HomeMy WebLinkAbout09/18/2007, BUS. 4 - APPEAL OF LOS OSOS VALLEY ROAD REHABILITATION PROJECT AWARD, SPECIFICATION NO. 90546 counat Mata
pt 18, 2007
j acEnaa REpont
CITY OF SAN LUIS 0 B I S P 0 ,
FROM: Department Head: Jay Walter, Director of Public ; -
Prepared By: Barbara Lynch, City Engineer
SUBJECT: APPEAL OF LOS OSOS VALLEY ROAD REHABILITATION PROJECT
AWARD, SPECIFICATION NO. 90546
CAO RECOMMENDATION
1. Deny the appeal of the CAO's decision to award to the R. Burke Corporation for the Los
Osos Valley Road Rehabilitation Project, Specification No. 90546.
DISCUSSION
Background.
On July 17, 2007, the City Council authorized the invitation of bids for the Los Osos Valley Road
Rehabilitation Project, Specification No. 90546 and delegates to the CAO the authority to award the
project in accordance with the City's public bidding procedures. The project was advertised
beginning July 23, 2007. On August 16, 2007, an addendum was issued that, among other things,
required that proposal forms be modified. The modification included an additional bid item in
order to comply with the provisions of a Caltrans permit required for the work which was not
available at the time the solicitation of bids was released. The addendum also stated that bidders
were to use the revised bid sheet included in the addendum when submitting their bids.
Bids were opened on August 23, 2007 and Papich Construction Company, Inc was the apparent
lowest bidder. Papich Construction, however, did not submit its bid on the revised form issued
under the Addendum, while the other three contractors who submitted bids did use the proper bid
form. As a consequence, the City was unable to make an equal comparison of bids because the new
proposal form included an additional item. Staff determined that this omission made their bid non-
responsive, thereby necessitating ward to the next lowest bidder, R. Burke Corporation.
On August 24, 2007 the City received a letter from R. Burke Corporation expressing concern about
the low bidder and mistakes made in its bid. (Attachment 1) In its letter, R. Burke Corporation
pointed out the missing bid item, in addition to a concern about other items that Papich had not
included under subcontracting categories.
On August 31, 2007 the City received a letter from Papich Construction in response to the letter
from R. Burke Corporation. (Attachment 2) Papich stated the following reasons for why its bid
should not be determined non-responsive, and why it should be awarded the contract.
y-�
Los Osos Valley Road Rehabilitation Project Appeal Page 2
1. Papich Construction was unable to access the web site on two occasions.
2. Papich Construction reviewed the addendum on the web but did not download it.
3. Papich Construction had no alternative but to tum in its bid on the original forms
included in the bid package
4. Papich Construction placed all appropriate costs for the work of the addendum in one
of its other bid items.
5. Papich Construction is using a partial item approach of subcontracting which allows it
not to list its subcontractor.
6. The City indicated in an email that it would.award the project if Papich provided
something to the effect that its bid for the missing item was zero.
After reviewing the contract language and the proposal submitted by Papich, City staff made a
recommendation to the CAO to award the contract to the second lowest bidder. This
recommendation was based on the premise that if Papich submitted a bid on a form that was
missing an item, and then, after the bid opening, was allowed to revise its bid by adding that item
back in at a cost it could choose, Papich was gaining an advantage that the other contractors did not
have. Papich was notified of the award to the second bidder on September 6, 2007 and provided
information regarding its ability to appeal.
On September 7, 2007 a letter was received noticing staff that an appeal would be filed regarding
the award by the CAO to R. Burke Corporation. (Attachment 3) On September 13, 2007 Papich
Construction submitted its formal appeal for the City Council's determination, reiterating the points
made in its previous correspondence. (Attachment 4)
The Bidding Process-A Little Insight
Because of the concerns raised by Papich Construction, a little insight into the process used to issue
addenda might be helpful. The Public Works Department uses a web site called "ebidboard" for
project bidding. Contractors who use this service are required to provide all of their contact
information (email, fax, phone) by registering on the site, which gives the City an accurate account
of who is taking out plans on a project. This site also allows staff to post plans, specifications, and
any addenda, as well as requests for proposals on the web site so they are available to the public
electronically. Many bidders still come in and purchase a copy of plans and specifications over the
counter, but using the web-based.server they can preview before they buy and they are notified of
any issued addenda. While the City provides addendum notification via ebidboard, the bid
documents (which are signed by bidders) clearly state that it is the Contractor's responsibility to
verify the number of addenda on a project prior to submitting a bid. Most contractors do this by
phoning right before the bid opening to ensure they have up to date information on the addenda
issued. The ebidboard site notifies all registered bidders of an addendum by a method selected by
the individual bidder such as by fax,by email,etc.
Papich Construction alleges that there were some problems with the web site; but they also state
that they reviewed the Addendum on-line but just did not download it at that time. Papich also
acknowledged receipt of the addendum on its proposal form. To clarify, if for any reason the web
site is down, a call can be made to City staff to provide the addendum either via email or fax, or the
contractor could obtain a copy at the front counter. And, again,the bid documents specifically state
Los Osos Valley Road Rehabilitation Project Appeal Page 3
it is the bidder's responsibility to verify the number of addenda on a project prior to submitting a
bid. There is no reason a contractor should feel it has "no choice" but to use incorrect bid
documents. All of the other three bidders used the correct form, demonstrating that the web site
was available often enough to allow them to access the addendum.
Staff did issue an email to Papich Construction after the bid opening (referenced in Papich's
appeal), indicating that the City would proceed with the contract if Papich Construction
acknowledged that the missing bid item had a$0 value. This was unfortunate, and can be attributed
to a lack of experience on the part of the staff person who sent the email. Even though the intent
may have been to expedite the award of the contract, the authority to award a contract lies with the
CAO, as delegated by Council, not with a line staff member. Papich Construction was later
notified of the decision to award to R. Burke Corporation and apprised of its ability to appeal that
decision to the City Council. While the email may have caused Papich to mistakely anticipate
award of the contract, it was not sent prior to the.bid opening where it might have effected how
Papich bid, nor was Papich denied its right to appeal as a result of it.
The Issues
The bid process is designed so an agency is able to make an"apples to apples"comparisons of bids.
As soon as the bids are not uniform and consistent,that comparison ability is lost, and the process
loses some of its validity. The Public Contract Code was written in order to create a uniform way
for public agencies to administer all aspects of public projects. The intent was to eliminate any
advantages that one contractor might have over another by carefully defining the process and
making the field level for all participants.
In this case, the amended proposal form included a line item that the original proposal form did not.
By acknowledging and accepting a change to the bid after the proposals have been accepted and
opened, that contractor gains an advantage over the others. No matter what is stated by the
contractor (such as in this case, that it was included in his other.items of work,) he is being allowed
to think through and decide on an amount, with the benefit knowing what the other contractor's bid
amounts are.
After discussion with the City Attorney, staff concluded that failing to provide a value for a bid
item until after the bid opening gave Papich Construction an unfair advantage over the other
contractors and, thus, Papich's initial bid submittal was not a responsive bid.
There is a provision in the Public Contract Code that allows a bidder to withdraw its bid in the
event it discovers a mistake that will cause it to operate at a loss. In this case, however, the
bidder made a mistake, had the opportunity to review the dollar amounts of the other bidders,
thereby allowing it to evaluate whether to claim an error or clarify its bid (no cost for additional
item not listed on the bid sheet) in order to ensure the contract would be awarded to it as the
lowest bidder. This is what staff and the CAO believes constitutes and unfair advantage.
CONCURRENCES
The Finance and Utilities Department directors concur in the award to R. Burke Corporation.
7 ��.
Los Osos Valley Road Rehabilitation Project Appeal Page 4
FISCAL IMPACT
The Los Osos Valley Road Rehabilitation Project is identified in the approved 2007-09 Financial
Plan, Appendix B. At the time of Council authorization to advertise, a total of$1,503,000 was
authorized to fund the construction of this project. In addition to the General Fund, this project
includes funding from the Sewer Fund and Water Distribution Fund.
Assuming that there would be no additional costs to the City as a result of the acceptance of the
low bidders proposal, the difference in cost to award the contract to the second low bidder would
be $44,737.50.
The cost of awarding to the second low bidder is greater. However, R. Burke Corporation has
indicated it will challenge the award in court if the contract is granted to Papich Construction. If
R. Burke Corporation follows through on a legal challenge, some of the "savings" if awarded to
Papich Construction, would be utilized in the litigation. Such a legal challenge could also delay
the project if an injunction is sought to put the project on hold until the award dispute is resolved.
This threat of a legal challenge is much less from Papich Construction as R. Burke Corporation
has a stronger case for such a challenge.
Papich Construction R.Burke Corporation
Base Bid: $ 1,258,142.50 $ 1,325,479.00
Night Work Alternative: _ _ $ 22,600.00 $ 1.00
Total: $ 1,280,742.50 $ 1,325,480.00
Budgeted Amount: $1,503,000.00
ALTERNATIVES
Award to Papich Construction. The Council could rescind the CAO's award and award the
contract to Papich Construction. The Council would have to determine that the addition of the
item amount after the bid opening was merely a "minor irregularity," and so it could be waived in
order to award the contract. This is not recommended as staff believes that the stronger legal
argument for award is based on determining Papich's bid to be non-responsive.
Reject all bids and advertise the project again., All contracts go out with the stipulation that
the City reserves the right to reject all bids. Staff does not recommend this option. Considerable
effort goes into the preparation of bid documents, and once the bid opening occurs, the
information from each bidder becomes public. At that point, the concept of sealed competitive
bids becomes blurred. Staff recommends this option only where there has been a clear mistake
on the part of staff during the bidding process or there are other conditions which cause the City
to determine the project should be put off.
The other reason not to reject all bids and to advertise again is the timing of this work. Staff has
been fielding questions for two years as to when the City was going to complete these needed
repairs. The City originally planned this work to occur over a year ago, but due to the delay in
4'.7
Los Osos Valley Road Rehabilitation Project Appeal Page 5
the construction of Calle Joaquin, the project was postponed. It would be unfortunate to ask the
public to wait again. The City also has a failed storm drain in this stretch of the street which
needs attention prior to the rainy season.
ATTACHMENTS
Letter from R. Burke Corporation
.
2. Letter from Papich Construction Company(August 31, 2007)
3• Letter from Papich Construction Company (September 7, 2007)
5r Appeal from Papich Construction Company(September 13, 2007)
AVAILABLE FOR REVIEW IN THE COUNCIL OFFICE
Information furnished to Councilmember Mulholland directly from Papich Construction
g:\staff-reports-agendas-rdnute\-car\2007TcipV0546 lour sweet rehabV0546 awardappeal.doc '
ATTACHMENT 1-1
R BURKE CORPORATION
865 CAPITOLIO WAY— P.O. $OX 957
SAN Luis OBISPO, CA 93406-0957
PHONE (805) 543-8568 FAX (805) 543-2521
LICENSE No. 264193
August 24 2007 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY E {fy
b" ,
pUG 24 2�7
PU8 C Y'aOAKS OE pB N;�NT ..
Ms. Barbara Lynch,City Engineer
City of San Luis Obispo
Public Works Administration Office
919 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Re: Los Osos Valley Road Street Rehabilitation
Specification No. 90546
Dear Ms. Lynch:
We are in receipt of your Final Bid Results Posted for the above referenced project via FAX this
morning. Specifically noted in these bid results are the comments made by the City about the
apparent low bidder, Papich Construction, which states"Missing Bid Item No. 54 and some math
errors in bid items#14, 24 and 27."
It is also noted that Addendum No. 1, dated August 16, 2007, clearly includes a "revised bid
sheet" and `Bidders are to use the revised bid sheet included with this addendum in submitting a
bid." It was also noted during the bid opening that the bid submitted by Papich Construction was
not submitted on the bid sheets included in Addendum No. 1.
Also noted is Bid Submittal Form b, List of Subcontractors, which states "the Bidder is required
to furnish the following information.for each subcontractor performing more than '/2 percent_
(0.5%) of the total base bid. Papich Construction did not list a subcontractor to perform bid item
8, Microsurfacing. All three other General Contractors that bid the project all listed a
subcontractor for this work and was at least 25%of their bids. It is our understanding that Papich
Constriction does not have the equipment, or personnel with the experience and expertise to
perform this work in accordance with the project specifications.
Clearly, Papich Constrictions did not follow the instructions included in Addendum No. 1 and
may not have listed a subcontractor, pursuant to Section 4100 of the Public Contract Code or in
accordance with Section 8-1.01 "Subcontracting" and Section 2-1.054, "Required Listing of
.Proposed Subcontractors" of the Standard Specifications. Therefore, we believe the City of San
Luis Obispo should declare the bid received by Papich Construction "Non-Responsive" and
award the contract to the next lowest bidder that was responsive to the City's Notice to Bidders
and Project Specifications.
f i
I
1-z {
� i 1
ATTACHMENT 1-2
City of San Luis Obispo
Los Osos Valley Road Street Rehabilitation
Page two of two
If you have any questions or comments,please feel free to call me.
Sincerely,
R. Burke Corporation
Bry N. Victor, PE
Proj Manager
Fi1e:F:1Ja6a\Quot U007%L0VR Bid PR doo
I�
I
1
`1"7 i
� ATTACHMENT 2-1
.f
P"ICH)CQNS RUCTION
GENERALENGINEERING CONTRACTOR
Cal.Lie.#767055
P.O. Box 2210 • Pismo Beach, CA 93448
(805)473-3016 Office (805)481-5966 Fax
August 31
RECEIVED
Ms. Barbara Lynch, City Engineer aly OF SAR LUIS OBISPO
City of San Luis Obispo
Public Works Administration Office AUG 31
819 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, Ca 93401
FUULEVEIOPMENT REVIEW ORKSOEPARTMENT
RE: Los Osos Valley Road Rehabilitation Project
Papich Construction would like to take this opportunity to point out a few issues in .
the protesting parry( R. Burke Construction ) bid protest to the district.
The city posted the addendum to the project on the city's projects to bid website.
Papich Construction has visited the website multiple times prior to the bid of the
project. On the day of the original bid the site was not accessible when Papich
Construction attempted to log on. Again, on the day of the postponed bid, Papich
Construction attempted to access the site and was unsuccessful. With the lack of
access to the site on the day of the bid Papich Construction had no alternative but
to turn in the bid on the original bid forms.
Papich Construction did however review the addendum on the website prior to bid.
We did not download it because we thought that the city would be sending a copy
of the addendum via mail and/or fax as all public contracts that we bid do. On
the day of the bid when we realized that the addendums were not coming to us as
a hard copy, so we attempted to access the website to download them and were
not successful. With that said, Papich Construction had no other alternative but to
submit on the bid forms provided with the contract documents.
The mathematical errors in the units and the missing bid item are only a result of
the lack of having the new spreadsheet. Papich Construction placed all
appropriate costs for the missing bid item#54 in Bid Item#1 to give the city a
responsive bid for the project.
y�U
i
�1 ATTACHMENT 2-2
Additionally, the protest letter from R. Burke stated that we were required to list a
subcontractor for bid item #8. Papich Construction does not have to list a
subcontractor for that item if the scope of work is less than 'h of 1 percent as R.
Burke clearly stated in their letter. Papich Construction is not planning on using a
subcontractor in excess of,'/s of 1 percent. Papich Construction negotiated with a
micro surfacing company prior to bid time about subcontracting for labor only in
the placement of bid item#8.. Papich Construction plans on purchasing all
material and renting the proper equipment for placing the micro surfacing. This
with the use of a subcontractor's labor that places these products daily will insure
the city gets a quality product for the most competitive price possible. Papich
Constructions use of these methods in achieving the application of the same
product that the unsuccessful bidder's were using results in the ultimate lowest
cost to the city. R. Burke is falsely claiming that Papich Construction is non-
responsive when in fact they are just upset at not being the apparent low bidder
due to their lack of finding a more efficient and cost effective means of delivering
the city the same product.
In addendum #1 on the second page, second paragraph it states ° Contractors are
required to base their bid on the plans, specifications and any issued addenda. To
do otherwise shall be at the Contractors own risk." Papich Construction did just
as stated in the addendum#1. We bid the project per all plans, specifications, and
addendums. We submitted a responsive bid for the complete project. We did not
however submit it on the addendum bid schedule due to reasons outside our
control, and were not sent the addendums via a means that insured the bidders
got the information. Perhaps, when the city had difficulty with the website the first
day the project was to bid,'they should have deemed the website as an additional
Means to get the addendum and sent them in a method that insured the
contractors would receive them. With that said Papich Construction has the right
to proceed at our own risk!as stated in the addendum and proceed with the prices
as submitted on the original bid sheet.
The city stated that they look at case law when determining the award of a
contract to a bidder. Please review the case of Ghilotti Construction Co. v. City of
Richmond (1996) 45 Cal.App 4a'897. In that case it states that California courts
will only set aside a bid if the alleged irregularity "is capable of facilitating
corruption, or extravagance, or likely to affect the amount of bids or the response
of potential bidders." With none of the mentioned conditions present in Papich
Constructions bid, the city can follow public policy underlying competitive bidding
which allows for public entities to deal with issues in a "sensible, practical way"
Id citing Domar Elebic Inc.y. City of Los Angles (1994) 9 Cal.App 4a' 161, 173.
(citing 10 McQuillan, Municipal Corporations (3rd rev.ed. 1990)29.29 p. 375).
II
I
CaL Lic..#767055
P.O. Box 2210 • Pismo Beach, CA 93448
(805)473-3016 Office (805)481-5966 Fax
Page 2
• v
ATTACHMENT 2-3
With the above stated, Papich Construction has a complete and responsive bid. It
is not a non responsive bid, nor did it give an unfair advantage to Papich
Construction. Papich Construction requests the city to award the contract to the
apparent low bidder"Papich Construction"for the submitting a competitive
complete bid to the above reference project In the event the city decides to
consider Papich Constructions proposal as non-responsive, Papich Construction
reserves the right to consult our legal council in this matter. In the interest of time
and successful award to the apparent low bidder legal counsel has not yet been
consulted in this matter.
We look forward to completing a successful project with the city. Feel free to
contact us if you would like a list of references to the quality and timeliness of work
Papich Construction has completed to date. If you have any questions or
concerns please call me at (805)473-3016 or mobile at(805)431-2683.
Thank You,
Brian Newsom
Papich Construction Co. Inc.
Cc: Jason Papich
Cal.Lic.#767055
P.O. Box 2210 • Pismo Beach, CA 93448
(805)473-3016 Office (805)481-5966 Fax
Page 3
7 r�d
9/10/' 07 MON 23 : 15 719's z l; 2
ATTACHMENT 3-1
PAPICH
CONSTRUCTION, INC.
(:FNF,RAL ENGINEERING CONTRA(:TOR
CAL. LIC. 11767055
P.O. BOX 2210, PISMO BEACH, CA 93446
(595) 473-7016 OFFICE a (605) 461.5966 FAX
FACSIMILE. TRANSMITTAI. SHEhl'
TO: PkUM.
