HomeMy WebLinkAbout17 REJECTION OF BIDS 02-06-95NO. 17
2-6-95
OATE-
FEBRUARY 6, 1995
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
WILLIAM A. HUSTON, CITY MANAGER
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT/ENGINEERING DIVISION
REJECTION OF ALL BIDS FOR ASSESSMENT DISTRICT 86-2
IMPROVEMENTS - REMOVAL ANDREPLACEMENT OF UNDERLYING ALLUVIUM
AND EXISTING FILL IN LOT NO'S 10 AND 18 OF TRACT NO 13627 AND
AUTHORIZATION TO R - '
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council, at their meeting of February 6,
1995, reject all bids received January 12, 1995, for the subject
project, and authorize the Public Works Department to re-advertise the
subject project for bid. It is also recommended that all bid bonds be
released upon the rejection of all bids.
FISCAL IMPACT
No impacts to the City General Fund. All costs will be initially borne
by the City of Tustin Assessment District No. 86-2 with reimbursement
for the remedial grading being sought through litigation against the
responsible parties. The estimated cost of the remedial grading is
$290,000.00.
BACKGROUND
The City received eleven
(11) bids for the subject project,
as follows:
1. Mesa Contracting Corp., Orange ....................... $195,644.00
2. T-n-T Grading, Inc., San Marcos ...................... 203,328.00
3. Salsbury Engineering & Grading Contractors, Anaheim 210,575.00
4. Kunze, Inc. Riverside ................................ 235,206.20
5. Fleming Engineers, Inc., Cerritos 249,169.20
6. D.W.E. Enterprises, San Juan Capistrano .............. 257,665.60
7. Vance Corporation, Rialto ............................ 274 716 00
8. Cash Grading Contractor ....... ' '
....................... 299,260.00
9. Terra-Movers, Inc., Escondido 351, .
Gillespie Construction, Inc., ........................ 763 40
10. Costa Mesa 352,251.00
11. Baldi Bros. Contractor, Beaumont ..................... 565,572.80
Upon review of the bid package submitted by the low bidder, it was
discovered that Addendum No. 2 had not been returned. All bidders are
required to sign and return all addendums with the bid package.
Upon further investigation, it was learned that the apparent low bidder
had not received Addendum No. 2, therefore it is recommended that all
bids be rejected and the project be re-advertised for bids.
~e~ Otteson
Associate Civil Engineer
, .-,
_
Tim D. Serlet
Director of Public Works/
City Engineer
TDS: JO: ccg: rej alluv