The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutAGENDA REPORT 1999 0915 CC REG ITEM 10CTo. From City of Moorpark Agenda Report - 725. 1q � ITEM /0- c . CITY OF MOORPARK, CALIFORNIA City Council Meeting of t � l D;';Pi►']be //3 19� ACTION:_�IYP,f.'lP BY: Ja The Honorable City Council Kenneth C. Gilbert, Director of Public Works Date: September 3,1999 (Council Meeting 9- 15 -99) Subject: Spring Road Bridge Reconstruction Status Report 017F.RVTRW This is in response to a request from the City Council for a report on the history and status of the Spring Road Bridge Reconstruction Project, to include a more in depth discussion of the following: • Project History; • Bidding Procedures; and • Schedule Recovery Plan. DISCUSSION A. Project History Attached as Exhibit 1 is a chronological summary of key actions or benchmarks pertaining to the subject project. B. Bidding Procedures Questions have been raised about the qualifications of the contractor and the selection process used by the City to select that contractor. As the City Council is aware, the selection of a contractor for any major public works project must be done in accordance with the requirements of the Public Contracts Code of the State of California. That Code requires that all major projects be competitively bid and that the contract be awarded to the lowest responsible bidder. A responsible bidder is a bidder who: 1) has adequately responded to all of the requirements set forth in the bid documents [Responsive]; and 2) has been found to be qualified to 000291 Spring Road Bridge Replacement Project September 3, 1999 Page 2 satisfactorily perform the required work [Qualified]. A discussion of these two attributes is as follows: • Responsive: It was determined by the City that the apparent low bidder for the subject project (Sedcon) was not responsive to the requirements of the bid documents. That finding was made based upon a determination that said contractor failed to comply with requirements relating to the use of sub - contractors and /or suppliers who were registered Disadvantaged Business Enterprises (DBE) . The bid from that firm was rejected and the contract was awarded to the then lowest responsible bidder, T M Engineering. Qualified: Generally, any contractor is deemed to be qualified to perform the required work if he possesses the Contractor's License required for the type of work specified. An agency is precluded from awarding a contract to a bidder it believes is "more qualified." Again, any contractor who can "satisfactorily" perform the work is deemed [by law] to be qualified. In order for an agency to reject a bidder because he is not qualified, that agency must state the reasons for such a finding and allow the contractor an opportunity to rebut those reasons. Typically, the only time an agency is successful in rejecting a bidder on this basis is when that agency has found evidence that the rejected bidder failed to undertake and complete a prior contract (most likely with another agency) in a satisfactory manner. That is, the past performance was unsatisfactory. To be successful the evidence of prior unsatisfactory performance should be substantial. From the references and other information provided in the bid documents submitted by the selected contractor, staff found no evidence of any prior unsatisfactory performance. C. Recovery Plan 1. Problems: The contractor has encountered a number of problems which have caused him to fall behind schedule. Those problems include, but are not limited to the following: a. delay in ordering, fabricating and driving indicator (test) piles to confirm design for the depth of pile tips; b. difficulty in driving piles to specified depth; c. turn over of personnel (five superintendents to date); d. numerous questions and /or requests for design changes to address perceived "problems" asserted by contractor [The remedies for most of those "problems" were in the specifications. The Contractor chose to debate the problems and /or specified solutions instead of implementing the solutions provided in the specs.]; Spgbrg1S_hist 000292 Spring Road Bridge Replacement Project September 3, 1999 Page 3 e. failure of water diversion facilities which led to flooding of the work site; f. damage to existing utilities [including telephone conduit and overhead power line]; and g. lapses in organization and control of the work site, sub- contractors and suppliers. 