Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04/01/2008, C10 - TRAFFIC SIGNAL MODIFICATION AT MARSH & OSOS, SPECIFICATION NO. 90792-CONSTRUCTION BID RESULTS council MmwDW 4/01/2008 ac Enda REpoat lu.H.6� C CITY OF SAN LUI S OBISPO FROM: Jay D. Walter, Director of Public Works Prepared By- Jake Hudson, Engineer III- Traffic SUBJECT: TRAFFIC SIGNAL MODIFICATION AT MARSH& OSOS, SPECIFICATION NO. 90792—CONSTRUCTION BID RESULTS CAO RECOMMENDATION 1. Reject all construction bids received on March 13, 2008 regarding the Marsh & Osos traffic signal modification project; and 2. Authorize the CAO to approve a revised bid package which does not include fluted signal poles, to reduce costs and solicit new bids from contractors; and to award the contract if bids are within the engineer's estimate of$170,000. 3. Direct staff to use standard signal equipment; powder coated dark forest green, for all new signal installations and modifications within the downtown. DISCUSSION Rejection of Bids At its February 12`x, 2008 meeting, the City Council authorized the CAO to advertise plans and specifications for the modification of a traffic signal at Marsh & Osos Street, Specification 90792. The Council also authorized the City Administrative Officer to award the construction contract if the lowest responsible bid was within the engineer's estimate. The engineer's estimate for the project was $170,000. In addition to the base bid for the project an alternate was added to comply with the 1982 Downtown Improvement Manual for decorative fluted poles, for which there was no engineer's estimate. One bid was received for the project and was opened on Thursday, March 13`i', 2008. The base bid was $209,000 and the alternate bid was $281,548 received from Lee Wilson Electric of Arroyo Grande, California. This base bid was substantially above the engineer's estimate ($170,000) or 19% above the expected cost of the project. The bid alternate was also substantially above the total project budget of $190,000, and would need additional funding if awarded. Staff has investigated reasons why such a discrepancy exists between the engineer's construction cost estimate and the actual bid that was received for the project. Preliminary investigations have revealed that a number of factors might have lead to the higher than expected bid results, most significantly the difficultly to procure custom fluted poles may have precluded several contractors from submitting bids and therefore created an non competitive bidding environment. However, with only one bid received, it is difficult to determine if material costs alone — or individual contractor prices—is a major factor in the project cost overage. Traffic Signal Modification Marsh & Osos,Specification No.90792 Page 2 In order to check this issue, two informal cost verificatiohs were conducted. The first verification was a comparison with the signal modification at Marsh & Santa Rosa, Specification 90677. These two projects had similar material and labor estimates however the signal at Marsh and Santa Rosa signal modification received three competing bids and was awarded to Lee Wilson Elec. in the amount of$146,400, 306/o less than Lee Wilson Elec.'s bid for Marsh & Osos signal modification. The second verification was a review with an independent traffic signal contractor to determine if the engineer's estimate was off base: Their determination was that the engineer's estimate was appropriate for the overall project. Staff has also independently verified that the cost of custom fluted poles would increase the total project cost by approximately 50% or an additional $80,000 to $90,000. Because of the extremely high cost of the bid and bid alternate, awarding the project is not recommended at this time. Staff is recommending that all bids for the project be rejected and that the project be revised, re-bid, and advertised with additional emphasis on contractors from outside the area and without custom fluted poles. The bid package will be revised to determine if there are any City construction requirements that may be discouraging contractors from bidding on the work and remove the custom fluted poles from the project. This strategy will hopefully allow contractors who were not able to provide custom fluted poles to submit competitive bids and bring overall costs within the project budget. As part of the rebid for the project, staff will also actively solicit bids from signal contractors outside the area to encourage submission of more than one bid. If the project bids come in higher than budget during the second advertisement, staff will return to Council with budget revision recommendations for completion of the project. 