HomeMy WebLinkAboutAGENDA REPORT 2000 0105 CC REG ITEM 10ETo:
From:
Date:
City of Moorpark
Agenda Report
The Honorable City Council
Co
ITEM 1 D•
i
of
B
December 10, 1999 (Council Meeting 1 -5 -00)
cC
L 'u JA 1. 4
:t��GCl d rt tCLJ' � 'I' e�l ?�Gi Y lG�,rGIfC>r-`S} 4S°
J'r; A�S s J1 ✓ 'r�d,1
TI"IG
IfU'I
Kenneth C. Gilbert, Director of Public Work s
Subject: Consider Discussion of Requirements Related to the Review
of Bids and the Award of Contracts for Public Works
Construction Projects
BACKGROUND
At the November 17 meeting of the City Council, the City Council
requested that information be provided to the City Council regarding
the requirement related to the review of bids and the award of
construction contracts. A Memorandum on the matter, dated November
19, 1999, was provided to the City Council.
On December 1 the City Council asked that this matter be placed on
the agenda for a future meeting. This report is in response to the
December 1 request. The information contained herein includes the
information previously provided to the City Council in the November
19 memo, plus certain additional information.
DISCUSSION
A. Code Requirements
Matters pertaining to the letting of contracts for construction
of public projects are governed by 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 - not the most qualified
bidder.
A responsible bidder is defined as 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 satisfactorily perform the required work
bids 000051
Bids for Construction Projects
December 10, 1999
Page 2
[Qualified]
The operative terms set forth in the above requirements are
restated as follows:
• Responsive: If a bid is complete and adequately addresses all
of the requirements set forth in the bidding documents, the
bidder is a "responsive" bidder.
• Qualified: If no problems are discovered regarding a bidder's
License or past performance on other projects, it is presumed
that the bidder can satisfactorily perform the work and, is
therefore, deemed to be qualified.
B. Award Based Upon Qualifications: Not Allowed
Public agencies are prohibited from awarding a contract for the
construction of a public project on the basis of qualifications.
A public agency may not award a contract to a company with a
higher bid because it believes that firm to be "more qualified."
C. Qualified Contractor Defined
As stated above, any contractor who can "satisfactorily" perform
the work is deemed [by law] to be qualified to perform the work.
D. Resection of Low Bid
In order to reject the bid from the lowest responsive bidder,
the agency must find that that bidder is not qualified to
perform the work. The agency must then state the reasons for
such a finding and allow the contractor an opportunity to rebut
those reasons. The reasons stated for such a finding should cite
specific evidence of the contractor's failure to satisfactorily
meet the requirements of a prior contract with that or another
agency. Such evidence could include such things as failure to
complete the project on schedule or failure to perform the
required work in a satisfactory manner.
E. Screening
City efforts to review and screen bids have been restricted to
the following:
• License: confirmation that the bidder holds the proper
contractors license; and,
• References: contacting the references listed in the bid
documents.
Screening efforts could be enhanced by amending the bidding
documents and procedures to include the following:
• Questionnaire: the addition of a Questionnaire to the bid
documents designed to gather more specific information
bids V fw00 0�
Bids for Construction Projects
December 10, 1999
Page 3
regarding the bidders capabilities and past performance,
including the following:
- resources (number of employees, equipment, etc.);
- financial capacity (financial statements, etc.);
- surety information (bonding companies used, problems
encountered, etc.);
- current work load (ability to undertake the project);
- description of past projects (types projects / scope of
work);
- description of past performance (was work performed on
time and /or within budget); etc.
Rating Sheet: the development and use of a Rating Sheet, to
be used in evaluating each bid, to document responses
provided by the bidder, references, sureties and other
sources. This form would facilitate the better documentation
of findings cited to support a recommendation to disqualify a
bidder.
F. Conclusions
Benefits: The possible benefits of developing, implementing and
utilizing more thorough screening methods in the City's bidding
documents include the following:
• discourages firms with questionable backgrounds from
submitting bids;
• allows the City to disqualify bidders who do not fully
complete the bid forms (City also retains the ability to waive
any irregularities in the bids);
• enables the City to acquire more in -depth information to use
in evaluating qualifications;
• the Rating Sheet would provide
document the responses given
sureties, etc. [Note: this form
provided during any litigation
disqualify a bidder] .
better means to "objectively"
by the bidder, references,
would be the primary evidence
arising out of an action to
Costs: The costs of disqualifying a bidder "perceived" to be not
qualified include the following:
• may add cost by discouraging smaller, more competitive firms
from preparing more complicated bid documents; and
• the actual cost of litigation arising out of an action to
disqualify a bidder.
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS
Direct staff as deemed appropriate.
bids