Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04/21/2009, C4 - PARK RESTROOM REPLACEMENT PROJECT - LAGUNA LAKE PARK RESTROOMS; SPECIFICATION NO. 90755A Council Aril 21 2009 j ac,Enaa RepoiA CITY OF SAN LUIS 0BI.SP0 FROM: Jay Walter, Public Works Direcw`_' lJ�� Prepared By: Bridget Fraser, Engineer III V SUBJECT: PARK RESTROOM REPLACEMENT PROJECT — LAGUNA LAKE PARK RESTROOMS; SPECIFICATION NO. 90755A RECOMMENDATION Award a contract to Carroll Building Company of San Luis Obispo in the amount of$423,390 for "Laguna Lake Park Restrooms, Specification No. 90755A" and authorize the Mayor to execute the agreement. DISCUSSION Background In December 2004,the City entered into an agreement with the Department of Justice to bring various City facilities into compliance with federal ADA regulations. The two Laguna Lake Park restrooms (Attachment 1) were among the various facilities targeted for compliance upgrades. Given the condition and age of these restrooms and the extent of the remodeling required to bring them into compliance, it was determined that these structures were not suitable for remodeling and should be replaced. Replacement of these restrooms was approved as part of the 2007-09 Financial Plan. In January 2008, BFGC Architects, one of the City's on=call architects, was hired to provide preliminary design, cost estimates and construction documents for the two restrooms. Part of their preliminary work included a comparison of costs for prefabricated restrooms versus a traditionally site-built structure. The outcome of that comparison indicated that prefabricated restrooms would cost approximately 10% less than a traditional site-built restroom. Due to the competitive local bidding climate over the last year and the fact that the prefabricated structure costs were not significantly less than the site-built costs, staff wanted to allow the opportunity for local contractors to competitively bid the project as a site-built structure. Staff directed the architect to proceed with a traditionally designed restroom based on typical sizes and architectural styles that could also be provided by a prefabricated restroom manufacturer. Council, at its January 6, 2009 meeting, approved the plans and specifications and authorized staff to solicit bids. After public testimony concerned with the anticipated high cost of the project, Council requested staff to return with the project for them to award, and provide cost comparisons from the bid results for the two types of structures. Park Restroom Replacement,Project—Laguna Lake Park Page 2 Originally, the construction documents specified a site built structure with an option to allow a contractor to use a structure from a prefabricated restroom supplier. The contractor would have chosen his preferred method for construction,most likely the lower cost method, and based his bid on that one method. Given the Council's desire to compare costs between site-built and prefabricated structures, staff issued an addendum which restructured the proposal sheet to require contractors to bid both the prefabricated structure as well as the site built structure. This provided staff with competitive bids for both scenarios. The Design Approval Process and Future Options After Council directed staff to return with the contract award for this project, Council Member Carter asked staff several added questions about this project, particularly related to the design review process that was utilized and the need for hiring an architect. Outlined in Attachment 3 is a fairly detailed description of how staff developed and reviewed the design strategy and why the outside services of an architect were used. If Council Members feel that staff opted for"too rich" a design, some direction would be useful in terms of how we might proceed with future restroom replacements. However, in providing such direction staff offers a caveat: If the Council prefers a more "spartan" look for park restrooms, then this could trigger the need to review the proposed design modifications with the ARC, rather than proceed with a Community Development