1982 Downtown Improvement Manual & Decorative Fluted Poles At its November 8t', 1982 meeting, the City Council approved the public sector recommendations of the Downtown Improvement Manual, produced by Charles Hall Page & Associates. Section III of this manual, "Public Area Improvements", established design recommendations for pedestrian level lighting within the downtown. Although, the overall purpose of the recommendations was to establish more aesthetic pedestrian level lighting within the downtown, traffic signals were included under those recommendations. The manual established the following three primary design guidelines for traffic signals within the downtown; 1) Signal controller cabinets should be attached to the top of the pole by a metal support, 2) Signal mast. arms should not be used, and 3) Fluted decorative poles similar to pedestrian level lighting should be used. The first recommendation, attaching controller cabinets to the top of poles, was not physically possible due to the structural constraints of the poles and has thus not been implemented since the manual's adoption. The second recommendation, signal mast arms should not be used, was intended to be mitigated by the addition of bulbouts at the intersections, allowing placement of the signal standards closer to the traffic lanes. This work has not occurred, and consequently, mast arms must be utilized to ensure compliance with federal requirements pertaining to traffic signals, and thus has not been implemented since the manual's adoption. Cl C) Traffic Signal Modification Marsh&Osos, Specification No. 90792 Page 3. The third recommendation, utilizing fluted decorative poles, had been implemented at several intersections immediately following the adoption of the manual. However, use of these poles has recently become cost prohibitive with prices ranging from $80,000 to $90,000 more than standard poles. On other recent safety related signalprojects staff has used standard signal equipment; powder coated dark forest green in lieu of custom fluted poles, where standard powder coated equipment is nearly as aesthetically effective at a fraction of the cost. Therefore staff is recommending that Council direct the use of standard equipment; powder coated dark forest green for all future signal installations and modifications in the downtown. FISCAL IMPACT As part of the 2006 Traffic Safety Report, the Council approved $190,000 for use on this project. Rejecting all bids and re-advertising the project should result in new bids that are within the project budget. Project Budget Engineer's Estimate: $170,000 Construction Allocation: $170,000 10%Contingencies: $17,000 Project Total: $187,000 Miscellaneous $1000 (PGE Permitting,Printing etc.): Total Cost: $190,000 Funds Available: $190,000 ALTERNATIVES 1. The Council may defer construction until a later date. However, staff anticipates construction costs will only continue to increase over time. This intersection has a significant recurring traffic collision pattern; if the project does not proceed it is highly likely that traffic collisions will continue to occur. 2. The Council may award the contract to Lee Wilson Elec without fluted decorative poles. However, staff does not recommend this option because it is staff's opinion that due to the non competitive bidding environment, the bid received is much higher than current market value for the labor and materials. Additional funding would also be necessary to move forward. 3. The Council may award the contract to Lee Wilson Elec with fluted decorative poles. However, staff does not recommend this option because it is staff s opinion that due to the non competitive bidding environment, the bid received is much higher than current market value for the labor and materials. In addition, to include decorative poles would increase the total project costs by 50% or $80k to $90k, while powder coating equipment dark forest green is nearly as aesthetically effective at a fraction of the cost. X0 .3 Traffic Signal Modification Marsh&Osos,Specification No.90792 Page 4 4. The Council may reject all bids and not direct staff to use standard signal equipment; powder coated dark forest green. However, staff does not recommend this option because bid results are not likely to change for the project. In addition, any further use of these decorative poles would increase project estimates by 50%, whereas powder coating equipment dark forest green is nearly as aesthetically effective at a fraction of the cost. ATTACHMENT 1. Bid Results 2. Pictures of Poles Types 1982 Downtown Improvement Manual and Staff Report are available for review in the Council reading file. Color copies of attachment 2 have been transmitted to the council members. g:lst reports• genda inutes\_ca620081transportation%90792 marsh&mos traffic signahcar 90792 rejection.doc Cio �� k § � { cm Ch co [ / C . a \ wa@ § ! = 0cr ( ) § f / CL CL ( g L) { § wa : } / � � } \ Q Q : a | §b \ ( cr ; ® ; w e / ® ] § � a . E SIt IL ` � ^ LU :D LU X ) kad 0 06 \ } § � � 2m © ! \ / ! § IL ` { �° § ; - 0 § Jm - { \ ! FO Lm - kk � ) \ ! . C) ( # $ : s o £ ! 2 ) ` ; ) � a �� -� ATTACHMENT 2 STANDARD POUNDER COATED POLE CUSTOM FLUTED POLE MORRO & UPHAM CHORRO`& HIGUERA ' r 0 . Sco'o c - a n•_ e p � � u I } j ear fo F 19 +h ^ r �� . : Y l ATTACHMENT 2 STANDARD POWDER COATED POLE CUSTOM FLUTED POLE BROAD & PACIFIC HIGUERA & MORRO L i p 1 tf .,,� °ter .•� i �z o+w4.y - w 3{ /�. •J �+". c v .. �'ap;$'.Y.: _ •,, Q,•,,,• O -. ' ty ♦yy ^ h rK :.r J�•O , L; Y.n Sw .� .-..�; ��•»� .. ♦ < �' a a tet.. •� ,..�v /r/JY r C ✓ � R j o d y C i.. N 0