The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About04 PEPPERTREE PARK CIP 20085DocuSign Envelope ID: 8FE2CEC5-75AC-4D35-ABDF-5B8AE7290B26 • Agenda Item 4 AGENDA REPORT Reviewed: City Manager -15W Finance Director �a MEETING DATE: JULY 21, 2020 TO: MATTHEW S. WEST, CITY MANAGER FROM: DOUGLAS S. STACK, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS/CITY ENGINEER SUBJECT: AWARD OF CONTRACT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF PEPPERTREE PARK IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT (CIP No. 20085) SUMMARY Bids for the Peppertree Park Improvements Project (CIP No. 20085) have been received and a construction contract is ready to be awarded to the lowest responsive/responsible bidder, Landscape Support Services. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council 1. Find the bid submitted by the apparent low bidder, Green Giant Landscape, Inc., to be nonresponsive. 2. Award the construction contract to Landscape Support Services, the lowest responsive/responsible bidder, in the amount of $1,220,762.65, and authorize the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute the contract documents on behalf of the City. FISCAL IMPACT Sufficient funds have been budgeted for this project in the Fiscal Year 2020-2021 Capital Improvement Program. The total estimated expenditure for the construction of this project is $1,349,242.65. The project is funded through the Park Development Fund (Fund 131). Project expenditures include: • Construction Contract......................................................................$1,220,762.65 • Construction Management....................................................................... $99,000 • Architectural Support Quality Assurance/Quality Control .......................... $15,650 • Deputy Inspection and Materials Testing .................................................. $13,830 • Estimated Expenditures................................................................$1,349,242.65 The remaining budgetary appropriation will be set aside as project contingency for potential unforeseen conditions that may arise necessary to complete the work within the approved project scope and budget. DocuSign Envelope ID: 8FE2CEC5-75AC-4D35-ABDF-5B8AE7290B26 Award Contract for Peppertree Park Improvements, CIP 20085 July 21, 2020 Page 2 CORRELATION TO THE STRATEGIC PLAN Peppertree Park Improvements Project contributes to the fulfillment of the City's Strategic Plan Goal B: Public Safety and Protection of Assets. Specifically, the project implements Strategy 5, which among other items, is to ensure continuous maintenance and improvement of public facilities to ensure Tustin is an attractive, safe and well-maintained community which people feel pride. BACKGROUND The City Council adopted Resolution No. 20-31 approving the plans, specifications and authorized/directed the City Clerk to advertise for bids on May 19, 2020. The Peppertree Park Improvements Project at the corner of First and C Streets consists of restroom renovations, new landscaping, irrigation, turf, senior center community garden, playground equipment, rubberize playground surfacing, infield renovation and a series of accessibility improvements in accordance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Replacing the landscape, turf and irrigation will improve coverage, enhance growth and efficiency, thereby, improving long term maintenance and operations. The ADA improvements include those that pertain to the play equipment as well as the walking paths and seating/picnic areas in and around the park. The typical service life for an irrigation system is 25-30 years and Peppertree Park was built in 1972. Numerous individual projects have been completed over the years requiring multiple modifications to the irrigation system to accommodate each project accordingly. The new irrigation design accounts for the amenities within the park and corrects problems associated with the construction of the projects mentioned above. Formal bids were opened on June 25, 2020. Nineteen (19) bids were received and are summarized as follows: • Green Giant Landscape, Inc ................................ • Landscape Support Services .............................. • Micon Construction, Inc ...................................... • Klassic Engineering and Construction, Inc........... • C.S. Legacy Construction, Inc ............................. • Lehman Construction .......................................... • Marina................................................................. • Land Forms Landscape Construction, Inc........... • Caliba, Inc........................................................... • Three Peaks Corp ............................................... • KASA Construction, Inc ....................................... • TL Veterans Construction, Inc ............................. • Horizons Construction Co. Int'I, Inc ..................... • Ohno Construction Company .............................. • PUB Construction, Inc ......................................... • State Link Construction Inc .................................. • Byrom -Davey, Inc ................................................ • Yakar................................................................... • Los Angeles Engineering, Inc .............................. .....................$ 1,171,978.60 (*) ......................... $ 1,220,762.65 ......................... $ 1,227,134.08 ......................... $ 1,316,064.68 ......................... $ 1,318,745.68 .....................$ 1,327,273.40 (*) ......................... $ 1,330,000.00 ......................... $ 1,332,104.00 ......................$ 1,358,978.98(*) ......................... $ 1,361,654.42 ......................... $ 1,373,773.36 ......................... $ 1, 382, 300.00 ......................... $ 1,435,466.91 ......I .................. $ 1,448,286.84 ......................... $ 1,495,199.60 ......................$ 1,657,750.16(*) ......................... $ 1,698,098.42 ......................$ 1,964,911.94(*) ......................$ 1,981,981.00(*) DocuSign Envelope ID: 8FE2CEC5-75AC-4D35-ABDF-5B8AE7290B26 Award Contract for Peppertree Park Improvements, CIP 20085 July 21, 2020 Page 3 (*) Corrected total bid amount based upon multiplying the number of units by the unit price bid. Landscape Support Services' Bid Protest Landscape Support Services ("LSS") submitted a bid protest contending that Green Giant Landscape, Inc.'s ("Green Giant") bid was non-responsive because Green Giant did not use the correct bid forms and thus bid on items that had been deleted or modified. In support of the Bid Protest, LSS contends that the Instructions to Bidders includes the following language: "NO BID SHALL BE CONSIDERED UNLESS IT IS PREPARED ON THE APPROVED PROPOSAL FORMS IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE INSTRUCTION TO BIDDERS." The Instructions to Bidders provides that "Bids shall be submitted in writing on the Proposal forms provided by the AGENCY ... The AGENCY will reject any proposal not meeting these requirements.". Staff believes that LSS' bid protest has merit and recommends that the City Council reject Green Giant's bid as nonresponsive and award the contract to the lowest responsive and responsible bidder, LSS. Competitive bidding rules require that bids must conform to specifications, and that if a bid does not conform, it may not be accepted. (Konica Business Machines U.S.A., Inc. v. Regents of University of California (1988) 206 Cal.App.3d 449, 453.) Public entities have discretion to waive inconsequential deviations (irregularities) from public bid specifications. A deviation is inconsequential if it neither gives the bidder an unfair competitive advantage nor otherwise defeats the goal of preventing corruption in the public contracting process. (Ghilotti Construction Co. v. City of Richmond (1996) 45 Cal.AppAth 897, 899) A public entity may only waive an irregularity if the irregularity would not give the bidder an unfair advantage by allowing the bidder to withdraw its bid without forfeiting its bid bond. (Valley Crest Landscape, Inc. v. City Council (1996) 41 Cal.AppAth 1432, 1441-1442.) Public Contract Code section 5103 provides that to be relieved of a bid, a bidder must establish 1) that the mistake made the bid materially different than the bidder intended, and 2) that the mistake was made "in filling out the bid and not due to error in judgment or to carelessness in inspecting the site of the work, or in reading the plans or specifications." Courts have held the only mistakes which can release a bidder from its bid are typographical or arithmetical errors. (Menefee v. County of Fresno (1985) 163 Cal.App.3d 1175, 1181.) In assessing whether the City may waive Green Giant's use of incorrect bid forms, the City is to consider whether Green Giant could have withdrawn its bid under section 5103. Staff believes that Green Giant would likely be able to establish, if it sought to do so, that its use of incorrect bid forms made its bid materially different than what Green Giant intended (i.e., that the City's zeroing out the incorrect bid