basin
1 EA
6,000.00
6,000.00
3,000.00
3,000.00
2,200.00
2,200.00
21 Junction Structure
I EA
600.00
600.00
2,000.00
2,000.00
1,100.00
1,100.00
22 Transition Structure
1 EA
5,150.00
5,150.00
3,000.00
3,000.00
3,500.00
3,500.00
23 6 -6x4 RC Box
130 LF
420.00
54,600.00
400.00
52,000.00
550.00
71,500.00
24 6 -6x5 RC Box
152 LF
425.00
64,600.00
500.00
76,000.00
480.00
72,960.00
25 Replace Rip Rap
1 LS
10,000.00
10,000.00
50,000.00
50,000.00
75,000.00
75,000.00
26 Constr Joint Detail
1 LS
1,000.00
1,000.00
1,000.00
1,000.00
620.00
620.00
27 Constr 3" PCC Ditch
296 LF
16.50
4,884.00
18.00
5,328.00
11.00
3,256.00
28 Channel Backfill
1,017 CY
10.00
10,170.00
20.00
20,340.00
9.00
9,153.00
29 Concrete Bike Path
3,028 SF
7.00
21,196.00
5.00
15,140.00
3.00
9,084.00
30 Concrete Cutoff Wall
279 LF
25.00
6,975.00
15.00
4,185.00
18.00
5,022.00
31 Ret. Wall Conc
288 CY
375.00
108,000.00
200.00
57,600.00
250.00
72,000.00
32 Ret. Wall Steel
17,505 LB
0.60
10,503.00
0.60
10,503.00
0.67
11,728.35
33 Per. Backfill Ret. Wall
68 CY
30.00
2,040.00
100.00
6,800.00
183.00
12,444.00
34 Excavation Ret. Wall
1,306 CY
15.00
19,590.00
45.00
58,770.00
11.00
14,366.00
000054
City of Moorpark
Exhibit 3
Bid Results
Page 4 of 6
Spring Road Bridge
Bidder » »>
Vendor 3
Vendor 4
Vendor 5
January 7, 1999
Name:
A -C Construction
MCM Construction
C. A Rasmussen
Address:
4875 Spring Road
P O Box 620
2360 Shasta
Way
Cit, State:
Moorpark, Ca 93021
North Highlands,
CA 95660
Simi Valley,
CA 93065
Tel. No.:
805 -529 -3220
916 -334 -1221
805 -527 -9330
Contact Person:
Stephen Anderson
H D McGovern
Donald Gladden
st um-
tTem Descnptton
unit cost
I otal 131d
unit cost
Total Bid
Unit Cost
Total Bid
35 Str. Backfill Ret. Wall
1,233 CY
20.00
24,660.00
60.00
73,980.00
55.00
67,815.00
36 Roadway Excavation
505 CY
15.00
7,575.00
25.00
12,625.00
15.00
7,575.00
37 Roadway Embankment
505 CY
20.00
10,100.00
50.00
25,250.00
15.00
7,575.00
38 Cable Railing
114 LF
16.00
1,824.00
15.00
1,710.00
15.00
1,710.00
39.1 Caltrans Permit
1 LS
1,000.00
1,000.00
2,500.00
2.500.00
440
440.00
39.2 Placement ofK -Rail
1 LS
7,500.00
7,500.00
5,000.00
5,000.00
10,500
10,500.00
39.3 Removal ofK -Rail
1 LS
7,500.00
7,500.00
200.00
200.00
6,800.00
6,800.00
39.4 Traffic Control
1 LS
12,000.00
12,000.00
20,000.00
20,000.00
24,000
24,000.00
40 Construction Survey
1 LS
15,000.00
15,000.00
13,000.00
13,000.00
17,000
17,000.00
41 type 8-1 Curb
