HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/02/1988, C-8 - CONTINUATION OF ITEM C-7 FROM THE 1/19/88 COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA - AWARDING CONTRACTS FOR THE 955 MORRO REMODELING PROJECT MEET AGENDA
DATE - z �ee !TFM #
January 21, 1988
MEMORANDUM
TO: City Council
for consideration on the 2/2/88 council meeting agenda
VIA: John Dunn
Roger Picquet�
Dave Romero
FROM: Dave Elliott
SUBJECT: Continuation o item C-7 from the 1/19/88 council
meeting agenda - Awarding contracts for the 955 Morro
Remodeling project
CAO RECOMMENDATION:
Adopt the resolutions awarding the furnishings contract
�- to L A Interior Systems and the construction contract
to D.W. Peterson (recommendation unchanged)
At its meeting on January 19, 1988 the council considered awarding
the furnishings contract and the construction contract for the 955
Morro Street Remodeling project. Because of protests about
awarding both contracts, the council continued consideration of the
recommended action until the protests could be examined and
resolved.
FURNISHINGS CONTRACT:
on December 1, 1987 the city clerk opened the following bids on the
furnishings contract for the 955 Morro Remodeling project:
Group A Group B
Furnishings Furnishings Total
The Office Mart (*) $104,424.84 no bid $104,424 .84
L A Interior Systems $116,783.00 $ 9,552 .47 $126, 335.47
The Office Mart $118, 696. 68 no bid $118, 696. 68
(*) bid based on an unqualified line of systems furniture
C-S- �
Continuation of item C-7
page 2
After carefully evaluating the low bid from The Office Mart, staff
and the city's interior designers recommended rejecting the low bid
because it was not completely responsive. The attached document,
"Evaluation of the Low Bid Submitted by The Office Mart", explains
the reasons for rejecting the low bid.
With rejection of the low bid, the next low bid from L A Interior
Systems, which was responsive to the invitation, became the
recommended bid.
At the council meeting on January 19, 1988 Robert Dullea from The
Office Mart appeared and presented the following arguments:
1. Even if the low bid was deemed non-responsive, it was not worth
over $12,000 to reject it.
2. If the low bid was deemed non-responsive for the reasons given
by staff, then the second low bid should have been rejected for
the following reasons:
a. Some of the drawer pedestal configurations shown in the
plans are not recommended by the manufacturer.
b. The drawer pedestals do not run the full depth of the work
surfaces under which they sit.
c. The manufacturer does not make a freestanding bridge to
connect two worksurfaces into a U-shape.
Staff presents the following responses to these arguments:
1. The lack of flexibility and future price uncertainty of a
contract with the low bidder could easily cost the city more
than $12, 000 in the future. As part of the evaluation, staff
prepared cost estimates of a typical future order. The
estimate using the The Office Mart's specified parts turned out
to be higher than the estimate using L A Interior System's
specified parts. Also, the lack of flexibility could limit the
reuseof parts and require ordering several additional parts to
compensate.
2a. It's true that certain drawer pedestal configurations are not
recommended by the manufacturer where the pedestals are
freestanding or mobile. None of the pedestals shown on the
plans or mentioned in the specifications are freestanding or
mobile; they are all suspended from worksurfaces.
2b. The city's procurement documents do not require the pedestals
to run the full depth of the worksurfaces under which they sit.
Continuation of item C-7
page 3
2c. The city's plans do not specify a freestanding bridge to
connect two worksurfaces into a U-shape. The solution proposed
in the second low bid was a bridge suspended from wall
standards already in place to support overhead shelves. The
city's specifications state: "When a worksurface is installed
adjacent to another worksurface the two worksurfaces shall be
attached and secured with an alignment bracket. " This
requirement should preclude any alignment problems.
Staff still maintains:
1. that the low bid submitted by The Office Mart was not
completely responsive;
2. that the next low bid submitted by L A Interior Systems was
completely responsive; and
3 . that the next low bid submitted by L A Interior Systems is the
recommended bid.
Staff recommends awarding the furnishings contract to L A Interior
Systems.
CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT:
Nick Pokrajac of Nick E. Pokrajac Construction, the second low
bidder on the construction contract, and Bob Dorn of Associated
General Contractors, a contractors association in Santa Barbara
County, protested the low bid of D.W. Peterson on the following
grounds:
1. In its bid proposal D.W. Peterson did not list all of its
subcontractors as required by the state public contract code.
2. D.W. Peterson and its listed subcontractors do not have the
five years experience in built-up roofing installation that is
required in the project specifications.
3. SAW Concrete Construction, one of D.W. Peterson's listed
subcontractors, does not have the required qualifications and
licenses to perform the subcontracted work.
4. At the time bids were submitted, D.W. Peterson had not received
bids from several of its listed subcontractors.
Since the council meeting Bob Dorn has submitted a letter to the
city retracting his protest. Also, Nick Pokrajac has stated that
he will not further pursue his protest and has submitted a letter
C-g-3
Continuation of item C-7
page 4
accepting any decision the city makes. Although these actions
render the protests inconsequential, staff presents the following
responses:
1. Representatives from D.W. Peterson stated that all
subcontractors and sub-subcontractors were listed and that D.W.
Peterson would perform all the work not performed by the listed
subcontractors. D.W. Peterson has the qualifications and
licenses necessary to perform this work and has complied with
all the requirements of public contract law and the city's
specifications.
2. R.L. Johnston, one of D.W. Peterson's subcontractors, has the
qualifications and licenses necessary to install the built-up
roofing. One of R.L. Johnston's employees has 15 years
experience installing built-up roofs.
3 . Marcella Nunez from the state contractors license board
confirmed that SAW Concrete Construction holds C-8 specialty
license number 504555, which is the proper license for concrete
work.
4. Some of D.W. Peterson's listed subcontractors will be
sub-subcontracted to R.L. Johnston. Consequently they may not
have submitted bids to D.W. Peterson. Neither protester
presented any tangible evidence that all the listed
subcontractors had not submitted bids to either D.W. Peterson
or R.L. Johnston. Regardless, there is no requirement in law
or in the city's specifications which requires the prime
contractor to receive bids from listed subcontractors before
submitting its own bid.
In order to preclude future similar protests, staff will modify
future specifications to require disclosure of more information
regarding subcontractors.
With the retractions of the protests, staff recommends awarding the
construction contract to D.W. Peterson.
attach: Evaluation of the low bid submitted by The Office Mart
letter from Bob Dorn, Associated General Contractors
letter from Nick E. Pokrajac
1/27/88 memo from City Attorney
C-g- �
EVALUATION OF THE LOW BID
SUBMITTED BY THE OFFICE MART
SUMMARY:
On December 1, 1987 the city clerk opened the following bids on the
furnishings contract for the 955 Morro Street Remodeling project:
Group A Group B
Furnishings Furnishings Total
The Office Mart $104,424.84 no bid $104,424.84
(bid based on a combination
of Steelcase Movable Walls
and Steelcase Series 9000
systems furniture)
L A Interior Systems $116,783 .00 $ 9, 552.47 $126, 335.47
(bid based on Haworth
Unigroup systems furniture)
The Office Mart $118,696.68 no bid $118, 696.68
(bid based on Steelcase
Series 9000 systems
furniture)
After carefully examining the low bid from The Office Mart, staff
and the city's interior designers recommended rejecting the low bid
for three reasons:
1. The bidder based its bid on a systems furniture line which is
not equivalent to the systems furniture lines qualified in the
procurement documents.
2. The bidder failed to bid a fixed discount rate to be applied to
future orders.
3 . The bidder failed to submit a bid on the Group B furnishings -
the miscellaneous, non-systems furnishings.
NONEQUIVALENCE OF SYSTEMS FURNITURE LINE:
Section IV.B. 1 on page 10 of the procurement documents states:
"The City has qualified five lines of systems furniture which will
meet the City's needs as shown on the plans and will meet the
City's standards for durability, flexibility, variety, and value.