Director determination. It has been our past experience that advisory body design review usually results in more design amenities and aesthetic considerations, and not less, when it comes to public buildings. Therefore, staff may need to return to Council at some point in the future to reconcile these competing interests. Prefabricated versus Site-built Bid Results. Bids were opened on March 19, 2009. The attached Bid Summary (Attachment 2) shows that eight bids were received, six of which were under the Engineers Estimate of$490,000. Seven of the eight bids were received from local area contractors. Seven of the eight bids provided a lower cost for the site-built project over the prefabricated project. Where the architect's preliminary estimates indicated that the prefabricated project costs would be 10% lower, they where, on average, 12% higher. Staff attributes this to the extremely competitive local bidding climate. The low bid was received from Carroll Building Company of San Luis Obispo. In its case, the site built bid was $423,390 versus $499,490 for the prefab bid. This represents a difference of 18%,or$76,100. Contract Award Staff recommends awarding a project to the low bidder, Carroll Building Company, based on the Site built bid of $423,390. Besides being lower in cost than the prefabricated restroom bid, it has the added benefit of keeping the work "local." As shown on the bid summary sheet, the low bidder has declared fifteen (15) subcontractors for the job. Ten (10) of these subcontractors (all local) are directly tied to construction of the site built restrooms. In comparison; the prefab alternative would result in approximately 70% of the project costs being directed to a manufacturer outside of California. 1 Park Restroom Replacement Project-Laguna Lake Park Page 3 Exterior Finish Alternatives The bid proposal included a deductive bid alternate to eliminate the rock veneer exterior and instead use a split-faced masonry block. This deductive alternate would reduce the over all costs by about $25,000. The rock veneer is one of the suggested finishes identified in the park's Master Plan and was selected by staff as a way to make the Laguna Lake restrooms more unique, as Laguna Lake Nature Park has a strong nature preservation element. The rock veneer was recommended by staff and approved by Planning Department staff and the Parks and Recreation Commission during the design review process. The use of split-faced block would also be acceptable. Although the split-faced block is somewhat typical in nature it would still comply with the Laguna Lake Master Plan recommendations and ultimately provide a durable structure. Staff recommends awarding a project including the rock veneer. These restrooms will be a visible facility at the park for many years to come. The veneer is not a significant cost when compared with the total cost of the work and will improve the general appearance of the restrooms. CONCURRENCES The Community Development Department has reviewed and approved this project as a minor/incidental project and has granted this project a Categorical Exemption in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The Parks and Recreation Commission reviewed and approved this project at its August 6, 2008 meeting. Federal National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) clearances have been obtained from the County Environmental coordinator who oversees the CDBG programs. FISCAL IMPACT The Park Restroom Replacements Project is identified in the 2007-09 Financial Plan on pages 3- 390 through 3-393 of Appendix B. Funding comes from a combination of General Funds, Community Development Block Grant allocations for the years 2005 and 2007 and a State Workforce Housing Reward Program grant. The following table represents the current available budget and construction phase costs for the two Laguna Lake Park restrooms. Park.Restroom Replacement Project—Laguna Lake Park Page 4 Current Available Budget: Total Project Account Balance $639,974 Less Santa Rosa Restroom Design Allowance -$35,000 Balance Available for Laguna