230 Lb
15.50
3,565.00
15.1111
3,450.00
15.00
3,450.00
42 Type A -2 Curb & Gutter
223 LF
22.00
4,906.00
25.00
5,575.00
16
3,568.00
43 Type R -7 Sign w/ Typ K
1 EA
390.00
390.00
250.00
250.00
320
320.00
44 Stamped Concrete
883 SF
7.50
6,62150
8.00
7,064.00
8.00
7,064.00
45 Curb Opening CB
1 EA
2,500.00
2,500.00
2,000.00
2,000.00
1,600.00
1,600.00
46 8" CMP
38 EA
45.00
1,710.00
40.00
1,520.00
49.00
1,862.00
47 Saw Cutting
294 LF
3.00
882.00
5.00
1,470.00
2.00
588.00
48 Landscape / Irrigation
432 SF
13.00
5,616.00
40.00
17,280.00
8.00
3,456.00
49 Slotted Drain
20 LF
100.00
2,000.00
25.00
500.00
74.00
1,480.00
50 CB: APWA 300-2
1 EA
2,500.00
2,500.00
3,000.00
3,000.00
1,500.00
1,500.00
51 Rotate M/H Cone
1 EA
800.00
800.00
1,000.00
1,000.00
700.00
700.00
52 Remove Median Curb
6 LF
75.00
450.00
100.00
600.00
40.00
240.00
53 Release
1 EA
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Sub -Total Street Work
538,984.00
683,998.00
614,450.35
Bridge Work
54 Bridge Removal
1 LS
110,000.00
110,000.00
30,000.00
30,000.00
160,500
160,500.00
55 Bridge Str Excavation
4,062 CY
15.00
60,930.00
25.00
101,550.00
34.00
138,108.00
56 Bridge Str Backfill
1,995 CY
30.00
59,850.00
60.00
119,700.00
63.00
125,685.00
57 Provide Piling (Cl 45)
20,267 LF
11.00
222,937.00
14.00
283,738.00
8.00
162,136.00
58 Drive Piling (C145)
309 EA
1,200.00
370,800.00
850.00
262,650.00
1,500.00
463,500.00
59 PS CIP Concrete
1 LS
33,000.00
33,000.00
20,000.00
20,000.00
34,400
34,400.00
60 Cone. Bridge Footing
510 CY
504.00
257,040.00
200.00
102,000.00
188.00
95,880.00
61 Bridge Concrete
1,082 CY
516.00
558,312.00
702.00
759,564.00
5I5.00
557,230.00
62 Joint Seal
113 LF
45.00
5,085.00
25.00
2,825.00
43.00
4,859.00
63 Bridge Steel
314000 LB
0.60
188,400.00
0.50
157,000.00
0.65
204,100.00
64 16" Steel Casing
320 LF
50.00
16,000.00
120.00
38,400.00
156.00
49,920.00
65 Slope Protect (Rock)
500 CY
125.00
62,500.00
100.00
50,000.00
128.00
64,000.00
66 Chain Link Railing
366 LF
41.00
15,006.00
40.00
14,640.00
53.00
19,398.00
67 Tubular Handrail
28 LF
66.00
1,848.00
45.00
1,260.00
76.00
2,128.00
68 Concrete Barrier
394 LF
55.00
21,670.00
75.00
29,550.00
78.00
30,732.00
69 Cable Railing
95 LF
22.00
2,090.00
15.00
1,425.00
15.00
1,425.00
Sub -Total Bridge Work
1,985,468.00
1,974,302.00
2,114,001.00
Bid Alternate No. 1
10,010.00
6,000.00
0.00
Total Bid
2,534,452.00
2,658,300.00
2,728,451.35
0000,55.