Public WorLs Director Brian Newsom
COMPANY: uAIK
San Luis Obispo County 9/10/07
D(.partm(.nt of Public WorLs
FAX NV145LR: 1k)TAL NU.UP I•AUFS INCLI)DINC;
805-781-7198 2
PnONR NUMRLR SCNI)P.H'S RP.FI+RRN rt.VUMBLF:
805-781-7473
KL. YOUR KhPbKL•NCL NUMnr..R
Notice of Appeal —l.os Osos
Valley Road Rehabilitation Project
❑ARGENT ❑ FOR RL;VIFW ❑ PLL•'ASL•'commr,.NT ❑1'1.r:AS1: KL:PL1' ❑PLLASI; RP.AP
Public works Director,
Attached is notification that Papieh Construction is appealing the decision t" award rhe
above referenced contract to the 2"d lilwest hidacr.
'illank you,
Brun Newsom
9/10/' )7 MON 23: 15 ; 7199 z 2:` 2
ATTACHMENT 3-2
PAPICH CONSTRUCTION
GENERAL ENGINEEWNG CONTRAC:1'AR
CaL Lk.07670.11
P.O. sox 2210 • Pismo Reach, CA 93448
(S05)473.3016 Office (805)481-5966 Fax
September 7, 2007 .
Ms. Barbara Lynch, City Engineer
City of San Luis Obispo
Public Works Administration Office
919 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, Ca 93401
RE: Los Osos Valley Road Rehabilitation Project
Papich Construction is in receipt of the letter dated September 6, 2007 in which
the city determined to award the contract to the second lowest bidder. The letter
states that the addendum information was not included in the bid when in fact both
the addendums were acknowledged in the bid. In addition the city notified Papich
Construction that the bid item #54 was missing on the bid sheet and the if a zero
amount was the valve for this item, the city would proceed with the contract.
(Please see attached e-mail)
Papich Construction is placing the city on notice that we are pursuing an appeal to
the determination of the department in the award the above referenced project.
Papich Construction will be submitting the appeal within the time frame specified in
the city municipal code.
If you have any questions or concerns please call me at (805)473-3016 or mobile
at (805) 431-2683.
Thank You,
Baan Newsom
Papich Construction Co. Inc.
Cc: Jason Papich
y-0 G;1
9/11i' 97 TUE 03 :06 7 19 8 # 3/ 3
ATTACHMENT 3-3 page 1 of 1
Brian Newsom
From. Jason Papich Cason@paplchconstruction.com]
Sent: Friday, September 07,2007 3:20 PM
To: brianCpapichconstruction.com
Subject: FW:Los Osos Valley Road Rehabilitation Project,Spec.No.80545
Jason Papich-President
Papich Construction Co,Inc
Phone#805-473-3016
Fax*805-481-5966
Cell#805-431-8952
lason@ papich construction.00m
www.papichconstruction.com
From: Guzman, Manuel [maIft:mguzman@slocity.org]
Sent:Thursday,August 23, 2007 3:13 PM
To:Jason OpapichconstruclJon.com
Subject: Los Osos Valley Road Rehabilitation Project,Spec.No.90546
Jason Papich,
After opening bids for the Los Oros Valley Road St Rehabilitation Project.Spec. No. 80548 your company (Papich Construction
Company,Inc.)was the lowest bidder. However,after reviewing the bid sheets submitted by your company,l see that no value was
enter for bid item number 54. Bid item 54 was added as a consequence of addendum no.2. and it requires the Contractor to
comply with Caltrans Encroachment Permit.The City will proceed with this contract only If you acknowledge that your bid submittal
for item 54 has a value of zero dollars, If you have question please contact Manny at 805-781-7423.
9/7/2007
y�'3
ATTACHMENT 4-1
Filing Fee: $100 00 `-/
.11
Q Paid Date Received
E07
D
p NIA
C11y 0f
Sd11LUIS �B1S •FrEFEa ro sEcnoN aERK
APPEAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL
SECTION 1. APPELLANT INFORMATION
FAPmA c-&j C^r2VcTronf N. Box ZZID I fflml) 9VAC 4 � CA 13+48
Name Mailing Address and Zip Code
(901G) 4-13- 3171& (&S) 4-73 - 7.2)7
Phone Fax
BR NJ NOAA150M
3'&.504 PAP,CA Po BaX z7wy) Diss& aoAcrl ,CA 013448
Rep�resenta rer � Mailing Address and Zp Code
PReSraEArr (.em) 473 —3ord. BoS 473 —ul7
Title Phone Fax
SEC710N 2 SUBJECT OF APPEAL
1. In accordance with the procedures set forth in Title 1, Chapter 1.20 of the San Luis Obispo
Municipal Code(copy attached), I hereby appeal the decision of the:
KO,J IfAr►1P1A3Pl + C� A.Q.
(Name of Officer, Committee or Commission decision being appealed)
2. The date the decision being appealed was rendered: G 110 7
3. The application or project was entitled: L,6.5 osoc v��" gQ60 t'±-ocr
4. t discussed the matter with the following City staff member.
t)AVF._ Pnrh F-46 AWO2 —on-41/106-7
(Staff Members Name and Department) ( ate)
5. Has this matter been the subject of a previous appeal? If so,when was it heard and by whom:
AW
SEC77ON 3. REASON FOR APPEAL
Explain specifically what adiordsyou are appealing and why you believe the Council should consider your
appeal. Include what evidence you have that supports your appeal. you may attach additional pageA if
necessary. ThiSf0fln continues on the otherside.
Page 1 of 3
y-�y
ATTACHMENT 4-2
Reason for Appeal continued
\Sk`Q1lQ�,VA`� � l�r� V/ll �tl<•Ml�ru F I j.1 r f d 1. �.il '2 H r fAii: " �, "x)!A F 4��SyX�j LPe
JSt tC IR., � C
rVl
TThe San Luis Obispt C�ruric rl v�atues py6lid'par6patr0n m�l�►calpwtirhejf aim
+ !✓ / '2" v r r M ./• .h egYsy t
7 } t a t r frr .} 7
�ncni�rags�li"ibftrrrt;ofinvcrhtelnr Ho�r�v ;c�ue�teacostoeeciiVcIi✓its ' °kr��
Ta d v t ` - > k as 1 'r`9'
C�unciF cos�deratron ofah appal, df pufailrreatioiyIkapalttairtmgro =rj
RiaintfingappUorlbr projeare
ct sklbC:tt Y <.
r Y s 1 5 t Y �! v la m
n Z V x I�"�•r S. i .t'rw } t� a r r
•° h lF ,�rC ra,n+ 1 r.r I),rtith��q <tti 4e ai1� '7r^J r iF..t..f� �':{y'ayL�°r-^, Y, u x.8'Y F T;tyA t��'I+ar}V S '"1lrc
ik �x�r1 .`�"aY.is� 5:d yr Yr
r? n�. ^PJM 1 h+ 7j
.
''a♦ .+r � - t�< H-- am 8[?p 'di< .�•R3in�� oIl � ii {,11 � ,r, "^�� "�"'U��y
-.
aaN, l�sey'viiydjrnclt�d}cyt�sitJ, ? r vuhinry4cf �rst fiilt19 �s tt �r ,l�outl, ed
j nc+ ddty� LI `Of \ act, your.., l .ciF 4" Y-+.
� + it be,�eeflbrl5dfoef.+xmCi41»4.W flr�ox�r.
ce�ineser vg I ubl►c i+earing;alnd to�ie"pfepared to-
OK, -tir
� .y py x ✓ "c J' St N-b t zf!tir�y N'<�i s"a-� +� ¢n t*�`r n .s + ;'
� t@ShRIG[ly�;L mm
yds a rd)�' §rf
i Y(+ .r r •j, it x v sJ.' Y .sem p.
h.4 t,t+,q+. {1} 't i<� {J.-.rr-' I �'" iFY S f ^`•^ .' if tX Y' �Y • )'f
" ! K �,,y,, t♦,�, � 43 2,,�..'� i."y,. {� \ y
's7r ' nCO 'hrlrrf 'rfl8jfub'B,gtBkt�<u4' fal�a �11 SF�CIi � w} "
't,v r r e sA,• i M,: n7 ✓' r�.. f '4 v,
�t dies!a ggMnuqUo&f�Jr�}V(y}(irriras iil��j (L in 8111 �'<
n'.tr ,.n A+°w'^ *��i�� <' a^N oto-=kn r )^"' s��� ++
cl ��t/�four`t@(gy�u� ornpn� n� `•`•�� veydyfyti�tM /y�I(PpnQ(�lf(J,//�.f �+yyt .`RIt�°�e' .
Thr w�r`i Y'�R�.�` -`V S I {tom ' uT \ •'L' 1�1� 4•_l"'vt '.�yT�. ?''1
1YJ ca tna ncS4'b' t ra 1YI,1 ] l
y�ahaPstt��paIrgeatifi � rrt�' i�iflie Gly } �n .
c x �,
i }y x� t�� a �'< n ra rte'• ,
a9tvWto-,* arx-4ngp � ¢ tpt�S %MWa ar 6at tt 6eh�r[�° fey,
3Idma�lprlisr 1 �*�ii�ll�lr�'flIfig� �ft�1� �irH�/ l: . Im t'y r ay ?du1' ,
-%V
.bS1
,•:
Y r.. ✓ J-r :: v.-+ k. �. r r"cx'.. 1 ,loll �^ N r ry4 "w
t r+wr..r. sL-. t.'.a y ) rmi 5 •lyTx '�'^ iY�E .� ¢`���n'a CFt'fri 1���^�. i l5-
'4
5 � r A'...} � 4•�S': r."`���+7y«.r �i
N, u... N r
t r
�. E'6 t �iLH� ��5�"`x♦x vhj{{ ,A ^� I.rM1 u X� VE
Y^ �, t '4 S .�r3�ry�.J��
eep�l 'st�hRee°'�=� ..71s i.ir �`'�1��[{ }"+c
art �,ra`�tdweBR� yn,9e• {
4 >'L t.... 1.,,. w ._ c r b. .X. f:. . a .C..:,.3:.. s. c,.._ ..t....,1..^v ..:J.r..t.+a. +n ., /..��•.
This item Is hereby eatendared for �7_O yJ��Q ✓ /S1 -�o oo
c: qty Af nmy
qty Ankh zWe Of ber
Department Head
Advisory Body Chairperson
City
� d9�1 �
Page 2 of 3
U ATTACHMENT 4-3
y .
PAPICII, 0CTION
GENERALTNG RPI CORITRACTOR
CUL IIc.#767053
P.O. Box 2210 • PIsmo Beach, GA 93448
(803)473-3016 Office (805)481-5966 Fax
September 13, 2007
Planning Commission
City of San Luis Obispo
Public Works Administration Office
919 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, Ca 93401
RE: Appeal of the L.O.V.R. Rehabilitation Project award to the 2"d bidder
Summary:
Papich Construction submitted the low bid on the L.O.V.R. Rehabilitation Project.
The Public Works Dept. awarded the job to the second lowest bidder. Papich
appeals the award of the project to the second lowest bidder.
Papich submitted a responsive bid per the contract requirements on the due date.
The form used by Papich to submit its bid was supplied by the City. The city
subsequently changed its form to include an additional bid item#54'Comply with
Caltrans Encroachment Permif.
Papich submitted its bid on the earlier form that did not include bid item#54,
because when Papich attempted to access the bid form on the day of the bid the
website was not operating and the bid form was not available. Papich included a
de minmus charge of$600 in another bid item to cover bid item#54. This minor
irregularity should not affect Papich's low bid status because:
1) Papich, in its bid, specifically acknowledged receipt of the addendum
adding bid item#54, and bid the project accordingly. Papich is bound by its
bid to perform the contract and all addenda.
2) Papich submitted its bid on forms required by the City, with the exception of
one which adds one item that could not be accessed by Papich on the day
of the bid because the City's website was not operating..
ATTACHMENT 4-4
3) The additional bid item adds very minor cost, measured in the hundreds of
dollars, and had no impact on the spread between the first and second
bidders, measured in the tens of thousands of dollars.
4) The city asked Papich to clarify its bid, which Papich did, in accordance with
the City's directions.
Discussion:
Papich Construction submitted a responsive bid because it properly completed of
all the bid forms in the proposal package (Attachment#1). The discrepancy
claimed by the city in rejecting our proposal resulted from lack of access to the
city's website on bid day and the lack of written notification to the contractor from
the city.
The city posted the addendum to the project on the city's website. As stated in
previous correspondence, on the original bid date the site was not accessible
when Papich Construction attempted to log on. With the lack of the ability to view
the addendum by all contractors, the city postponed the project to bid on the 23rd
of August. During the following week, Papich Construction visited the website
multiple times to familiarize ourselves with addendums. Again, on bid day, Papich
Construction was not able to successfully access the website. With the lack of
access to the site on the day of the bid Papich Construction was not able to print
the amended bid schedule. This left Papich Construction with no alternative but to
turn in the bid on the original bid forms.
The city relied on the contractor's ability to download the addendums to the project
from the website. After the failure of the website, which caused the project bid
date to be postponed the first time, the city should correct the problem and use an
alternate means of getting the addendum bid schedule to the contractors. Instead,
the access problem was temporarily fixed, which allowed for Papich Construction
to-review them, but on bid day access was denied and the bid schedule available
for printing. If the city had faxed or mailed a copy of the addendum, as most
agencies do, this would not have been a problem, unfortunately it was (attachment
#2 and #3).
Papich Construction acknowledged the addendum#1 and#2 on the bid proposal
forms (attachment#1, yellow tab). The award decision letter sent from the city
states Papich Construction did not include the information required by the
addendum, when in fact we did (attachment#4). Papich Constructions
acknowledgement of the addendum #1 and#2 in the bid forms contractually ties
ca.roc.0767055
P.O. Box 2210 • Pismo Beach, CA 93448
(805)473-3016 Office (805)481-5966 Fax
Page 2
ATTACHMENT 4-5
Papich Construction to the information in the addendums. With that said, Papich
Construction is contractually obligated to the original bid documents and all of the
addendum as acknowledged and signed in the bid proposal.
The city already stated to Papich Construction that the contract could proceed
once bid item#54 had been acknowledged to have a zero dollar amount, please
reference e-mail sent by the city on 9/23107 (attachment#5). Papich Construction
acknowledged the cost of that item at a zero dollar amount due to the fact that the
$600 dollar cost of that item was placed in bid item#1 of the bid schedule. Then,
after some dialogue and a protest letter(attachment#6), the city issued a letter
which stated that they decided to change its mind and proceed with a contract to
the 2nd bidder. These events happened prior to Papich Construction being notified
that the city had an issue with our proposal and without the city notifying Papich
Construction that the 2nd bidder had sent in a protest letter. Papich Construction
requested the city to wait on their decision until reviewing a
response letter to the claims of the 2nd bidder. Papich Construction was told that
we could send one in, but the decision was already made and the city attorney
was the only one left to consult. Papich Construction then sent in a response to
the protest refuting the 2nd bidders claims, which didn't seemed not to be
considered in the award decision (attachment#7):
Public contracts should be awarded to the low bidder, unless the low bidder has
an irregularity that is capable of facilitating corruption, extravagance, affecting the
response of potential bidders or giving the low bidder an advantage over the other
bidders in their proposal. Here, the apparent low bidder should be considered
responsive and the contract be awarded accordingly.
If you have any questions or concerns please call me at(805)473-3016 or mobile
at (805) 431-2683.
Thank You,
Brian Newsom
Papich Construction Co. Inc.
Cc: Jason Papich
CaL I3c#767055
P.O. Box MO • Pismo Beach, CA 93,448
(805)473-3016 Office (805)481-5966 Fax
Page 3
y-�
rACHMETN 4-6
�Y7A64 m�,,<
PROPOSAL FORM
TO THE COY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OMPO, CALIFORNIA
THE UNDERSIGNED, hereby agrees that he has carefully examined the location of the
proposed work, that he has carefully examined the plans and specifications, and that he
has carefully examined and read the accompanying instructions to bidders, and hereby
proposes to fumish all of the materials and do all the work required to complete:
Los Osos Valley Road Street Rehabilitation,Spedflcation No. 90546
in satisfactory working condition, iri accordance with said plans, spedttcations, and the
special provisions,for the prices set forth below..
hem Item Ung of Estimated Item ce, Total
No. tAeasure Quantity an figures) fin figures)
1. Asphalt Concrete TONN 2,800 bSO *XaSn•oV
2. 55mm AC GrMol M2 92,000
3.. Conform Grind M 86 �.0do 4post-OID
4. Edge Grind M 580 ,� Zp•�
5. Paving Fabric M2 14,500 ,SO Z ?SO•
6. 25mm AC Level Course TONN am (,.*V sit too=
7. Base Repair M2 160
Mrcrosurfacing
8. M1r�aos<ufadng TONN 92o
4�Zu�.ao 6�37i ACo•c1�
Upgrade UdMy WAdW Struch e_s to new Grade
9. Sewer Manholes EA 8' oc o. �000•mr�.
10. Storm Draln.Manholes EA 1 'jmao.oe apoq .oa
11. Reclaimed water Manhole EA 7 1_.Sv'b.Gb !0$6b .oa
12. Reclaimed water Vabies EA 7 at-do 3 M.e'c
13. Monuments EA 4 Q?6.00 39ft.ev
14. water Valves EA 25 jSb .so 1$j .Crb
15. Communication Manholes EA 2 ($?fa.eco 3 avid. a-0
Thermoplastic Tratflc StripingaNhtte
16. 100mm White Une M 1,185 *�.oo r,L4i�•�
17. 300mm White Crosswalk Line M 400
a- 1 Company.
y—/9
�1 ATTACHMENT 4-7
[hemsoplaft
item Unit of Estimated Mem Price Total
Measure Quantity On figures) (in figures)
DeW9 M 127 ao (03Sea
Dated 12 5,420 j .pp � �aeta11276 M790 Z °1S D Oa
Detail 37B M121 S.5oDated 38 M 762Dated 38A M133 $.o e b�.�. DO
Detall 39 M4.820 Do t p.CD
Dated 39A 903 � Gp i$1�6 •oD
Traffic SUWWYallaw
26. 300mm Yellow Cmsswafk Line M ' 620 ir Zi�•>7a
27. Deteff 22 M 457 $.aD Crls$•DO Q'2
28. OM 26 M 2.620
29. Dates!25A M 40
30. Deta129 M 1.153 .60 (2•aro
31. Detd 32 M J 1.300 Z. 3( ?.o • ao
Pavement lllarters
32. Detall37A M W (z• oo (cop.
33.. Detall 40A Type A M 123 S•Ot) fo(�'•eo
34. 8tue Rrizad Raised EA 28
Pavement Markers i 7•oa �'�• oa
Pavement LogwWs
35. 1Pavement Markings Vmm, U2 200
We Lane Symbol,eta) SZ•oo (O�Oo.aC
Trunzafed Domes(Dete*6te Wavft Material)
38. atc�� M2 20 ?�� e
MaWW other,
37. Mid V Lip of E)dsft Ramps M 3 jS"•aO i
38. Ojbmo&( &W(N) M 46 ��• Cti 'g0 ,eo
a- 2 Company.Qf+P46 e 'C b 1 LC. .