Lake $604,974 Estimated Construction Phase Costs: Construction: Contruction Base Bid $423.390 Const.Contingencies(11%) $46,610 Total Construction Budget $470,000 Construction Administration&Construction Management: Constriction Administration/Architectural Services(5%) $21,000 Construction Management/Inspection Services(15%) $63,500 Special Inspection/Testing $5,000 CA/CM Contingences $10,000 Total Construcion Administraion/Management Budget $99,500 $569,500 Remaining Balance $35,474 As shown above, the current available budget of $604,974 is sufficient to cover the estimated construction phase costs of $569,500. It is recommended that the remaining balance stay in the project account to support costs associated with design and construction of the Santa Rosa Restroom project. This project will require construction related services from the design firm, a construction management firm and a material testing firms. All three of these services will be handled through existing contracts with on-call consultants. ALTERNATIVE Eliminate the Rock Veneer. The bid proposal included a deductive bid alternate to eliminate the rock veneer exterior and instead use a split-faced masonry block. Council could choose to award a contract including this deductive alternate which would reduce the over all costs by about$25,000. ATTACHMENTS 1. Vicinity Map 2. Bid Summary 3. Design Process Review Summary COUNCIL READING FILE Agreement—Carroll Building Company G:\Staff-Reports-Agendas-Minutes\—CAR\2009\CIP\90755A Laguna Lake Res[rooms\90755awardllrestroom.Doc c4-q 5 h� l OWN .. MAP •'.: o • PARK RESTROOM REPLACEMENT LAGUNA LAKE&SANTA ROSA ... Attachment 2 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO: BID Sumk_ .:Y SHEET Project: Laguna Lake Restrooms Spec.No.: 90755A Bid Opening: 19-Mar-09 Contact: Bridget Fraser Estimated followup dates: Award: Request for bolids/ins: Pre.job: ngineer's Estimate armil building Co California Coastal Development BID ITEM&DESCRIPTION an Luis Obispo,CA Santa Maria,CA UNIT TOTAL JINIT TOTAL UNIT TOTAL No. ITEM UNIT QUAN PRICE PRICE RICE PRICE PRICE PRICE Site-Built Bid 1 Location A-.Site-Built Restroom LS 1 240000.00 $240,000.00 $184,753.00 $184,753.00 156051.54 $156,051.54 2 Location A-.Site Work LS 1 70000.00 $70,000.00. $60,132.00 $60,132.0 82364.62 $82,364.62 _ 3 Location B- Site-Built Restroom LS I 150000.00 $150,000:0( $147,678.00 $147,678.0 125778.17 $125,778.17 4 Location B-Site Work LS 1 30000.00 $30,000.0 $30,827.00 $30,827.0 61139.62 $61,139.62 _. .Total Site-Built Base Bid _ . $490,000.0 $423,3900 $425,333.95 Site Built Building A-Eliminate rock Deduct 1 LS 10.00 $0.0 -12438.00 -$12,438.0 -10000.00 ($10,000.00 Site Built Building B-Eliminate rock educt v LS I 0.00 $0.0 -12438.00 _-$12,438.0 -10000.00 ($10,000.00) Total Site-Built Deductive Items $0.0 -$24,876 _. _-$20,000.0 Prefab Bid Al Location A-Prefabricated Res:rwm_. LS I _ 0.00 $0.0 234690.00 $234,690.0 218106.00 $218,106.00 A2 Location A-Site Work LS - 11 0.00 $0.0 67438.00 $67,438.0 83849.05 $83,849.05 A3 Location B-Prefabricated Restroom LS I 0.00 $0.0 159212.00 $159,212.0 147474.00 $147,474.00 A4 Location B-Site Work LS I 0.00 $0. 38150.00 $38,150.0 64624.05 564,624.05 Total Prefab Base Bid_.. ._._.._ ._....__... . ._. .$OA _, $499,490:0 $514,053:1 Prefabricated Building A-Eliminate rock educt 1 v f LS I 0.00 $0.0 -16648.00 -$16,648.0 -12000.00 ($12,000.00) Prefabricated Building B-Eliminate rock Deduct2 LS 1 0.00 $0.0 -10325.00 -$10,325.0 -10000.00 ($10,000.00 Toial Prefab Deductive Items - $0.0 -$26,973.0 -$22,000. Listed Subs Bernmen Painting CJ"s Paint SEr ices ipomo,CA Santa Maria,CO Cal Paso Electric osma Plastering Paso Robles,CA 93446 ants Maria,CA 93455 Cambria Plumbing oyd Mize Drywall Paso Robles,CA 3mver Beach,CA Central Coast Fabricators uld Welding San Luis Obispo,CO kmoyo Grande,CA Central Coast Specialties I.W.Jenkins Framing an Luis Obispo,CA Irover Beach,CA Dale Enterprises Mac Donald Company tnscadero, Los Ows,CA 93412 Frame Pro Matt's Landscaping&Concre Templeton,CA Santa Maria,CA &J Tile One Source tascadem,CA San Luis Obispo,CA irk