The City will accept bids on only the following manufacturers and
lines of systems furniture:
C_g-�
Evaluation of the Low Bid Submitted by The Office Mart
page 2
a. Haworth - Unigroup
b. Herman Miller - Action Office Encore
c. Steelcase - 9000 Series
d. Sunarhauserman - Design Option/Cameron
e. Westinghouse - Wes-Group"
During the bid period the city received a letter from Steve Schmidt
of Steelcase requesting authority to submit a bid based upon the
Steelcase Movable Walls line of systems furniture. In response to
all holders of the procurement documents, the city encouraged
Steelcase or any other manufacturer/dealer to submit bids based on
lines of systems furniture which might be equivalent to the
qualified lines. At the same time the city stated that it would
need information about unqualified lines which would demonstrate
equivalence to the qualified lines. (See the correspondence
attached. )
The low bid submitted by The Office Mart was based on a combination
of two systems furniture lines: Steelcase Movable Walls and
Steelcase Series 9000. Although the Steelcase Movable Walls line
offers the same durability and value as the qualified lines, it
does not contain the freestanding furniture components which
provide the large worksurfaces needed by engineering division. To
cover this deficiency, The Office Mart included freestanding
furniture components from the Steelcase Series 9000 line.
Although the interior designers argued that the two systems were
not aesthetically compatible, the bid could not be rejected solely
on that basis. The interior designers also pointed out that the
Movable Walls and Series 9000 lines have different modular
dimensions. Although the combination might work for the first
installation, future flexibility to change office configurations
could be limited by the non-compatible modules.
Although the Movable Walls line offers equivalent durability and
value, it does not by itself offer equivalent flexibility and
variety. The addition of Series 9000 components offers equivalent
variety but further compromises flexibility. Overall, the
combination of Movable Walls and Series 9000 lines is not
equivalent to the lines qualified in the procurement documents.
FAILURE TO BID A FIXED DISCOUNT RATE:
Section III.A.4 on page 6 of the procurement documents states:
"FUTURE ORDERS - If the City orders additional parts as specified
(including new or modified parts which can be retrofitted) within
C-g�
Evaluation of the Low Bid Submitted by The Office Mart
page 3
five years after the contract is executed, the Contractor shall
supply, deliver, assemble, install and maintain those parts F.O.B.
San Luis Obispo, California. The prices of any additional parts
shall be determined by applying the discount rate stated in the
accepted bid proposal to the manufacturer's published list prices
in effect at the time that a future order or contract is placed.
The prices so calculated shall include all applicable taxes. "
when assembling the procurement documents staff presumed that
bidders would submit a single discount rate which would be applied
over the five year period. The Office Mart submitted a sliding
scale of discount rates based on the size, composition and timing
of the future order. After examining the stipulations of the
procurement documents, staff concluded that submittal of the
sliding scale was acceptable.
Even though The Office Mart's initial bid was low, a future order
could cost more than an equivalent order from L A Interior Systems,
the next low bidder, depending on the size and composition of the
order. The overall contract cost, including future orders, could
wind up costing more if the city awarded the furnishings contract
to The Office Mart.
FAILURE TO SUBMIT A BID ON THE GROUP B FURNISHINGS:
The Group B furnishings in the procurement documents include
miscellaneous non-systems furnishings such as flat plan files,
rolled drawing cabinets and light tables.
In its bid proposal, The Office Mart stated:
"The Office Mart is declining to submit prices on Section `B'
because we feel the overall discount on ninety-five percent of the
project will be adversely affected. "
Section II.D on page 3 of the procurement documents states that the
city reserves the right to award multiple contracts for portions of
the work. Consequently, if The Office Mart's low bid were
responsive and attractive enough, the city could award two
contracts: one to The Office Mart for the Group A furnishings and
one to L A Interior Systems for the Group B furnishings.
Nonetheless, because it's easier to award one contract instead of
two, failure to submit a bid on the Group B furnishings made The
Office Mart's low bid less attractive.
C-g�7
Evaluation of the Low Bid Submitted by The Office Mart
page 4
CONCLUSION•
The low bid from The Office Mart was deemed non-responsive for
three reasons:
1. non-equivalence of the systems furniture line
2. failure to bid a fixed discount rate
3. failure to submit a bid on the Group B furnishings
Considered separately, either reason 1 or reason 2 makes the low
bid unacceptable to the city. Reason 3 by itself does not make the
low bid unacceptable but compounds the problems created by the
other reasons. Taken together, all three reasons make the low bid
unacceptable and unattractive for the city.
The difference between the low bid and the next low bid was
$12, 358. 16. A savings of $12, 358.16 does not make the lack of
flexibility and risk of higher future prices acceptable.
attach: 11/16/87 letter from Steelcase, Inc.
11/17/87 memo to holders of the procurement documents
Council Agenda Report from 1/19/88
rhe Office Environment Cornpar
0305
8687 Melrose Avenue
West Hollywood,CA 90069
Telephone 213.659 5005
November 16 , 1987
Mr. Dave Elliott
City of San Luis Obispo
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, California 93401
Dear Mr. Elliott:
Thank you for recently taking a few moments to discuss your
upcoming project with me .
As you know, J. L. Design had contacted you to inquire about
allowing us to submit an additional bid for your project . The
additional bid will be the Steelcase Movable Wall system and
the Sensor chair . These products will provide you all the
capabilities you expect from systems and seating at a cost
effective price . These products are also more equal to the
competitive products being bid. Your agreement to this
additional bid is greatly appreciated .
This letter should serve as a formal request to submit an
additional bid from Steelcase and its dealer , The Office Mart .
Per our conversation, this is the proper procedure set forth in
your specification and I will look forward to your return
letter.
Should you have any questions , please feel free to call me. We
are eager about the opportunity to service your needs .
Sincerely,
Steve Schmidt
Sales Representative
/pw
cc : B. Dullea, The Office Mart
L. Sorrento, J. L. Design
E . Kuchar, Steelcase
tile•:n..0 r•.Stow&Davis + �'�
��Iililllllllllllll�����������ll �Iill I�II�
1111 II
_ cityof sAn oBispo
990 Palm Street/Post Office Box 8100 • San Luis Obispo, CA 93403-8100
November 171 1987
TO: All Holders of the Procurement Documents - Project to
Procure Furnishings for 955 Morro Street
FROM: David Elliott, Project Manager
SUBJECT: Questions and Answers about the Procurement Documents
The City received only one question about the procurement documents
from Steve Schmidt, Sales Representative for Steelcase,
Incorporated. The question and the City's answer are summarized
below.
Q: May Steelcase, Incorporated and its authorized dealer submit an
additional bid based on the Steelcase Movable Walls line of
systems furniture and the Sensor line of chairs? Steelcase
maintains that both of these lines are equivalent to or better
than the lines qualified in the procurement documents which are
manufactured by firms other than Steelcase.
A: The City determines that the Sensor line of chairs is
equivalent to the lines qualified in the procurement
documents. Steelcase may include the Sensor line of chairs in
its bids.
The City cannot immediately determine if the Movable Walls line
of systems furniture is equivalent to the lines qualified in
the procurement documents. Nonetheless, the City encourages
Steelcase and its authorized dealer (as well as any other
manufacturer and dealer) to submit bids based on lines of
systems furniture which they think may be equivalent to the
qualified lines. • In order for the City to determine that an
unqualified line is acceptable, any manufacturer or dealer
submitting a bid based on an unqualified line must submit with
its bid qualifying information about the iizie. This
information must demonstrate to the City's satisfaction that
the durability, flexibility, variety and value of the
unqualified line make that line equivalent to or better than
the qualified lines. One method of demonstrating equivalence
would be a matrix comparing features of the unqualified line to
features of the qualified lines.
C�q� IO
ASSOCIATED GENERAL CONTRACTORS Or CALIFORNIA
u�
SKILL INTE n�
HEADQUARTERS FSPoNSIB��'\� `! Vo <D,,
3095 Beacon Blvd. 7
AOIFOFFICERS
mide+.t
West Sacramento,California 95691
(916)371-2422 ^� rJr Jerry Toll,Sr. Vice President
M�/ Ed Ronchelli,Vicr Peeridrnt
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS DEPTS. �-` ( j;��8 �) Nian S.Roberts,Treasurer
Northern California Labor NM.B.McGowan,/,nmediacc Pmt Preat'denl
8301 Edgewater Drive 13api �i . v Richard B.Munn,Eaecuiiue Vice President
Oakland,California 94621 a—
ti
(415)568.6839
Southern California Labor Dept
2551 Beverly Boulevard January 20 , 1988 CCp
Les Angeles,CA 90057
(213)385-6031
DISTRICT OFFICES
P.O.Boa 3259
426 Broadway,Suite 202
Chico,California 95927.3259 Mr. Dave Elliott
93.1%3
1255PCity of San Luis Obispo
1255 Pew sweet,suite 814
San Francisco,CA 94109 Public Works Department
(415)776.2054
8301 Edgewater Dries City Hall, Upper Level
Oakland,California 94621 San Luis Obispo, California 93406
(415)568-6174 p
400 Reed Street
P.O.Boa 58032 Dear Dave :
Santa Clara,California 95052
(408)727.3318 .