� 1 ATTACHMENT 4-8
Y '
Item Item Unit of Estimated item Priv Total
No. Immure Quantity (in figures) '(In figures)
39. Remove(E)Ramp and Install LS . 1
(N)Case°A•Ramp per State
Std.A88A(12;100 Los Oros
Valley Rd.) 44 C O
40. Remove(E)Sidewalk and Install IS 1
(N)Case W Ramp Per State �1 00 .bb
Std.AM(12=Los Owe -6 `[
Valley Rd.
41. Remove(E)Ramp and Instal! LS 1
(N)Case°C'Ramp per State
Std.AWA(I AW Madonna Rd.) t
42. Remove(E)Sklswafk LS 1
Underdrah anal Instal(N)
Drainage Inlet per Eng.Std. 60
3566.
43. 450mm RCS'Stam Sewer Pipe M 175 300-aoo fl-m-60-
44.
l-m.6044. Cornea(N)Storm Sewer Pipe EA 1
to(E)Drop Inlet per Eng.Std. sctm -tic
3540
45. install(N)Drainage Inlet per LS 1
Eng.Sid.3355 ��•� �}at?.Ct3
. 46. 630mm RCP Stam Sewer Pipe M 23 TDO.ap
47. Install(N)Storm Drain Manhole LS 1
per Eng.Std.3620 OW-CO to Oma. oC
48. Connect(N)Storm Sewer Pipe LS 1
to(t4)Manhole Drop Inlet per ZZt�• .L�pp
Eng.Std.3540
49. Remove(E)Gomm CMP Pipe M 27 (�.00 G��Stl• O�
and Install(N)600mm RCP Pipe
50. 10'AC Berm M 155 3 93. aD .pp
51. Replace(E)Grate with(t) Ls 1
Grate per State Std.D77B ��05.00 (t[3D• oa
Z OSHA Compliance LS 1 �,j .asp (S�]• ofl
a- 3 Company:
ATTACHMENT 4-5'
BID ALTERNATE"A"
Item Poem Unit of Estimated ftem Price Total
No. Measure Quantity (in figures) "(in figures)
59. Night Work from 12,100 Los
Osos Valley Road to Highway ST, f leo U,to M-00
101
-Exbd
5 Coa�Pt.� w� s LS
TOTAL PROJECT BID: $ 1.9 94W QLa
a- 4 Company R Aa cvLI iz,rr Tcp;(cp
J/ ATTACHMENT 4-10
Y
`m
� ;4
to
0
cQ
rn r
IJP'
O O
O
G
a
v9 •
o �
ce
S IL
FO $
a � a
? 31 m
Z Z :a
y-�3
ATTACHMENT 4-11
F
>< PUBLIC CONTRACT CODES SECTION 102851 STATEN[ENT
In a000rdame with Public Contract Code Section 10285.1(ampter 376.State. 19931 the bidder hereby declares under
penalty of perjury under the lam of the State of Califomia&9 the bidder,or any subeonhactor to be engaged by the
bidder, has has nut_been convicted within the preceding three years of any of1'mases referred to m that
section,including any charge of fraud,bribery,collision,conspiracy,ormy otheract m violation of any state or federal
antitrust law m connection with the bidding upas,award 4 or performance al,my public works fit,as defined in
Public Contact Code Section 1101,with any public entity,as darned im Public Contract Code Section 1100,including
the Regents of the University of Caiifomia or the Tnutees of the CaliSnia State University. The term"bidder" is
umdermood to mchrde any pararer,member,officer,dn%ctor,responale mmragmg officer,or rile managing
employee thwe4 as referred to in Section 10285.1.
NOTE; The bidder must place a check marc after"has"or"has not"in one ofthe blank spaces provided.
The above Statement is part of the Proposal. Signing am Proposal an the signature portion themof shall also consrifuto
signattao of this Statement.
Bidders are cautioned that making a false certification may subject the certifier to criminal proseeutim
I
ATTACHMENT 4-12
M
Puwc coNTRA&com SECTION low Qu s'noNNA=
In accordance with Public Cont=Code Section 10162, the Biddy shall complete, under penalty of perjury, the
Mowing 4uestionna_
Has the bidder,any officer of the bidder,or any employee of the bidder who has a proprietary interest in the bidder,
ever been disqualified,removed,or otherwise prevmsted from bidding on,or completing a federal,state.or local
government project because of a violation of law or a safety regulation?
Yes No
If the answer is yes,explain the circumstances-in the mellowing space:
PUBLIC CONTRACT CODE SE nON 10232 STATEMENT
In accordance with Public Contmot Code Section 10232,the Comractor hereby states under penalty of pedwy,that no
more than one final unappealable finding of contempt of court by a fadcW crnM has been issued against the Contractor
within the mately prtxxdirrg twb-year period became of the Cotes failure to comply with an order of a
fadesal court which orders the Camawior to comply with ao order of the National Labor Relations Board.
The.above Statematt and Questionnaire are part of the Proposal Signng this Proposal on the signatrhre
portion theteof shall also constitute aigmuue of this SuLtesment and Quawsm ire.
Bidders ars cautioned that malting a false certification may subject Ste certifier to mimbal pros=Viom
d
y��
~ ATTCHMENT 4-13
NONCOLLUSION DECLARATION
TO U SURba TED WITH BID
declare that
tam �1 2of
the Party making the fcregaiitg bid that @re bid is not made in the interest of,or on behalf of any undisclosed person,
part mfr,company,association,orgammtion,or corporation;that the bid is genuine and not conursiye or sham;that
the bidder bas not directly or indirectly induced or solicited any other bidder to put in a false or sham bid,and has not
directly or indirectly colladed,conspaed,coumvixf,or agreed with any bidder or anyone ehre to put in a sham bid,or
that anyone shall rdmin flnm biddutg: that the hiddnr has not in any manner, directly or indirectly, sought by
agraemtent,commanicatmn,or conference with anyone m fix the bid price of the bidder or my other bidder,or to fix
any overhead,profs;or cost element of the bid price,or of that of any other bidder,or to secure aqy advantage against
the public body awarding the contract of anyone meted m the proposed contract;that all statements camtgmd in the
bid ate true;and,farther,that the bidder has not,directly or indirectly,ahmitted his or her bid pdoe,or any breakdown
dwred.or tha conk=tthmeat or dtvriged infimnatior or data relative&mwo.or paid,and will not pay,any fee to any
cogxm mt, pacmenbip company association, organization, bid depository, or to any member or agent thereof to
effectuate a eve oraham bid
Executed on.
-1 declare rmderpenahy ofperjwry under dw Ian of Bre State of Califtuia that the foregoing is true and concert
rtJi:4,LT
Wguatu a and'Iltle ofDoclarant)
(SEAL)
Subscribed and sworn to 'm_e`
this__,(__day ofk 20
DCJaatf
Coeml dDn t 16917W
PUEBC-Caganlq
�vt�rtrnr.erptuaa AA 610 Notary Public
e .
ATTACHMENT 4-14
r
r, By signing below, the bidder acknowledges and confirms that this proposal is based on the information
contained m all contract documents,including the plans, specifications,special provisions, and addendum
mtmber(s) . (Not e; It is tris eonlrracWs responsibility to verity the number of
addenda prior t e hid opening.)
The undersigned hither agrees that m case of default in executing the required contract,with necessary
bonds, within eight days, (not including Saturdays,.Sundays, and legal holidays), after having received a
mailed notice that the contract is ready fbr signature, the proceeds of the check or bond acoompmiying his
lad sball become the property of the:City of San Luis Obispo.
Licensed in accordance with an act providing for the registration of contractors,License No.-1(0�
E)#ationDate—r 3[
The above statement is made cmdet penalty of perjury,and any bid not containing this' tion"shall be
considered nan3+cgwmve and shall be rejected"by the City.
SIGNATURE OF BIDDER
. T
(Print Name and Tide of Bidder)
Bu>sinm Nam O ):
Ownerll.egalName. tcm,
Indicate One• Sok roprietor Partneshi Corporation
List PartnWWLA rporate Offie
Oesicir
Name Title �u��.
{{'"'�� �''� p1p,41GR�.
�lF°QIL 't ��CQ r^cRQa 1 OFFcc�SZ-
Name Title
Name Title
Busies Address
Strom Address
Maftg Address
City,Slate,Zip Code
Phone No Fax Ngo.
Dazed D 20 e?% iC 6Cl P> fi?tC'il LC•tt -4t'Lx 1..0
E-matl address Cif a rlable)
f
1V
ATTACHMENT 4-15�
r
CAGFORNIA JURAT WITH AFFIANT STATEMENT
State of Calitomia
County Of. ]WiV�I)lS L .{71O '
><§ee Attached Document(Notary to cross out lines 11-6 below)
❑See Statement Below(Ones 1-5 to be completed only by document signer[s], not Notary)
------------------------------.--- _ ..
4
5
8
aoWrd SIMM ft t &Vsbreo Dommd GI-Ww
Subscribed and sworn to(or affirmed)beforeemee onthis
- O��day of -
� r �•by
YM f
Oct+r¢o caper (1} rS �weer
Iftm comm J -fpilpgryp 16ensa personally blown to me
RJber
sae tarp 0bVW CGU* ❑Proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence
M,
CMW f0ftAll ia to be the person who appeared before me
(and
.(2)
nmm.a pMprtar
❑ Personally known to me
❑Proved to me on the basis of satisfactory ev erns
e )rso b
PIW.Notffy Sed Abe OPTIONAL
Though the irtfomWon below¬ required by law,It may prove
valuable to persons raying on rhe doowywm and coWd preOWU .
frauduWt remove/and reauachrren of Cris lam Io anmw doarm a To of @Want here Top«nuimb two
Furdw Description of Any Attached Document
TO or Type«rm�ern
Document Dde: Number«Page
Szper s)Other Then NemedAbom
m9HI6NdIondN«eryAemddbn.93W 0e 6oeo/a0.P.CLBmi2102`pmisrmlh.G 9t3I30AQ2•.�ery ItmMo Aeeele.CdTdW=j-e9o-ve
1
ATTACHMENT 4-'16
ll�nRdt'S 2=TO ACCW PANY FROEQW4
Know ail man by those prt
That wa PAPICH CONSTRUCTION, INC. AS pMCIPA1i and
FIDELITY AND DEPOSIT COMPANY OF MARYLAND AS SL-y, arc Geld arA lhrnly
bound ZD&City of Sao Leis Ubigpo in the soot of-
TEN PERCENT OF AMOUNT BID Dollars L.2%,,_) to be paid to
said GSty or its certain attomeya its mmewson and sssig for rorhich payment,wall and Wy to be n mde,we
land acanelvea,our heirs,w=w ms and ad mfim miter%summms<w a dps,jmtiy and severally,firmly by
these prese=
THE C ONDMON OF MUS OWGATION IS SUCIi thtq if the attain proposal of the abovr
baurtdea PRINCIPAL
to cxmeUWLOSS OSOS VALLEY RD.REHABILITATION
(bmmt name of drud cad Iimdsto ba uoyrovm orprq=)
dated 8116/2007 Is amepted by the City ofSan Lj&Obispo
andiftboabovebaa>ad= PRINCIPAL
his lueirs,execamra,a&nfidst<atrns,m= msm,and assigns shall duly atter h=and execute a oottUW for
shah omtsft&cn and sbait m mate and deliver the two bawds deed tnun teat(16)days(not inctndittS
Saturdays, Sundays, cc lepa) holidays) after the above bounckm
PRINCIPAL
has readved notice by and Sawn the said City of Sas We 0Wjp that said contract is ready for most,
thea this obllp ima shall bmcmte anvil and void;oftwlae,it shall be and rtsmainin W force snd virtue.
3N VATNW5 Y Mtff, we heromto set t>tw hoods and sola this 2ND day of AUGUST E
2007 t
i
PAPICH CONSTRUCTION
e
i
FIDELITY DEPOSIT COMPANY OF MARYLAND
BY: — ...
FRANK MORONES:ATTORNEYIn-FACT
1
I
._ ATTACHMENT 4-17
Power of Attomey
FIDELITY AND DEPOSIT COMPANY OF MARYLAND
KNOW ALL MEN BY TFIESE PRESENTS:That the FIDELITY AND DEPOSIT COMPANY OF MARYLAND,a
corporation of the State of Maryland,by THEODORE G.MAR'fWEZ,,'Vice Presi l=a and ERIC D.BARNES,Assistant i
Secretary,in parsuance of authority gsaabod by Article V%Section 2,of the By-laws of said ,wbich are sex fm9r on i
the reverse aide bereof and are hereby c utdied to be m' fall farce and effect an the Q by nominate, i
constitute and appoint PhrIlp Ft.VEDA and F?rsnk MORONES,ba_tb is true and lawful j
age rl and Attorwy-in-Fact,to make,eseeota,seal and act and deed: stay
and an beads and mdeutalsings,and the
offt=presents,shall be as
bkding upon said Company,as Uly to y had been duly executed and
w1wowleW by the ca inBaldmow,Md.,in their ownpraper parsons,
This power of VEGA,dated November 24,2003. `
The said Antis= tat file eget set fineh on the reverse side hereof is a titre
Secdamn2,ofti>s SPY of Article VI. {
Bp- � and if
IN WnNESS F, the said Vice-President and Assistant Secretary have heaeemto subscsabed'thear names and
affixed the'Corporate Seal of the said FIDELITY AND DEPOSIT COMPANY OF MARYLAND, this 17th day of
November,AD,2004.
ATTEST: FIDEIM AND DEPOSIT COMPANY OF MARYLAND
• f
J.w ar'k
vow
By.
Eric D.Barnes Assistant Setrdwy Theodore G.Martinez
Sot"aryland ss:
City ofBaltimore
On this 17th day of Nove Mber, A.D. 2004, before the subscriber, a Notary Public of the State of Maryland, duly
commissioned and *Mhfzd, same TMBODORE G MARTINET, We President, and ELIC D. BARNES, Assiataot
Secretary of the FIDELWY AND DEPOSIT COMPANY OF MARYLAND,to me personally!mown to be the individuals
and adfice.ms described is and who exavtod du precedmg msm�and they each aclmowledged the execution of the same, s
and being by me duly swom,severally and each for himselfdeposeib and sack that they are the said officers of dw Company
aforesaid, sad that the scat aff and m the preceding insM mut is the Cmpmate Soul of said Company,.and that the said
Corporate Seal and their asna tires as such officers were duly affixed and subscabed to the said msm=w by the anthorIty
and din:ctivn of the said Ccrpomtion.
IN TESTIMONY WILEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my Official Seal the day and you first above
wriimn.
Ir�y�
• � t
�q nu�a`c
Mmier D.Adamsld Notwy Public
My Commission Expires:. July 8,2007
ATTACHMENT 4-18
EXTRACT FROM BY-LAWS OF FIDELITY AND DFPOSIT COMPANY OF MARYLAND
"Article VI,Section.2.The Cru kmm of the Board,or the President,or any Executive Viice-President,or any of ihe Senior
Vica•Presidems or Viobfteddentsspecially authorized so to do by the Board 6f Ditedurs or by tho'Exeeutive Cwtunifte,
shall have power,by and with the concomence of the Secretary or any one of the Assistant Secretaries,to appoint Resident
Vioa•Ptesidauts, Assist Vico-Presideaft and Attorneys-in Fact as the badness of the Company may requicq or to
authafize any person or persons to execate on behalf of die Company-any bonds,undertaking,reoogribanoes,stipulations,
policies, oomracb,agreements,deeds,and releases-and assimm of judgements, detaees,mortgages and instruments to
the nature of morgages,_=d to afox the seal of the Company thereto
CERTIFICATE
1.dw-undersigaed,Assistant Secretary ofthe FIDELITY AND DEPOSIT COMPANY OF MARYLAND,do heroby certify
that the fo:egoatg Power of Atta®ey.is X71 in hIl force and effeotoathe date of t is-o ti9cate;andI do-6 ceatiiyy that
The Vise-President who executed Ste said Power of Ataamey was one of the additional Vioo-Pmaidmts specially andatzed
by the Board of Directoia to appoatt any Attorney-in-Fact as provided is Article VI, Section 2, of the'By-Laws of the
FIDELITY AND DEPOSIT COMPANY OF MARYLAND.
This Power of Aftomey said Certificate maybe signed by i csfia a under and by authority of the Ult wing resolutim of the
Board of Dkecb s.of the FIDELITY AND DEPOSIT COMPANY OF MARYLAND at a meeting duly tailed and held on
the 10th day ofMay,1990.
RESOLVED: 'mat the facsimile or mechanically reprodaee, Mai of the cry and facsimu7e or numbamcally
reproduced sigmum of any Vice-President,Secretary,or Assistant Secretary of the Company whether made heretofore or
herealbey wherever appearing aeon a ctf'red copy of any power of attorney issued by the C p=y,•shall-be valid and
•bhuftg upon the Camrpsay with die acme fora and effect as though manually affixes."
IN TESTIMONY VEMEOF,I have hereunto subscribedmy name and af'fixed•the corporate seal ofthe said Coarpany,
this 2nd dayof August 2007
. A�imaSeartcry .
j
ATTACHMENT 4-19
CALIFORNIA ALL-PURPOSE ACKNOM.06EMENT
State of Californla
County of Orange 7
On AUGUST 2,2007 before me, PHILIP VEGA, NOTARY PUBLIC
Mame and Tift m Officer7a4.,"Jane l7M Notary pwei
personally appeared FRANK MORONES
Namefat of 5lgnadst
personalty known to me -OR. ❑ proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose
name(s) Were subscribed to the within instrument and
acknowledged to me that heishe/they executed the same in
hislherltheir authorized capacity(ies), and that by hislherlthelr
signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon
behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the Instrument.
WITNESS my hand a d official al.
ignalu�e or Nolary Public
OPrfONAi
Though the tnfom orlon below is nol mgp gad by law,it may prove veluebte to parsons on the document and could prevent fraudulent removel
end restleatiawl of this form to errolh marts.
Description of Attached Document
Tule or Type of Document:
Document Date: Number of Pages:
Slgner(s)Other Than Named Above:
Capacity(les) Claimed by Signer(s)
Signer's Name: Signer's Name: '
❑ Individual ❑ Individual
❑ Corporate Officer ❑ Corporate Officer
❑ Tltles(s): ❑ T19e(s):
❑ Partner-❑ Limited ❑ General ❑ Partner-❑ Limited ❑ General
❑ Attorney-in-Fact ❑ Attomey-in-Fact
❑ Trustee ❑ Trustee
❑ Guardian or Conservator . ❑ Guardian or Conservator I
❑ Other: Too of Thumb hale ❑ Other: rob of 7tomb here
k
Signer is Representing: Signer Is Representing:
r
00.1133 09100
y-3� I
ATTACHMENT 4-20
i 1
w _
rI
INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS
INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS: CONTRACTORS ATTACHMENT 4-21
It
1 The Contractor aballprocure and maintain for the duration of the contract' against claims for injuries to
persons or damages to property which may arise from or in oonnxtian with the performance of the work heretaxter
by the Conuactor,its agems,representatives,employees,or sub-contractor.
