The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutAGENDA REPORT 1995 0920 CC REG ITEM 08MAGENDA REPORT City of Moorpark To: The Honorable City Council From: Ken Gilbert, Director of Public Works Date: September 12, 1995 (Meeting 9- 20 -95) //,.� - /c�-(6 7 ITEM O. A Subject: Consider Bids for the 1995 Slurry Seal Project BACKGROUND 1. On August 2, 1995, the City Council authorized staff to advertise for receipt of bids for the application of slurry seal to certain designated streets throughout the City. 2. Plans and specifications were placed on sale and notices were published advising that bids were due by 2:00 p.m. September 5, 1995. 3. On Monday August 28, 1995, staff received a call from a supplier of latex material required to be added to the slurry seal. He was concerned that the City's specifications did not appear to allow the use of his product. After discussing the matter with the City Engineer's Office, it was decided to issue an Addendum to the specifications which would permit the use of this product. This change provided the bidders with more options in selecting the type of latex material to be used, which could have the effect of lowering bid costs. 4. Addendum #1 was sent to all of the plan holders by Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested, on Wednesday, August 30, 1995. DISCUSSION A. Bid Results Bids for the subject project were received and opened on September 5, 1995. A tabulation of the bid results is attached as Exhibit 1. A summary is as follows: Vendor 1. Asphalt Maintenance 2. California Pavement Maint. 3. Roy Allan Slurry Seal slry95b.avd Amount 238,492.50 244,456.20 267,575.10 Addendum #1 Acknowledaed No Yes No ( )OUSS 1995 Slurry Seal Project September 20, 1995 Page 2 B. Qualifications All of the bidders are qualified to perform the work required. C. Addendum Acknowledgement The bid received from Vendor #2 includes the required acknowledgment of the receipt of Addendum #1. The bids received from Vendors #1 and #3 did not include this acknowledgement. D. Bid Withdrawal In addition to the bids described in Exhibit 1, on the morning of September 5, 1995, the staff received a request (by telephone and fax) from another firm, that the bid they had sent by courier be withdrawn and returned unopened. Staff complied with that request. The reason cited for this request was that Addendum #1 was received subsequent to the transmittal of their bid. E. Impact of Addendum #1 As briefly discussed in the Background of this report, Addendum #1 expands the specification pertaining to the latex material to be used, by providing more options to the bidders. The net effect, if any, would be to reduce costs by allowing the bidders more options and encouraging competition. A bidder's awareness of this change could allow a bidder to present a lower bid. The following is a discussion of the impact of Addendum #1, if any, on each of the bids received. 1. Vendor #1 presented the lowest bid. Vendor #1 has advised the City that, even though they were unaware of Addendum #1 and therefore did not acknowledge it in their bid, the oil supplier they intend to use was aware of the Addendum and was only able to participate in the process and provide a lower price for asphalt emulsion than other suppliers because of the issuance of this Addendum. Therefore, had this bidder been aware of and had acknowledged the Addendum, their bid amount would have been unchanged. 2. The bid presented by Vendor #2 is $5,963.70 higher than the bid of Vendor #1, even though they were aware of and acknowledged the Addendum. slry95b.awd 000Lsy 1995 Slurry Seal Project September 20, 1995 Page 3 3. The bid presented by Vendor #3 is $29,082.60 higher than the bid of Vendor #1. For the purpose of this analysis, it is assumed that this bid amount was based on higher material costs resulting from an unawareness of the Addendum. After discussing the various material costs with the bidders, it has been determined that the potential cost reduction which could result from the awareness of the Addendum, is far less than $29,082.60. This bidder's awareness of the Addendum would not have changed the ranking of his bid. For these reasons it is the determination of staff that the acknowledgement of the Addendum, or the lack thereof, had no impact on the bid results. F. Waiver of Irregularities As stipulated in the bidding documents, the City has the right to waive any irregularities in a bid. Accordingly, the City may waive the failure of Vendor #1 to acknowledge the Addendum and declare that bidder to be the lowest responsive bidder. G. Protest Staff has received letter from Vendor #2 (Exhibit 2), in which they