HomeMy WebLinkAbout07/02/1996, 7 - 1996 STREET SEAL COAT PROJECT, SPECIFICATION NO. 96-29 council '77z
j aGEnba Report 1� .
C I T Y OF SAN L U IS O B I S P O
FROM: Michael D. McCluskey, Public WmicS Director
Prepared By: Joe McDermott, Streets Supervisor
David Elliott, Administrative Analyst'f.L
� G
SUBJECT: 1996 Street Seal Coat Project, Specification No. 96-29
CAO RECOMMENDATIONS
1) Award a contract in the amount of $419,547.92 to Valley Slurry Seal for the 1996
Street Seal Coat Project, Specification No. 96-29 (including Alternate A for traffic
control)
2) Authorize the Mayor to execute the contract
3) Approve transferring $113,000 from the 1995 Street Reconstruction Project budget to
the 1996 Street Seal Coat Project budget
DISCUSSION
On May 7, 1996 the Council approved plans and specifications for this project and authorized
Public Works to advertise for bids. The engineer's estimate cited in the agenda report was
$339,800 for construction only without bid alternates or contingencies. The specifications
included a Bid Alternate A for traffic control and a Bid Alternate B for notification/posting.
Based on costs in previous years for traffic control and notification/posting, Public Works was
fairly confident that the amounts bid for these tasks would be so high that it would make
more sense to perform the work with City forces. But if by chance the amounts submitted
were favorable, Public Works would recommend awarding the work to the Contractor and
freeing up the paving crew for other productive tasks.
On June 4, 1996 Public Works opened bids. Valley Slurry Seal of West Sacramento
submitted the low bid amounts, which are compared below to the engineer's estimates and the
recommended contract amounts:
Recommended
Engineer's Bid Contract
Estimates Amounts Amounts
Construction $339,800.00 $406,802.92 $406,802.92
Traffic Control (Alternate A) 501000.00 12,745.00 12,745.00
Notification/Posting (Alternative B) 20.000.00 10,142.00 0.00
$409,800.00 $429,689.92 $419,547.92
Council Agenda Report- 1996 Street Seal Coat Project, Specification No. 96-29
Page 2
Why is there such disparity between the engineer's estimates and the bid amounts for the
individual project components? The total engineer's estimate, which was based on prices for
other similar contracts, was relatively close to the low bid. But estimates for traffic control
were high because they were based on chipsealing projects, which typically require traffic
control over a longer period than sealcoating projects. It's also possible that the low bidder
loaded most costs into construction. Or there might have been a combination of both
circumstances.
Public Works recommends including Bid Alternate A for traffic control in the contract so that
the paving crew, which would otherwise perform this work, can instead resurface California
Boulevard. (See further discussion in the next paragraph.) Public Works recommends not
including Bid Alternate B for the notification/posting tasks in the contract because
staffmembers can perform this work at less cost.
At the May 7 meeting the Council also discussed the need to resurface California Boulevard
before the start of fall quarter at Cal Poly and asked for staff comments on the best way to
accomplish that objective. Having this work done by contract would not work well for two
reasons. First, there is a heavy current workload in engineering. The engineer assigned to
street reconstruction and resurfacing projects is currently working simultaneously on the
following projects included in the adopted capital improvement plan:
c Broad Street Wastewater Main Replacement
0 Casa Street Wastewater Main Replacement and Street Reconstruction
0 Corporation Yard Painting
C Santa Rosa Street Bridge Replacement
C Higuera Street Bridge Repair
Stopping work to prepare plans and specifications for an unscheduled resurfacing project
would postpone these five projects by at least one month and disrupt their planned
construction schedules. Also, when work is done by contract, the minimum time needed to
prepare construction documents, advertise for bids, award a contract, and start construction is
about 90 days. The time needed for these tasks would not allow completion of the California
Boulvard project by contract before the start of fall quarter.
For these reasons, Public Works recommends having the City paving crew resurface
California Boulevard using money from the operating budget, as it did with Orcutt and Tank
Farm Roads in 1995. This is the only option for getting this resurfacing work completed
before the start of fall quarter. As mentioned, this strategy would require including traffic
control in the seal coat contract, so that the paving crew would be freed from this task and
have enough time this summer for the work on California Boulevard. Street resurfacing work
is specifically exempted from City Charter requirements to let contracts for all public works
projects.