Mlahauai Scone of Insnranea.
Coverage shall be at least as broad as:
1. Insurance Services Office Commercial General.Liability coverage(occurrence foam CG 0001).
2. Insurance Services Office foam comber CA 0001(U 1187)covering Automobile Liability,code 1 (any auto).
3. Workers'Compensation insurance as required by the State of CaMmis and Eatployeta Liability Insurance .
b0nimmn Limits of Insurance
Contractor shall maintain limits no less than:
1. General Liability: $1,000,000 per occarre rtm for bodily iapry,personal injury and property damage. If
Commercial General Liability or other form with a general aggregate limit is used,either the general aggregate
limit shaft apply separately to this project/location or the genal aggregate limit shall be twice the required
occurrence limit
2. Automobile Liability: $1,000,000 per accident for bodily kjary and property damage.
•3. Employer's Liability: $1,000,000 per accident for bodily injury or disease.
Deductr'bles and Seg Insured 1RetentFona
Any deductibles,or seginswed ratentim worst be declared to and approved by the City. At the option of the City,
either the insurer shall reduce or eliminate such deductibles or segiasured retentions as respects the City,its
officers,offieialt,etuployoes and volunteers;or the Contractor shall pro= a bond guaranteeing payment of losses
and related investigations,claim administration and defense expenses.
Other Insaranee Provixioos.
The general liability and automobile liability polities are to contain,or be endeared to contain,the following
ptovMMV-
1. The City,its officers,officials,employees,agents and volunteers are to be covered as insureds as respects:
liability arising curt of activities performed by or on behalf of the Contractor,products and completed
operations of the Contractor,premises owned,occupied or used by the Camtacto,or automobiles owned,
leased,bired or boaowed,by the Connector. The coverage shall contain no special limitations on the scope of
protection afforded to the City,its offaeem,officials,employees,agents or volunteers.
2. Fcr any c}ffims related to this project,the Contractor's Insaunew coverage shall be primary inswanoe as
respects the Qty,its ol5ceris6offie ls,employees,agora and volunteers. Any insurance or self-insurance
maintained by the City.its offwers,officials,employees,agents or volunteers shall be excess of the
Contractor's instance and shell not contribute with it
3. Any failure to comply with repotting or otba provisions of the policies including breaches of warranties shall
ant affixt Cava-up provided to tie City,its officers,officials,employees,agents or vohmtecas.
4. The Contractor's insurance shaft apply separately to each insured against whom claim is made or suit a
brought,accept with respect to the limits of the insurer's liability.
S. Each mouton a policy requited by this clause aball be eadoned to state flat coverage s>>aIl not be suspended, .
voided,canceled by eitherperty,tedoced m.coverage or in limos except after thirty(30)days prior wmittea
notice by certified marl,retern receipt requesoed,has been given.to the City.
6. Coverage shall not attend to say imdentaby coverage for the active negligence of the additional insured in any
case where an agreement to mademnify the additional nomed would be invalid under Subdivh =(b)of sa cUou
2782 of the Civil Code.
• Acceutability of Inamrers.
Insurance is to be placed with insrrrera with a eeneat A.M.Bests rating of no less than A:VIL
Veaifleadoo orcoofflau .
CDIItnnw shall furnish the City with a certificate ofinsurance showing regmi<od tasuzza a coverage. Original'
agorsemate effecting general liability and automobile liability coverage required by this clause mast also be
provided. The endarsem is are to be signed by a person aurnotized by that insurer to bind coverage on its bebat£
All endorsements are to be received and approved by the City before work maces.
Snbcoatractersr
Connector shall include all sabcontracbass as insured under its policies or shall firrmsh separate certificates and
endorsements for each gabeontractor. All coverages fersubcontracmrs shall be subject to all of the requirements
stated bereia
y�3y
ATTACHMENT 4-22
.CONTRACTOR INSURANCE INFORMATION
This form is designed to encourage bidders to determine whether or not their insurance meets the City's
requirements prior to bidding; and. whether they will face any additional web to obtain acceptable
insurance. It Is informational only and is rot used as a basis fgrrejection of bids, nor is I to be construed as
an acceptance by the City of a bidders insurance. The Contractor must obtain the insurance required per
the Special Provisions in order to obtain award of the contract
f. General Uabidty:
per occurrence for bodily injury,personal lrgmy and property fie•
general aggregate limif applies separately to this project!location.
✓ general aggregate Unrd Is mos the required owmance RML
additlonaliy Insured endorsement available.
2. Automobile Liablllty.
per accident for bodily injury and property damage.
addH onslly Insured endorsement available.
& Employers Uabill4r
S I rMV= per atxddent for bodily Injury or dimse.
addi4onaUy hsumd endomement avabbie.
4. List any Deductibles and Self4roured Retention:
5. Insurance Company Name: 117" �rt1+��c . [ 110 t—i �t a 6YaK�`O Cb
)nsurars AJ L Best Radng: � X�
y-3.�
1 HMENT 4-23
WATER t�ir►�c;:���.rr �Z
RecLaeeanoN
SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT
COUNTY SANITATION O I STR I CTS
OF•LOS ANGELES COUNTY
1955. Workman Mill Road,Whittier,CA 90601-1400
Moiling Address:P.O.Box 4998, Whittier,CA 90607.4998 57EPHEN R.MAGUIN
-..Telephone: (562)..6Q9:7.411.,.,FAX:(5621.69Q-5422_..
www.foesd.org
August 30, 2007
File: 2-50.09-32
TO ALL BIDDERS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF
WESTLAKE PARKS COMPOSTING FACILITY
PHASE — I SITE PRECONSOLIDATION
COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT NO. 2
OF LOS ANGELES' COUNTY
Gentlemen:
Re: Addendum No. i to the Special Provisions
for the Construction of
Westlake Farms Composting Facility
Phase — I Site Preconsolidation
Bidders are hereby advised of the following revisions and additions to
.the Special Provisions for the subject project.
1. On Page 2A-1 of the Special Provisions.:
In Part 1, after Item 2) , add Item 3) as follows:
"3) Report No. 3: Hamilton & Associates, Inc. : °Construction Quality
Assurance Services, Temporary Soil Surcharge (TSS) Pilot Study,
Westlake Farms Biosolids Composting Facility, Kings County,
California", dated February 16, 2007."
A CD containing Report No. 3 is enclosed herein.
Please indicate receipt of this addendum by marking the appropriate
place on Page 3 of the Proposal Form.
Yours very truly,
Stephen Kaguin
my
Sung G.i• z I D
Assistant Department Head
Office Engineering Department
TS:LS:JF:mdj \'
Enclosure
Addendum zo. 1
J Recycled PePer I 3
��- T ENT 4-24
SEAT&OF CALiFORNL4 BUSRaiS4 TRANSPORTATION AND HOUSING A Rr1Cy ARNnf n e[grw R�cinrrart (3ovemor
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF ENGINEERING SERVICES
OFFICE ENGINEER,NIS 43
1727 30 STREET
P.O.BOX 16804I X=yow power,
SACRAMENTO,CA 95816-SMI Be enou dcternl
FAX (916)227-6214
TTY (916)227-8454
** WARNING ** WARNING ** WARNING ** WARNING **
This document is intended for informational purposes only.
Users are cautioned that California Department of Transportation (Department) does not assume any liability or
responsibility based on these electronic files or for any defective or incomplete copying, exerpting, scanning, faxing or
downloading of the contract documents. As always,for the official paper versions of the bidders packages mid non-bidder
packages, including addenda write to the California Department of Transportation,Plans and Bid Documents,Room 0200,
P.O.Box 942874,Sacramento;CA.94272-0001,telephone(916)65411490 or fax(916)654-7028.Office hours are 7:30 a.m.
to 4:15 p.m. When ordering bidder or non-bidder packages it is important that you include a telephone number and fax
number,P.O.Box and street address so that you can receive addenda.
July 31,2007
05-SLO-41,101-25.5!25.9,73.0/13.5
05-402804
Addendum No.2
Dear Contractor:
This addendum is being issued to the contract for construction on State highway in SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY IN
ATASCADERO ON ROUTE 101 FROM 1.0 KM NORTH OF CURBARIL AVENUE TO ATASCADERO CREEK
BRIDGE AND ON ROUTE 41 FROM OS KM EAST OF ATASCADERO AVENUE TO 0.2 KM EAST OF EL CAM1NO
REAL.
Submit bids for this work with the understanding and full consideration of this addendum. The revisions declared in this
addendrmt are an essential part of the contract.
Bids for this work will be opened on August 22,2007.
This ad&mduat is being issued revise the Project Plans, the Notice to Contractors and Special Provisions, and the
Proposal and Contract,
Project Plan Sheets 3,4,5,6,7,8, 10, 11, 12,13, 15,16,20,21,27,31,39,42,43,51,52,53,74,76,77,79,93,97,98,
105,106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115,116, 141, 142, 146, 152, 160, 163, 164, 174,248,249,250,251,252,
253,254, 255, 256 and 259 are revised Half-sized copies of the revised sheets are attached for substitution for the like-
numbered sheets.
Project Plan Sheets 31A,70A,86A and 160A are added. Half-sized copies of the added sheets are attached for addition
to the project plans.
In the Special Provisions,Section 10-1.01,"ORDER OF WORK,"the second to the last paragraph is revised as follows:
"Surcharge of the northbound.,southbound,median of Route 101,southbound on rump and proposed
northbound on ramp as shown on the plans for period of not less than 90 days.-
In the Proposal and Contract,the Engineer's Estimate Items 14, 18,46,54,59,67,83,84,85,86,91,99, 124, 126, 128,
130, I32, 137,and 139 are revised as attached.
x'.37
ATTACHMENT 4-25
Addendum No.2
Page 2
July-31,2007
05-SLO-41,101-25.5/25.9,73.0/73.5
05-402804
To Proposal and Contract book holders:
Replace pages 3,5,6,7 and 9 of the Engineer's Estimate in the Proposal with the attached revised pages 3,
5,6,7 and 9 of the Engineer's Estimate. The revised Engineer's Estimate is to be used in the bid
. Inquiries or questions in regard to this addendum must be communicated as a bidder inquiry and must be
made as noted in the NOTICE TO CONTRACTORS section of the Notice to Contractors and Special
Provisions.
Indicate receipt of this addendum by filling in the number of this addendum in the space provided on the
signature page of the proposal.
Submit bids in the Proposal and Contract book you now possess. Holders who have already mailed their
book will be contacted to arrange for the return of their book.
Inform subcontractors and suppliers as necessary.
This office is sending this addendum by GSO overnight mail to Proposal and Contract book holders to ensure that each
receives it. A copy of this addendum is available for the contractor's use on the Internet Site:
http-1/www.dot.ca.gov/bq/tsc/oetweeldy_Ads/addendum_page.htwl
If you are not a Proposal and Contract book holder,but request a book to bid on this project,you must comply with the
requirements of this letter before submitting your bid.
Sincerely,
ORIGINAL SIGNED BY
REBECCA D.HARNAGEL,Chief
Office of Plans,Specifications&Estimates
Division of Engineering Services-Office Engineer
Attachmems
MENT 4-26
abia- 919 pWM St 99401
city San US 0131 po
8epwriber 6,2907
.Paoch Construction
Aftn:Jar3crr Papich
P.O. Box 2210
Piano Beach, CA 93448
Subject Los OMs Valby Road abed Rehabilitom Pmject,Spec No. 90648
Mr.-Papich
As of UKMY, 6epWtw 6,2Wr the M of Sart Luis Obispo has awarded the Los OBW
Valley Road SttW PAttanagon Pmjed,Spedficaft No. 90646 to R.Buft Cwp0r6t M
On August 18, 2007 the Las Osos valley Road Street Rehabilitation Pra�Ct propoaat forms
were modified via addendum. The tnad I tbrm Inducted a line i�rr aB
assoebftd waft for co v"v u t a Cahrene EnvaaoPurr nt PsM*included.In the
addendum. Paptch Ownirucftn Co ;ww did rrot use the nvociftcl CbMMO pmposai form
for their bid. As a result,to w Bary h1bra adon, required by the August 18 Addendum,-
wo tot included. For this r+aawn the City has made the determination that the bid them
Papich ConsWdw Is ttor>"teMdn"and has awarded to the tteoond low bidder.
It PaPich Cor4ruction wishes is pursus this mister fUrther,pie MVW ChWbiw 1.20,
"ApPeata PracedursO of the City of San Luis Obispo Munidpal Cade. Specilmily note the
time frame for subs t Q your appeal In Section 1.80.030. The Munidpal Code is available
on the CWs web oft at wMLd5ft2M on#M City Gleno;page.
If you have any wjwftm or additional=werns please co ood Manuw Guzman at
701-7423. We hope to have the oppo tu*to wwrh wah you an®wwre proje t.
8irtcerelyr, . .
BARBARA LYMM
CTryi,ppg�
Manuel t3umm
Engheer 1
y-39
. .. ..w. ....•v..w...ra.w. � 1 nVV Vi
ATTACHMENT 4-27
PLEASE FAX BACK
LOS QSOS VJi1LLEY ROAD SMV REHABILITATION
Speolmmifon No.
Attathd to the aodkW award mon for the aboo project. Pt a sign, date,and
rflrrl upon mosoL Our Pat number Is ilk 781-TAT oryou my onim m
9 adv�gs#01 hove tec&W the corrtract Bard detem kieft ibr 8t Las 0sam Vevey
Road Street Retlab9tWN 9pedhoWn No 90584, This Fax is a totW of 2 pages(Inft"
t3ti9 page). '
PAPiC4 CoNsT�yc-T� .
Cwnpany Nmlte(F%m Prim
-to '7 0 7
�TLItE DA
Ttmnk you for your pnxrlpt mon in tft mfr.
Parrtslo KkV
Pub§oVfttcs DepaMtont
919 Palm Street
Ban Luke Oblopo,CA 93M
8A MI.7014 phaoW
80MI 7537 fbx
The Cfly oF9aa tats Obispo is cortm�iised�r4al�e fho dh+>�bled ld all aPit , �gp ,
TekcorerteeMt»>yeVlae rbr8te Dsaf(805}781-7410.
y-ya
NeIofI
Brian Newsom � �'T'lf�G�YV1�IS�TT c Ne-za
From: Jason Papich [Jason@papichconstruction.com]
Sent: Friday,September 07, 2007 320 PM
To: bdan@papichconstrucfion.com
Subject: FVV: Los Osos Valley Road Rehabilitation Project, Spec. No. 90546
Jason Papich-President
Papich Construction Co, Inc
Phone#805-473-3016
Fax#805-481-5966
Cell#805-431-8952
Jason@papichconstruction.com
www.pgpichconstrucdon.com
From: Guzman, Manuel [mailto:mguzman@slocity.org]
Sent:Thursday,August 23, 2007 3:13 PM
To:jason@papichconstruction.com
Subject: Los Osos Valley Road Rehabilitation Project, Spec.No.90546
Jason Papich,
After opening bids for the Los Osos Valley Road St.Rehabilitation Project,Spec. No.90546 your company (Papich Construction
Company, Inc.)was the lowest bidder. However, after reviewing the bid sheets submitted by your company, I see that no value was
enter for bid item number 54. Bid item 54 was added as a consequence of addendum no. 2. and it requires the Contractor to
comply with Caltrans Encroachment Permit.The City will proceed with this contract only if you acknowledge that your bid submittal
for item 54 has a value of zero dollars. If you have question please contact Manny at 805-781-7423.
7,2007
fzrT
A01, 111 C, 1 kHp4 4-29
R BUBAE CO"ORA'T$ N r ll/Vn
861 CAPrrouO Warr—P.O.Box 957
Sen Lura Oarsro,CA 93406-0957
PHONE (805) 543.8568 PAX (905)543-2.521
[acmm No.264193
August 24,2007 AN EQu"oreoaroemv
AUG24
p�j 1C WORKS DE ARTIJiONS
Ms.Barbara Lynch,City Engineer
City of San Luis Obispo
Public Works Administration Office
919 Palm Street
•San Luis Obispo,CA 93401
Re: Los Osos Valley Road Street Rehabilitation
Specification No.90546
Dear Ms.Lynch:
We are in receipt of your Final Bid Results Posted for the above referenced project via FAX this
morning. Specifically noted in these bid results are the comments made by the City about the
apparent low bidder,Papich Construction,which states IMssing Bid Item No.54 and some math
errors in bid items#14,24 and 27."
It is also.noted that Addendum No. 1, dated August 16, 2007, clearly includes a `revised bid
sheet"and"Bidders are to use the revised bid sheet included with this addendum in submitting a
bid." It was also noted during the bid opening that the bid submitted by Papich Construction was
not submitted on the bid sheets included in Addendum No. 1. °
Also noted is Bid Submittal Form b,List of Subcontractors,which states"the Bidder is required
to furnish the following information.for each subcontractor performing more than % percent_
(0.51/o)of the total base bid. Papich Construction did not list a subcontractor to perform bid item
S, Microsurf ming. All three other General Contractors that bid the project all listed a
subcontractor for this work and was at least 25%of their bids. It is our understanding that Papich {
Constiuctioa does not have the equipment, or personnel with the•experience and expertise to
perform this work in accordance with the project specif cations..
Clearly,Papich Constructions did not follow the instructions included in Addendum No. 1 and
may not have listed�a subcontractor,pursuant to Section 4100 of the Public Contract Code or in
accordance with Section 9-1.01 "Subcontracting" and Section 2-1.054, "Required Listing of
.Proposed Subcontractors"of the Standard Specifications. Therefore,we believe the City of San
Luis Obispo should declare the bid received by Papich Construction '"Non Responsive" and
award the contract to the next lowest bidder that was responsive to the City's Notice to Bidders
and Project Specifications. ;
a
f
ATTACHMENT 4-30
City of San Luis Obispo
Los Osos Valley Road Street Rehabilitation
Page two of two
If you have any questions or comments,please feel free to call me.
Sincerely,
R.Burke Corporation
t
Bry N.Victor,PE
Proj&4 Manager
F&ffihbAQuadaDV=VILamPmmdw
3
i
r
y
/7/ ;
rage i of i
ATTACHMENT 4-31
Man Newsom
'rom: Hom,Matt•[mhom@slodty.org]
Sent: Tuesday,August 28,200710:30 AM
ro: brian@papichconstructon.com
mac: Guzman,Manuel
Subject: protest letter
4ttachments: Bid Protestpdf
an,
ached is the R. Burke's letter of protest
anks,
dt Hom
.y of San Luis Obispo
9 Palm Street
.n Luis Obispo,CA 93401
ice(805)781-710&
x (805)781-7198
nail: mhomOsiod .orn
812007 �,�77
��• ATTAC ENT 4-32
P ICH CONS AJ�7 C
Cal.Lie.9767055
P.O. Box 2210 • Pismo Beaciy CA 93448
MIS)4733016 Office (805)481-5966 Fax
August 31, 2007
Ms. Barbara Lynch, City Engineer
City of San Luis Obispo
Public Works Administration Office
919 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, Ca 93401
RE: Los Osos Valley Road Rehabilitation Project
Papich Construction would like to take this opportunity tic)point out,a few issues in
the protesting party( R. Burke Construction )bid protest to the district.