City of Moorpark
Exhibit 3
Bid Results
Page 5 of 6
Spring Road Bridge
Bidder » »>
Vendor 6
January 7, 1999
Name:
Myers - Polich
Address:
3286 Fitzgerald
Rd
Cit, State:
Rancho Cordova,
CA 95742
Tel. No.:
916 -635 -9370
Contact Person:
T. T. Pohch
Description
at — TMts
l'otal Bid
Unit Cost
UnIt cost
Total Bid
Unit Cost
Total Bid
1 Mobilization
1 LS
0.00
0.00
2 4" PCC Sidewalk
3,977 SF
3.00
11,931.00
3 Drive Approach
145 SF
6.00
870.00
4 8" PCC Curb /Gutter
240 LF
15.00
3,600.00
5 6" PCC Curb
402 LF
20.00
8,040.00
6 6" PCC Curb /Gutter
383 LF
14.00
5,362.00
7 A/C Construction
237 Tons
45.00
10,665.00
8 AB Construction
87 CY
140.00
12,180.00
9 Remove Guardrail
93 LF
25.00
2,325.00
10 Type G O Inlet
2 EA
2,000.00
4,000.00
11 8" CMP
10 LF
102.00
1,020.00
12 Remove CMP
1 LS
6,000.00
6,000.00
13 Adj M H
1 EA
500.00
500.00
14 Striping
1 LS
4,500.00
4,500.00
15 Remove Walls
1 LS
10,000.00
10,000.00
16 Remove A/C Bern
245 LF
1.00
245.00
17 Install Guard Rail
143 LF
35.00
5,005.00
18 Install 48" CMP
40 LF
180.00
7,200.00
19 Constr 8" Inlet & Pipe
1 EA
2,000.00
2,000.00
20 Const Catch Basin
1 EA
3,000.00
3,000.00
21 Junction Structure
1 EA
3,500.00
3,500.00
22 Transition Structure
1 EA
6,000.00
6,000.00
23 6-6x4 RC Box
130 LF
325.00
42,250.00
24 6-6x5 RC Box
152 LF
325.00
49,400.00
25 Replace Rip Rap
1 LS
10,000.00
10,000.00
26 Constr Joint Detail
1 LS
500.00
500.00
27 Constr 3" PCC Ditch
296 LF
17.00
5,032.00
28 Channel Backfill
1,017 CY
11.00
11,187.00
29 Concrete Bike Path
3,028 SF
5.00
15,140.00
30 Concrete Cutoff Wall
279 LF
30.00
8,370.00
31 Ret. Wall Cone
288 CY
350.00
100,800.00
32 Ret. Wall Steel
17,505 LB
0.50
8,75150
33 Per. Backfill Ret. Wall
68 CY
60.00
4,080.00
34 Excavation Ret. Wall
1,306 CY
15.00
19,590.00
UOQU5to
City of Moorpark
Exhibit 3
Bid Results
Page 6 of 6
Spring Road Bridge
Bidder » »>
Vendor 6
January 7, 1999
acne:
Xlyers - Polich
Address:
3286 Fitzgerald
Rd
Cit, State:
Rancho Cordova,
CA 95742
Tel. No.:
916 -635 -9370
Contact Person:
T. T. Pohch
sl -m-
item Description
Unit Cost
Total Bid
Unit Cost
Total Bid
nit Cost
ToW Bid
35 Str. Backliill Ret. Wall
1,233 CY
22.00
27,126.00
36 Roadway Excavation
505 CY
14.00
7,070.00
37 Roadway Embankment
505 CY
7.00
3,535.00
38 Cable Railing
114 LF
30.00
3,420.00
39.1 Cahrans Permit
1 LS
2,000.00
2,000.00
39.2 Placement ofK -Rail
1 LS
10,000.00
10,000.00
39.3 Removal ofK -Rail
1 LS
5,000.00
5,000.00
39.4 Traffic Control
1 LS
30,000.00
30,000.00
40 Construction Survey
1 LS
25,000.00
25,000.00
41 type B -1 Curb
230 LF
24.00
5,520.00
42 Type A -2 Curb & Gutter
223 LF
27.00
6,021.00
43 Type R -7 Sign w/ Typ K
1 EA
100.00
100.00
44 Stamped Concrete
883 SF
7.00
6,181.00
45 Curb Opening CB
1 EA
2,000.00
2,000.00
46 8" CMP
38 EA
92.00
3,496.00
47 Saw Cutting
294 LF
3.00
882.00
48 Landscape / Irrigation
432 SF
10.00
4,320.00
49 Slotted Drain
20 LF
175.00
3,500.00
50 CB: APWA 300-2
1 EA
2,000.00
2,000.00