Construction CHIC Coast rascadero,CA 93422 laso Robles,CA cClard Masonry Const. lierce Quality Plumbing anford,CA 93230 olvang,CA oriney Construction,Inc Ianet Earth landscape aso Robles.CA 93447 'mo Beach,CA reimer Drywall latmey Asphalt anta Maria,CO Iants Maria,CA The Public Restroom Company Select Roofing Services Reno,NV 89521 Orcutt,CA oste Grading&Paving Sierra West Gruver beach,CA 93433 Pismo Beach,CA oyon Landscapes Tee Tile Pismo Beach,CA Santa Maria,CA Page 1 of 3 / C�-lo Attachment 2 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO: BID SUMMARY SHEE Project: Laguna Lake Restrooms Contact: Bridget Fraser Estimated foBowup dates: Award: okrajac Inc Vernon Edwards Maino Construcion Co BID ITEM&DESCRIPTION Paso Robles,CA ansa Maria,CA San Luis Obispo,CA IT TOTAL JNIT TOTAL UNIT TOTAL No. ITEM UNIT QUAN PRICE PRICE RICE PRICE PRICE PRICE Site-Built Bid I Location A- Site-Built Restroom LS 1 203779.00 $203,779.00 215000.00 $215,000.00 264000 $264,000.00 2 Location A- Site Work LS I 53453.00 $53,453.00 35700.00 $35,700.00 24000 $24,000.00 3 Location B- Site-Built Restroom LS 1 143285.00 $143,285.00 180000.00 $180,000.00 176000 $176,000.00 4 Location B- Site Work LS 1 26557.00 $26,557.00 $14,500.00 $14,500.00 16000 $16,000.00 Total Site-Built Base Bid $427.074.00 S445,200.00 $480,000.0 Site Built Building A-Eliminate rock Deduct 1 LS I -13438.00 ($13,438.00) -14890.00 ($14,890.00 -10000 ($10,000.00 Site Built Building B-Eliminate rock educt LS I -11438.00 ($11,438.00) -13655.00 ($13,655.00 -10000 ($10,000.00 Total Site-Built Deductive Items -$24,876.00 428,545.0 -$20,000.00 Prefab Bid Al Location A-Prefabricated Restroom LS 1 273495.00 $273,495.00 251408.00 $251,408.00 10000 $1,000,000.00 A2 Location A-Site Work LS 1 35012.00 $35,012.00 40245.00 $40,245.00 3000 $300,000.00 A3 Location B-Prefabricated Restroom LS 1 167209.00 $167,209.00 172517.00 $172,517.00 110000 $1,100,000.00 A4 Location B-Site Work LS 1 12803.00 $12,803.00 18000.00 $18,000.00 25000 $250,000.00 Total Prefab Base Bid $48M 19.00 W2,170.00 $2,650,000.0 Prefabricated Building A-Eliminate rock EDdu,t t 1 i LS 1 -16648.00 ($16,648.00 -16648.00 ($16,648.00 -100.00 ($)00.00 Prefabricated Building B-Eliminate rock2vencerne. LS 1 -10325.00 ($10,325.00) -10325.00 ($10,325.00 -100.00 ($100.00 Total Prefab Deductive Items 426,973.0 426,973. -$200. erumen Painting California Pro Painting C&L Coatings ipomo,CA Santa Maria,CA 93454 Bakersfield,CA C&L Coatings art J.Bailey Masonry Inc. Cencal Roofing Bakersfield,CA Grover Beach,CA 93433 Morro Bay,CA Cal Paso Electric Floyd Mize Drywall Curt J.Bailey Masonry Inc. Paso Robles,CA 93446 Grover Beach,CA Grover Beach,CA 93433 Cencal Roofing FrwniePria G&J Tile Morro Bay,CA Templeton,CA Atascadem,CA Central Coast Fabricators G&J Tile G.F.Garcia&Sons San Luis Obispo,CO tascadem,CA ayucos,CA 93430 Dave Spurt Excavating John Pence iierce Quality Plumbing Paso Robles,CA Ventura,CA iolvang,CA 1I &J Tile KD Jamil Landscaping,Inc. Ireimer Drywall Atascadero,CA San Luis Obispo,CA 93403 anm Maria,CO Mac Donald Company Mark Schwind Electric Herra West Los Osos,CA 93412 Nipomo,CA lismo,Beach,CA McChsrd Masonry Const. ceidenml Metal Works Iac Hanford,CA 93230 Oceanside,CA 92054 Pierce Quality Plumbing Pierce Quality Plumbing Solvang,CA Solvang,CA Preimer Drywall R.M.Murphey Bldg&Concrete Santa Maria,CO Armyo Grande,CA Toyon Landscapes Santa Maria Welding Pismo Beach,CA anm Maria,CA 93458 The Public Restroom Company SLO,Plastering Reno,NV 89521 San Luis Obispo,CA tratton Construction Co. os Osos,CA 93402 oste Grading&Paving rover beach,CA 93433 he Public Restroom Company eno,NV 89521 Page 2 of 3 Attachment 2 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO: BID SUMMARY SHEI Project: Laguna Lake Restrooms Contact: Bridget Fraser Estimated followup dates: Award: inviguerra Construction John Madooana Construction R.Burke Corporation BID ITEM&DESCRIPTION Jacksm CA San Luis Obispo,CA San Luis Obispo,CA UNIT TOTAL UNIT TOTAL UNIT TOTAL No. ITEM UNIT QUAN PRICE PRICE. PRICE PRICE PRICE PRICE Site-Built Bid I Location A- Site-Built Restroom LS 1 23000 $230,000.00 194800.00 __ $194,800.00 227500.00 $227,500.00 2 Location A- Site Work LS I 7500( $75,000.00. 