The dty posted the addendum to the project on the cily's projects to bid website.
Papich Construction has visited the website multiple times prior to the bid of the
project. On the day of the original bid the site was not accessible when Papich
Construction attempted to log oft Again, on the day of the postponed bid, Papich
Construction attempted to access the site and was unsuccessful, With the lack of
access to the site on the day of the bid Papich Construction had no alternative but
to tum in the bid on the original bid forms.
Papich Construction did however review the addendum on the website prior to bid.
We did not download it because we thought that the city would besendinga copy
of the addendum via mail and/or fax as all public contracts that we bid do. On
the day of the bid when we rearmed that the addendums were not coming to us as
a haul copy, so we attempted to access the website to download them and were
not successful. With that said, Papich Construction had no other alternative but to
submit on the bid forms provided with the contract documents.
The mathematical errors in the units and the missing bid item are only a result of
the lack of having the new spreadsheet Papich Construction placed all
appropriate costs for the missing bid item#54 in Bid Item#1 to give the city a
responsive bid for the project.
ATTACHMENT 4-33
Additionally, the protest letter from R. Burke stated that we were required to list a
subcontractor for bid item#8. Papich Construction does not have to list a
subcontractor for that item if the scope of work is less than %of 1 percent as R
Burke clearly stated in their letter. Papich Construction is not planning on using a
subcontractor in excess of%of 1 percent. Papich Construction negotiated with a
micro surfacing company prior to bid time about subcontracting for labor only in
the placement of bid item#8. Papich Construction plans on purchasing all
material and renting the proper equipment for placing the micro surfacing. This
with the use of a subcontractor's labor that places these products daily will Insure
the city gets a quality product for the most competitive price possible. Papich
Constructions use of these methods in achieving the application of the same
product that the unsucc:essfui bidder's were using results in the ultimate lowest
cost to the city. R. Burke is falsely claiming that Papich Construction is non-
responsive when in fact they are just upset at not being the apparent low bidder
due to their lack of finding a more efficient and cost effective means of delivering
the city the some product
In addendum#1 on the second page, second paragraph it states" Contractors are
required to base their bid on the plans,speafcatlons and any issued addenda. To
do otherwise shall be at the Contractor's own risk" Papich Construction did just
as stated.in the addendum#1.We bid the project per all pians, specifications, and
addendums. We submitted a responsive bid ibr the complete project We did not
however submit it on the addendum bid schedule due to reasons outside our
control, and were not sent the addendums via a means that insured the bidders
got the information. Perhaps, when.the city had difficulty with the website the first
day the project was to bid, they should have deemed the website as an additional
means to get the addendum and sent them in a method that insured the
contractors would receive them. With that said Papich Construction has the right
to proceed at our own risk as stated in the addendum and proceed with the prices
as submitted on the original bid sheet
The city stated that they look at case law when determining the award of a
contract to a bidder. Please review the case of Ghilotti Construction Co. v. City of
Richmond (1996)45 Cal.App 4°897. In that case it states that California courts
will only set aside a bid if the alleged irregularity is capable of facilitating
corruption, or extravagance, or likely to affect the amount of bids or the response
of potential bidders." With none of the mentioned conditions present in Papich
Constructions bid, the city can follow public policy underlying competitive bidding
which allows for public entities to deal with Issues'in a"sensible, practical way°
Id.,sting Romar Eletric Inc v. City of Los Antes(1994) 9 Cal.App 4P 161, 173.
(citing 10 McQuillan, Municipal Corporsitions(31 rev.ed. 1WO)29.29 p. 37v�.
cal.Lta#76"
P"O. Box 2210 • Pismo Beach, CA 83448
(805)473.;016 Office (805)4815966 Fax
Page 2
ATTACHMENT 4-34
With the above stated, Papich Construction has a complete and responsive bid. It
is not a non responsive bid, nor did it give an unfair advantage to Papich
Construction. Papich Construction requests the city to award the contract to the
apparent low bidder Tapich Constnrctiorf for the submitting a competitive
complete bid to the above reference project In the event the city decides to
consider Papich Constructions proposal as non-responsive, Papich Construction
reserves the right to consult our legal council in this matter. In the interest of time
and successful award to the apparent low bidder legal counsel has not yet been
consulted in this matter.
We look forward to completing a successful project with the city. * Feel free to
contact us if you would like a tist of r eferences to the quality and timeliness of work
Papich Construction has completed to date. If you have any questions or
concerns please call me.at(805)473-3016 or mobile at(805)431-2683.
Thank You,
Brian Newsom
Papich Construction Co. Inc,
Cc. Jason Papich
COL U˿M
P.O. Bax 2240 e.P19nw Beae6y CA 934M
(803}473-3016 Office (SOS)4815966 Fax
Page 3
y-�17
! . .
CITY £ ' g3 eE@
REND »0 FINOCE Gy:E Q!2 22
FAYHi PAFIN3 2233
TODAV2 5 ea T
4s,: B£e ga!/ 2£: e S!
SZImK
E. \:C E q
-----------------
£ . tsM2
5. Rz.s
cam. $317
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
FINANCE-AtEPARTNIENT
990 PALM STREET
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401
CASHIER
(805)781-7124
MISCELLANEOUS REVENUE
Please mark one:
❑ Miscellaneous Revenue
❑ Voucher Refund
Complete the information below:
Date: 011 13) 01
Issuing Dept: 11 k- �P�—
Vendor Name: Pati c k
Voucher No.: Date:
Refund Description:
Corina(
G.L. Acct: Ld0 • u 7650
Amount: C9
Please prepare a duplicate if you want a
receipt.
Return to:
GROUPS/AR/MISC.REVENUE VOUCHER
Filing Fee: $1000
Paid Date Received
TMl r FRECEIVED
4? t NIA Cl O 2007
'REFER TO SECTION 4-! .:�san tins OBIspO LERK
IL APPEAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL
SECTION 1. APPELLANT INFORMATION
PACPICA uw&-rayC-Tioni Po fox zz)D, Pisrno I3o;4M I Cil 93+'B
Name Mailing Address and Zip Code
`805) 473-- 3a1(o (&65) 473 — ZZ)7
Phone Fax
RZ)AA N9:W,5.0M
SAtS0 nl PAIPi M Po Box z2-10) PI SM o l3EACtl , CA 013448
Representative's Name Mailing Address and Zip Code
ailw1i 70Z J PRC6tT 04P JAf WX /
PAAS)0&yr 060'5) 4-73 -3o)1, l 8oS) 4.73 —ZZI7
Title Phone Fax
SECTION 2. SUBJECT OF APPEAL
1. In accordance with the procedures set forth in Title 1, Chapter 1.20 of the San Luis Obispo
Municipal Code(copy attached), 1 hereby appeal the decision of the:
r,jr--,�J )4A01PiA&-J G A.n.
(Name of Officer, Committee or Commission decision being appealed)
2. The date the decision being appealed was rendered: 1.0-7
3. The application or project was entitled: LoS o50- V�u J(ZOl+al ST2ttT
(�l�Ar'{iL1TOtTrnti! PP�T��!T
4. 1 discussed the matter with the following City staff member.
DAVF.z fir rh ER-0 1'y "OOL on R /D
(Staff Member's Name and Department) ( ate)
5. Has this matter been the subject of a previous appeal? If so,when was it heard and by whom:
ND
SECTION 3. REASON FOR APPEAL
Explain specifically what actioNs you are appealing and why you believe the Council should consider your
appeal. Indude what evidence you have that supports your appeal. You may attach additional pages, if
necessary. This form continues on the other side.
Page 1 of 3
Reason for Appeal continued
ATTPCCfiffA
SECTION 4. APPELLANT'S RESPONSIBILITY
The San Luis Obispo City Council values public participation in local government and
encourages all forms of citizen involvement. However, due to real costs associated with City
Council consideration of an appeal, including public notification, all appeals pertaining to a
planning application or project are subject to a filing fee of$100; which must accompany the
appeal forth.
Your right to exercise an appeal comes with certain responsibilities. If you file an
appeal, please understand that it must be heard within 45 days from filing this form. You will be
notified in writing of the exact date your appeal will be heard before the Council. You or your
representative will be expected to attend the public hearing, and to be prepared to make your
case. Your testimony is limited to 10 minutes.
A continuance may be granted under certain and unusual circumstances. If you feel you
need to request a continuance, you must submit your request in writing to the City Clerk. Please be
advised that if your request for continuance is received after the appeal is noticed to the public, the
Council may not be able to grant the request for continuance. Submitting a request for continuance
does not guarantee that it will be granted, that action is at the discretion of the City Council.
I hereby agree to appear and/or send a representative to appear on my behalf when
said appeal is scheduled for a public hearing before the City Council.
i e—+
(Signdtueof Appellant) (Date)
Exceptions to the fee: 1)Appeals of Tree Committee decisions. 2)The above-named appellant has already paid
the City$100 to appeal this same matter to a City official or Council advisory body.
This item is hereby calendared for .�`f`e w^�-I ✓ /�6+ cc
c: City Attorney
City Administrative Officer
Department Head
Advisory Body Chairperson
City Clerk(orfginaQ
3,a& , ZWg ,C je"gel a Page 2 of 3
x103
I
PAPICHRONS, -RUCTION
GENERAUENGINEERIING CONTRACTOR
.......... i o�
Cal.Lie#767055
P.O. Box 2210 • Pismo Beach, CA 93448
(805)473-3016 Office (805)481-5966 Fax
September 13, 2007
Planning Commission
City of San Luis Obispo
Public Works Administration Office
919 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, Ca 93401
RE: Appeal of the L.O.V.R. Rehabilitation Project award to the 2nd bidder
Summary:
Papich Construction submitted the low bid on the L.O.V.R. Rehabilitation Project.
The Public Works Dept. awarded the job to the second lowest bidder. Papich
appeals the award of the project to the second lowest bidder.
Papich submitted a responsive bid per the contract requirements on the due date.
The form used by Papich to submit its bid was supplied by the City. The city
subsequently changed its form to include an additional bid item#54 "Comply with
Caltrans Encroachment Permit".
Papich submitted its bid on the earlier form that did not include bid item #54,
because when Papich attempted to access the bid form on the day of the bid the
website was not operating and the bid form was not available. Papich included a
de minmus charge of$600 in another bid item to cover bid item #54. This minor
irregularity should not affect Papich's low bid status because:
1) Papich, in its bid, specifically acknowledged receipt of the addendum
adding bid item #54, and bid the project accordingly. Papich is bound by its
bid to perform the contract and all addenda.
2) Papich submitted its bid on forms required by the City, with the exception of
one which adds one item that could not be accessed by Papich on the day
of the bid because the City's website was not operating.
3) The additional bid item adds very minor cost, measured in the hundreds of
dollars, and had no impact on the spread between the first and second
bidders, measured in the tens of thousands of dollars.
4) The city asked Papich to clarify its bid, which Papich did, in accordance with
the City's directions.
Discussion:
Papich Construction submitted a responsive bid because it properly completed of
all the bid forms in the proposal package (Attachment#1). The discrepancy
claimed by the city in rejecting our proposal resulted from lack of access to the
city's website on bid day and the lack of written notification to the contractor from
the city.
The city posted the addendum to the project on the city's website. As stated in
previous correspondence, on the original bid date the site was not accessible
when Papich Construction attempted to log on. With the lack of the ability to view
the addendum by all contractors, the city postponed the project to bid on the 23`d
of August. During the following week, Papich Construction visited the website
multiple times to familiarize ourselves with addendums. Again, on bid day, Papich
Construction was not able to successfully access the website. With the lack of
access to the site on the day of the bid Papich Construction was not able to print
the amended bid schedule. This left Papich Construction with no alternative but to
tum in the bid on the original bid forms.
The city relied on the contractor's ability to download the addendums to the project
from the website. After the failure of the website, which caused the project bid
date to be postponed the first time, the city should correct the problem and use an
alternate means of getting the addendum bid schedule to the contractors. Instead,
the access problem was temporarily fixed, which allowed for Papich Construction
to review them, but on bid day access was denied and the bid schedule available
for printing. If the city had faxed or mailed a copy of the addendum, as most
agencies do, this would not have been a problem, unfortunately it was (attachment
#2 and #3).
Papich Construction acknowledged the addendum #1 and #2 on the bid proposal
forms(attachment#1, yellow tab). The award decision letter sent from the city
states Papich Construction did not include the information required by the
addendum, when in fact we did (attachment#4). Papich Constructions
acknowledgement of the addendum #1 and #2 in the bid forms contractually ties
CaL Lie#767055
P.O. Box 2210 • Pismo Beach, GA 93448
(805)473-3016 Office (805)481-5966 Fax
Page 2
Papich Construction to the information in the addendums. With that said, Papich
Construction is contractually obligated to the original bid documents and all of the
addendum as acknowledged and signed in the bid proposal.
The city already stated to Papich Construction that the contract could proceed
once bid item #54 had been acknowledged to have a zero dollar amount, please
reference e-mail sent by the city on 9/23/07 (attachment#5). Papich Construction
acknowledged the cost of that item at a zero dollar amount due to the fact that the
$600 dollar cost of that item was placed in bid item #1 of the bid schedule. Then,
after some dialogue and a protest letter (attachment#6), the city issued a letter
which stated that they decided to change its mind and proceed with a contract to
the 21d bidder. These events happened prior to Papich Construction being notified
that the city had an issue with our proposal and without the city notifying Papich
Construction that the 2nd bidder had sent in a protest letter. Papich Construction
requested the city to wait on their decision until reviewing a
response letter to the claims of the 2nd bidder. Papich Construction was told that
we could send one in, but the decision was already made and the city attorney
was the only one left to consult. Papich Construction then sent in a response to
the protest refuting the 2nd bidders claims, which didn't seemed not to be
considered in the award decision (attachment#7).
Public contracts should be awarded to the low bidder, unless the low bidder has
an irregularity that is capable of facilitating corruption, extravagance, affecting the
response of potential bidders or giving the low bidder an advantage over the other
bidders in their proposal. Here, the apparent low bidder should be considered
responsive and the contract be awarded accordingly.
If you have any questions or concerns please call me at (805) 473-3016 or mobile
at (805) 431-2683.
Thank You,
Brian Newsom
Papich Construction Co. Inc.
Cc: Jason Papich
CaL Ur #767055
P.O. Box 2210 a Pismo Beach, CA 93448
(805)473-3016 Office (805)481-5966 Fax
Page 3
21. ATTAGH m�'N-f -:t 1-
PROPOSAL FORM
TO THE C17Y COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA
THE UNDERSIGNED, hereby agrees that he has carefully examined the location of the
proposed work, that he has carefully examined the plans and specifications, and that he
has carefully examined and read the accompanying instructions to bidders, and hereby
proposes to furnish all of the materials and do all the work required to complete:
Los Osos Valley Road Street Rehabilitation, Specification No. 90546
in satisfactory working condition, iri accordance with said plans, specifications, and the
special provisions,for the prices set forth below:
[tern Itern Unit of Estimated Item Price Total
Measure Quantity (in figures) [m figures)
1. Asphalt Concrete TONN 2,900 t3 'so 3atS85�•o�
2. 55mm AC Grind M2 12,000 'l.(,'D '3( 240 00
3.. Conform Grind M 96 &-do osz'-oal
4. Edge Grind M 560 -OD A 34 20.60
S. Paving Fabric M2 14,500 co• 2 ?SD•
6. 25mm AC level Course TONN 850 Q(o.ov g( bat}
7. Base Repair M2 160
Microsurfacing
8. Microsurfacing TONN 920 ZS,oO G{�?, Gf' ?•!7D
Upgrade Utility LkWAOist Structures to new Grade
9. Sewer Manholes EA 8'
10. Storm Drain.Manholes EA 1
11. Reclaimed Water Manhole EA 7 &S5b.do
12. Reclaimed Water Valves EA 7 .53'b•60
13. Monuments EA 4 Q Z�.017 '3g$D•OD
14. Water Valves EA 26 .� lg?� •per
15. Communication Manholes EA 2 C-0
Thermoplastic Traffic Striping-White
16. 100m White Line M 1,185 �.o0 2-•�?D•ao
17. 300mm White Crosswalk Line M 400 'ij, o e ISO* . or—�
a- 1 Company. R-Rc'A
item
No. item Unit of Estimated Item Price Total
18. Detail 9 Meas uee Quantity (in figures) (in figures)
M 127
19. Detall12 5,,4242
M . 0 .00 (03S.eG
20. Deta l 27B M ! -Oro S to.a-a
21. DeW 37B M 790121 1, m e S$0.00
22. Detail 38 M -SV &4SS•V
23. 782
Detell 38A M . 60 5C.$1p.?J8
24. 133
DetaO 39 M S-06 10(oy,.. a 8
25. Detail 39A 4.820 1,00 1516.60
M
Ther"'oP1=0c Traffic Striping-Yellow ON 2.00 f SD(p .00
26. 300mm Yellow C=Swaik Line M .
27. Detail 22 620
M �,.7 s 7Af•b a
28. Data#25 M 457 $.a0. (oi65.8Q $•2
29. Detag 25AM 2'620 - -
�.5•GTti
30. Detail 29 M 40 .00
31. Detail 321,153 .aa
M 1,300 (2 .dD
Pavement Markers Z- 31 Zo • at)
32- Detai137A M
33.. Detall40A Type A M 50 ! Z.. 61D 123 to Cho..
ed o�
34. Blue Reflectorized Rais9-GO tolr.a0
Pavement Markers EA28
Pavement>.egea� Mod
35. Pavement Markings(Arrows,
Bike Lane Symbol,eta) M2 200
SZ•Oa (ptFae.ats
Truncated DOmeS(Detectable WarnkV
36. Material)
Install De
Materlal at� Warning
MZ 20
Other z.e.so 0400 . 6
37. Grind'r4"Lip of Existing Ramps A
38 Remove(t)and Install(M)
Curb,&Gutter M 46
!�4• oo $fi8o •ds
a' 2 Company: PRe
F
Item Item Unit of Estimated Item Price Total
No. Measure Quantity (in figures) (in figures)
39 Remove(E)Ramp and Install LS 1
(N)Case OX Ramp per State
Std.A88A(12,100 Los Osos by. 1
Valley Rd.) 4
40. Remove(E)Sidewalk and Install LS 1
(N)Case"A'Ramp per State Oj}.(JD 44 00 .6'p
Std.A88A(1 Z200 Los Osos
Valley Rd.
