COUNTY OF SAN MATEO

Inter-Departmental Correspondence

Department of Public Works

 

DATE:

July 22, 2005

BOARD MEETING DATE:

August 9, 2005

SPECIAL NOTICE/HEARING:

Complied with Mailing Written Notice to Reject Bids

VOTE REQUIRED:

Majority

 

TO:

Honorable Board of Supervisors

FROM:

Neil R. Cullen, Director of Public Works

SUBJECT:

Rejecting Bids for the Construction of the Tarwater Creek Sediment Reduction Project (F-282 [2C]) and the Pescadero Creek Park Complex Sediment Reduction Project (F-282 [2D]) and Authorizing the Director of Public Works to Re-Advertise the Projects for Bid

 

Recommendation

Adopt resolutions rejecting bids for the Tarwater Creek Sediment Reduction Project (Tarwater Project) and Pescadero Creek Park Complex Sediment Reduction Project (Pescadero Creek Project) and authorizing the Director of Public Works to re-advertise the projects for bid.

 

Vision Alignment

Commitment: Responsive, effective and collaborative government.

Goal 20: Government decisions are based on careful consideration of the future impact, rather than temporary relief or immediate gain.

 

Rejecting the single bid received for each project and authorizing the re-advertising of the projects for bid, will allow us to obtain more competitive bids when the construction market is more favorable.

 

Background

Previous Board Action

1.

Adopted Resolutions No. 66835 and No. 66836 which authorized the Director of Public Works to execute Agreements with the California Department of Fish and Game for Fishery Restoration Grant Funding (Grant).

   

2.

Adopted Resolution No. 67349 on June 7, 2005, adopting plans and specifications, determining prevailing wage scales, and calling for sealed proposals for the Tarwater Project.

 

3.

Adopted Resolution No. 67384 on June 21, 2005, adopting plans and specifications, determining prevailing wage scales, and calling for sealed proposals for the Pescadero Creek Project.

 

History

The State of California Department of Fish and Game (DFG), which administers these Grants, authorized the County to proceed with advertising for bids for the projects. The Projects were advertised for bids and contractors purchased and obtained bid documents.

 

On June 28, 2005, bids were accepted for Tarwater Project and only one bidder, Power Engineering Contractors, Inc., submitted a bid for $360,885. The engineer’s estimate was $174,600.

 

On July 12, 2005, bids were accepted for Pescadero Creek Project and only one bidder, Power Engineering Contractors, Inc., submitted a bid for $669,885. The engineer’s estimate was $425,000.

 

Discussion

We have determined, based on subsequent discussions with prospective bidders who did not submit bids, that contractors that do the type of work involved in these two projects currently have enough work scheduled through the end of this construction season which was shortened by the long winter and late rains. They were also concerned with being able to complete the work prior to November 1, 2005, which is the last day for any work adjacent to creeks and streams permitted by the Projects’ Mitigated Negative Declaration. Continuing the work past this date would require DFG approval on a daily basis.

 

We contacted DFG and they have indicated that they are willing to grant us time extensions until March 31, 2007, for completing both Projects. This will allow us time to re-advertise the Projects for bids in the early spring of 2006, and provide sufficient time to be out of the creeks by the time specified in the Projects' Mitigated Negative Declarations (i.e. November 1st in any given year).

 

We are recommending that the one bid received for each project be rejected as provided by Section 22038 of the Public Contract Code and that the projects be re-bid in order that work can commence in the spring/summer of 2006.

 

A resolution has been approved as to form by County Counsel.

 

Fiscal Impact

Re-bidding the work is estimated to cost $1,000 per project and will initially be paid for with Road Funds. We will apply for grant funding to reimburse the Road Fund for the cost of re-bidding this work.

 

There is no impact to the General Fund.