5070 North Sixth Street,Suite 159 After reviewing documents relating to Mr. D. W.
Fresno,California 93710 g g
(209)222-6262 Peterson' s bid proposal and having discussions with
3324 State Street,Suite dd
Santa Barbara,California 93105 Mr. Peterson, the Association of General Contractors
(605)682-6242 of California will recind its protest concerning the
2551 Beverly Boulevard
Los Angeles,California 90057 project at 955 Morro Street, San Luis Obispo.
(213)3856031
264 �' cNorthBrnd y,Suite F&G In addition, I would like to thank the City for
Santa Ana,California 92701
(714)547-6167 agreeing to make changes to its Standard
255 North D Street,Suite 201 Specifications in regards to listing subcontractors
San Bernardino,Califomia 92401
(714)885-7519 in order to alleviate problems in the future.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Robert Dorn, Manager
Tri-Counties District
RD/jg
cc: Donald R. Bloss
NICK E. POKRAJAC
General Building & Engineering Contractor
January 21, 1988 2021
Harvflu_
t 19c18
City of San Luis Obispo
P. O. Box 8100
San Luis Obispo, CA 93403-810.0 Off +
ATTENTION: Dave Elliott
Dear Dave:
Thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak on my own
behalf before the City Council- in regards to my protest of
the bid on the Public Works Facility.
I want you to know that I will accept most any decision that
is made by the City. However, I do feel that the bid from
D. W. Peterson was highly irregular.
I have enclosed per our conversation a sample "Subcontractor
List" for you to review. If I can be of any assistance to
you in the future to help with the bidding process in order
to avoid this kind of situation please don't hesitate to
call me.
Sincerely,
Nick E. Pokrajac,
General Contractor
NP/pd
Enclosure
State License No.451063 •D.O. Box 539•Templeton, CA 93465.805/434-4419
C'g- ��
� J
- ,9; �jli'jl j I l I I iI
•:,, i��:.1,� , �i � it
► I i city Of SAn luOBISPO
990 Palm Street/Post Office Box 8100 • San Luis Obispo, CA 93403-8100
(805) 549-7140
January 27, 1988
MEMORANDUM
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Roger Picquet, City Attorney n.r
Subject: Award of Construction Contract - 955 Morro
At the January 19, 1988, Council meeting, several legal questions were
raised regarding the propriety of D. W. Peterson, the apparent low bidder,
in submitting a bid where listed subcontractors were technically
subcontracting with another listed subcontractor and/or they had never
made a formal contract with D. W. Peterson.
The State of California Public Contract Code Sections 4100, et seq. is
known as the "Subletting and Subcontracting Fair Practices Act" . The
purpose of the chapter is to eliminate the practice of bid shopping and
bid peddling which it found to be detrimental to the public. These
practices are defined as taking the bid of one subcontractor, using it in
preparation of a successful bid on a public works contract and then going
to the other subcontractors in an attempt to get a cheaper price for that
portion of the work.
The law requires all bids on public works to contain information regarding
"each subcontractor who will perform work or labor or render service to
the prime contractor in or about the construction of the work or
improvement . . ." (Section 4104) . Section 4105 specifically prevents
circumvention of the listing requirement by the device of listing another
contractor who will, in turn, subcontract the work. This provision is not
violated in the instant situation because there has been no circumvention;
that is, by listing all subcontractors who will perform the work, D. W.
Peterson has complied with the provisions of Section 4104.
There are no court cases or Attorney General opinions squarely on point.
However, cases deciding related issues have found that the mere listing of
a subcontractor by a general contractor in a public works bid does not
create a contractual relationship. Smith v. Ducharme (1977) 135 Cal .Rptr.
483. Other cases indicate that absent harm to the subcontractor who has
detrimentally relied upon the fact that his company was listed, no legal
error occurs by listing prospective subcontractors.
Of course, under Section 4107 a listed subcontractor cannot be substituted
without permission of the public agency. This is true even if no
contractual relationship exists between the general and the
C-g-13
Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
January 27, 1988
Page 2
subcontractor. In our situation Mr. Peterson has placed his company at a
potential disadvantage by listing subcontractors in advance of formally
securing a bid or contract for their portion of the work. However, this
is not the situation the law was intended to prevent. Although it may be
poor management and a questionable business practice, it is not a
violation of the law and would not form the basis for declaring a bid
non-responsive or a contractor non-responsible.
RP:ajr
c: CAO
City Clerk
�II�N��NIIIYIIIIIII�I p�IIIII,If t�uMEETING DATE:
IIIN�I u
city oSan LUI, � �Sp� Januarg 99 88
Gp
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT Imo"' NUMBER:
2 AV
FROM: David F. Romero, Director Prepared By: Dave Elliott
Public Works Department d Administrative Anal st
SUBJECT:
Awarding contracts for the 955 Morro Remodeling project
CAO RECOMMENDATION:
Adopt the resolution awarding the furnishings contract to L A
Interior Systems and the construction contract to D.W. Peterson
BACKGROUND:
At its meeting on October 26, 1987 the council approved the
furnishing contract documents and the construction contract
documents for the 955 Morro Street Remodeling project and
authorized staff to 'advertise for bids.
FURNISHINGS CONTRACT:
On December 1, 1987 the city clerk opened the following bids on the
furnishings contract:
Group A Group B
Furnishinas Furnishings Total
The Office Mart (*) $104,424.84 no bid $104,424.84
L A Interior Systems $116,783 .00 $ 91552.47 $126, 335.47
The Office Mart $118, 696.68 no bid $118, 696. 68
(*) bid based on an unqualified line of systems furniture
After carefully evaluating the low bid from The Office Mart, staff
and the city's interior designers recommend rejecting the low bid
because it was not completely responsive. The attached document,
"Evaluation of the Low Bid Submitted by The Office Mart", explains
the reasons for rejecting the low bid.
With rejection of the low bid, the next low bid from L A Interior
Systems, which was responsive to the invitation, is the recommended
bid.
Staff recommends awarding a contract to supply both Group A and
Group B furnishings. The architect's estimate for the furnishings
contract was $253 ,000, a figure based on a conservative estimate of
the discount to be applied to list prices. Apparently the bidders
were interested enough in this contract that they applied deep 0000
discounts to arrive at bid prices. G-6
CA-�r'
�u�M��►�IV11111hIIP�j����ll city of sa. . Luis OBlspo
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
955 Morro Remodeling Contracts
page 2
CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT:
On January .5, 1988 the city clerk opened the following bids on the
construction contract:
D.W. Peterson $253, 000. 00
Nick E. Pokrajac $274, 021. 00
Larry Wysong Construction $277,487.00
Bordonaro & Son Construction, Inc. $287,782.00
The architect's estimate for the construction contract was
$250, 000.
On January 5, 1988 the city clerk received a telegram from Nick E.
Pokrajac protesting D.W. Peterson's bid. This telegram was
confirmed by a letter received by the city clerk on January 6,
1988.
The attached document, "Evaluation of the Protest Submitted by Nick
E. Pokrajac", explains the reasons for rejecting the protest.
The low bid from D.W. Peterson is the recommended bid.
FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:
architect's successful
budget estimate bid price
furnishings contract $290,000.00 $253, 000.00 $126, 335.47
construction contract $140,000.00 $250, 000.00 $253 , 000.00
total $430,000.00 $503, 000.00 $379, 335.47
The total bid prices are well within the total budget for this
project, even though approximately $53, 000.00 worth of additional
construction was imposed through development review, and
approximately $31, 000.00 worth of air conditioning work was added
during final design. The remaining amount budgeted for this
project (about $50, 000) will cover contract contingencies and the
following secondary work to be performed under other minor
contracts and purchase orders: < .. It
C.,rL,X,?��
���nni�►►�►ulllllllllP��u�q��pl city of san tu.., oB1spo
AGO COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
955 Morro Remodeling Contracts
page 3
-reception area seating
-signage
-plants
-existing furniture refinishing
-artwork
-window coverings
-telephones
-computer networking
-moving
CONSEQUENCE OF NOT TARING THE RECOMMENDED ACTION:
This project was justified by the serious overcrowding in finance
department and engineering division. The council's recent
authorization to hire additional employees has made this project
more urgent. There will be no room for these employees unless
engineering division vacates its space downstairs at city hall.