41. Remove(E)Ramp and Irmtell LS 1
(N)Case"C'Ramp per State
Std.A88A(1,400 Madonna Rd.)
42. Remove(E)Sidewalk LS 1
Underdrain and Install(N) x•00 . C�
Drainage Inlet per Eng.Std. �5 1
3355.
43. 450mm RCP Storm Sewer Pipe M 175 3 oa ea 52,m.60
44. Connect(N)Storrs Sewer Pipe EA i
to(E)Drop Inlet per Eng.Std. 'x'00 'j,.Saa •t fo
3540
45. Install(N)DrainageInlet per LS 1
Eng.Ski.3355
46. 530mm RCP Storrs Sewer Pipe M 23 TDO.Co $ .ab
47. Install(N)Storm Drain Manhole LS 1
per Eng.Sid.3620 IC) Oeo.cc, to, Ocsb• 00
48. Connect(N)Storm Sewer Pipe LS 1
to(N)Manhole Drop Inlet per •LZoo. Z�oo .-CIO
Eng.Std.3540
49. Remove(E)6OOmm CMP Pipe M 27 .Obbsb• ��
and Install(N)600mm RCP Pipe
50. 10'AC Berm M 155 Tj D. .pQ
51. Replace(E)Grate with(N) LS 1 t�. J • a�
Grate per State Std.D77B 6
52 OSHA Compliance LS 1 dfl
a- 3 Company: RA O A o s CL?7 t rJC.
t /
V
1•
BID ALTERNATE uA"
It m I Item Unit of Estimated Item Price Total
No. Measure Quantity (in figures) (in figures)
53. Night Work from 12,100 Los LS 1
Qsos Valley Road to HighwaY W-W 221&0.0.aD
101
Ecistl
Now
camxy w1 S �s !
O Aa' r. ,�� ' ��TOTALPR :
5Y $�8�1 jo7
a- 4 Company,
5
C a0
5 o F OC
� o �
K �
0
a
--
o,
o � a
0
oei E
m
or-
-no
c.a
tie
.s
dl
a
3� 1
c as
V
ac �
t�
o
a m Z
C •�• m .0 ai � Q
M -O 'l I i ^ �t
o = w P6 z z �
PUBLIC CONTRACT CODE SECTION 102851 STATEMENT
In accordance with Public Contract Code Section 10285.1 (Chapter 376,Stats. 19851 the bi klw hereby declares under
penalty of perjury under the In�f the State of Califomia that the bidder,or any subcontractor to be engaged by the
bidder, has� has not �/ been convicted within the preceding three years of any offenses referred to is that
section,inchrding any charge of fraud,bribery,collusion,conspiracy,or any other act in violation of any state or federal
animist law in connection with the bidding upon,award of,or performance o4 any public works contact,as defined in
Public Contract Code Section 1101,with any public entity,as defined in Public Contract Code Section 1100,including
the Regents of the University of Califomia or the Trustees of the California State University. The term"bidder" is
understood to include any partner,member, officer,director, responsible managing officer, or responsible managing
employee thereof,as referred to in Section 10285.1.
NOTE: The bidder must place a check mark after"has"or"bas not"in one of the blank spaces provided.
The above Statement is part of the Proposal. Signing this Proposal an the sigaatme portion thereof shall also constitute
signature of this Statement.
Diddexs are cantioned that makm a false certification may subject the certifier to ciim nal prosecubm
C
V
PUBLIC CONTRACT CODE SECTION 10162 QUESTIONNAIRE
In accordance with Public Contract Code Section 10162, the Bidder shall complete, under Penalty of perjury, the
following questionnaire:
Has the bidder,any officer of the bidder,or any employee of the bidder who has a proprietary interest in the bidder,
ever been disqualified,removed,or otherwise prevented from bidding on,or completing a federal,state,or local
government project because of a violation of law or a safety regulation??
Yes No v
If the answer is yes,explain the circumstances-in the following space:
PUBLIC CONTRACT CODE SECTION 10232 STATEMENT
In accordance with public Contract Code Section 10232,the Contractor hereby states under penalty of perjury,that no
more than one final unappealable finding of contempt of court by a federal court has been issued against the Contractor
within the immediately preceding two-year period because of the Contractor's Mare to comply with an order of a
federal court which orders the Ca&actor to comply with an ander of the National Labor Relations Board.
NOTE; The.above Statement and Questionnaire are part of the Proposal. Signing this Proposal on the signauae
portion thereof shall also constitute signauns of this Statement and Questionnaire.
Bidders arecauacmed that making a Use certification may subject the cmffw to criminal prosecution.
d
I
NONCOLLUSION DECLARATION
TO BE SUBMITTED WITH BID
r— r--�
4 -�F1��? l-�P�C�►t declare that
I am �t kk of
the party, making the foregoing bid that the bid is not made in the interest of,or on.behalf of;any undisclosed person,
partnership, company,association,organisation,or corporation;that the bid is genuine and not collnsive or shaM, that
the bidder has not directly or indirectly induced or solicited any other bidder to put in a false or sham bid,and has not
directly or indirectly colhided,conspired,connived,or agreed with any bidder or anyone else to put in a sham bid,or
that anyone shall refram from bidding; that the bidder has not in any mow. directly or indirectly, sought by
agreement,communication,or conference with anyone to fig the bid price of the bidder or any other bidder,or to fix
any overhead,profit,or cost element of the bid price,or of that of any other bidder,or to secure any advantage against
the public body awarding the contract of anyone interested in the proposed contract;that all statements contained in the
bid ate true;and,further,that the bidder bas not,directly or indirectly,submitted his or her bid price or aaiyy breakdown
thereof;or the contents th=4 or divulged information or data relative thereto,or paid,and will not pay,any fee to any
corporation, partnership, company association, organization, bid depository, or to any member or agent thereof to
effectuate a collusive or sham bid
3 declare under penalty ofpeijury under the laws of the State of Califomia that the foregoing is true and coned
iDCGLT
(Signature and Title of Declarant)
(SEAL)
Subscribed and sworn to ore me
this__L(fLday of T 20
Affi A►AaitaFUL !CAVr
COMMMon s 1681789
Nmmy PAft-counrM
San Lids Obtipo CMD* Notary Public
MVComd6Bq MJLA16,21
4
.1'
By signing below, the bidder acknowledges and confirms that this proposal is based on the information
contained in all contract documents, including the plans, specifications, special provisions, and addendum
MM*er(s) (Note:It is the contractor's responsffi y to verify the number of
addenda prior to4he bid opening.)
The undersigned further agrees that in case of default in executing the required contract, with necessary
bonds, within eight days, (ant including Saturdays,.Sundays, and legal holidays), after having received a
mailed notice that the contract is ready for signatum the proceeds of the check or bond accompanying his
bid shall become the property of the City of San Luis Obispo. //^^���
Licensed in accordance with an act providing for the registration of contractors,License No.��
Expiration Date `Y C
The above statement is made under penalty of perjury,and any bid not containing this on°shall be
considered non-responsive and shall be rejected"by the City.
SIGNATURE OF BIDDER
T
(Print Name and Tide of Bidder)
Business Name @MV
Ownedl egal Name: tik `t tsC
Indicate One: Sole-proprietor Partnez-sbiK=Corpoiation
List Partners/Corporate Offi �'. but -
Name Title lC;ktE�,
6 VZWO&C-1 mtau;
Name Title
Name Title [�
Business Address tL1gC(1�1�i� � Y-t
Street Address
• �C'� 221
Mailing Address
City,State,Zip Code
0(� (te
t � �
Phone No FaxNo.
DatedQM.L%±.�� 20g �� rcif,JtCh Lbt1S-�UC"�b+`1..��
E-mail address(if a ilable)
f
•
Z
3y
J
CALIFORNIA JURAT WITH AFFIANT STATEMENT
3
State of California I
County of IyH(V 1�UlS LJ{`�J ss. 3
Aee Attached Document (Notary to cross out lines 1-6 below)
❑ See Statement Below(Lines 1-5 to be completed only by document signer(s], not Notary) ]
]
a
5
._____—_—_--- ap
L—'-------------- --..... .. . . . ......
------------------
4
5 --- --- --------------.__-.__ .. .._.__ ....._.........._.......... - -----------------'---'—
Skmeire C
of Docrorrent Sigrer No.1 Slrnahve at Doctorord Sgrer No.2(II cry)
Subscribed and sworn to(or affirmed)before me on this
— �day of U ��a.iL by
Data nm Year §
(i)
LtIAFUSSq Flu12C}ULp CACy Name-of slpner y
Camrft n#16017" personally Imown to me
San •C ❑ Proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence
myca"MaIPLUA116.201 to be the person who appeared before me (.) (,)
(and
.(2) Name ofst9ner
❑ Personally known to me
❑ Proved to me on the basis of satisfactory ev
e erso b
N a
OPTIONAL
Though the infomrddan below is not required by law,it may prove _
valuable to persons relying on the document and could prerlent
fraudulent removal and reattachment of this faun to another doctunent. Top of thumb here Top of thumb here
Further Descrlptlon of Any Attached Document
Title or Type of Doeumee*
Doamem Date: Number of Pages
Sicpter(s)Other Tuan Named Above
®2006 NatlmW Noleryl=delfon•93W De 8otoAve.;t?Qeoz 2602•IXmisaorlfbCA 91313.2442•taww.NeUona9rtomlyalp itemmm fiemdef.CeII ToIFFrre t-BOD67B•a827
WDDIM'Sl3M-O ACCOMPANY mmw,
Know all men by tome presents;
That we PAPICH CONSTRUCTION, INC. AS pR{INCIPAi, and
FIDELITY AND DEPOSIT COMPANY OF MARYLAND , AS SLRM, are held and firmly
bound aero the City of San Otis Obispo in the sum of
TEN PERCENT OF AMOUNT BID Dollars L.12%0_ } to be paid to
said City or its oatain attorney.its successors and assig=forvirieh payt=W,wall and truly to be made~we
bind ourselves,our heirs,executers and administrators,s=essors or assigns,jointly and severally,firmly by
these prownts:
THE CONDITION OF 1111S OBUGA'i'ION 1S SLVC that if the certain proposal of the above
bomtdan PRINCIPAL
to construct LOS OSOS VALLEY RD. REHABILITATION
(ir=rmme df hAreet and Smite to be improved or prr;jm)
dated 8/16/2007 is weepted by the City of San Luis Obispo,
andiftheabovebounden PRINCIPAL
i
his heirs, executors,administrators, sucomors,and assigns ftil duly enter into and execute a==cc for
such construction and shall ese=w and deliver the two bonds dwarfed widtin ten(I O)days(not including
Saturdays, Sund*es, or toga! holidays) alter the above bounden
PRINCIPAL
has received notice by and fimn the said City of San Luis Obispo tient said contract is ready for execution,
tben this obligation shall become Dull and void;odwwise,it abali be and amain m full force and virtue.
IN 9J1TNMS V4BM OF, we herumto set our hands and seals this 2ND day of AUGUST
2007
f
PAPICH CONSTRUCTION I
a
FIDELITY DEPOSIT COMPANY OF MARYLAND y
BY:
i
FRANK MORONES:ATTORNEY-In-FACT
n
Power of Attorney
FIDELITY AND DEPOSIT COMPANY OF MARYLAND
KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS:That the FIDELITY AND DEPOSIT COMPANY OF MARYLAND,a
corporation-of the State of Maryland,by THEODORE G.MARTINEZ,Vice Preorder t,and ERIC D.BARNES,Assistant
Secretary,in pursuance of authority granted by Article Vl,Section 2,of the By-Laws of said y,which are set forth on
the reverse side hereof and are hereby certified to be in fdl force and effect on the Q by nominate, j
constitute and appoint Philip E.VEGA and Frank MORONES,both true and lawful
agent and Attorney m Fact,to make,execute,seal and d i act and deed any
and all bonds and andertakings,and the a of these presents,shall be as
binding upon said Company,as fallY an had been duly executed and
acknowledged by the t' ce in Baltimore,Md,in their own proper persons.
This power of a e VEDA,dated November 24,2003.
The said Assistant t the ext act set forth on the reverse side hereof is a true copy of Article Vi,
Sectian 2,of the By� ,and is now in force. i
IN WITNESSOF, the said Vice-President and Assistant Secretary have hereunto subscribed their names and
affixed the'Corporate Seal of the said FIDELITY AND DEPOSIT COMPANY OF MARYLAND, this 17th day of
November,A.D.2004.
ATTEST: FIDELITY AND DEPOSIT COMPANY OF MARYLAND
1
'do��oya,8j` 1
s
By:
Eric D.Barnes Assistant Secretary 77=dore G.Martinez
State of Maryland ss:
City ofBaltimore
On this 17th day of November, A.D. 2004, before the subscriber, a Notary Public of the State of Maryland, duly
commissioned and qualified, came THEODORE G. MARTINEZ, Vice President, and ERIC D. BARNES, Assistant
Secretary of the FIDELITY AND DEPOSIT COMPANY OF MARYLAND,to me personally known to be the individuals
and officers described in and who executed the ptecedmg instrument,and they each acknowledged the execution of the same,
and being by me duly sworn,severally and each for himself deposeth and saith,that they are the said officers of-the Company
aforesaid, and that the seal affixed to the preceding instrument is time Corporate Seal of said Company,.and that the said
Corporate Seal and thea signatures as such officers were duly affixed and subscribed to the said instrument by the authority
and direction of the said Corporation.
IN TBSTIMONY WFI1; EOF, I have hereunto set my hand•and affixed ray Official Seal the day and year first above
written.
���3ttt��uat!
os
ti�4� a•�,''��L
�l10 ,a
4`�ViiolU���� J
Marta D.Adam id Notary Public
My Commission Expires:. July 8,2007
y�
B
d
POA-F 012-0036
t
3
EXTRACT FROM BY-LAWS OF FIDELITY AND DEPOSIT COMPANY OF MARYLAND
"Article VI,Section 2.The Chairman of the Board,or the President,or any Executive Vice-Preside4 or any of the Senior
Vioe-Presidents or Vice-Presidents specially anthoiized so to do by the Board of Directors or by the'Executive Committee,
shall have power,by and with the concurrence of the Secretary or any one of the Assistant Secretaries, to appoint Resident
Vice-Presidents, Assistant Vice-Presidents and Attorneys-in-Fact as 'the basin of the company may requirr, or to
authorize any person or persons to execute on behalf of the Company-any bonds, undertalrmg, recognizances,stipulations,
polities, contracts,agreements, deeds, and releases-and assignments of judgements, decrees, mortgages and instruments in
the nature of mortgages,...and to affix the seal of the Company ffiaetb."•
CERTIFICATE
I,flue undersigned,Assistant Secretary of the FIDELITY AND DEPOSIT COMPANY OF MARYLAND,do hereby certify
that the foregoing Power of Attorney is stili in fall force and effect oa the date of this-certificate;andI do fiuther oa*that
the Vice-President who executed the said Power of Attorney was one of the additional Vice-Presidents specially authorized
by the Board of Directms to aI j i' any Attnmey in-Fact as provided in Article VI, Section 2, of the-By-Laws of the
FIDELITY AND DEPOSIT COMPANY OF MARYLAND.
This Power of Attorney and Certificate may be signed by f csi mile ander and by authority of the following resolutica of the
Board of Direof the FIDELITY AND DEPOSIT COMPANY OF MARYLAND at a meeting duly called and held on
the 10th day ofMay,1990.
RESOLVED: 'That the facsimile or mechanically reproduced seal of the camp=y and facsimile or mechanically
reproduced signature of any Vice-President, Secretary,or Assistant Secretary of the Company,wbzdw made herewfore or
hereafter, wherever appearing upon a certified copy.of any power of attomey issued by the Company,shall be valid and
•binding upon the Company with the same force and effect as though manually affixed."
IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF,I bias hereunto subscribed my name and affixed the corporate seal ofthe said Company,
this 2nd day of Auanst . 2007
.tsstsrantsecratmy
i
s
E
• i
• i
i
n
• a
' 3
CALIFORNIA ALL-PURPOSE ACKNOWkEDGEMENT
State of California
County of Orange
On AUGUST 2,2DO7 before me, PHILIP VEGA, NOTARY PUBLIC
Name and Title of Officer(e.g.,"Jane Doo.NotaryPubaC)
personally appeared FRANK MORONES
Name(a)of Signer(o)
® personally known to me -OR- ❑ proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose
name(s) istare subscribed to the within instrument and
acknowledged to me that helshelthey executed the same in
hislherltheir authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their
signature(p) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon
behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument.
WITNESS my hand a d official al.
Ignalure or Notary PubAc
OPTIONAL
Though the Information below Is not required bylaw,it may prove valuable to persons on the document and could prevent fraudulent removal
end reattachment of this form to anoth cumenl.
Description of Attached Document
Title or Type of Document
Document Date: Number of Pages:
Signer(s)Other Than Named Above:
Capacity(les) Claimed by Signer(s)
Signer's Name: Signer's Name:
❑ Individual ❑ Individual
❑ Corporate Officer ❑ Corporate Officer
❑ Titles(s): ❑ Title(s):
❑ Partner-❑ Limited ❑ General ❑ Partner-❑ Limited ❑ General
❑ Attorney-in-Fact ❑ Attomey-in-Fact k
❑ Trustee ❑ Trustee _
❑ Guardian or Conservator ❑ Guardian or Conservator t
❑ Other: Top or Thumb here ❑ Other: Top of Thumb here
i
Signer is Representing: Signer Is Representing:
;
tFt
t
f
ii
pE
F
1
i
BD-1133 08100 ?
d
r
s
INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS
INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS: CONTRACTORS
1 The Contractor shall procure and maintain for the duration of the contract insurance against claims for injuries to
persons or damages to property which may arise from or in connection with the performance of the work hereunder
by the Contractor,its agents,representatives,employees,or stab-contractor.
ll'Iinirmum Scope of Insurance.
Coverage shall be at least as broad as:
1. Insurance Services Office Commercial General Liability coverage(occurrence form CG 0001).
2. Insurance Services Office form nmaber CA 0001 (Ed. 1/M covering Automobile Liability,code I (any auto).
3. Workers'Compensation insurance as required by the State of Califmuia and Employer's Liability Insurance. .
Minimum Lhdtsof Insnranee.
Contractor shall maintain limits no less than:
1. General Liability: $1,000,000 per occurrence for bodily injmy,personal injury and property damage. If
Commercial General Liability or other form with a general aggregate limit is used,either the general aggregate
limit shall apply separately to this project/location or the general aggregate limit shall be twice the required
occurrence limit
2. Automobile Liability: $1,000,000 per accident for bodily injury and property damage.
-3. Employees Liability: $1,000,000 per accident for bodily injury or disease.
Deductibles and SeWluspred Retentions.
Any deductibles or self-insured retentions must be declared to and approved by the City. At the option of the City,
either. the insurer shall reduce or eliminate such deductibles or self-insured retentions as respects the City,its
officers,officials,employees and vohmtems;or the Contractor shall procure a bond guaranteeing payment of losses
and related investigations,claim administration and defense expenses.