state that they would protest the award of a contract to another firm. H. Fiscal Impact Should the City Council decide to bidders, a project costs (based Vendor #2) is as follows: 1. Total Project Cost Estimate award a contract to one of the on the bid amount submitted by Est. Element Cost ($) • Design 200 • Construction 244,456 • Construction Contingency (10 %) 24,544 • Admin & Insp 26,000 Total 295,200 2. Budget: The budget for this project (03 -142- 903 -0210) is $400,000. slry95b.ewd V0V0() 1995 Slurry Seal Project September 20, 1995 Page 4 I. Schedule If a contract is awarded, construction should begin in October and be completed within sixty (60) days. SUMMARY The City Council could declare Vendor #1 unresponsive and award the contract to Vendor #2 at a slightly higher contract price. The City Council could also waive the irregularity in the bid presented by Vendor #1 and award that firm the contract. It appears likely, however, that the latter action would give rise to a protest from Vendor #2. Such a protest could cost the City considerable time and money to resolve. On the other hand, the delay which would result from the rejection of bids and the readvertisement of the project will cost little. It is even possible that lower bids would be received. CONCLUSION For the reasons stated above, staff recommends that the bids be rejected and the project readvertised. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council reject all bids and direct staff to readvertise the project for receipt of bids. SlryM.awd ( MWAL September 5, 1995 --------------------------------------- - -------- - - - - -- City of Moorpark Bid Results: 9 -5 -95 1995 Slurry Seal Project -------------------------------------- ITEM DESCRIPTION Qty Units 1 Traffic Control 1 IS 2 Public Notice 1 LS 3 A/C R &R Areas 200 SF 4 Crack Sealing 1 LS 5 A/C Leveling Course 5 Tons 6 Type I Slurry Seal 1700 ELT 7 Type II Slurry Seal 140 ELT 8.1 18 Limit Bar (121) 2900 LF 8.2 19 Crswlk White- 12" 250 LF 8.3 #11 Yel Cntr Line 160 LF 8.4 #14 Dluble Yellow 3100 LF 8.5 #16 Yel Cross Walk 750 LS 8.6 #23 Arrows 3 EA 8.7 #23 Words & Sym 652 EA 9 Release 1 LS ---------------------- ---------------------- Engineer's Est. --------------- - - - - -- Unit $ TOTAL BID 4950.00 4,950.00 550.00 550.00 9.46 1,892.00 6600.00 6,600.00 363.00 1,815.00 81.40 138,380.00 83.60 11,704.00 0.52 1,508.00 0.07 17.50 0.29 46.40 0.29 899.00 0.55 412.50 12.10 36.30 6.66 4,342.32 1.00 1.00 -------------------- -------------------- VENDOR 1 * ** Asphalt Maintenance 1641 Tulare Ave Visalia, CA 93292 Gregg Glick (209) 627 -5373 Unit $ TOTAL BID 7000.00 7,000.00 7500.00 7,500.00 15.45 3,090.00 44000.00 44,000.00 1108.00 5,540.00 88.00 149,600.00 99.00 13,860.00 0.50 1,450.00 0.55 137.50 0.30 48.00 0.40 1,240.00 0.55 412.50 16.50 49.50 7.00 4,564.00 1.00 1.00 * ** Addendum #1 not included VENDOR 2 Calif. Pavement Maint 9390 Elder Creek Rd Sacramento, CA 95829 Robert Blakey (916) 381 -8033 Unit $ TOTAL BID 7000.00 7,000.00 3000.00 3,000.00 16.00 3,200.00 44000.00 44,000.00 440.00 2,200.00 95.70 162,690.00 96.31 13,483.40 0.55 1,595.00 0.60 150.00 0.33 52.80 0.44 1,364.00 0.60 450.00 18.00 54.00 8.00 5,216.00 1.00 1.00 Page 1 VENDOR 3 * ** Roy Allan Slurry Seal 11922 Bloomfield Sante Fe Springs Roy Allan (310) 864 -3363 Unit $ TOTAL BID 5000.00 5,000.00 3500.00 3,500.00 10.00 2,000.00 69460.00 69,460.00 240.00 1,200.00 97.00 164,900.00 97.00 13,580.00 0.50 1,450.00 0.55 137.50 0.28 44.80 0.38 1,178.00 0.55 412.50 16.50 49.50 7.15 4,661.80 1.00 1.00 * ** Addendum #1 not included Total 173,154.02 238,492.50 244,456.20 267,575.10 ()z LtK�, [,> J. z THE PAVEMENT MAINTENANCE COMPANY September 7, 1995 City of Moorpark Mr. Ken Gilbert 799 Moorpark Ave. Moorpark, CA 93021 Subject: 1995 Slurry Seal Project Dear Mr. Gilbert, As the lowest responsible bidder on the subject project we should be awarded the project. Of the contractors who acknowledged Addenda number one we had the lowest bid, making us the lowest responsible bidder. According to our attorney the law says projects are to be awarded to the lowest responsible bidder. To award a contract to a contractor who did not comply with the bid requirements at bid time is unfair to the other contractors. This is especially true when there is only 2.5% difference between the bidders. While re- bidding the project is another alternative to award, we feel by complying with the bidding requirements we should be awarded the project. Sincerely, Robert A. Blakey Vice President California Pavement Maintenance Company, Inc. • 4891 Ronson Court, Ste. J • San Diego, CA 92111 (619) 268 -9884 • Fax (619) 268 -1529 • California License # 374514 000;