The consequences of not proceeding with this project are:
1) no room for the additional employees needed to streamline
planning and construction processes
2) a decline in productivity and morale among the organizations
now suffering overcrowding problems.
ACTION RECOMMENDED:
Adopt the resolution awarding the furnishings contract to L A
Interior Systems and the construction contract to D.W. Peterson.
attach: Resolution awarding furnishings contract
Resolution awarding construction contract
Evaluation of the low bid submitted by The Office Mart
Evaluation of the protest submitted by Nick E. Pokrajac
-17
baqlie�
RESOLUTION NO. (1988 SERIES)
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
AWARDING A CONTRACT TO L A INTERIOR SYSTEMS FOR
THE PROJECT TO PROCURE FURNISHINGS FOR 955 MORRO STREET
WHEREAS, the City of San Luis Obispo advertised for bids on a
contract for the project to procure furnishings for 955 Morro
Street (City Plan No. M50D) ; and
WHEREAS, L A Interior Systems submitted the lowest responsive
bid at $126, 335.47 ; and
WHEREAS, the architect's estimate for this contract work was
$253 , 000. 00;
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San
Luis Obispo to:
1. award the contract to L A Interior Systems for the project to
procure furnishings for 955 Morro Street;
2 . authorize the mayor to execute the contract documents; and
3 . direct the finance director to transfer $136, 000. 00 from the
capital outlay fund CRP appropriation to account number
040-9422-091-573 .
:. On motion of seconded by
and on the following roll call vote: --
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this day
of , 1988.
MAYOR
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
APPROVED:
J
CITY A MINISTRAT OFFICER CITY AT ORNEY
INANCE DIRECTOR PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR 4
RESOLUTION NO. (1988 SERIES)
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
AWARDING A CONTRACT TO D.W. PETERSON FOR
THE PUBLIC WORKS FACILITY AT 955 MORRO STREET PROJECT
WHEREAS, the City of San Luis Obispo advertised for bids on a
contract for the public works facility at 955 Morro Street project
(City Plan No. M44D) ; and
WHEREAS, D.W. Peterson submitted the lowest responsive bid at
$253 , 000. 00; and
WHEREAS, the architect's estimate for this contract work was
$2501000.00;
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San
Luis Obispo to:
1. award the contract to D.W. Peterson for the public works
facility at 955 Morro Street project;
2 . authorize the mayor to execute the contract documents; and
3 . direct the finance director to transfer $273, 000. 00 from the
capital outlay fund CRP appropriation to account number
040-9422-091-572.
.. On motion of seconded by
and on the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this day
of 1988 .
MAYOR
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
APPROVED:
CITY A MINISTRATI OFFICER CITY ATTO EY
INANCE DIRECTOR PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR C
EVALUATION OF THE LOW BID
SUBMITTED BY THE OFFICE MART
SUMMARY:
On December 1, 1987 the city clerk opened the following bids on the
furnishings contract for the 955 Morro Street Remodeling project:
Group A Group B
Furnishings Furnishings Total
The Office Mart $104,424.84 no bid $104, 424.84
(bid based on a combination
of Steelcase Movable Walls
and Steelcase Series 9000
systems furniture)
L A Interior Systems $116,783.00 $ 9,552.47 $126, 335.47
(bid based on Haworth
Unigroup systems furniture)
The Office Mart $118,696.68 no bid $118, 696. 68
(bid based on Steelcase
Series 9000 systems
furniture)
After carefully examining the low bid from The Office Mart, staff
and the city's interior designers recommended rejecting the low bid
for three reasons:
1. The bidder based its bid on a systems furniture line which is
not equivalent to the systems furniture lines qualified in the
procurement documents.
2. The bidder failed to bid a fixed discount rate to be applied to
future orders.
3 . The bidder failed to submit a bid on the Group B furnishings
the miscellaneous, non-systems furnishings.
NONEQUIVALENCE OF SYSTEMS FURNITURE LINE:
Section IV.B. 1 on page 10 of the procurement documents states:
"The City has qualified five lines of systems furniture which will
meet the City's needs as shown on the plans and will meet the
City's standards for durability, flexibility, variety, and value.
The City will accept bids on only the following manufacturers and
lines of systems furniture: ^,�
Evaluation of the Low Bid Submitted by The Office Mart
page 2
a. Haworth - Unigroup
b. Herman Miller - Action Office Encore
c. Steelcase - 9000 Series
d. Sunarhauserman - Design Option/Cameron
e. Westinghouse - Wes-Group"
During the bid period the city received a letter from Steve Schmidt
of Steelcase requesting authority to submit a bid based upon the
Steelcase Movable Walls line of systems furniture. In response to
all holders of the procurement documents, the city encouraged
Steelcase or any other manufacturer/dealer to submit bids based on
lines of systems furniture which might be equivalent to the
qualified lines. At the same time the city stated that it would
need information about unqualified lines which would demonstrate
equivalence to the qualified lines. (See the correspondence
attached. )
The low bid submitted by The Office Mart was based on a combination
of two systems furniture lines: Steelcase Movable Walls and
Steelcase Series 9000. Although the Steelcase Movable Walls line
offers the same durability and value as the qualified lines, it
does not contain the freestanding furniture components which
provide the large worksurfaces needed by engineering division. To
cover this deficiency, The Office Mart included freestanding
furniture components from the Steelcase Series 9000 line.
Although the interior designers argued that the two systems were
not aesthetically compatible, the bid could not be rejected solely
on that basis. The interior designers also pointed out that the
Movable Walls and Series 9000 lines have different modular
dimensions. Although the combination might work for the first
installation, future flexibility to change office configurations
could be limited by the non-compatible modules.
Although the Movable Walls line offers equivalent durability and
value, it does not by itself offer equivalent flexibility and
variety. The addition of Series 9000 components offers equivalent
variety but further compromises flexibility. Overall, the
combination of Movable Walls and Series 9000 lines is not
equivalent to the lines qualified in the procurement documents.
FAILURE TO BID A FIXED DISCOUNT RATE:
Section III.A.4 on page 6 of the procurement documents states:
"FUTURE ORDERS - If the City orders additional parts as specified
(including new or modified parts which can be retrofitted) within D�2�
Evaluation of the Low Bid Submitted by The Office Mart
page 3
five years after the contract is executed, the Contractor shall
supply, deliver, assemble, install and maintain those parts F.O.B.
San Luis Obispo, California. The prices of any additional parts
shall be determined by applying the discount rate stated in the
accepted bid proposal to the manufacturer's published list prices
in effect at the time that a future order or contract is placed.
The prices so calculated shall include all applicable taxes. "
When assembling the procurement documents staff presumed that
bidders would submit a single discount rate which would be applied
over the five year period. The Office Mart submitted a sliding
scale of discount rates based on the size, composition and timing
of the future order. After examining the stipulations of the
procurement documents, staff concluded that submittal of the
sliding scale was acceptable.
Even though The Office Mart's initial bid was low, a future order
could cost more than an equivalent order from L A Interior Systems,
the next low bidder, depending on the size and composition of the
order. The overall contract cost, including future orders, could
wind up costing more if the city awarded the furnishings contract
to The Office Mart.
FAILURE TO SUBMIT A BID ON THE GROUP B FURNISHINGS:
The Group B furnishings in the procurement documents include
miscellaneous non-systems furnishings such as flat plan files,
rolled drawing cabinets and light tables.
In its bid proposal, The Office Mart stated:
"The Office Mart is declining to submit prices on Section `B'
because we feel the overall discount on ninety-five percent of the
project will be adversely affected. "
Section II.D on page 3 of the procurement documents states that the
city reserves the right to award multiple contracts for portions of
the work. Consequently, if The Office Mart's low bid were
responsive and attractive enough, the city could award two
contracts: one to The Office Mart for the Group A furnishings and
one to L A Interior Systems for the Group B furnishings.
Nonetheless, because it's easier to award one contract instead of
two, failure to submit a bid on the Group B furnishings made The
Office Mart's low bid less attractive.