2. Schedule: As discussed above, the contractor is approximately three months behind schedule. Of particular concern to both the Contractor and the City is the need for the contractor to vacate the river bottom before the winter wet season. To that end the Contractor recently developed a "Recovery Plan," a copy of which is attached as Exhibit 2. The attached Recovery Plan calls for the completion of the construction of the bridge deck and the removal of the falsework from the arroyo by the end of the first week of December. This is a very ambitious schedule. In order to meet this schedule, it will be necessary for the contractor to assemble and deploy all of the resources (materials, supplies, equipment and manpower) required to construct the project, in a very concentrated and organized manner. In an effort to facilitate those efforts, the City has granted the contractor permission to: • start work at 6:30 a.m.; • work past the 7:00 p.m. deadline when necessary (provided work does not extend past 10:oo p.m.); • work on Saturdays and, in rare cases, Sunday if necessary). It is the view of staff that the Contractor is about one week behind the schedule outlined in the attached Recovery Plan. Staff is advised that it is the intent of the contractor to catch -up and be in position to commence construction of the bridge deck falsework before the end of September. It is the intent of staff to continue to monitor the efforts of the contractor to meet the schedule called for by the Recovery Plan. RECOMMENDATIONS Receive and file report. Spgbrg15_hist 000253 Exhibit 1: Project History September 3, 1999 Page 1 The following is a chronological summary of the more significant milestones associated with the development and implementation of the Spring Road Bridge Replacement Project Date Action By: Description 04/02/92 City Council Authorize feasibility study of possible bridge improvement project 12/15/93 City Council Approve bridge rehabilitation project 02/16/94 City Council Approve change from bridge widening project to bridge replacement project 07/06 -94 City Council Approve Request for Proposals 07 -08/94 Staff Distribute RFP, review proposals from several firms, conduct interviews, evaluate and recommend selection 09/21/94 City Council Approve selection of DF&A (CAA) to 06/25/97 Staff 09/ - -/97 Staff 10/01/97 Staff 10/ - -/97 Spgbrg15_hist Staff Prepare report to City Council on implementation schedule Work with VCFCD on the design for the Bike Path Submit applications for permits from Fish & Game, Water Quality Control Board, etc. Work with Ventura County Waterworks Dist. #1 on utility relocation needs and temporary sewer line 000204 prepare the design 06/21/95 City Council Approve change to width of bridge 06/01/95 Staff Submit application for a federal grant for partial funding 07/19/95 City Council Approve conceptual design (alignment, width, etc.) 03/19/97 City Council Approve additional design efforts / costs 04/16/97 City Council Adopt Resolution approving Mitigated Declaration for Project 06/25/97 Staff 09/ - -/97 Staff 10/01/97 Staff 10/ - -/97 Spgbrg15_hist Staff Prepare report to City Council on implementation schedule Work with VCFCD on the design for the Bike Path Submit applications for permits from Fish & Game, Water Quality Control Board, etc. Work with Ventura County Waterworks Dist. #1 on utility relocation needs and temporary sewer line 000204 Exhibit 1: Project History September 3, 1999 Page 2 Date Action By: Description 11/ - -/97 Staff Work with property owner northwest of the bridge to obtain construction easement 12/17/97 City Council Approve agreement with Pacific Telephone to allow bridge construction within Telephone easement 01/07/98 City Council Authorize advertise for bids 03/04/98 City Council Approve Agreement with State Fish & Game Department 05/06/98 City Council Approve Supplemental Agreement with Caltrans re: Federal grant 06/03/98 City Council Reject bids, request information on possible re- design 08/19/08 City Council Receive report on possible re- design, approve project with no re- design 08/26/98 Staff Follow -up Memo provided to the City Council explaining that the project was delayed in June 1996 due to concerns over weather and traffic - not re- design 11/04/98 City Council Approve revised Plans and authorize re- advertising the project O1/ - -/99 Staff & City Review bids, develop recommendation to Attorney reject bid from apparent low bidder for failure to comply with MBE requirements 01/11/99 Carlsberg Spring Road closed to facilitate roadway improvements south of the bridge 02/03/99 City Council Award contract 03/18/99 Staff Issued Notice to Proceed: Contract Time starts, first day road closure required for bridge project Sp9brg15_hist 0 0 O c 5 5 Exhibit 1: Project History September 3, 1999 Page 3 Date Action By: 04/ - -/99 Contractor 05/01/99 06/14/99 Spgbrg15_hist Contractor Contractor Description Clearing Channel; construct box culvert northwest of the bridge Excavation for piles First Test Pile driven: contractor behind schedule 000250