Other Trim mute 1?mAsions.
The general liability and automobile liability policies are to contain,or be endorsed to contain,the fpllowing
provisions:
1. The City,its officers,officials,employees,agents and volunteers are to be covered as insureds as respects.
liability arising out of activities performed by or on behalf of the Contractor,products and completed
operations of the Contractor;premises owned,occupied or used by the Contractor;or automobiles owned,
leased,hired or borrowed by the Contracu r. The coverage shall contain no special limitations on the scope of
protection afforded to the City,its officers,officials,employees,agents or volunteers.
2. For any claims related to this project,the Contractor's insurance coverage shall be primary insurance as
respects the City,its officers,officials,employees,agents and volunteers. Any insurance or self-insurance
maintained by the City,its offices,officials,employees,agents or volunteers shall be excess of the
Contractor's insurance and shall not contribute with.it
3. Any failure to comply with reporting or other provisions of the policies including breaches of warranties shall
not affect coverage provided to the City,its officers,officials,employees,agents or volunteers.
4. The Contractor's;neman ce shall apply separately to each insured against whom claim is made or suit is
brought,except with respect to the limits of the insures liability.
5. Each insurance policy required by this clause shall be endorsed to state that coverage shall not be suspended,
voided,canceled by either patty,reduced in coverage or in limits except after thirty(30)days prior written
notice by certified marl,retma receipt requested,has been given to the City.
6. Coverage shall not extend to any indemnity coverage for the active negligence of the additional insured in any
case where an agreement to indemnify the additional insured would be invalid trader Subdivision(b)of section
2782 of the Civil Code.
Mtabi7ity of Insurers.
Insurance is to be placed with insurers with a current AM Best's rating of no less than ANIL
VeriSestion of Coverage
Contractor shall famish the City with a certificate of insurance showing required insurance coverage. Original
endorsements effecting general liability and automobile liability coverage required by this clause mast also be
provided The endorsare to be signed by a person authorized by that insurer to bind coverage on its behalL
All endcasements are to be received and approved by the City before wo&commences.
Subcontractors
Contractor shall include all subcontractors as insured under its policies or shall finnish separate certificates and
endorsements for each subcontractor. All coverages for subcontractors shall be subject to all of the requirements
stated herein
T
r
.CONTRACTOR INSURANCE INFORMATION
This form is designed to encourage bidders to determine whether or not their insurance meets the City's
requirements prior to bidding; and, whether they will face any additional costs to obtain acceptable
insurance. It is informational only and is not used as a basis for rejection of bids, nor is it to be construed as
an acceptance by the Crty of a bidders insurance. The Contractor must obtain the insurance required per
the Special Provisions in order to obtain award of the contract
1. General Liability:
per occurrence far badly injury, personal injury and property damage.
general aggregate limii applies separately to this project I location.
f general aggregate limit is twice the required occurrence Ihit
d additionally insured endorsement available.
2. Automobile Liability:
QtO per accident for bodily injury and property damage_
J addi1tionally insured endorsement available.
3. Employer's Liability:
$ l e MQS'ID per accident for badly injury or disease.
Vadditionally insured endorsement available.
AL List any Deductibles and Self-insured Retention:
S. Insurance Comparry Name: 7 t X17 " A M!( ,S MY\ ce
Insurers A.M.Best Rating: Xy
WATER
DECLAMATION
SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT
COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS
e OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY
1.955 Workman Mill Road,Whittier, CA 90601-1400
Mailing Address: P.O. Box 4998,Whittier, CA 90607.4998 STEPHEN R.MAGUIN
-.Telephone: (562)..69.9.7411,.FAX:(562)..699-5422.... ..._.................,_..._ ._.._ ..............._.._._ . Chief Engineer.ond.Generol.Monager.
www.lacsd.org
August 30, 2007
File: 2-50.09-32
TO ALL BIDDERS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF
WESTLAKE FARMS COMPOSTING FACILITY
PHASE — I SITE PRECONSOLIDATION
COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT NO. 2
OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY
Gentlemen:
Re: Addendum No. 1 to the Special Provisions
for the Construction of
Westlake Farms Composting Facility
Phase — I Site Preconsolidation
Bidders are hereby advised of the following revisions and additions to
.the Special Provisions for the subject project.
I. On Page 2A-1 of the Special Provisions:
In Part 1, after item 2) , add Item 3) as follows:
"3) Report No. 3: Hamilton & Associates, Inc. : "Construction Quality
Assurance Services, Temporary Soil Surcharge (TSS) Pilot Study,
Westlake Farms Biosolids Composting Facility, Kings County,
California", dated February 16, 2007."
A CD containing Report. No. 3 is enclosed herein.
Please indicate .receipt of this addendum by marking the appropriate
place on Page 3 of the Proposal Form.
Yours very truly,
Stephen R. Maguin
mmy SungeU, ? D [
Assistant Department Head
Office Engineering Department
TS:LS:JF:mdj
Enclosure
5-1648 -1- Addendum No. 1
6r8 Recycled Paper
SLATE OF CALIFORNIA-BU SS ANcoORTpTION ANn HO__ iSrr�C ACEf�*Cy ARN01 n SCHWAR7F9ECr91 R a„
cmff
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF ENGINEERING SERVICES
OFFICE ENGINEER,MS 43
1727 36TH STREET 0
P.O.BOX 168041 Maxyourpowe,l
SACRAMENTO,CA 95816-8041 Be energy gficlentl
FAX (916)227-6214
TTY (916)227-8454
** WARNING ** WARNING ** WARNING ** WARNING *"
This document is intended for informational purposes only.
Users are cautioned that California Department of Transportation (Department) does not assume any liability or
responsibility based on these electronic files or for any defective or incomplete copying, exerpting, scanning, facing or
downloading of the contract documents. As always, for the official paper versions of the bidders packages and non-bidder
packages, including addenda write to the California Department of Transportation,Plans and Bid Documents,Room 0200,
P.O.Box 942874,Sacramento;CA 94272-0001,telephone(916)654-4490 or fax (916)654-7028. Office hours are 7:30 a.m.
to 4:15 p.m. When ordering bidder or non-bidder packages it is important that you include a telephone number and fax
number,P.O.Boa and street address so that you can receive addenda.
July 31,2007
05-SLO-41,101-25.5/25.9,73.0/73.5
05-402804
Addendum No.2
Dear Contractor.
This addendum is being issued to the contract for construction on State highway in SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY IN
ATASCADERO ON ROUTE 101 FROM 1.0 KM NORTH OF CURBARIL AVENUE TO ATASCADERO CREEK
BRIDGE AND ON ROUTE 41 FROM 0.5 KM EAST OF ATASCADERO AVENUE TO 0.2 KM EAST OF EL CAMINO
REAL.
Submit bids for this work with the understanding and full consideration of this addendum. The revisions declared in this
addendum are an essential part of the contract
Bids for this work will be opened on August 22,2007.
This addendum is being issued revise the Project Plans, the Notice to Contractors and Special Provisions, and the
Proposal and Contract.
Project Plan Sheets 3,4,5,6,7,8, 10, 11, 12, 13, 15, 16,20,21,27,31,39,42,43,51,52,53,74,76,77,79,93,97,98,
105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 141, 142, 146, 152, 160, 163, 164, 174,248,249,250,251,252,
253, 254, 255, 256 and 259 are revised. Half-sized copies of the revised sheets are attached for substitution for the like-
numbered sheets.
Project Plan Sheets 31A,70A,86A and 160A are added. Half-sized copies of the added sheets are attached for addition
to the project plans.
In the Special Provisions,Section 10-1.01,"ORDER OF WORK,"the second to the last paragraph is revised as follows:
"Surcharge of the northbound, southbound,median of Route 101, southbound on ramp and proposed
northbound on ramp as shown on the plans for period of not less than 90 days."
In the Proposal and Contract,the Engineer's Estimate Items 14, 18,46,54,59,67,83,84,85,86,91,99, 124, 126, 128,
130, 132, 137,and 139 are revised as attached.
Addendum No.2
Page 2
July 31,2007
05-SLO-41,101-25.5/25.9,73.0/73.5
05-402804
To Proposal and Contract book holders:
Replace pages 3,5,6,7 and 9 of the Engineer's Estimate in the Proposal with the attached revised pages 3,
5,6,7 and 9 of the Engineer's Estimate. The revised Engineer's Estimate is to be used in the bid.
Inquiries or questions in regard to this addendum must be communicated as a bidder inquiry and must be
made as noted in the NOTICE TO CONTRACTORS section of the Notice to Contractors and Special
Provisions.
Indicate receipt of this addendum by filling in the number of this addendum in the space provided on the
signature page of the proposal-
Submit bids in the Proposal and Contract book you now possess. Holders who have already mailed their
book will be contacted to arrange for the return of their book.
Inform subcontractors and suppliers as necessary.
This office is sending this addendum by GSO overnight mail to Proposal and Contract book holders to ensure that each
receives it A copy of this addendum is available for the contractor's use on the Internet Site:
http://www.dot.ea.gov/hq/esc/oe/weeMy_ads/addendum_page.html
If you are not a Proposal and Contract book holder,but request a book to bid on this project,you must comply with the
requirements of this letter before submitting your bid.
Sincerely,
ORIGINAL SIGNED BY
REBECCA D.HARNAGEL,Chief
Office of Plans,Specifications&Estimates
Division of Engineering Services-Office Engineer
Attachments
-- - ;�llll(IIIIE�# II►IIiII� � A�T��m�T ��
IIIIi�l�1l( (Iflli
CI Of SAI IUI S 0131 f ip -0
19 Palm 9trm"— O Luis MW.G4 50401
September 8, 2007
Papich Construction
Alin. Jason Papier
P.O. Box 2210
Pismo Beach, CA 93448
Strb#ect Law Osos Valley Road Street Rehabllhation Project,Spec No. 9050
Mr..Papich
As O may, September 6,20071 the City of San Luis Obispo has awarded the Las Osos
Valley Road Street Reirabifitatlorr project,Spe on No. 9o546 to R. Burke Corporation.
On August 16, 2007 the Las Osos valley Load Street Rehabilita4ion Project proposal fours
were moditd via addendum. The modito proposal form included a line Itern for all
essockW c csb for CORIPWO with a Calttarrs Encroachment Permit included In the
addendum. Papich Construction Company did not use the modified contract proposal form
for their bid. As a nesu9, the necessary Inibrmation, required by the August 16 Addendum,
was not included. Por this reason,the CRY has made the del erminatrcn that the bid from
Papich Con ft Is non-ria and has awarded to the second low bidder.
If Papich Construcflon wishes to PurMUO tltts n 211 further, plearse review Chapter 1.20,
"Appeals Procedure"of the CRY of San Luis Obispo Municipal Code. Speclikally note the
time frame for submitting your appeal In Beckton'l.20.030. The Municipal Code is m enable
on the Ccify's web slie at yfi ffA ftorn on the City Cletus page.
if you have any questions Or addldatraf aartcems please contact Manuel Quz nan at(806'
781-7423. We hope to have the 013130f"to work with you on a flrburs project.
Sincerely, .
SAIRBARA LYNCH
CITY EAi l
Manuel Guzman
Engineer 7
4a
'LEASE FAX BACK
LOS OSOS VAU."ROAD STWwU IMHMILtTAnON
spec icatioa No, 90564
Attached is ft corftd award deb n *manor for the above project. Please sfgn, dam, and
return upon receipt Our Fax number Is MS)751-75$7 or you my ecru to
Abet Odgmeft
I a*vMedge that I have received the donna award delen inaWn for the Los Osas Valley
Road Stoat I btlifattia{%Simon No 90564. T?is Fax is a total of 2 pages(Including
this page).
CdNsTxaTiwJ
Company Wme(Please Print)
`SIGNATURE p
Thank You tar your pmmpt sftftn in ft mar.
Patrnela King
PubroWorks Dsp' ftartt
819 Patin Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 9340'i
805T181.7014 phot
805/781 7537 fwc
The Cft of ft Lab Obism La committed to blab P tha di*i®d in all o6ie BerviM FqPM orad ao"a
Tete�GEtrtan. DO%QQ far ile.W(SM 7817$10.
Page 1 of 1
Brian Newsom
cArn6AT *.5
From: Jason Papich [Jason@papichconstruction.com]
Sent: Friday, September 07, 2007 3:20 PM
To: brian@papichconstruction.cam
Subject: FW: Los Osos Valley Road Rehabilitation Project, Spec. No. 90546
Jason Papich-President
Papich Construction Co, Inc
Phone#805-473-3016
Fax#805-481-5966
Cell#805-431-8952
jason(apaoichconstructon.com
www.papichconstrucfion.com
From: Guzman, Manuel [mailto:mguzman@slocity.org]
Sent: Thursday, August 23, 2007 3:13 PM
To:jason@papichconstructibn.com
Subject: Los Osos Valley Road Rehabilitation Project, Spec. No. 90546
Jason Papich,
After opening bids for the Los Osos Valley Road St. Rehabilitation Project, Spec. No. 90546 your company (Papich Construction
Company, Inc.)was the lowest bidder. However, after reviewing the bid sheets submitted by your company, I see that no value was
enter for bid item number 54. Bid item 54 was added as a consequence of addendum no. 2. and it requires the Contractor to
comply with Caltrans Encroachment Permit.The City will proceed with this contract only if you acknowledge that your bid submittal
for item 54 has a value of zero dollars. If you have question please contact Manny at 805-781-7423.
9/7/2007
A WA MEAT 4
R. BURKE CORPORA'IT N
865 CeP OUG WAY—P.O. Box 957
Sete Lvis OsisPO, CA 93406-0957
PnoNE (805) 543-8568 FAX(805) .543-2521
LICENSE No.264193
August 24,2007 AN aQ°AL orpomvNmr
COd �
AUG 2 4
9UBTMC N}pRXS OI PRRT �T
Ms.Barbara Lynch,City Engineer
City of San Luis Obispo
Public Works Administration Office
919 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Re: Los Osos Valley Road Street Rehabilitation
Specification No.90546
Dear Ms.Lynch:
We are in receipt of your Final Bid Results Posted for the above referenced project via FAX this
morning. Specifically noted in these bid results are the comments made by the City about the
apparent low bidder,Papich Construction,which states"tossing Bid Item No.54 and some math
errors in bid items#14,24 and 27."
It is also noted that Addendum No. 1, dated August 16, 2007, clearly includes a `revised bid
sheet"and"Bidders are to use the revised bid sheet included with this addendum in submitting a
bid." It was also noted during the bid opening that the bid submitted by Papich Construction was
not submitted on the bid sheets included in Addendum No. 1. °
Also noted is Bid Submittal Form b, List of Subcontractors,which states "the Bidder is required
to furnish the following information.for each subcontractor performing more than '/z percent_
(0.5%)of the total base bid. Papich Constriction did not list a subcontractor to perform bid item
8, Microsurfacing. All three other General Contractors that bid the project all listed a '
subcontractor for this work and was at least 25%of their bids. It is our understanding that Papich
Construction does not have the equipment, or personnel with the experience and expertise to i
perform this work in accordance with the project specifications..
Clearly, Papich Constructions did not follow the instructions included in Addendum No. 1 and
may not have listedd-a subcontractor, pursuant to.Section 4100 of the Public Contract Code or in i
accordance with Section 8-1.01 "Subcontracting" and Section 2-1.054, "Required Listing of
.Proposed Subcontractors" of the Standard Specifications. Therefore, we believe the City of San
Luis Obispo should declare the bid received by Papich Construction "Non-Responsive" and i
award the contract to the next lowest bidder that was responsive to the City's Notice to Bidders
and Project Specifications.
s
1
l
i
r
a
t
City of San Luis Obispo
Los Osos Valley Road Street Rehabilitation
Page two of two
If you have any questions or comments,please'feel free to call me.
Sincerely,
R.Burke Corporation
Bry N.Victor,PE
Projkj Manager
RWF'.'vdbAQ=e WM.0VRsmP=wZdw
8
i
i
1
yMt
1
}
n rage i of i
Man Newsom
=rom: Hom,Matt[mhom@sloc ity.org]
lent: Tuesday,August 28,200710:30 AM
ro: brian@papichconstruction.com
^.c: Guzman,Manuel
Subject;. protest letter
4ttachments: Bid Protestpdf
an,
ached is the R. Burke's letter of protest.
anks,
Ott Hom
.y of San Luis Obispo
9 Palm Street
,n Luis Obispo, CA 93401
-ice (805)781-7108'
x (805)781-7198
nail: mhom slocity.oro
,/28/2007
l 1 A&I 016a -4+ -7
PAPICCONSTRUC
C IL-ENGDMMUNG COMMACTOR
CaL UL#761036
.P.®. BOX 2210 a Pilaeaa Beau, CA 9340
M)S)473-3016 Office (g)481-5966 Fax
August 31, 2007
Ms. Barbara Lynch, City Engineer
City of San Luis Obispo
Public Works Administration Office
919 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, Ca 93401
RE: Los Osos Valley Road Rehabilitation Project
Papich Construction would like to take this opportunity to point out a few issues in
the protesting party( R, Burke Construction ) bid protest to the district
The city posted the addendum to the project on the
d website.
Papich Construction has visited the website multiple times priorto ects the�bid of the
project On the day of the original bid the site was not acxes ort .when d of th
Construction attempted to log ori. Again, on the day of the
Construction attempted to access the site and was unsuccessful,postponed bid, Papich
the lack of
access to the site on the day of the bid Papich Constructialternative ut
to tum in the bid on the original bid forms.
Papich Construction did however review the addendum on the website prior to bid.
We did not download it because we thought that the qty would be sending a copy
of the addendum via mail and/or fax as all public contracts that we bid do. On
the day of the bid when we realized that the addendums were not coming to us as
to download them and were
not successful. With that said, Papich Construction had no other alternative but to
submit on the bid farms provided with the contract documents
The mathematical errors in the units and the missing bid item are only a result of
the lack of having the new spreadsheet. Papich Construction placed all
appropriate costs for the missing bid item#54 in Bid Item#1 to give the city a
responsive bid for the project,
Additionally, the protest letter from R. Burke stated that we were required to list a
subcontractor for bid item#8. Papich Construction does not have to list a
subcontractor for that item if the scope of work is less than %of 1 percent as R
Burke clearly stated in their letter. Papich Construction is not planning on using a
subcontractor in excess of%of 1 percent. Papich Construction negotiated with a
micro surfacing company prior to bid time about subcontracting for labor only in
the placement of bid item#8. Papich Construction plans on purchasing all
material and renting the Proper equipment for placing the micro surfacing. This
with the use of a subcontractors labor that places these products daily will insure
the city gets a quality product for the most competitive price possible. Papich
Constructions use of these methods in achieving the application of the same
product that the unsucoessful bidder's were using results in the ultimate lowest
cost to the city. R Burke is falsely claiming that Papich Construction is non-
responsive when in fact they are just upset at not being the apparent low bidder
due to their lack offinding a more efficient and cost effective means of delivering
the city the same product
In addendum#1 on the second page, second paragraph it states " Contractors are
required to base their bid on the plans, specifications and any issued addenda. To
do otherwise shall be at the Contractor's own risk' Papich Construction did just
as statedin the addendum#1. We bid the project per all plans, specifications, and
addendums. We submitted a responsive bid for the complete project. We did not
however submit it on the addendum bid schedule due to reasons outside our
control, and were not sent the addendums via a means that insured the bidders
got the information. Perhaps, when.the city had difficulty with the website the first
day the project was to bid, they should have deemed the website as an additional
means to get the addendum and sent them in a method that insured the
contractors would receive them. With that said Papich Construction has the right
to proceed at our own risk as stated in the addendum and proceed with the prices
as submitted on the original bid sheet.