51 Rotate MIH Cone
1 EA
250.00
250.00
52 Remove Median Curb
6 LF
10.00
60.00
53 Release
1 EA
1.00
1.00
Sub -Total Street Work
530,526.50
Bridge Work
54 Bridge Removal
1 LS
193,000.00
193,000.00
55 Bridge Str Excavation
4,062 CY"
80.00
324,960.00
56 Bridge Str Backfill
1,995 CY
26.00
51,870.00
57 Provide Piling (C145)
20,267 LF
8.00
162,136.00
58 Drive Piling (C145)
309 EA
1,010.00
312,090.00
59 PS CEP Concrete
1 LS
27,000.00
27,000.00
60 Conc. Bridge Footing
510 CY
400.00
204,000.00
61 Bridge Concrete
1,082 CY
562.00
608,084.00
62 Joint Seal
113 LF
55.00
6,215.00
63 Bridge Steel
314000 LB
0.52
163,280.00
64 16" Steel Casing
320 LF
85.00
27,200.00
65 Slope Protect (Rock)
500 CY
122.00
61,000.00
66 Chain Link Railing
366 LF
35.00
12,810.00
67 Tubular Handrail
28 LF
30.00
840.00
68 Concrete Barrier
394 LF
150.00
59,100.00
69 Cable Railing
95 IF
30.00
2,850.00
....................
........ ...............................
Sub -Total Bridge Work
2,216,435.00
Bid Alternate No. 1
3,600.00
Total Bid
2,750,561.50
000057
Exhibit 4: Fiscal Impact
January 8, 1998
Page 1
1. Project Cost Estimate: The current project cost estimate is
summarized as follows:
Element
Total ($)
Construction
2,352,425
Contingency
235,242
Sub -Total Construction
2,587,677
Design Cost
105,838
Design Support Costs
31,441
Admin & Inspection Costs
142,500
Total
2,867,446
* $140,599 Contract, plus contingency
2. Multi -Year Expenditures: The
following is a summary of the
recommended budget amendment for
the subject projects.
Prior
FY 1997/ FY 1998/
Element Years($)
1998 ($) 1999 ($) Total ($)
Design 65,941
14,474 25,423 105,838
Design 5,833
21,531 4,077 31,441
Support
Construction
0 2,587,667 2,587,667
Admin / Insp. 0
0 142,500 142,500
Total 71,774
36,005 2,759,667 2,867,446
3. Funding Sources: The City is in
receipt of a federal grant in
the amount of $404,800 for this
project. The remainder of the
project funding will come from
the Spring Road / Tierra Rejada
Road AOC. In that the fund balance for the Spring Road/ Tierra
Rejada Road AOC is not sufficient to fully fund the project, it
is recommended that an inter -fund loan from the Los Angeles
Avenue AOC Fund be approved. A
summary of the funding sources
for this project is as follows:
Funding Source (current & prior Fiscal
Years) Total ( $ )
_
Spring Rd / Tierra Rejada Rd
AOC 1,140,404 (incl. prior year exp
Loan from L. A. Avenue AOC
1,322,242
Sub -Total City funds
2,462,646
Federal HBRR Grant
404,800
Total
2,867,446
4. Budget Amendment: In FY 1998/99 only $50,000 was budgeted for
the subject project. When the budget was prepared it was
assumed that a construction contract would be awarded prior to
July 1, 1998. The $50,000 was budgeted merely as a contingency
for unforeseen additional expenditures which may have been
required. In addition to this $50,000 appropriation, FY 97/98
encumbrances totaling $52,625 were carried over to FY 1998/99.
