[1) CALL TO ORDER]
[00:00:02]
GOOD EVENING. I'LL NOW CALL THIS MEETING TO ORDER.ASK A QUESTION. DO WE WANT TO ADDRESS ITEM E AT THIS TIME? WELL WE'RE GOING TO COME BACK TO RESUME THE NORMAL MEETING? AS SOON AS THIS IS, THIS ITEM IS COMPLETED.
MADAM CLERK, CAN WE PLEASE HAVE THE ROLL CALL? ALL MEMBERS PRESENT.
[3) SPECIAL PRESENTATION:]
PROJECT 750 H STREET WASCO, CALIFORNIA AND ADOPT A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER, OR DESIGNEE TO AWARD, FINALIZE, AND ENTER INTO AN AGREEMENT WITH THE LOWEST, FULLY RESPONSIVE BIDDER AND FIND THAT THIS ACTION IS NOT A PROJECT AS DEFINED UNDER CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT STATE GUIDELINES.THEREFORE, PURSUANT TO STATE GUIDELINES SECTION 15 060C3, NO ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW IS REQUIRED.
WE THIS IS FOR THE THIRD AND POTENTIALLY FINAL PHASE OF THE LABOR CAMP CLEANUP.
THIS WILL BE THE ACTUAL KNOCKDOWN AND HAUL OFF OF THE BUILDINGS AND THE VARIOUS OTHER DEBRIS THAT'S OVER ON THE SITE, AND FINISHING TO A LEVEL CLEAN PARCEL.
WE THE FUNDING FOR THIS WAS PART OF OUR ONE OF OUR FIVE HIGH SPEED RAIL AGREEMENTS, WHERE THE RAISE GRANT FUNDS WAS USED TO INFUSE THE CASH NECESSARY TO CREATE THIS REIMBURSEMENT AGREEMENT.
SO THE CITY WILL ACTUALLY BE THE PRIMARY CONTRACTOR ON THIS WORK IS THE PRIMARY CONTRACTOR.
AND HERE WE'RE ADVERTISING FOR BIDS FOR SUBCONTRACTORS TO DO THIS DEMOLITION PHASE.
THE THE REQUEST FOR BIDS WAS RELEASED ON OCTOBER 22ND.
ON NOVEMBER 1ST WE HELD A NON-MANDATORY JOB WALK ON THE SITE THAT WAS ATTENDED BY SIX OF THE SEVEN COMPANIES THAT ULTIMATELY BID ON THIS PROJECT, THERE WAS AN ADDENDUM THAT CLARIFIED SOME BITTER QUESTIONS, WAS ALSO RELEASED TO ALL OF THE BIDDERS ON NOVEMBER 9TH.
FOLLOWING THAT, ON NOVEMBER 14TH, WE HAD THE BID OPENING AND THAT WAS DONE PUBLICLY, AND WE DID RECEIVE SEVEN BIDS IN THAT TABLE ON YOUR STAFF REPORT SHOWS THE RESULTS OF THOSE BIDS.
I APOLOGIZE FOR THAT SEVENTH ONE WRAPPING AROUND TO THE NEXT PAGE.
AS YOU CAN SEE, THERE'S A PRETTY SIGNIFICANT SPREAD THERE FROM 750,000 TO 3.6 $3.7 MILLION.
SO QUITE A RANGE THERE AS STAFF BEGAN TO ANALYZE THE BIDS AND CHECK THEM FOR RESPONSIVENESS, THE LEVEL OF THAT LOWEST, APPARENTLY RESPONSIVE BID, THE 747 HAD PARTICULAR QUESTIONS.
AND AS YOU CAN SEE, WE DID A LITTLE FURTHER ANALYSIS HERE FOR YOUR REPORT.
THAT BID OF 747 WAS JUST 60% OR 40% LOWER THAN THE NEXT LOW BID.
THERE WAS A CLUSTER OF BIDS THERE TOGETHER BETWEEN 1.2 AND 1.7, 1.9.
AND SO WE STARTED LOOKING CAREFULLY AT THAT.
AGAIN, THAT BID WAS JUST 40% OF THE AVERAGE OF ALL BIDS.
SO WHEN THAT OCCURS NORMALLY STAFF IS CONCERNED ABOUT WHETHER THAT PARTICULAR BIDDER MADE A MISTAKE, MISSED SOMETHING, MISSED ONE OF THE REQUIREMENTS OR WHETHER THEY'RE REALLY CAPABLE OF DELIVERING THE FINISHED PRODUCT, PER THE BID DOCUMENT, AT THAT PRICE.
SO WE, OUT OF AN ABUNDANCE OF CAUTION AND FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE DOUBT, WE ASKED THIS COMPANY WITH THE LOW BID IS CALLED BALANDRA DEMOLITION AND WE'LL CALL THEM BALANDRA.