89400.00 $89,400.0 57000.00 $57,000.0 _ 3 Location B- Site-Built Restroom LS 1 17000 $170;000.0 151000.00 $151,000.0 180000.00 $180,000.0 -4 Location B- Site Work LS 1 3300 S33,000.01 56000.00 $56,000.0 35000.00 535,000.0 Total Site-Built Base Bid $508,000.0 S491,200.01 $499,500.0 Site Built Building A-Eliminate rock - - Deduct I LS 1 -13000.00 -$13,000.0 -13600.00 -$13,600.0 -15000.00 -$15,000.0 Site Built Building B-Eliminate rock - - - 1 Deduct2 LS 1 -10000.00 -$10,000.0 -13600.00 -$13,600.0 -14000.00 -$!4,000.0 Total Site-Built Deductive Items -$23,0000 - - --- -$27,200. - 429,000.0 Prefab Bid $0.0 Al Location A-Prefabricated Restroom LS 1 230000 $230,000:0 235250.00 $235,250. 260000.00 $260,000.00 A2 Location A-Site.Work - LS 1 - 75000 $75,000:0 89400.00 $89,400.0 55000.00 $55;000. A3 Location B-Prefabricated Restroom LS 1 145000 $145,000.0 162300.00 $162,300.0 183000.00 $183,000.0 A4 Location B.-Site Work LS 1 38000 $38,000.0 56000.00 $561000.0 33500.00- $33;500: _..._. _._.__.Total Prefab Base.Bid .. - ` - -- 7--5488,000:0 $542,950.0 - $531,5.00:0 Prefabricated Building A-Eliminate rock Deduct t CMULS I $0.0 -17800.00 -$17,800.0 -16000.00 -$16,000.0 Prefabricated Building B-Eliminate rock Deductveneer LS I $0.0 -11000.00 -$11,000.0 -11000.00 -$11,000.0 Total Prefab Deductive Items _ _ ::$0.0 -$28,800.0 427,000.0 Apodoca Paving - - B erumen Painting Bcrumen Painting Grover Beach,CA Niporno,CA Nipomo,CA Berumen Painting ental Roofing C&L Coatings Nipomo,CA Morro Bay,CA Bakersfield,CA Cencal Roofing Central Coast Fabricators Cencal Roofing Morro Bay,CA San Luis Obispo,CO Morm Bay,CA Curt J.Bailey Masonry Inc. DebCo CentralCoast Fabricators Grover Beach,CA 93433 Paso Robles,CA 93446 San Luis Obispo,CO DebCo Floyd Mize Drywall Curt J.Bailey Masonry Inc. Paso Robles,CA 93446 rover Beach,CA rover Beach,CA 93433 Derek Electric Frame Pro Floyd Mize Drywall Atascadero,CA Templeton,CA Grover Beach,CA Doorways G&J Tile Jpbnston Rebar San Luis Obispo,CA Amsetuirro,CA San Luis Obispo,CA Floyd Mize Drywall Henry Schmitz Plumbing Mac Donald Company Grover Beach,CA Paso Robles,CA 93447 Los Osos,CA 93412 G&J T'de aures Shepard Co. ichaels Tile Atascadero,CA Paso Robles,CA Atascadero,CA Henry Schmitz Plumbing Mae Donald Company Pierce Quality Plumbing Paso Robles,CA 93447 Los Osos,CA 93412 Solvang,CA KD Janni Landscaping,Inc. McCl2rd Masonry Const, Sierra West San Luis Obispo,CA 93403 Hanford,CA 93230 Pismo Beach,CA The Public Restroom Company R.M.Murphey Bldg&Concre SLO Plastering Reno,NV 89521 rroyo Gronde,CA an Luis Obispo,CA sierra West The Public Restroom Company Pismo Beach,CA Reno,NV 89521 LO Plastering San Luis Obispo,CA Sunbelt Flooring Chino,CA The Public Restroom Company eno,NV 89521 II oyon Landscapes ismo Beach,CA Page 3 of 3 Attachment 3 Laguna Lake Park Restrooms Design Strategy Review Council has asked staff to explain the design process used to determine the final aesthetics for the restrooms. Their concern being the cost of the restrooms and whether the final design is too rich for Laguna Lake Park and would a more traditional split-faced block with asphalt roof shingles be more appropriate and less costly. The following summarizes the processed used. An early submittal received from the architect was reviewed with the Community Development Department (CDD) at a pre-review meeting to gain early feed back on what CDD might approve. This submittal was based on a typical split-faced block restroom with asphalt shingles. At this same pre-review meeting, CDD staff and Public Works staff reviewed the Laguna Lake master plan design elements for the restrooms. Along, with this submittal, staff also provided photos of restrooms using a variety of different design themes that might fit the master plan elements such as, split-faced block, rook veneer and rock veneer/split-faced block combo and rock veneer with exposed roof trusses. CDD staff felt the design that most closely complied with the master plan was the exposed timber design with either