The total current FY 1998/99 budget for the subject project is,
therefore, $102,625.
.pgbrg.awd
000058
Exhibit 4: Fiscal Impact
January 8, 1998
Page 2
A Resolution has been prepared to adjust the appropriations for
this project to fully fund all anticipated current year costs.
A summary of that resolution is as follows:
Current Revised
Account Number FY 98/99 Proposed FY 1997/98
Budget ($) Change ($) Total ($)
Appropriations:
Spring Rd / T. R. Rd AOC -
211.900.8017.000.9801 102,625 930,000 1,032,625
Loan from L. A. Ave. AOC -
211.901.8017.000.9801 0 1,322,242 1,322,242
Sub -Total City Funds 102,625 2,252,242 2,354,867
Federal Grants
244.000.8017.000.9801 0 404,800 404,800
Total: 102,625 2,657,042 2,759,667
Budget:
400.801.8017.000.3992 102,625 2,657,042 2,759,667
5. Loan from L. A. Ave,. AOC: The amount of the unencumbered fund
reserve for the Spring Road / Tierra Rejada Road AOC Fund is
only $934,082. It is recommended, therefore, that the City
Council approve an inter -fund loan from the Los Angeles Avenue
AOC in the amount of $1,154,498 to allow the Spring Road
/Tierra Rejada Road AOC fund to fully fund the subject project.
The impact of that inter -fund loan on those fund reserves is
summarized as follows:
Spring Road / Tierra Los Angeles Ave
Description Rejada Road AOC Fund AOC Fund
Acc. 211.900 ($) Acc. 211.901 ($)
Current Reserve 934,082 7,060,189
Inter -fund Loan 1,322,242 (1,322,242)
Sub -Total 2,256,324 5,737,947
Less Added (2,252,242) 0
Appropriation for
Subject Project
Amended Reserve 4,082 5,737,947
6. Re payment of Inter -fund Loan: It is anticipated that the
developers of the Carlsberg Specific Plan will pay, over the
next three years, Spring Road / Tierra Rejada Road AOC fees in
an amount sufficient to repay the above described inter -fund
loan.
spgbrg.awd
000059
MOORPARK E' (s �
1 au ivloorparK Avenue Moorpark, California 93021 (805) 529 -6864
January 26, 1999
Sedcon Engineers, Contractors
Att: Mort Jafari
1230 Arno Drive, Suite B
Sierra Madre, CA 91024
Re: Spring Road Bridge Reconstruction Project
Notice of Intent to Disqualify
Dear Mr. Jafari,
This is to advise you that it is the intent of the undersigned to recommend that the City Council a) find your
Proposal for the subject project to be unresponsive; and, b) award the contract for the subject project to the next
apparent lowest bidder. The City Council is scheduled to take that action on this matter at their regularly
scheduled meeting of February 3, 1999.
The facts supporting this recommendation include, but are not limited to the following:
I. Sedcon's Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) submittal of 1 -12 -99 included Dixon Trucking
Company, a sub - contractor which was not listed in Sedcon's proposal. In that this fum was not listed as a
sub - contractor in the proposal, it cannot be used [PCC Sec. 4106].
2. Sedcon's DBE submittal of 1 -12 -99 included Zebra Equipment and Material Supply (supplier) for the full
amount of their bid [$170,000]. Per the requirements of the bid documents, only sixty percent 60% of the
amount to be paid to a supplier, can be claimed as credit toward meeting DBE requirements.
3. With the above two adjustments, the amount of the work to be performed by DBEs retained by Sedcon is as
follows:
• American Barricade: $7,329.23 .33%
• Zebra Equipment: $102,000.00 4.60%
4.93 %.