The city stated that they look at case law when determining the award of a
contract to a bidder. Please review the case of Ghilotti Co Vation Co v City of
Richmond (1996) 45 Cal-APP 0 897. In that case rt states that Calrfomia courts
will only set aside a bid if the alleged irregularity "is capable of facilitating
corruption, or extravagance, or likely to affect the amount of bids or the response
of potential bidders.' With none of the mentioned conditions present in Papich
Constructions bid, the city can follow public policy underlying competitive bidding
which allows for public entities to deal with issues*in a°sensible, practical way'
Id citing Domar Etetric In v. City of!os AngLes (1994) 9 Cal.App 4h 161, 173.
(citing 10 McQuillan, Municipal Corporations (To rev.ed. 1990) 29.29 p. 375).
CaL tic.#767055
P.O. Box 2210 a Pisano Bea* CA 93448
(805)4733016 Office (805)481-5966 Fax
.Page 2
With the above stated, Papich Construction has a complete and responsive bid. It
is not a non responsive bid, nor did it give an unfair advantage to Papich
Construction. Papich Construction requests the city to award the contract to the
apparent low bidder°Papich Constructiorf for the submitting a competitive
complete bid to the above reference project In the event the city decides to
consider Papich Constructions proposal as non-responsive, Papich Construction
reserves the right to consult our legal council in this matter. In the interest of time
and successful award to the apparent low bidder legal counsel has not yet been
consulted in this matter.
We look forward to completing a successful project with the city. Feel free to
contact us if you would like a list of references to the quality and timeliness of work
Papich Construction has completed to date. If you have any questions or
concerns please call me at(805)473.3016 or mobile at (805) 431-2683.
Thank You,
Brian Newsom
Papich Construction Co. Inc.
Cc: Jason Papich
Car.Lie.#767M
P.O. Box 2210 •.gismo Beach, CA 83448
(805)473-3016 Office (W 481-5966 Fax
Page 3
901 -/ )7 MON 23: 15 7199 A 2,' 2
PAPICH CONSTRUCTION
GENERAL,ENGINEERING CONi'RAC:L'OR
CaL Lia#767M
P.O. Box 2210 • Pismo Reach, CA 93440
(805)473.3016 Office (805)481-5966 Fax
September 7, 2007
Ms. Barbara Lynch, City Engineer
City of San Luis Obispo
Public Works Administration Office
919 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, Ca 93401
RE: Los Osos Valley Road Rehabilitation Project
Papich Construction is in receipt of the letter dated September 6, 2007 in which
the city determined to award the contract to the second lowest bidder. The letter
states that the addendum information was not induced In the bid when in fact both
the addendums were acknowledged in the bid. to addition the city notified Papich
Construction that the bid item#54 was missing on the bid sheet and the if a zero
amount was the valve for this item, the city would proceed with the contract.
(Please see attached e-mail)
Papich Construction is placing the city on notice that we are pursuing an appeal to
the determination of the department in the award the above referenced project.
Papich Construction will be submitting the appeal within the time frame specified In
the city municipal code.
If you have any questions or concerns please call me at (805)473-3016 or mobile
at (805) 431-2683.
Thank You,
Brian Newsom
Papich Construction Co. Inc.
Cc: Jason Papich
9/N/'07 MON 23 :15 1 �`,�A7193 S li 2
PAPICH
CONSTRUCTION INC.
GENERAL ENGINEERING CONTRACTOR
CAL. LIC. #767056
P.O. SOX 2210, PISMO BEACH, CA 03446
(605) 477-7016 OFFICE . (606) 461.0966 FAX
FACSIMILE TRANSMITTAL. SHEBT
ID: RUN.
Public Works Dinxtor Bran Newsom
COUTANY: UATK:
San Luis Obispo County 9/10/07
Department of Pubhc Workb
PAX MUM: '1WI'AL AU.Ur I•AGEN INCCAI IWE;COVrR:
805-781-7198 2
rT10Nn N11MM S�NUISHt REPV.RHYI;r VUMtlrR
805-781-7423
R4. Y+71IR UPURLNU NUMBER
Notice of Apjv� —Los Osos
Vafley Road Rehabilitation Project
❑Imc xwr ❑ FOR RtVIeW ❑PLL•'ASL GOMWINT ❑ri.r.AKI:RL11LY ❑PLLA51:Rr.Ar,
Public Works Direcmr,
Attached is nutihcation that Papich Construction is appealing the decision w award the
above referenced contract ro the 2nd lowest bidder.
'IbAnk you,
Bt+An Newsom
MEF I GENDA_
DATE -6'7'ITEM # .
C�1 C�,:� MEMORpIV1�UM
lCity of San Luis Obispo
September 14, 2007
TO: Mayor Romero & Members of the City Council
FROM: Audrey Hooper, City Clerk
VIA: Ken Hampian, CAO
SUBJECT: Supplemental Agenda Item B4—Appeal of Award for Los Osos Valley Road
Rehabilitation Project- Specification No. 90546
The Staff Report for the subject supplemental Agenda item will not be available until Monday,
September 17, 2007. It will be distributed under separate cover.
GA301-03 AGENDAS=?AgendakW11-09 Late Agerda Item 64.doc
Page 1 of 1
Council,SloCity
From: jhnichols Uhnichols@sbcglobal.net] Sent: Tue 9/18/2007 8:15 PM
To: Council,SloCity
Cc:
Subject: City of SLO building heights
Attachments: RECEIVED
Dear city council members and especially Allen Settle, SEP 19
2007
I read with great interest an article in today's Tribune regarding the
new building height ordinance that will probably be voted on at SLO CITY CLERK
tonight's city council meeting. Allen Settle has indicated that he
will vote in favor of the new height ordinance even though he has C. '
concerns and thinks it is unnecessary. Cf9'd
I have already written expressing the various reasons that I believe C�D
this new ordinance is a bad idea. Your own Planning Commission DW�L
presented a plan that you dissected and destroyed. Numerous articles Etin
and letters have appeared arguing against this new ordinance. Everyone
I have spoken with in regard to this new ordinance thinks it is very
flawed. In spite of this Andrew Carter, Paul Brown and Dave Romero are
in favor. Certainly it is no surprise that Paul Brown and Dave Romero
are in favor and Andrew Carter's view in this instance is just
disappointment. The view that is astounding is that of Allen Settle.
We the citizens of San Luis Obispo elect members of the city council to
represent us. They are supposed to be leaders. They are supposed to
listen and think and carefully consider every vote. They are supposed to
have conviction and believe in what they are doing and believe that they
are doing the best by their constituents.
Allen Settle, this is the worst reason for a vote that I can think of.
According to the Tribune article you will vote for the ordinance because
"...passage is inevitable once Romero returns." So you have decided to
vote for the ordinance because you think it will pass regardless of your
vote. That tells me that you do not deserve to be in office. You serve
no function. You do not represent anyone, because you vote according to
any other set of 3 votes on the council. You should be ashamed of
yourself.
Joe Nichols
San Luis Obispo
https://mail.slocity.org/exchange/slocitycounci UInbox/City%20of%20SLO,lo2Obuilding%20height... 9/19/2007
Paye l of f
Council, SloCity
From: Susan Ellenbogen [pelican@onepost.net] Sent: Tue 9/18/2007 2:37 PM4CQ740(
To: Council,SloCity ff
Cc:
Subject: To Allen Settle
Attachments:
Dear Councilman Settle,
As a resident of downtown San Luis Obispo,and as an attorney.I urge you to reconsider your stated position that you will vote tonight in favor of the
ordinance allowing downtown buildings to be built up to 60 feet or,in some circumstances.75 feet. I understand you voted against this proposed
ordinance back in March 2006 because it was"too complicated." If anything,the proposed ordinance is now even more complicated than it was back
then.
If the ordinance is passed.we will all be living with its consequences for the rest of our lives,as will our children,and our children's children.
Each new tall building erected,each historical building demolished,each view of the hills eradicated,Will change our downtown irrevocably. Each
new tall building represents a choice point,a decision for the future,and each new tall building should be approved or denied based on
its own merits. I urge you to vote against any blanket permission allowing new tall buildings as a right.
I urge you to carefully consider your vote on this matter,and hope that you will vote against the proposed ordinance this evening. Thank you for your
consideration of this position,which 1 believe represen s the opinion of many,if not a majority,of,your constituents.
Sincerely,
Susan Ellenbogen
Attorney at Law
1312 Carmel St.+r202
San Luis Obispo,CA 93401
805-594-1694
https://mail.slocity.org/exchange/slocitycouncii/Inbox/To%2OAllen%2OSettle.EML?Cmd=open 9/18/2007
ID 7
Local
Posted on Sun, Sep. 16, 2007
County Roundup
San Luis Obispo
Disputes over airtime at the Channel 2 public-access television station may be
nearing resolution after mediation.
The City Council advised the station's board and current and former producers to go to
mediation to resolve disputes in July, after some council members expressed concern
that some producers were being excluded from having shows.
The council also refused to fund $11,000 in broadcast equipment requested by the
station until the situation is resolved.
Some points of agreement reached in the mediation led by Creative Mediation of San
Luis Obispo include a return to the 2005 bylaws, regular meetings, a commitment to
openness, and third-party supervision of elections.
A provision was struck down that forbade producers or their guests from criticizing the
station on the air.
—Sally Connell
- News editors: Sara Hamilto
mustangdailynews@g
MusrantG DmLy
www mmtangda y net NEWS
-
Public2 Ezplosio'
access Channel ; Miff
• 1► this would
reaches mediation pen If in Russia.debatehe wouldn't have re
Jesse Over In a July 35 New Times opinion piece, Matta ex-
level of care," he tole
plained that"over the put year,a series of new shows News.
MUSTANG DAILY After the explo:
began to appear on Channel 2, nam of which were
San Luis Obispo City Council members voted 5-0 either hosted or co-hosted by longtime producers Ron News reported tha
on July 3 to cut the amount of money requested for and Leslie Bearce,and filmed or edited by their children. County Medical C
broadcasting equipment by the SLOCOPA public-ac- Neither Ron nor Leslie were listed as the producer on tial said two people
cess television sarion to $4,000.The station had asked the paperwork,but it was clearly their footage.Techni- scene and one later
for$15,418. tally,rhe Bearce family had seven shows between them, hospital after surgery
The council members also requested that the Chan- but at one time, they were estimated as appearing in Of the three in.
nel 2 public access board members attend mediation over 20 programs:' were in critical con
with minority producers to rewrite bylaws to guarantee Black television producer Patrick Germany has used one was in serious cc
more public access. the public access channel for years.He has invited and The explosion to,
The issue came to a head when minority produc- aired many minority Cues[a College and Cal Poly stu- a Scaled Composites
ers, in conjunction with the Bearce family, Ron and dents and wants this channel to remain true to its orig- the Mojave Air and S
Leslie, 52,and Christina, 20,explained to the council inal bylaws that hold these minority-type shows as a Scaled Composi
that diversity shows became harder to air bemuse prior- priority. . ers Todd Ivens, 33, 1
ity spots,designed to promote diversity and culture for "I brought student mover and shakers on to the well,38,and Glen M:
viewers,were being filled with lower priority religious channel,"Germany said."These guys now are just try- killed in the explosic
permsing to make quick buck with all their religious and ad- It occurred as they
"They've been saying on these shows that everybody vertising shows.I can understand that,but it's not right. workers were conduc
but them follows Sian if people do not follow their Public access was supposed to be a means to get the tine cold-flow res[ t
religious beliefi:'Ron Bearce said."We don't object to public word out' diner stem for Spa
them saying this,but they say it for themselves — its Mata responded to Germany's accusations in her system p
not diversified And they think banning minorities on New Times opinion piece by explaining that"the most spacecraft.
public access will solve the minority problem" outrageous charge against SLOCOPA is racism.This Scaled Composu
The board members are calling these minority pro- claim is a complete fabrication. For example: Patrick aerospace developme
ducers "ghost producers"The Bearce family has put Germany,recent board candidate and Bearce supporter, ny founded 25 years.
nearly 1,000 people on local television,many of these alleges that he was the victim of a conspiracy to remove Rutan, the aerospac
shows created by rninonry producers,so by using the minority producers from the channel.Germany has two who designed the fh
"ghost producer" label, the SLOCOPA boatel mem- shows currently airing on Channel 2, so he benefits fly non-stop around
bers can now pull minority programs by claiming these from an organization that he routinely attacks." without refueling.
shows were created by the Beattie family,and not by A suggested remedy here is the 10-year contract Rutan graduated
minority producers. public access has with Charter Communication.In the Poly, San Luis Obisp
"What everyone is caught up in now r is Use ac- contract.Charter is bound to provide five public access and received the
cusations that minority shows are what they call'ghost channels,when there is now only one —channel two, Medal of Excellenct
producers:fake people who my family was somehow Ron Bearce said. Poly President Warre
using for our own television time,"Ron Bearcesaid. The first City Council-appointed mediation meet- 2005
hours"We have hos of tapes to prove that false,as well ing between SLOCOPA board members and the Bearc- CNN reported r
as all those named'ghost producers'wanting to clear my es took place July 30.Though what went on during the said the blast occurrt
family's good name and expose what has happened" two-and-a-half-hour meeting is deemed confidential test involving nitrous
The board has implemented some new policies and Ron Bearce said in a July 31 New Times article:"It was flowing through
procedures and are enforcing them.said newly elected exhausting but worthwhile.It was the first time produc- was own Brow i3
SLOCOPA board member Monique Mata.The board ers and i were atilt to sit down with these board mem- I tors.
passed a new rule limiting an organization, which in- bers without being interrupted'
cludes a Earn}$to only two shows;whereas the old rule "Public access should be about diversity and it seems
said each individual is allowed two shows. they should be encouraging diversity:' City Council
According to Mata, the Bearce family had seven member Paul Brown said."But it seems like (the new
shows so "they were obviously affected and upset by SLOCOPA board)limits their agenda and they person-
the des:• ally want to promote their views"
Complete the grid so
contains every digit h
• race was held by a different director of festival areas including a Farm-
C'.ritPr>f>t> m a r" !%Anht i said. "There ers Market Hub Expo. a Thrive 9 4
� c - n
CL
0
< �m
(D
00
3 =%
m Cl) 0
v �iO ' CL
CD
rmqL
0
o a`
n 3 Tj O< r3r, C) Srr -=-;i-
9
s
r'h :3
rt ° 0 00C: 0 -0
=r � 0 � cr
° (D :3 c crn —° 0
� Orn �. � C70 0
® o
(D —h r) 0 , ° �
(D -0 ° L ° n _ 00
® �- -1C
Ul
C ° 0 ° � rD
cn � � � 0 :3 < rt
r-pCL 0r-r —• 0
rt a
� rtcr =r
■ � < � `<
rD (DW �
r r rt [D
o � �
CU0
rt F,=4
rt
(D 0
C ri. O CD 0
0 0 3 n
o
n3c � �
0OrD � �
0 O
cD C Ul
C3
n r
rmr
® U)
< D
e (DCD m�
aU) 0CLC
(D 0
0 0 FL w
erwAr
07
Cfl CD rt
r ommCc rt
S Lo
Mi
0
(D
H rt
oz o
oar 3
■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
m (f) m0ocnt0 -03r— G) 0
�
O, O� � O � rt. �- � a 'aG
0 3 3 0 0 0 00 O
`G O O (D O � (D. w Ln 3 O
C
D• (OD N
go E O rt
= O O
O
C
o � o � -� � � � � _ m
, O O
w3 rr
� ma' r�u m � oQfl-
Ort =3 m 3
3 (D 0
rt
fl. � CD
C
[D
r•r N
fD
� X. 3 O ® ( SON
,< .' `nrt ® :3rrna (co ,� ' �
lam• � O 0 0 Ln Ul' rt
Q-aa' � �' -° 00
(n a FD.%< 0 C)
—. cn
(D �° � � � r-r -O.
n• lO �D O0 rr O 3
O 0 O to O
rt
-•
rt
OnfD O � � O
-.
l �r-F m /
O rt � —
_ rr
rt [D (D Ln. < rn�.
=37 —• O fD to
r�-rO � rt0 O
■ (n° �- C
cro
■
(D
rn-r r-r CD cn Q � CD V') CD
O cn 0 3 'o
O O (D m O
M" r rr r :3O 'ICD rt h rtf-r CD
M O �' O O -1 � Ort�
,C rt Cl. rt CD � O rt
O � n
rt
�, C<D � Lj (D ro � O � D
n ('� O n
O O � O 3 CD
rt -� n
�. CD n, J O 41% rt
O O fD —• C
' m ■
^ s ®'
cr V/ ` O
o-
O o �, O
Cc cn
00
rt
*< OOO °- � �. �
En' =3
cn r-r' — -a
(n — � O O r�-r• Vhf
ru —• C� cD
r-r Q
NW (D
% <(p r•r o
�•
mo_.
I rt = O m
o
n M r.r CL
�
(D rt O O O
3 5 _ � — -®
■ [crtO D O �! O
CO
Cn CC Q
o ��
-0 > 3w LO 0w =rn
rtf-r0 � (A0) �
� � = OfD (n =3
�° rt r-t r"r7oCD rt
=3 to (D 0) -0 n0.
� � ® w �. � <�. � �
� N � c
(• nom 0 � ® � �• ( Lonr
® FFM
3pOQ � mm
(OIC � �U:) tQ• (in (! 0 �
r* Q m r* 0
c 3 rt -•
�
�. (D� = O �p ;TfD
CD• � (n - � (D
CD (D � -1 <
V) _. rt
� n
. ■
70 ou Mo 03
2 �, O � O
� cnc rq
Q5
Ci C
ru0 � 0 `� �' �
r o (D
=$ -1 ,� rto c� cn
O rt O O �• 3 rDD
cro -n
n O_ � �. m m
C: < H o rn 00
_.
® nom � 70 � � �
� C:
C:
�.
:3 =3 =)7
rt rL 0 C: �
rt 07 •
�. _.
• Cr
< (D :3 • � �
O D ® n- oma
Cc c vi O
o cD
D �
rn
D
Z
r
c!� O
� � rn ;a O
� = O
O
= O
m