%rZ
Council Agenda Report - 1996 Street Seal Coat Project, Specification No. 96-29
Page 3
FISCAL EMPACT
Esimated Project Cost:
Base Construction Contract $406,802.92
Traffic Control 12,745.00
Contingencies @ 8 Percent 33.452.08 $453,000.00
Existing Project Budget:
1995-96 Operating Program Appropriation $170,000.00
1996-97 Operating Program Appropriation 170.000.00 340,000.00
Additional Project Budget Needed $113,000.00
The 1995 Street Reconstruction Project budget started with an appropriation of $620,000.
After transferring $63,000 to the Marsh Street Reconstruction Project and $192,000 to the
Elks Lane Reconstruction Project, there is $365,000 remaining. Public Works recommends
transferring $113,000 of this balance to the 1996 Street Seal Coat Project budget. That
adjustment will leave $252,000 for reconstruction of Casa Street in conjunction with the
wastewater main replacement scheduled in Fall 1996. (Costs for resurfacing California
Boulevard will be paid out of operating budget appropriations.)
Annual street seal coating is an ongoing project in the Public Works operating budget, while
annual street reconstruction and resurfacing is an ongoing project in the CIP budget. Both
projects restore and maintain pavement to ensure the lowest life-cycle cost for the street
system, which is the City's largest single infrastructure investment. With this common
objective, it is appropriate to transfer money from the reconstruction project budget to the seal
coating project budget. Nonetheless, Public Works will use bid results for the current seal
coating project to more carefully tailor the size of future projects (including bid alternates and
contingencies) to the budget available. As the seal coating budget continues to remain static
in the face of rising material costs, the extent of future annual projects will grow smaller and
smaller, and the City will not be able to maintain recommended seal coating frequencies.
ALTERNATIVES
1) Reducing the contract amount to fit the project budget. The agenda report for the May
7 meeting stated that if bids came in high, the size of the contract could be reduced to
bring it within budget. There would be two problems with this course of action.
First, contract quantities would have to be reduced by more than 25 percent, and
contract specifications would require negotiation of a new unit price (presumably
higher) in this circumstance. Second, because of the variation in unit prices among the
bidders, it would be possible to arrange quantity reductions so that the Valley Slurry
Seal would no longer be the low bidder. This possibility could invite charges of bid
manipulation to favor a specific bidder.
Council Agenda Report - 1996 Street Seal Coat Project, Specification No. 96-29
Page 4
2) Using savings from the Public Works operating budgets to provide the additional
$113.000 needed. The report for the May 7 meeting also stated that if bids came in
high, money might be transferred from other Public Works operating budget accounts
to the project account. Rough projections (based on expenditures through May 31,
1996) show that there may be about $115,000 unspent in the Public Works general
fund non-salary expense accounts.at the end of the fiscal year on June 30, 1996. If
these savings actually materialize, they could be used alone or in conjunction with
street reconstruction money to supplement the project budget. Similar rough
projections at April 30, 1996 showed only a potential $45,000 savings, so fluctuations
in expenditures from month to month complicate estimating what actual savings may
be available.
3) Readvertising the contract Although there were only three bids submitted, the two
lower bids were within five percent of each other. Consequently, there is little reason
to believe that readvertising would result in lower bids. Also, readvertising would
probably delay start of the project until mid-September. Potentially cooler weather at
that time could make the seal coat application more difficult, and resumption of
classes at Cal Poly would increase traffic and complicate traffic control.