WE ASKED THEM TO PROVIDE REFERENCES FOR THREE SIMILAR JOBS THAT THEY'VE DONE RECENTLY, SO THAT WE CAN CONFIRM THEY ACTUALLY HAVE THE CAPABILITY OF DOING THIS WORK, AND THAT IT WAS DONE SUCCESSFULLY ON THESE OTHER JOBS.
UNFORTUNATELY, THEY WERE NOT ABLE TO DELIVER THOSE BACK TO US VIA EMAIL, DESPITE OUR EFFORTS TO SEND THEM AN EMAIL AND HAVE THEM SIMPLY REPLY WITH THE REFERENCE INFORMATION.
[00:05:02]
THEY WERE UNABLE TO DO THAT.IN ALL THREE CASES, BALANDRA WAS NOT THE PRIME CONTRACTOR ON THE JOB.
IN ONE CASE, THE JOB WAS TEARING DOWN A RESIDENCE AND A COUPLE OF OUT STRUCTURES.
ALL OF THE BIDS, ALL OF THE PROJECTS WERE AS A SUBCONTRACTOR AND SUBSTANTIALLY SMALLER JOBS AT A MUCH, MUCH LOWER COST LEVEL THAN WE WERE TALKING ABOUT HERE FOR THIS DEMOLITION.
IN ADDITION, WE WE HAD QUESTIONED BALANDRA HAD FAILED TO RETURN A SUBCONTRACTOR DECLARATION FORM.
THEY INSISTED THAT THEY HAD NO SUBCONTRACTORS BUT STILL FAILED TO RETURN THE FORM.
I THINK THAT WE WENT AROUND AND AROUND 2 OR 3 TIMES IN.
THEY STILL TO TO THIS DATE HAVE NOT RETURNED FORM 12 B UNSURE WHY.
ALL OF THE OTHER BIDDERS DID RETURN.
SO THERE WAS ALSO SOME QUESTION ABOUT JUST THE COMMUNICATION WITH THE COMPANY AND WHETHER WHETHER THEY WOULD BE EFFECTIVE AT COMPLETING THIS WORK ONCE IT STARTED.
AND BY THEIR OWN ESTIMATES, THEY THEY RECKON THEY COULD TAKE CARE OF 25 BUILDINGS FOR EACH THREE WORKING WEEKS OR 15 WORKING DAYS.
THE THE TIME CONSTRAINT INCLUDED IN THE BID IS 60 WORKING DAYS MAXIMUM.
THE WORK HAD TO BE COMPLETED WITHIN 60 WORKING DAYS, USING BALANDRA'S OWN ESTIMATES OF 25 PER THEY WERE GOING TO EXCEED THE 60 DAYS BY A FEW DAYS, IF NOT SEVERAL, AND THAT WOULD ASSUME NO PROBLEMS OR HOLD UPS ALONG THE WAY.
SO OVER THE WEEKEND OR LATE LAST WEEK, WE STAFF HAD COME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT WE NEEDED TO REJECT THAT THAT LOW BID DUE TO ALL THESE INCONSISTENCIES AND AND THE OTHER FACTORS.
A BUT AGAIN, OUT OF PROPER FORM, WE WITH THE CITY ATTORNEY'S HELP, WE PUT TOGETHER A LETTER TO BALANDRA INDICATING THAT WE INTENDED TO REJECT THEIR BID IF THEY COULD NOT ADDRESS AND AND RESOLVE THESE ISSUES BY PROVIDING PROPER REFERENCES AND SO FORTH, INCLUDING A FINAL REQUEST TO SUBMIT THE SUBCONTRACTOR FORM THEY BALANDRA DID RESPOND SATURDAY EVENING, DECEMBER 2ND.
IN THAT RESPONSE, THEY INITIALLY JUST DISPUTED WITH OUR CONCERNS AND POINTED TO THE OTHER OTHER BIDDERS AND AND BROUGHT UP QUESTIONS ABOUT THEIR BIDS.
BUT IN THE END, THEY DID PROVIDE ONE ADDITIONAL REFERENCE, WHICH FOR A LARGE PROJECT AND GAVE US THE NAME OF THE COMPANY AND THE CONTACT. THAT PROJECT WAS COMPLETED IN 2001.
SO 22 YEARS AGO, SHOCKINGLY, THAT INDIVIDUAL THEY REFERRED US TO STILL WAS IN THAT POSITION WITH THE COMPANY, AND HE SPOKE WITH US, REMEMBERED THE JOB.
THIS WAS A DEMOLITION OF SEVERAL HUNDRED STRUCTURES AT THE PRESIDIO GROUNDS AND NEAR OCEANSIDE.