items materially reduced the intended bid amount). Staff also believes that Green Giant would likely be able to establish that the mistake was made in filling out the bid rather than due to an error in judgment. Green Giant did not misread the specifications or make an error in judgment in bidding the project. Rather, Green Giant simply used incorrect forms, which caused certain costs to be removed from its bid. Because Green Giant would likely have been able to withdraw its bid under section 5103 due to its use of incorrect forms and thus had an unfair competitive advantage, staff recommends that DocuSign Envelope ID: 8FE2CEC5-75AC-4D35-ABDF-5B8AE7290B26 Award Contract for Peppertree Park Improvements, CIP 20085 July 21, 2020 Page 4 the City Council reject Green Giant's bid as nonresponsive and award the contract to the lowest responsive and responsible bidder, LSS. References, the State Contractor's State License Board and registration with the Department of Industrial Relations for Landscape Support Services have been verified and found to be in good standing. Staff is recommending that the City Council award the construction contract for the Peppertree Park Improvements Project (CIP No. 20085), to the lowest responsive/responsible bidder, Landscape Support Services. '/V Do s . Stack, P. E. D' ec of Public Works/City Engineer Attachment: Bid Protest - LSS \\tustinca.org\ch\PW\City Council Items\2020 Council Item s\07-21-2020\Award of PeppertreeWward of Peppertree Park CIP 20085.docx DocuSign Envelope ID: 8FE2CEC5-75AC-4D35-ABDF-5B8AE7290B26 I 12610 Saticoy Street South l North Hollywood, CA 91605 • PH: 818.175.0680 1 FAX: 661.554.0109 VN'WM".LA-NDSCAPESUPPORTSERVICES.CO-NI June 291h, 2020 City of Tustin Jason Churchill 300 Centennial Way Tustin, CA 92780 Re: Peppertree Park Project CIP 20085 Bid date 06/25/20 - bid protest To whom it may concern: After careful review of the apparent low bidders bid package and subsequent posted bid tabulation, LSS hereby submits a formal bid protest to contest the low bid by Green Giant Landscape Inc, and requests the bid by Green Giant Landscape be rejected due to the following reasons: Instruction to Bidders states: "NO BID SHALL BE CONSIDERED UNLESS IT IS PREPARED ON THE APPROVED PROPOSAL FORMS IN CONFOMANCE WITH THE INSTRUCTION TO BIDDERS"; Green Giant Landscape did not use the correct Bid Form (pages C-4, C-5, and C-6) with their bid submission and must therefore be considered non-responsive. Landscape Support Services should be found as the lowest responsive and responsible bidder of record. Green Giant Landscape Inc. used a superseded Bid Form (pages C-4, C-5, and C-6) bidding on items and units of measure that are not current and have been deleted or modified as part of Addendum #2. Even as Green Giant acknowledge the addenda's it failed to review them and comply with their content. As an example, bid item 44 was changed from a unit price to a lump sum price. The bid that was presented by Green Giant Landscape is for a $1.00 unit price, which can be extended but not converted after the fact to a lump sum bid amount. 2. Bid form Proposal form section C-2. "In the case of discrepancies in the amounts bid, unit prices shall govern over extended DocuSign Envelope ID: 8FE2CEC5-75AC-4D35-ABDF-5B8AE7290B26 amounts. The basis for determining the low bid shall be by correctly multiplying the number of units by the unit price bid to calculate a total amount for each contract item and obtaining a total bid by correctly adding together all contract item total amounts. If a unit price is not legible or is missing, the total amount for the contract item shall be divided by the approximate quantity of units to arrive at the unit price bid. If both the unit price and total amount for a contract item are left blank, then the entire bid shall be rejected." As per the City of Tustin's bid tabulation, bid items 7, 13, 22, 28, and 29 have been determined to have no unit price and no total amount. The contractor cannot be held to perform on those items for a non -exiting bid amount and those items cannot be adjusted to $0.00 on the bid tabulation as Green Giant did not include these items on its bid form. Again, the bid must be rejected on found non-responsive. Although the agency reserves the rights to waive any informality or irregularity it still needs to comply with public contracting code. The errors and omissions in Green Giant's Bid are more than irregularities and based on the missing bid item pricing the agency is unable to award a contract based on that bid. Sipcerely, Chris Sturm, COO