C��
Evaluation of the Low Bid Submitted by The Office Mart
page 4
CONCLUSION•
The low bid from The Office Mart was deemed non-responsive for
three reasons:
1. non-equivalence of the systems furniture line
2. failure to bid a fixed discount rate
3. failure to submit a bid on the Group B furnishings
Considered separately, either reason 1 or reason 2 makes the low
bid unacceptable to the city. Reason 3 by itself does not make the
low bid unacceptable but compounds the problems created by the
other reasons. Taken together, all three reasons make the low bid
unacceptable and unattractive for the city.
The difference between the low bid and the next low bid was
$12,358.16. A savings of $12,358. 16 does not make the lack of
- flexibility and risk of higher future prices acceptable.
attach: 11/16/87 letter from Steelcase, Inc.
11/17/87 memo to holders of the procurement documents
C-�
The Office Environmer mpiny
N305
8687 Melrose Avenue
West Hollywood,CA 90069
Telephone 213.659 5005
November 16 , 1987
Mr. Dave Elliott
City of San Luis Obispo
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, California 93401
Dear Mr. Elliott:
Thank you for recently taking a few moments to discuss your
upcoming project with me.
As you know, J. L. Design had contacted you to inquire about
allowing us to submit an additional bid for your project. The
additional bid will be the Steelcase Movable Wall system and
the Sensor chair. These products will provide you all the
capabilities you expect from systems and seating at a cost
effective price . These products are also more equal to the
competitive products being bid. Your agreement to this
additional bid is greatly appreciated .
This letter should serve as a formal request to submit an
additional bid from Steelcase and its dealer, The Office Mart.
Per our conversation, this is the proper procedure set forth in
your specification and I will look forward to your return
letter.
Should you have any questions , please feel free to call me. We
are eager about the opportunity to service your needs .
Sincerely,
Steve Schmidt
Sales Representative
/pw
CC : B . Dullea, The Office Mart
L. Sorrento, J. L. Design
E . Kuchar , Steelcase
g-z4
titr••u..r5r•,$iqw B Days
C-
I, i -
�iI1101111111111111����������� pl@IIII�III
city of sAn WIS OBISPO
990 Palm Street/Post Office Box 8100 • San Luis Obispo, CA 93403-8100
November 17, 1987
TO: All Holders of the Procurement Documents - Project to
Procure Furnishings for 955 Morro Street
FROM: David Elliott, Project Manager
SUBJECT: Questions and Answers about the Procurement Documents
The City received only one question about the procurement documents
from Steve Schmidt, Sales Representative for Steelcase,
Incorporated. The question and the City's answer are summarized
below.
Q: May Steelcase, Incorporated and its authorized dealer submit an
additional bid based on the Steelcase Movable Walls line of
systems furniture and the Sensor line of chairs? Steelcase
maintains that both of these lines are equivalent to or better
than the lines qualified in the procurement documents which are
manufactured by firms other than Steelcase.
A: The City determines that the Sensor line of chairs is
equivalent to the lines qualified in the procurement
documents. Steelcase may include the Sensor line of chairs in
its bids.
The City cannot immediately determine if the Movable Walls line
of systems furniture is equivalent to the lines qualified in
the procurement documents. Nonetheless, the City encourages
Steelcase and its authorized dealer (as well as any other
manufacturer and dealer) to submit bids based on lines of
systems furniture which they think may be equivalent to the
qualified lines. In order for the City to determine that an
unqualified line is acceptable, any manufacturer or dealer
submitting a bid based on an unqualified line must submit with
its bid qualifying information about the iirie. This
information must demonstrate to the City's satisfaction that
the durability, flexibility, variety and value of the
unqualified line make that line equivalent to or better than
the qualified lines. One method of demonstrating equivalence
would be a matrix comparing features of the unqualified line to
features of the qualified lines.
D��
EVALUATION OF THE PROTEST SUBMITTED BY NICK E. POKRAJAC
On January 5, 1988 the city clerk received the following telegram
message from Nick E. Pokrajac:
"I WOULD LIKE TO PROTEST D W PETERSON'S BID FOR THE PUBLIC WORKS
FACILITY AS THEY DID NOT LIST ALL SUBCONTRACTORS. "
On January 6, 1988 the city clerk received the attached letter from
Nick E. Pokrajac confirming and explaining its protest.
D.W. Peterson's bid proposal lists ten subcontractors for various
trades, and a representative from D.W. Peterson confirmed that all
subcontractors were listed. Work not listed for subcontractors
must be performed by D.W. Peterson. According to John Hawley and
Jack Kellerman, the license held by D.W. Peterson allows it to
perform all the work not listed for subcontractors. If D.W.
Peterson wants to add or substitute subcontractors, it must follow
specific procedures dictated by law.
Having no evidence that D.W. Peterson failed to list all its
subcontractors, staff finds no reason to disqualify D.W. Peterson's
bid on that basis. The city attorney concurs.
In his letter Mr. Pokrajac also states that several of the
subcontractors listed in D.W. Peterson's bid proposal did not
submit bids to D.W. Peterson. A representative from D.W. Peterson
stated that several of the subcontractors listed would be
contracted to R.L. Johnston, one of the subcontractors which has a
general license. Consequently, these subcontractors had submitted
their bids to R.L. Johnston rather than D.W. Peterson. A
representative from R.L. Johnston confirmed this situation and
stated that all subcontractors to R.L. Johnston were listed in D.W.
Peterson's bid proposal.
attach: 1/5/88 telegram from Nick E. Pokrajac
1/6/88 letter from Nick E. Pokrajac
1/6/88 acknowledgement of receipt of 1/6/88 letter
g�LN/
'.7"'•�yf,:.::qF(:.;6:11 __ ...If. f
NICK E POKRAJAC " d '�; '.: • : �
PO BOX 539
ATEMPLETON CA 93465 05AM
Mp
' A.L'. II' .�•
m.
4-0357165005003 01 /05/88 ICS IPMRNCZ CSP ONXA
2 8054342219 MGM TDRN TEMPLETON CA 01-05 0647P EST
RECEIVED
JAN - 6 1988
CITY CLERK OF SAN LUIS OBI SPO 8055497100 CITY(Lf:RK
990 PALM ST `°^ "`!-Et'Sro to
SAN LUIS OBISPO CA 93401
THIS IS A CONFIRMATION COPY OF A TELEGRAM ADDRESSED TO YOU:
I WOULD LIKE TO PROTEST D W PETERSON'S BID FOR THE PUBLIC WORKS
FACILITY AS THEY DID NOT LIST ALL SUBCONTRACTORS.
NICK''E POKRAJAC
PO BOX 539
TEMPLETON CA 93465
18:55 EST
MGMCOMP
g-27
TO REPLY 8Y MAILGRAM MESSAGE. SEE REVERSE 9DE FGR`lVESTERM IRRON`S I*ill • FRFF 91 9`:If Ml'MITERS
yIY '.,.}..:, n aii.: - �'�'IA- '.T,�L.Y'I Y..,y♦�!'
an ;•�t. •'y . . l"' .Si�'. '•.a:r•G.: er°,,�1" �;.-- ... •.I. -Page::.1. o.f:,2:t.i
' ,..p,Mitt i
.. 4 IyIY 1 l F y I r"Y'C 1 `1i' f vf]L W�1 , ,.-.• pP
Yw;y i,
. I' sfnf 4 y,1 t'a iYfTX ].a.,,a((li 1 , � /J ••i •''y ', J-,^.
J.
-:
.f.- 6 ,j•I'F: 1 :n. n.,. n rg •x` " +o-'✓1Nf.L7i.a r+
GehieM Building & Engih&nng Contractor ,.
z. o-
.:e�: .' ' ' —,.:a1.y.1..-':
'r •1 X ' •wYv .l '.. , .. SU•� I ., I V ryrirj/�`
' TI• Y ;1+R! I ♦ � ri. !♦ V t n 'LIQ Ye • F_..
January. 6,; 1988 r w �I I' F i'
'r1 ti vim'' T y :f ^ Y r y , w ux
-
e�e.y+aV• '��j:b ' I 11 p �T � I1J LI , I,I . .�
..a -+••b r,s Er r ,
�! ti 4
E C E:1=Vs
f San Luis' Ohlspo aP' AN:oJ
�-
'YY ' P• O• Box slob
' x San Luis. Obispor_: `CA '93903=By3W0'0 p ,.,,&X,ry y
ATTENTION;. CitYii*erli '! Y))kp')]�)t' bac , "Z ' U
A' ,•'' T II {i_vw'i
r
�:d Wd4A If ro ,,&beetPubliRE: k '
�; City Plan M-44D
..,
Gentlemen -
.