4. The City's stated DBE goal is 10 %. Sedcon's DBE percentage is less than 5 %.
5. Sedcon submitted documents to the City designed to demonstrate that Sedcon undertook a "Good Faith
Effort" (GFE) to solicit proposals from qualified DBEs. For the reasons stated below, said documents fail to
adequately demonstrate that Sedcon did, in fact, undertake a GFE.
6. Paragraph 2 of the DBE Contract Requirements set forth in the specifications, describes what constitutes a
Good Faith Effort." Those requirements are listed as follows:
a) Provide a list of Caltrans certified DBEs solicited;
b) Describe efforts to use the services of MBE organizations or publications to recruit DBEs;
c) ... and,
d) document negotiations between subcontractors and interested DBEs.
PATRICK HUNTER CHRISTOPHER EVANS CLINT D. HARPER
Mayor Ma or Pro Tem DEBBIE RODGERS JOHN E. WOZNIAK
y Councilmember Councilmember Councilmember
A lfulfin
Sedcon Engineers, Contractors
January 26, 1999
Page 2
7. With respect to paragraph 2a, please note the following:
• Sedcon provided no list to the City of the DBEs solicited. The only DBE firms mentioned in the GFE
documents are the three firms mentioned above.
8. With respect to paragraph 2b, please note the following:
• Three pages in the GFE show that an attempt was made to place an add in the Minority Bidders
Bulletin;
• No documents were submitted to indicate that any other publications or outreach organizations were
contacted;
• The use of only one publication does not demonstrate an adequate GFE;
• At the bottom of one of the ad solicitation pages, there is a note (apparently written by a Sedcon
employee) stating that, as of 1- 13 -99, the ad company claimed that they never received the ad request;
• The GFE documents show no, or insufficient, follow -up on the part of Sedcon to confirm that the ad
request was received or that the ad would be published;
• The GFE documents do not include any proof that the ad was ever published;
• Another fax sent to the Minority Business Bulletin on 12- 31 -98, includes a note at the bottom of the
page from Vickey (a Sedcon employee) acknowledging that the ad was being placed with "short notice."
The City agrees. Placing an ad with a publication less than one week prior to the bid opening date, is
totally inadequate. It would appear to be impossible for the publication to advise DBE prior to the bid
opening, or in time to allow a DBE to respond; and,
• The plans and specifications were placed on sale on November 13, 1998, giving bidders ample time to
attempt the outreach efforts necessary to seek and obtain proposals from DBEs. The GFE documents
fail to show that Sedcon initiated DBE outreach efforts in a timely or effective manner.
9. With respect to paragraph 2d, please note the following:
• Sedcon provided no information pertaining to good faith negotiations between subcontractors and
interested DBEs.
10. Although the Affidavit of Mort Jafari states that Mr. Jafan received the bids from Dixon Trucking and
Zebra Equipment around 10:00 am on January 7, 1999, the GFE documents included copies of bids from
both of those firms, showing that they were faxed and received by Sedcon on January 5, 1999. Sedcon,
therefore, had ample opportunity to include these bids in their Proposal to the City.
Please call if you should have any questions.
Sin ,
Kenneth C. Gilbert
Director of Public Works
cc: Steven Kueny, City Manager
Cheryl Kane, City Attorney
pwlsprg_brdg3
000061
RESOLUTION NO. 99 -
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF MOORPARK, CALIFORNIA, REVISING THE AMOUNT
OF THE APPROPRIATIONS AND BUDGET FOR THE
SPRING ROAD BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT [SPRING
ROAD / TIERRA REJADA ROAD AOC (ACC. 211.900)
AND FEDERAL GRANTS (FUND 244)] AND APPROVING
AN INTER -FUND LOAN FROM THE LOS ANGELES AVENUE
AOC FUND (ACC. 211.901) TO THE SPRING ROAD /
TIERRA REJADA ROAD AOC ACCOUNT (Acc. 211.900)
WHEREAS, on July 17, 1998, the City Council adopted the Budget
for Fiscal Year 1998/99; and,
WHEREAS, a staff report has been presented to the City Council
requesting a budget increase in the aggregate amount of $2,657,042;
and,
WHEREAS, Exhibit "A," attached hereto and made a part hereof,
describes said budget amendment and its resultant impacts to the
budget line item(s); and,
WHEREAS, Exhibit "B," attached hereto and made a part hereof,
describes an inter -fund loan required to fully fund this project.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MOORPARK,
CALIFORNIA, DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1: That a Budget amendment in the aggregate increase
of $2,657,042, as more particularly described in Exhibit "A," is
hereby approved.