rock veneer or the rock veneer/split-faced block combination. Roofing was discussed with CDD staff and there was a preference for a metal roof such as standing seam roofing over an asphalt roof. This preliminary feed back was taken back to the design team. The team preferred the all rock veneer with the exposed timbers as opposed to the rockiblock combination. The architect further added that the addition of rock veneer would not be a significant increase compared to the overall cost of the project. Staff preferred the look of the all rock option as this feature would be unique to this nature preserve park and directed the architect to incorporate this feature. At this team meeting, maintenance staff requested that asphalt shingles not be used. This was based on their poor experience with asphalt shingles used at other parks. They would prefer a self-weathering steel roof similar to the roof used at Damon Garcia restrooms as this would stand up to the winds and moisture typical for Laguna Lake area. This self weathering steel roofing choice was,in line with CDD staff preference for metal roofing and was less expensive than the typical standing seam roof. Based on this meeting, the team agreed and directed the Architect to move forward with the rock veneer, exposed timber look with a self-weathering steel roof. A planning application was prepared for CDD.staff based on these design elements. Because the design aesthetically complied with the Laguna Lake Master Plan, CDD staff was able to process the project as a minor incidental project not needing formal Architectural Review Commission review. This same design was also concurrently reviewed and approved by the Parks & Recreation Commission in early August. Staff does not feel that the design is too rich or that the design process spiraled out of hand. However, in response to Councils concerns for project costs, the bid documents were amended to include a deductive alternate to eliminate the rock veneer. Choosing this option could save approximately$25,000. ATTACHMENT 3 Additionally, Council has asked staff to explain the process used to determine the need to hire an architect for the restroom projects. Their concern was based on the high cost of architectural plans for custom bathrooms vs. the seemingly simple approach of picking a prefabricated restroom out of a vendor catalog. With the Measure Y work load it was obvious that the engineering staff could not perform a good portion of work assigned using in-house resources. That is why an "on call' consultant was hired to help with the work load. This restroom project (or any other building) is not one staff would have attempted to do in house even without the Measure Y work load, so a local professional was hired for these services. The architect selected for the project has extensive qualifications. Most of their work has been for government entities, like other cities and school districts. This degree of public government experience is one reason they stood out over other architects when they were hired. They understand that with most government jobs they often face budgets that are too low, government processes like architectural review standards, building maintenance issues and Public Contract code requirements. The architect selected is an expert in materials and finishes; they are good specification writers and architectural drafters. They are good at deciphering the building codes; and they are skilled in coordinating the various design trades - civil, electrical and mechanical engineers, etc. They are also trained to help a client through a design process - from programming and needs assessment to conceptual design and on to construction documents. Staff believes that for these important projects, which will be in use and visible for many years to come, the decision to hire an architect was critical to their success and acceptance in the community. As far as understanding the procurement process and-the thought that staff could select a prefabricated restroom building for purchase, there are several things that guide the City in making these types of major purchases: 1 The Public Contract Code does not allow sole source purchase of any product except for some very limited instances, so staff could not have gone directly to one restroom manufacturer. Our own purchasing guidelines require formal bid or RFP documents for purchases over $25,000. Since the restroom replacements are a CIP project, we would be required to put together bid documents (plans and specs) in order to solicit bids from several restroom manufacturers. 