:k,k> This !.etter is in 'eonfirigat'ion;=of our telegram sent to
yesterday.. January. 5 , .1988:iJi0oritiing you that I wish to.
formally protest the bid. submitted.. b D. W Peterson. on,:tl
above referenced project.:
rw
', '•' Pursuant to the provisions of tilie�,Subletting and Subcontg �u
4
ing Fair Practices. Act, "Chapter,,;4r (commencing. at Section, A:.
O;
Part .1, Division 2 ` of the :$ublrcl>Contract, Code. of the 61-v .
7 ! •:II
of California, Contractors.;;ar •„req
euired,'.to -list: the name._.gf;.�r&0-h .
each subcontractor €or..'the;'MVa ious' classifications.:of..wok, ”
ter" will perform work of '.labor, pr Eronden;,service to.,,the oon�7�.
,Ill, �
11 Jnl. in or about the, project, ofl; 4 ,yalue. in ,excess'- of. one hai, fT nab
percent (0.5%) of the. bid,--i-Odri:.protest is .based .on, the-NU ,x "
that a large portion 'of rth6s., wor -gn.,this . project
formed by subcontractor;S .:I.;an$':.-V ;;Wlt..Peterson's. Subcontrae�
list does no t f v. A :
d,;:... reflect #}is;fi,i ;; eattac ed cop of
of subcontrac ti' _yQ a
tor..P.b 'tti ' __. Ct„,i fOx; tib> used l Cow
If D. W. Peterson, did not list all, his subcontractors th he''^�_
did not conform to the California. Government Code, and
.. 1p�
ti I • is invalid.
Also pursuant to the Government';•'Code any work of Value:,mg
::'*-1.1;1A..I
of one.-half of one percent., A5%):;: o.f.:.:the::bid :.for :which :'' "M
M " contractor is listed. will Fie performed by the bidder.. The' g', `^�
♦.t. ! }4 �
a - - are a number of specialty ' tems :in,.-this job,. such. as ; F 4•
of Toilet Partitions, ,Manufacturing of wood ,doors. and -
metal frame, installation of'.:built'• up roofing system,-,..an .�
cation of cabinets , that :were not>::,listed.:.on. D.:, W. ': Peters
bid that even myself, a ..well:1''e
xperienced..contractor,_ wou- 'd
attempt to do. "
ca.
Yyr Continued on. page
,; s �*.
1;:,p.: r.:r,. 1:• i.-.e No. 251063 •P.O. Boz 539 P 1Templetori,CA 93465.805/434-2219
T NICK E ` P/O%\KRAJAC ay`
,: .
General Building & Engineering Contractor
, .
' 6uar'y .6 41988'. : ' y
: SI.
4y of San Luis.: Obispo • .
sliE Public Plorks Facility:, at. 955 Morro Street
City PlanM=44D
...listed twenty-. one :subaontr.Actors , on my bid pr000sa.1. for thiwim
i'aEe.terson�lo ` ; yL':ated -ten, and: of that ten I av
W r yI�
fxsipte�i:l by,,:tephcteiittieo7'loutng ' companies did not
ubmit a subcontract price to: D. W. Peterson.
^Yy-ATF `Jr ':'{:.f r '� .::�;ii. •.6.6aY '
i ' Mitchell=Power,' I: . '1 ::; :' ` cal . ,.
, E
Mecham`
Chris Ploor- COV
exn r"; Floors ng
;c Santa Maria ACQusical $I Acoustical � .
Tri-County IneuLa on Insu]8 ion .. "s��Z
Central'!'-'.CoasF`ie` ProectionFire Sprinklers :�r
;r;1'; Central 'Coa v ire Equ�:pment - Fire Sprinklers"
sure that ;based upoM these 'facts you will agree that the :;.; ..
S gid' :Proposal you"reCei�fed from"D• W. Peterson on the Public .
'.'!.Proposal
Facility: ;at 955 �Motko ;Street' is 'invalid.
ihcerely, 4� a afNl
::a•.9nYIL�.�� .r,..,.:.
ick E.- Pokrajac 1.r::!s: ;:: ` ��,>�
;,~ General Contractor
yr
11III. Itrj .. �I .i .}+I
Y
( � '�.aJ• _ r'• 1�'7Y� `vulFf.
closuredo
.: a. y. .; •}',:• n,J vn, .in «4{�1! r� rN I I �,rf• ��
r frW .-a �•` 1 I � ]v f II n' wl.f ,Yy1 ,.y1 , �. , -I.I:+tri•� `�.
'3
' � I •! � �' k��,�ro `.4ti.. a J'h�i{-J r c1 � i � it I in I
.���yap•.� . •C:
Jrr IC"�•1'1'SJ �I'- r '�C.
J, � ,I N i 41 '
7 b I v l 11.1i} v.YM° +Yf• pr k�•1�'..y' Itp1AA
'i.Ys
�J,
_- i 1 y t . � 11��'��",l�'I�'�•',�'='="mr t I¢' ' 1 � J,. U�r�+�h, ..c.
•N - J. ..t .l ♦ � fK •�,, 1T Iinr tVl ':. •4d I•�My[,u.lyp�'�,R l If f I- Ir 1' � ., IJ �n1'v-t ...
., r_L. Y•� I V� CJI+ F 'rt� !�f rn t4lG F � I.r I ll r 'F �l a..�}"t
- ,� -,�'r�"�• 21 'la ,..' "-h•a4,1 r�! �r MI"5•r..'�; �,,," Y r ..MCa•,.'f+.
4rJr ,g,.1 r - av't` I , ,111. I• I ,�'�h �ilih y 7¢r YI Ilyr v
a
Y r 3yt' L e 1 J. I•4 p}YIL 1 Sf r..1. 6 . , / w. .r' ++r
I�nStete Wcerse Na X51063!P 539►T�npleton,CAJ 93 •805/434-4419
-•..L..Ip.�. «I'-L. wr.. , y. • J 1 -i �i71! •YFI11 -rq . :1�. Pl,. 11 , _ ly',.
�."r.t+�• n Z �aiF�y�a+"4Jc C
r ^ 'E'•r ♦i ......
...........
1 ISM "'!{bl.fSf,W. , � i J 1•I' r r �1 I,�I��• ,:
.xy. •,��,r J F � L N". U Llryjh Y , V ISF Y. � I ! I I�y,..i J,r4Y:• Y .ja
-� Mr
nu1C4L�Swr-. . _ .. � :} 1 a.: .. ....�'?..�">•Ii'•li 9�� I':! ..�1 _. . �a
Following is the name of the mill, shop. or office, and portion of the work
which will be done by each subcontractor, who will perform work or labor or
render services to the above-signed bidder.
Landscape & Irriwat Bonita Landscaping
Chain Link Fenno Fence Factory
Masonry Harold Bailey Inc.
nnfinQ Ouaalino Inc
-Glass & Glazing ., � T Paso Robles Glass
nrvwali
Whites Drywall
Flooring &^C.gpCt einderPl7a Carpets
Painting ra 1 tri n Waddle
_ Toilet PartitjQns A+-agradern Door
1i4AC & Shee_t�Met4l r. t� G Mechanic4l.
Plumilh-- - Gann Plumhinv
Fire Sgtynkl.ars s 6 M Pir2 SpTi,nnklers
Electrical Caldpr Flectric
Hollow -Metal Doors b Hardware Atascadero Doors
Awnings Bayview Pwnina
Signs John Allen Sivns
_Misc. Metal Seabera Metal Fabricatc
Plastering Evans Plasteriner
Cabinets Woodborne Inc
�xisul: t;�n United California Insul
Toilet Accessories Atascadero Doors
c
g' W
NICK E. POKRA AC `-
General Building & Engineering Contractor "
January 6, 1987
r. . . .. ..:••ah4..
N'
V. . .. Acknowledgement of receipt of letter dated January 6 , 1988*::_.;_ ;.. .. t•r
addressed to the City of San Luis Obispo, to the attention
r. ..'.: ...:...:.. ; � :..�. ..
of the City Clerk in reference to the Bid for the Public ;,� 'k•�
Works Facility at 955 Morro Street, City Plan No. M-44D•
:y.•drs-.: !tel,�• !. r. :'!L:: �
R E C E I V E E)
ceived/by �..,:. :.