SECTION 2: That an inter -fund loan from the Los Angeles Avenue
AOC Fund (Account #211.901) to the Spring Road / Tierra Rejada Road
AOC Fund (Account #210.900) in the amount of $1,322,242, as more
particularly described in Exhibit "B," is hereby approved.
SECTION 3: The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of
this resolution and shall cause a certified resolution to be filed
in the book of original resolutions.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 3rd day of February, 1999.
Patrick Hunter, Mayor
ATTESTED:
Deborah S. Traffenstedt, City Clerk
0000G,%
Resolution No. 99 -
Exhibit "A"
ADJUSTED APPROPRIATIONS FOR
Project 8017 (Spring Road Bridge Reconstruction)
c zck 31
FUND
ACCOUNT NUMBER
APPROPRIATION
TO ACCOUNT NUMBER
REVISED
APPROPRIATION
REQUEST
TRANSFER
Spring Road / Tierra
211.900.0000.000.5100
$2,252,242
400.801.8017.000.3992
Rejada Road AOC Fund
IN / (OUT)
IN / (OUT)
Spring Road /
Reserve
$(102,625)
$(2,252,242)
$(2,354,867)
Federal Grants
244.000.0000.000.5100
$404,800
400.801.8017.000.3992
TOTALS:
Federal
$2,657,042
$0
SUMMARY OF TRANSFERS IN / (OUT) BY FUND
FUND
ACCOUNT NUMBER
CURRENT
SUPPLEMENTAL
REVISED
APPROPRIATION
( All to be applied to
TRANSFER
TRANSFER
TRANSFER
/ (REDUCTION)
#400.801.8017.xxx.xxxx
IN / (OUT)
IN / (OUT)
IN / (OUT)
Spring Road /
211.900.8017.000.9801
$(102,625)
$(2,252,242)
$(2,354,867)
T. R. Rd. AOC
$0
$2,587,667
$2,587,667
400.801.8017.804.9903
Federal
244.801.8017.000.9801
$0
$(404,800)
$(404,800)
Grants
$142,500
400.801.8017.808.9102
Total
TOTALS:
$(102,625)
$(2,657,042)
$(2,759,667)
DISTRIBUTION OF APPROPRIATIONS TO EXPENSE ACCOUNT NUMBERS
ACCOUNT NUMBER
CURRENT
SUBJECT
REVISED
APPROPRIATION
APPROPRIATION
APPROPRIATION
/ (REDUCTION)
Design:
$102,625
$(73,125)
$29,500
400.801.8017.802.9102
Construction:
$0
$2,587,667
$2,587,667
400.801.8017.804.9903
Construction Engineering
$0
$142,500
$142,500
400.801.8017.808.9102
TOTALS:
$102,625
$2,657,042
$2,759,667
000003
3 v�3
Resolution No. 99 -
Exhibit "B"
INTER -FUND LOAN
Lending Fund
Fund Account Number
Current
Additional
Revised
Loan Amount
Loan Amount
Loan Amount
Addition /
(Reduction)
211.901 (L. A. Ave.
$0
$1,322,242
$1,332,242
AOC Fund)
Borrowing Fund
Fund Number
Current
Additional
Revised
Loan Amount
Loan Amount
Loan Amount
Addition /
(Reduction)
211.900 (Spring Rd /
$0
$1,332,242
$1,332,242
ITierra Rejada Rd AOC)
OOOOG4