COUNTY OF SAN MATEO

Inter-Departmental Correspondence

Department of Public Works

 

DATE:

August 27, 2010

BOARD MEETING DATE:

September 14, 2010

SPECIAL NOTICE/HEARING:

None

VOTE REQUIRED:

Majority

 

TO:

Honorable Board of Supervisors

FROM:

James C. Porter, Director of Public Works

SUBJECT:

Pescadero Landfill Closure Project [Project No. W0803 – F-246 (4)]

 

RECOMMENDATION:

Adopt a Resolution:

 

1.

Rejecting the bids received on July 27, 2010 for the Pescadero Landfill Closure Project; and

 

2.

Authorizing the Director of Public Works to re-advertise the project for bids in the Spring of 2011.

 

BACKGROUND:

The project site, Pescadero Landfill (Landfill), is the newer of the two inactive County owned disposal facilities in the Pescadero area. It encompasses approximately 5.5 acres near Bean Hollow Road and received waste for disposal from 1975 to 1986. The Landfill has not accepted waste for many years, but is not considered “closed” by the California Regional Water Quality Control Board (Regional Board), the agency that is primarily responsible for regulating the Landfill. The Regional Board issued Waste Discharge Requirements Order No. R2-2006-0083 (Order) on December 13, 2006, which contains specific requirements, including: preparation and approval of a technical report for final cover closure design; installation of the final landfill cover; and a post closure maintenance plan consistent with the California Code of Regulations Title 27. The Department received final approval from the Regional Board, Cal Recycle, and the San Mateo County Environmental Health Services Division for the Landfill closure project, which must be completed by January 31, 2011.

 

On June 29, 2010 your Board adopted Resolution No. 070916, which adopted plans and specifications, including conformance with prevailing wage scale requirements and calling for sealed bids for the above-mentioned project.

 

DISCUSSION:

On Tuesday, July 27, 2010, bids were accepted for this project and subsequently referred to this office for checking and recommendation. The bid of HSR General Engineering Contractors, Inc. DBA HSR Inc. at $923,669.00 was the lowest bid received. A summary of the bids received is as follows:

 
 

1.

HSR General Engineering Contractors, Inc., DBA, HSR Inc.

$ 923,669.00

 
 

2.

R.J. Gordon Construction, Inc.

$ 1,033,440.00

 
 

The Department’s schedule for completing this three-month project was predicated on executing an agreement with the low bidder in August. The conditions of the Coastal Development Permit for this project restrict construction activities to the dry season, which cannot be accomplished if contract execution takes place after August.

 

Due to a lengthy and comprehensive review of the bids by the Department, it has become infeasible to proceed with the project given the allowable work window and the estimated duration of the project. Therefore, the Department is recommending that the bids received for this project be rejected as provided for in the Notice to Contractors Section of the specifications and that the Director of Public Works be authorized to re-advertise the project in the Spring of 2011.

 

We believe that the County has successfully committed itself to comply with the Order by advertising and accepting the bids and that full compliance with the Order can be attained through the Board’s authorization to re-advertise the project in the Spring of 2011. Subsequent to your Board’s approval of this recommendation, the Department will request the Regional Board grant an extension to January 31, 2012 to complete the work.

 

County Counsel has reviewed and approved the Resolution as to form.

 

Approval of this Resolution contributes to the Shared Vision 2025 outcome of an Environmentally Conscious Community by allowing the project to be built in compliance with the permit conditions.

 

FISCAL IMPACT:

Rejecting all bids and authorizing re-advertisement of the project in Spring 2011 is estimated to cost $3,000 in staff time and will be paid for by the Solid Waste Fund.

 

There is no impact to the General Fund.