2. The Public Contract Code does not allow the naming of a specific product in a bid solicitation by a brand name (also considered sole sourcing) unless you can call out several brand names or allow equal products to be considered. Staff is required to provide plans, details and specifications in a generic fashion to let the bidders know what is required without simply calling out a model number and manufacturer name. When a bid document is provided for public works contracts the specifications need to be written in such a way that all contractors can provide C�/o ATTACHMENT a bid based on the same details and specifications. Enough detail needs to be provided to let the contractors know how big, what it looks like; what the materials need to be, what gauge of metal, what strength of concrete and rebar, what building codes apply, etc. 3. If an architect had not been hired, staff could have asked the preferred restroom manufacturer to see if they would provide us with plans and specifications to use in the bid solicitation (so that other manufacturers can bid against them). Staff would need to determine if their act of providing us with plans and specifications would constitute the manufacturer being the "designer". According to our standard specifications designers are prohibited from bidding on projects they have designed. 4. Staff will need to thoroughly investigate how the City might purchase a restroom building off of a government piggyback program such as CMAS or GSA. The City does have experience buying products like construction equipment and vehicles but we have not bought a building off of CMAS or GSA. Most likely an RFP would need to be prepared outlining the design and specifications for a restroom and quotes solicited from several manufacturers listed on the CMAS or GSA program. Ultimately, we would need a set of signed and stamped drawings and structural calculations in order to submit for a building permit, and without getting that from the manufacturer or a separate architect, we could not move forward through our own process. 5. An additional component of the project that requires construction documents is the site construction. A prefabricated restroom will be delivered to the park ready for a contractor to install. Prior to it arriving, staff would have to prepare a second bid document to hire a contractor to do all of the work necessary to make the site ready: temporarily relocate the irrigation controller and a power panel, demolish and remove the old buildings, prepare the building pads, reroute and hook up utilities—power; water, sewer; construct new sidewalks, ramps and guardrails, re- grade, base and pave sections of the parking lot to provide compliant parking spaces, and then place the restroom. This would create two contracts to manage, rather than one. In summary, staff is trying to show that the procurement process does not easily allow us to simply go to a prefabricated restroom manufacturer and purchase a restroom. The City needed the services of an architect to help us to fully evaluate what was needed on site, and get construction documents ready to bid. Prefabricated restrooms can be considered a viable option, but there is a certain amount of extra work involved in utilizing them. In the end, the current bid process is designed to get the City the most cost effective project through the use of competitive bidding on a set of plans and specifications that have completely and accurately defined the project. And in our case with the current bidding climate, the site-built option proved to be the most cost effective option.