HE REMEMBERED THE JOB WELL, BUT DID NOT REMEMBER BALANDRA OR MISTER BALANDRA.
ALFREDO BALANDRA, THE OWNER, OR IF HE HAD BEEN PART OF THAT JOB AT ALL.
NOW IT WAS 20 YEARS AGO, SO THAT MIGHT BE UNDERSTANDABLE.
BUT STILL THAT THAT REFERENCE WAS NOT EFFECTIVE IN BUILDING OUR OUR CONCERNS.
AND THE FORM 12 B WAS NOT SUBMITTED ALONG WITH THAT RESPONSE.
SO WE STILL DID NOT RECEIVE THAT.
SO THE THE NEXT LOWEST BIDDER IS RESOURCE
[00:10:02]
ENVIRONMENTAL. THERE WERE SOME QUESTIONS ON THEIR BID, PARTICULARLY ABOUT THE COMPLIANCE WITH THE DBE AND DVD SMALL BUSINESS AND DISADVANTAGED BUSINESS QUALIFICATIONS.TODAY WAS THEIR DEADLINE TO PROVIDE THAT INFORMATION.
THEY HAD PROPERLY TURNED IN THEIR FORM 12 B AND BASED ON THE DISCUSSION WITH STAFF AND WITH THE CITY ATTORNEY, WE WE AGREE THAT THEIR RESPONSE TODAY DID SATISFY THE FACT THAT THEY ARE COMPLYING WITH THOSE DISADVANTAGED AND SMALL BUSINESS REQUIREMENTS OF OUR BID REQUEST.
SO. THE BOTTOM LINE IS THAT IN STAFF'S MIND, THE BULANDRA WAS NOT A RESPONSIVE BID.
AND WE PROPOSE AND REQUEST THAT YOU APPROVE REJECTION OF THAT BID.
WE BELIEVE NOW THAT RESOURCE ENVIRONMENTAL IS THE LOWEST FULLY RESPONSIVE BID NOW AND AT 1.248 MILLION. AND WE ARE REQUESTING AUTHORIZATION TO MOVE FORWARD, TO ACCEPT THEIR BID AND MOVE FORWARD WITH EXECUTING AN AGREEMENT WITH THEM TO COMPLETE THE WORK.
THE RECOMMENDATION ON YOUR STAFF REPORT HAS THE BLANKS LEFT IN IT.
AS, AGAIN, YOU KNOW, WE DID NOT HAVE ALL THE ANSWERS PRIOR TO THE AGENDA BEING POSTED LAST NIGHT.
SO WE'VE CRAFTED A MOTION FOR THE FOR THE MAYOR TO READ THAT WILL COVER BOTH THE REJECTION, THE ACCEPTANCE OF THE SECOND PLACE BID, AND THE APPROVAL OF CHANGE ORDERS OF SUBSEQUENT TO THE APPROVAL OF BID.
HAPPY TO EXPLAIN OR ANSWER QUESTIONS IF THERE.
ARE THERE ANY PUBLIC COMMENTS AT THIS TIME? SEEING NONE. MADAM CLERK, ARE THERE ANY EMAIL COMMENTS ON THIS ITEM? THERE ARE NO EMAIL COMMENTS.
COMMENTS FROM THE MEMBERS. MAYOR PRO TEM GARCIA.
IT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT I REALLY WANT TO JUST RUNNING INTO.
IT'S TAKEN US A LONG TIME TO GET HERE, AND WE DON'T NEED TO WALK INTO ANOTHER BLENDER OUT THERE.
AND SO I REALLY APPRECIATE IT AND I LOOK FORWARD TO JUST PASSING IT AND ENTHUSIASTICALLY SUPPORT.
WELL, I AND MY STAFF APPRECIATE THAT RECOGNITION.
IT IS A LOT OF WORK TO DO IT RIGHT AND TO, YOU KNOW, TO PROTECT THE CITY'S INTERESTS AND ALSO BE SURE THAT WE'RE FAIR WITH FOLKS THAT ARE BIDDING ON THESE PROJECTS.
IT'S IT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT I TAKE CASUALLY AT ALL.
IT'S, YOU KNOW, IT'S THEIR LIVELIHOOD.
BUT IN THIS CASE, WE DEFINITELY HAVE TO LOOK OUT FOR THE CITY'S INTERESTS FIRST.
SO, YOU KNOW, I, THE CITY CLERK A MINUTE AGO HAD THE RESOLUTION UP ON THE SCREEN.
AND SO I WANTED TO POINT OUT BEFORE THE MOTION IS MADE AND BEFORE WE CONTINUE WITH THE QUESTIONS, THAT THERE SHOULD HAVE BEEN A SECTION TWO ON THE ON THE RESOLUTION HERE THAT AUTHORIZES THE.