Attachments
bid summary
agreement
hAengineeA9629aw ngn
R N 0 0 0 0 N
Pl W 0 A A O W O O
J W n W vl O O N J O O
U C N C 0 r w 0 F U 0 N
O
¢ 0 O N W 0 6
y r a O O N N w O y r a N O
erv cc:
¢ w w w w to ¢
w w
O N o 0 Q W 0 0 N O
>- U r W 0 e 0 W >. U r w i
U J Q ¢ O W O N N J Q? Q
J aw a ^ aw a . 7
Q o > Co > CO
WK O O N N C O n
(n Q r O O O N 0 0 ^ r
Z O v 0 W us O N Z O O
WCCLU Lu
N LU U IN A m o w v O F U C G
W N 'O jC.) a ' co i vie civ jU 0 ¢ n v>
O W QLL ra Nwww 0 q W taco s;
C, a 0 w w w a V w w
Cl) as ac
� OLL FAV ooc�im � Imo- 0
0 ¢ � a aa � ¢ Noo < i: < c =
IL d y U a ^ U a
IA ,F 0 N 0 O D O 0
V� "'
G n o N N O O 0
O W ZFLu U 000M vmwn 96
Z VpoC
Q O cc a N N K W O
N N. 0 ww w O w
iC.) i <
J ¢ ¢ w a o 0 0 . ¢ w ;
Z2 rnn � � � r
C O0Z ¢ Coco) vi OOZ ¢ :
G U a m O U n a '
N
O O N 0 0 0 0
O! W ^ Q 0 0 0 O O
ON U 00
m w QU t0 O n O O
o 0
CL�
I
wiOwww N � ¢a00 0
F' m to w w N w w
V WC W ¢
ZyZUvi uio vie ZyZV
W W ] ¢ t0 r W W � ¢ • �
Z
m � z <Oc0 0 W
We' o j
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
CALIFORNIA
AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT, made on this day of 19_, by and between the City of San Luis
Obispo, San Luis Obispo County, California, hereinafter called the Owner,and Valley Slurtv Seal hereinafter
called the Contractor.
WITNESSETH:
That the Owner and the Contractor for the consideration stated herein agree as follows:
ARTICLE 1,SCOPE OF WORK The Contractor shall perform everything required to be performed,shall provide
and furnish all of the labor, materials, necessary tools, expendable equipment, and all utility and transportation
services required to complete all the work of construction of 1996 Street Seal Coat Project Specification No 96-29
in strict accordance with the plans and specifications therefor,including any and all Addenda,adopted by the Owner,
in strict compliance with the Contract Documents hereinafter enumerated.
It is agreed that said labor,materials,tools,equipment,and services shall be furnished and said work performed and
completed under the direction and supervision and subject to the approval of the Owner or its authorized
representatives.
ARTICLE Il, CONTRACT PRICE The owner shall pay the Contractor as full consideration for the faithful
performance of this Contract, subject to any additions or deductions as provided in the Contract Documents, the
contract prices as follows:
Approximate Unit
Item Quantity Item with Unit Price.Written in Words Price
Total
1. 1418 tons Microsurfacing Type III $103.63 $146,947.34
2. 2218 tons Microsurfacing Type II $93.44 $207,249.92
3. 105,545 LF Thermoplastic Striping $0.19 $20,053.55
4. 8,619 SF Thermoplastic Markings $2.65 $22,840.35
5. 3,281 each Pavement Markers S2.96
$9,711.76
TOTAL: $406,802.92
Additive Unit
Alternate Item with Unit Price Written in Words Price Total
A• 1 LS Traffic Control/Flagging ss:..
$12,745.00
B. 1 Ton Notification and Posting sasss
$10,142.00
Payments are to be made to the Contractor in accordance with and subject to the provisions embodied in the
documents made a part of this Contract:
- 1 -
7-1,
Should any dispute arise respecting the true value of any work omitted,or of any extra work which the Contractor
may be required to do, or respecting the size of any payment to the Contractor, during the performance of this
Contract, said dispute shall be decided by the Owner and its decision shall be final,and conclusive.
ARTICLE III,COMPONENT PARTS OF THIS CONTRACT: The Contract consists of the following documents,
all of which are as fully a part thereof as if herein set out in full, if not attached, as if hereto attached:
1. Notice to Contractors and Information for Bidders.
2. Standard Specifications, Special Provisions and Engineering Standards.
3. Accepted Proposal.
4. Public Contract Code Section 10285.1 Statement and 10162 Questionnaire.
5. Noncollusion Declaration.
6. Plans.
7. List of Subcontractors.
8. Agreement and Bonds.
9. Insurance Requirements and Forms.
ARTICLE IV. It is further expressly agreed by and between the parties hereto that should there be any conflict
between the terms of this instrument and the bid or proposal of said Contractor,then this instrument shall control
and nothing herein shall be considered as an acceptance of the said terms of said proposal conflicting herewith.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF,the parties to these presents have hereunto set their hands this year and date fust above
written.
By:
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
Date:
City Administrative Officer
- 2 -
77