JAN
6 198
•.4 yf'ti;E.a...�., �I � .. ' �2.^� OSQ6CLERK ::� 'iw••
P:a>::LiDr
SAN l i ig
Title
Date
iJl:...�_ qtr.. '•..';Ji�rr�••'
iln
• �F`!,tri^`::lid."ru... � .. '.'"'r'�r".'-S+4•h'
•rte{.:wr-':ry.: r�. �r�..a.- . �� !
MEETI" AUENUA j
_a i ea
DATE • ITEM #
ic theoff ema
rOv
2-1-88 h�
Mr . David Elliot
Ori
City of San Luis Obispo
P .O. Box 8100
San Luis Obispo, CA. 93493
Subject: Furniture Procurement - 955 Morro Street
We are submitting a list of four responses to your letter
evaluation of our low bid for furnishings submitted December
1 , 1988 .
Section IV-B. 1 - The Office Mart did respond, in our low bid
of $104 , 424 .00 with Steelcase system furniture, that your own
letter confirms does meet durability and value . The free standing
desks and "U" shape requirements are specifically addressed in our
bid with "worksurfaces to connect freestanding worksurfaces . " The
L.A. design office failed to provide free standing worksurfaces in
your offices ie #1 107 , 108 , 109 &110 . They used a panel mounted
worksurface as part of their solution - non-responsive.
Section III-A.4 - Future- Orders
Your letter, page 3 , states the Office Mart submitted a
"sliding scale of discount rates" and "that submittal of the
sliding scale was acceptable . "
We further submit that a twelve thousand three hundred
dollar initial bid savings is substancial . An analysis of
products to be purchased in the future using Hayworth 51%
discount versus Steelcase 50% discount or 45% discount would
not end up costing the City more dollars - in many cases
less ! !
Example : ( sheet #2 attached )
Shows a random selection of codes #5 , 10 , 15 , 20 , 25 ,
30, 35 , & 40 ( as prepared by your designer ) listed for both
vendors . Steelcase/Office Mart net low by $20 . 35 !
Company Offices & Distribution Center
4181 State Street, P.O Box 30570, Santa Barbara, CA 93130/(805)683-1533
Section IV-J3 - System furniture pedestals and drawers
Specifications call for pedestals with ,two file drawers. "
Attached is a copy of Hayworth - "unigroup" - catalog pages
29 and 30 that specify for "safe loading - only one 12"
drawer can be included and it must be the bottom drawer . :
The L.A. design response to specify two 20" deep file drawers
is unsafe and clearly unresponsive. The Office Mart/Steelcase
response is to provide a two file drawer pedestal , 29" deep,
with no load limitations as specified .
Conclusion - Combining the Steelcase 9000 and movable wall
systems provides a high quality, flexible , paint , color and
surface matched solution for the City at a $12 , 300 . 00 savings .
Kern County has recently conducted a three month long - evaluation
to purchase 1500 work stations and concluded Steelcase ' s movable
walls system to be the best solution based on cost savings and
quality. (Contact 805-861-2301 for information)
Yours Truly,
Robert E . Dullea
Vice -President
RED/jb
Copy To : Ron Dunin , Councilman
Penny Rappa , Councilwoman
Peg Pinard, Councilwoman
Jerry Reiss , Councilman
Allen K . Settle, Councilman
STEELCASE
Bid Code # Item/Description List Disc. Net
A-5 48x30 Work Surface $297 .00 -45% $163 . 35
PWS-4830 CC
A-10 42x30 Corner $458 . 00 -45% $251.90
PCWR-90W
A-15 3611W Overhead Shelf $276 . 00 -45% $151 . 80
w/Door PBB-3615
A-20 30"W Shelf $104 . 00 -45% $57 . 20
PHBS-3015
A-25 36" Tackboard $75. 00 -45% $41 . 25
MWTB-3615
A-30 Tasklight - 30 " $103 . 00 -450/o $56 . 65
PLP-30C
A-35 Pedestal One Box/ $276 . 00 -45% $151 . 80
One File PWS-30BLH
A-40 Pedestal - 2 File $383 . 00 -45% $210 . 65
Drawers PWS-30-21
TOTAL $1 , 084 . 60
HAYWORTH
Bid Code # Item/Description List Disc. Net
A-5 48x30 WS-430 $252 . 00 -51% $123 . 48
A-10 48x30 WASF-430 $480 . 00 -510% $235 . 20
A-15 36W Shelf w/Door $312 . 00 -51% $152. 88
SR-4 - 108
FDRV-3 204
A-20 SR-30 $99 . 00 -510ml $48 . 51
A-25 TB-316 $110 . 00 -51% $53 . 90
A-30 TL-30 $120 . 00 -51% $58 . 80
A-35 MDSN-6 183 . $416.00 -51% $203 . 84 •
MDSN-6 233 .
A-40 Not Available, Safety $466 . 00 -51% $228 . 34
Problem
MDSN-12 233 .
MDSN-12 233 .
TOTAL $1, 104 . 95
STEELCASE LOW BY $20 . 35 ON 8 RANDOM SELECTIONS
NI � � UNIG
�;t2�� : r,.��. . : - � ROUP C( NPONENTS/ , -
=;; ACCESSORIES
:,...:: E RIES ,
LATERAL FILE BIN FILING CAPACITIES IN LINEAL INCHES
LM-42 LFOA
,r. . :.. ,;. . .. - Letter size 0.
gade-to-side 210 0' 27,Jv'
Letter-size
front-to-back 12" 1' 12" 1' E24!' 2' 36" 2' 36' 2 48 3'
Legal size
- front-to-back 12" 1' 12" 1' 24" 2' 24" . 2' • 24" 2' 36" 3'
3%„ 9%„ 12%h" 9
Letter size
•
�_.i.,... side-to-side 1„ 6Y."
''. °•-'- .• • --- -' - 'number of file converison kit hanging bars needed
■DRAWERS
os ■Shallow drawers have four Height Depth width Number Price
compartments -3 t5°i" levy' os3 (Shallow)"" $ 25
■Deep file drawers are equipped with 11" 15%" 1614. DFL-11 (File)*!__ 139
lock and key 8,q" 13" 16" DSD-11 85
■Filing capacity for deep file drawer: (Stationery Divider)
DFL —letter-size, side to side: 18"
—legal-size,rfront back: 15 1/4"
■Stationery insert for deep file drawer
has six sections
Specify finish color for:
DsD Profile surface
■MODULAR DRAWER SYSTEL2(Y'
R DRAWER UNITS
G ■Mount under work surface or sta k Depthwidth Hel M Number Price
on pedestal base 14%" 3" MDSN-3`• $119
■Only one locking drawer is requireMosta'• 127 S13f
to allow gang-locking of any set of s". MDSN3'• $163 76,y4
drawers MDSL-6'm 193
l ■Lock cylinders optional 12' MDSN-12" $233
■Front to back filing capacity is 18" MDSL-12'- 241 /a/•Z z.
MDSN ■File conversion kit can be used for
MPT side-to-side filing in 12" drawer MODULAR DRAWER ACCESSORIES
(see page 28) Description Number Price
MSD
=Price includes fasteners for any pencil Tray MPT-100 $ 17
mounting configuration Stationery Divider, 6" MSD-6'' 40
■CAK 100 (page 42) required for Drawer
mounting to steel work surfaces Drawer Divider,6" MDD-6'• 25
Specify finish color for: Drawer
' MDD MDC Profile surface
.ir.;t:,• Compressor/Adaptor, MDC-12'' 31
Pencil tray finish 12' Drawer
4.
l .s; color—Charcoal only Lock Kit MLK-1 15
�# Mobile Baselraboret MMB3'0 187
,r ;
Top k
a
•• ;,;_.,_, ., Stationary Basefraboret MSB3 . 127
Top
We
*Available through RUSH.
WORK SURFACE EXTENDER
•Available through RUSH PLUS.
Please consult RUSH/RUSH PLUS price list. Height width Depth Number Price
1'/a" 14%" 2D•' WSE-1'0 $139
29
Is
UNI R ONENTS/�
{, G OU COMP ,
i, I r s ..? s +t ,r, �q r •? a�- �',�: +
`I.' ACCESSORIES
T7q:
+ ', •" y`;, `,.• vt,.,-K' jl'. ■MODULAR DRAWER SPECIFICATION
AND INSTALLATION REQUIREMENTS "Fk �` -M
w For suspending drawer stacks on work
..• -" , Possible Supper . Wort Single Multiple , � ,i
-I- > surfaces, d0 not exceed these mount-
Locations Required Surface PedesW Pedestal :=?