SO THE MOTION WILL INCLUDE THE AUTHORIZATION FOR THE CHANGE ORDERS.
AND WE WILL MODIFY THAT RESOLUTION TO ADD THAT SECTION TOO.
MEMBER MEDINA. I ECHO WHAT COUNCIL MEMBER GARCIA SAID WHEN I WAS INITIALLY READING THE AGENDA.
THAT WAS MY INITIAL, YOU KNOW, CONCERN AS WELL.
WHY IS THERE THAT BIG OF A DIFFERENCE? SO I APPRECIATE THE CITY'S DUE DILIGENCE IN TERMS OF, YOU KNOW, DIGGING INTO IT AND AND REALLY JUST GOING WITH THE RECOMMENDATION OF WHAT'S GOING TO GET US TO THE NEXT STEP ON THIS PROJECT. SO I APPRECIATE THAT.
DITTO. I MEAN, THIS IS DEFINITELY SOMETHING THAT WE NEED TO BE VERY WATCHFUL ABOUT AND GO FOR.
ARE YOU GOING TO HAVE ANY TYPE OF LANGUAGE THAT PENALIZES THIS COMPANIES, IF THEY FAIL TO COMPLY WITH THIS DEADLINES THAT ARE ESTABLISHED BY THE THE GRANT THAT WE RECEIVED, YOU KNOW, FROM HIGH SPEED RAIL.
[00:15:02]
YES. ALL OF THAT LANGUAGE ABSOLUTELY IS INCLUDED IN OUR BID DOCUMENT.REFERENCES ALL OF THE FEDERAL AND STATE REQUIREMENTS AS WELL.
THEY'RE ALL PIGGYBACKED ON OUR DOCUMENT.
AND I'M KIND OF INTERPRETING YOUR QUESTION, MAYBE APPLYING TO FUTURE PROJECTS LIKE THIS AS WELL.
AND AND STAFF HAS HAD A COUPLE OF DISCUSSIONS NOW THAT THIS IS A REALLY VALUABLE LEARNING PROCESS FOR US, AND HOW CAN WE TIGHTEN UP OUR BID DOCUMENTS TO PREEMPT SOME OF THESE KINDS OF SITUATIONS IN THE FUTURE? BUT THE MAIN QUESTION IS, YES, THERE ARE THERE ARE DEFINITELY PENALTIES FOR NOT COMPLYING WITH THE STATE AND FEDERAL RULES THAT ARE PIGGYBACKED ON TOP OF OUR RFP.
AND IT WAS IN YOUR REPORT, WHICH WAS AN HOUR OR TWO OF WALKING THROUGH.
AN HOUR AND A HALF OF DISCUSSION, QUESTIONS, ANSWERS, LOOKING AT THE ACTUAL BUILDING BY BUILDING.
AND YOU KNOW, IN THEIR DEFENSE, BALANDRA DIDN'T HAVE ACCESS TO THAT INFORMATION.
OBVIOUSLY THE OTHER SAW SOMETHING THERE THAT THEY DIDN'T.
ALL RIGHT. VERY GOOD. THAT'S IT.
MEMBERS SALDANA I HAVE NO QUESTIONS.
AND, YOU KNOW, I WAS THE LAST ONE TO KIND OF GET THE QUESTION BEFORE I WANT TO ASK, BUT IT'S OKAY.
WHATEVER YOU GUYS I DON'T DO I HAVE NO QUESTIONS.
ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. I AGREE WITH EVERYBODY ELSE.
I'D LIKE TO ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO REJECT THE BID FROM BALANDRA DEMOLITION AS NON-RESPONSIVE BIDDER.
AND AWARD THE BID TO THE LOWEST, FULLY RESPONSIVE BIDDER, RESOURCE ENVIRONMENTAL, INC., AND TO ADOPT A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO ENTER INTO AN AGREEMENT WITH RESOURCE ENVIRONMENTAL INC FOR THE LABOR CAMP DEMOLITION AND CLEANUP PROJECT IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,248,000.
AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE CHANGE ORDERS IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $150,000.
SECOND. IT'S BEEN MOVED AND SECONDED.
MADAM CLERK, CAN WE HAVE THE VOTE BY ROLL CALL? ENTHUSIASTIC MOTION.
IGH MOTION BY MAYOR PRO TEM GARCIA, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER REYNA TO REJECT THE BID FROM BALANDRA DEMOLITION TO ADOPT A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO ENTER INTO AN AGREEMENT WITH RESOURCE ENVIRONMENTAL INC AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE CHANGE ORDERS NOT TO EXCEED $150,000.
MOTION IS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
THE SPECIAL MEETING IS ADJOURNED.
YOU WILL.
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.