Ing requirements: 24„x24„ 21
1 2
It NOTE: The maximum pedestal height
P 9 20"x30' 2T
is the total of the heights of all drawers 1 2 3a'x20•' 27”
suspended beneath a single work30'x20" 27' ":.;':
surface. 30'x30 27'
Maximum pedestal heights are based
P 9 2 2 36"x20' 27" 54"
on the following drawer load
36^x24" 27" 39"'
capacities: 36 x30 27" 39
dd 3" Drawer— 9 pounds
6" Drawer-18 pounds 2 2 az'x2a' 27" 5a"
47'x24" 27" 39"
12' Drawer-36 pounds
{i 4200' 27" 39"
For safe loading of drawers with either 3 2 48"x20' 27' sr'
mobile or stationary pedestal bases, 48"x24" 2r 39r
the height of the drawer stack (exclud- 48"x30' 27' 39
ing the base and taboret top) should 3 2 60'x20' 27' 511'
:. F l not exceed 24". In addition, only one
61Y'x24" v" 39
12" drawer can be included, and it 60'x30 27' 39
must be the bottom-most drawer. 4 3 72x20' 27" 51"
Dynamic or moving loads may require 72'x24" 27" sr'
additional panel support to assure a 72 x30 27" 51"
`iq stable, safe condition. For proper panel
support, refer to Designing with
Haworth or contact the Customer
- ,
6 Service Department.
EVALETS — VIDENE AND FABRIC FRONTS
■Three-garment capacity VIDENE FRONTS
■Shelf for footwear storage Height Depth width Number Price
(: ■Price includes hanger rod, mounting s3" 7�i." 28' VRV-2853 $252
brackets (Right Opening)
Specify finish/colors for: VLV-2853 252
Fabric or Videne surface (Len Opening)
Profile trim
t.; Typical specification number:
VRV-2853 V-8L (Gray Tone) G
FABRIC FRONTS
$ VRV
„ Flannel or
. Basketweave •'
Height Depth Width Number
Pinpoint Basketweave Robnell
53" 7%" 28" VRF-2853 $277 $291 $306 .
(Right Opening)
- VLF-2853 277 291 306
�I (Left Opening)
30
MEMORANDUM "�`��, city of san K , oBispo �
990 Palm Street/Box 8100•San Luis Obispo.CA 93403.8100
TO City Counci MEETING AGENDA
IIATE FEY Z BB ITEM #
FROM Pam V e CG: T �lph L -
SUBJECT Per onne Board 9/88
The Council Subcommittee (Reiss/Pinard) did not get an opportunity to
deliberate following the Personnel Board interviews held on Wednesday,
1/27 and is requesting that this item be continued to Tuesday, 2/9.
PV:skj
MEETIAr, AGENDA
DATE -
fie ITEM
�illllllll IIIIIIIIII III�����������I �I II I III� #
city of sAn tuis OBIS
p
990 Palm Street/Post Office Box 8100 • San Luis Obispo, CA 93403 8100
cc• - art
February 2, 1988
To: City Councilmembers
From: Mayor Ron Duni
n
Subject: Planning Commission Appointment
The Planning Commission Subcommittee of Councilman Allen Settle and
myself, reviewed all applications for the vacant position on the Planning
Commission created by the election of Commissioner Jerry Reiss.
After interviewing seventeen applicants on January 13, 27, and 28, the
Subcommittee differed as to the qualifications of the leading applicants.
It is my recommendation to the Council that Randy Bullock be appointed to
fill the unexpired term ending March 31, 1988. I am further concerned
that because of the possibility of appointing Mr. Bill Roalman (Mr.
Settle's recommended applicant) , the Commission will become unbalanced.
The reappointment of Charles Crotser, Donna Duerk and Richard Schmidt
should not be considered at this time.
Included with this recommendation is my understanding of the chronological
events which led to this basic disagreement between Councilman Settle and
myself. It is my hope that after review of both applicants, the Council
will appoint without prejudice, the person most qualified, that is
Randy Bullock.
RD:ra
Attachment
�IIIO IIII IIIIIII�IIIIIIIIIIII �IIIIII IIII
IIII II II
I city -of
sAn tuis oBispo
990 Palm Street/Post Office Box 8100 • San Luis Obispo,CA 93403-8100
February 2, 1988
i
To: City Councilmembers
From: Mayor Ron Dunin
Subject: Criteria for Planning Commission Appointments
After receiving the memo from the Council Subcommittee Chair dated
December 21, 1987 (attached) , I discussed with Councilman Settle the most
unusual and unprecedented approach and deviation from well-established
procedures in recommending the appointments to the Planning Commission. I
would .like to point out the unfairness of the suggested new approach.
1. In the past, election results were never used as criteria for the
appointment to any City Commission. This type of appointment is
strictly political.
2. The Subcommittee received many applications (26) , and it became
obvious to me that many applicants had very high qualifications.
To assure the fairness of the review of the applications, I developed the
criteria and matrix to be applied during the interviews of all
applicants. I would like to add that in putting the criteria together, I
have consulted with the CAO, City Clerk, City Attorney, Community
Development Director and the Chair of the Planning Commission. After the
review of the criteria, the Subcommittee agreed to use the criteria and
matrix during the interviews. Councilman Settle chose not to use the
matrix in subsequent interviews.
Prior to the vacancy created by the election of Jerry Reiss, the Planning
Commission was fairly balanced, therefore, it is obvious that the person
replacing Commissioner Jerry Reiss should have a similar business
background.
Mr. Bullock fits that description in every way. He has been on the
Commission for a period of five years including two years as Chairman. He
was highly regarded as a Commissioner and Chair by his colleagues and the
Council. After a short hiatus (for family reasons) , he has reapplied for
the third time. Each time he has been bypassed for a candidate of lesser
experience and qualifications. It is my strong belief that if the Council
wants appointments to the commission to be personalized, I would recommend
that each Councilmember appoint one commissioner and reduce the size of
the commission to five commissioners.
RD:ra
��►��►�I►�►Ilfll�lllllllll pi�►►u�►i►I� WIS 0131SPO
�Illll II
990 Palm Street/Post Office Box 8100 • San Luis Obispo, CA 93403-8100
To: Ron Dunin
From: Allen Settle\
Date: December 21, 1987
Subject: Planning Commission Vacancy
With reference to the Planning Commission vacancy, I am familizlr with the
applicants who currently filed for this position left by the election of
Jerry Reiss.
I am supportive of Mr. Bill Roalman as a new Planning Commissinuer on the
grounds that he has applied for and has received the largest number of
votes of individuals who sought a City Council seat and was not elected.
Last, he is a person with a constituency and of greater importance, he has
expertise in environmental matters as an engineer that are of a great
concern to this community. These concerns include the matters
appropriated with transportation of toxic materials, storage of &"cll
materials, use of materials, particularly as they relate to burl Ilse.
If you are in agreement with my recommendation, I am rendy f.o I:Ilee action
on this item at our January 5th meeting. If Mr. Ron Benrr..e 11, 1.1 ed to
any committees, I feel that he should be considered also as a rwrnon IVho
has sought office and may be applied on one of our advisory comin.ittres.
Finally, I believe this recommendation to the Council will .Likely receive
a unanimous vote. If this is not acceptable, we need to schedule
appointments for interviewing.
Thank you for your consideration. ,
AKS:ra
c: Pam Voges
MEETIN( AGENDA �/�
��IIIIIIIIIIIIIII IIIII���� ffi !'3
aEMCl100
O sAn1 O 1ST
990 Palm Street/Post Office Box 8100 • San Luis Obispo,CA 93403 8100
February 2, 1988
MEMORANDUM
TO: City Council
FROM: Councilman Allen Settle
SUBJECT: Planning Commission Appointments
The Council Subcommittee (Settle/Dunin) reviewed all applications and -
interviewed 17 people on January 13th, 27th, and 28th. We had an
excellent number of applicants to choose from but were unable to reach a
unanimous decision.
It is my recommendation that Bill Roalman be appointed to fill the vacancy
created by Jerry Reiss in December. This is an unexpired term due to
expire March 31, 1988.
It is my further recommendation that the Council reappoint the following:
Charles Crotser
Donna Duerk
Richard Schmidt
These would be for a two-year term expiring March 31, 1990. It is my
understanding that Mayor Dunin will have a separate report for Council to
consider. Applications of the individuals interviewed are attached.
AS/lb
Attachments
AB/PC-REC