HomeMy WebLinkAbout01/15/1991, C-7 - UNIT 3 WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT IMPROVEMENTS-BID REJECTION-AUTHORIZTION TO REBIDL3
^" " "i� ► ►�I{Illfl�� ►a����lll city of San tins OBISpo
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
e".--
MEETING DATE:
Janua 15 1991
ITEM NUMB;
FROM: William T. Hetlandl,. }f' Prepared By: John E. Moss
Utilities Director Wastewater Division Manage 91
SUBJECT:
Unit 3 Wastewater Treatment Plant Improvements - �� "
Rejection - Authorization to Rebid. L ,. �f
RECOMMENDATION: JAN 1 p 1991
By motion, reject all bids for the Unit 3 Wastewater WY CREAK
Treatment Plant Improvements, City Plan No. R-28S,S*MIS OBISPO, CA
authorize staff to rebid.
On August 7, 1990, Council approved plans and specifications
for the Unit 3 Wastewater Treatment Plant Improvements, City
Plan No. R -28S, and authorized staff to solicit bids. Bids
were received and opened for this project on November 7,
1990. The City's consulting engineers, Brown and Caldwell,
has subsequently completed an in depth evaluation of the
three (3) low bids to determine compliance with the various
requirements for projects receiving State and Federal
assistance. The City is proposing to utilize State low
interest loans to fund the needed improvements and therefore
is required to comply with the various requirements of the
State and Federal governments.
Review of the three low bids showed all three to have
significant deficiencies in addressing the requirements of
the Clean Water Grants Bulletin No. 113A related to minority
and women business enterprise (MBE /WBE) development (a copy
of the review report is attached). This bulletin identifies
five (5) positive effort steps for obtaining MBE /WBE
participation on the project, which must be followed by
contractors bidding the project (a copy of Bulletin No. 113A
is attached for review). It is the City's responsibility to
review the MBE /WBE procurement documentation submitted by
the contractor and certify the contractor's compliance with
the requirements of Bulletin 113A to the State. The State
in turn, cannot provide the City with approval to award the
contract without the contractor's compliance certified by
the City. Finally, should the City certify a contractor who
has not complied with these requirements, the City may
jeopardize it's low interest loan from the State.
In addition to the above noted deficiencies, the second and
third low bidders have filed letters of protest, should the
City award to the low bidder. These protests are based on
C."' r'
'011IIIII1�1 1, 1 MY of san _ass OBISPO
ONGe COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Unit 3 WWTP Improvements
January 15, 1991
Page 2
the same MBE /WBE deficiencies identified by the City's
consultant, Brown and Caldwell. The low bidder in turn, has
stated that they will protest award to another contractor as
they feel they are the "lowest responsible bidder ". Based
on review of the bids submitted by all three low bidders,
staff would not recommend certifying any of them to the
State.
In order to protect the City's receipt of low interest loan
monies from the State and to avoid the potential of costly
and time consuming litigation from a protest, staff is
recommending Council reject all bids and authorize staff to
re -bid the project.
CONCURRENCES:
The City Attorney's office has been involved in the
evaluation of the bid submittals and has reviewed the
requirements of the State. The City Attorney concurs with
the recommendation to reject all bids and re-bid the
project.
FISCAL IMPACT:
The fiscal impacts of rejecting the bids and readvertising
are primarily related to additional staff time required for
advertisement and mailing documents, printing of project
documents, and additional engineering services related to
additional bidding and bid review assistance.
The cost of printing the project documents will be covered
by the sale of the documents to the contractors. Staff
estimates the cost of the additional engineering services
will not exceed $10,000 and may be covered under an existing
agreement for special engineering services.
Fiscal impacts related to the actual improvements project
were previously identified in the August 7, 1990 Council
Agenda Report. A copy of that report is attached for your
review.
The engineer's estimate for this project was $15,245,000,
including engineering and administration. Bids were
received ranging from a low of $13,373,000 to a high of
$18,172,000. Staff does not anticipate a significant change
in the bid amounts as a result of the re -bid since the cause
for rejection of the bids was a matter of proper procedure
not being followed by the contractors rather than a material
defect in the bids which would cause a significant change in
price. /01 V 0.
. e
111141NI 1jl1111i city of San LUIS OBISpo
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Unit 3 WWTP Improvements
January 15, 1991
Page 3
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Direct staff to submit Approval to Award request to the
State for one of the three low bidders. This
alternative is not recommended as it may jeopardize the
City's low interest loan from the State and will likely
result in a protest being filed by the remaining low
bidders.
2. Direct staff to continue evaluation of the remaining
bids and recommend award to the lowest bidder found to
be in full compliance with the MBE /WBE and other
requirements. This alternative is not recommended as
the cost difference between the bids becomes
significant after the first three. The cost difference
between the first three was approximately $250,000.
The cost difference between low bid and the fourth
lowest is approximately $700,000.
By motion, reject all bids for the Unit 3 Wastewater
Treatment Plant Improvements, City Plan No. R -28S, and
authorize staff to rebid.
Attachments:
- Bid review report
- CWG Bulletin No. 113A
- Aug. 7, 1990 Council Agenda Report
rebidcar.u3
�_3
BROWN AND CALDWELL c ENGI
December 21,
Hr. John Hoss
City of San Luis Obispo
Department of Public Works
955 Morro Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
5524.40
Subject: San Luis Obispo WWTP Improvements - Unit 3
Evaluation of the Three Lowest Bidder's MBE /WBE
Positive Effort Documentation
Dear Hr. Moss:
As requested by the City of San Luis Obispo, I have evaluated the
information submitted by Kaweah Construction Company, Herco
Construction Engineers, Inc. and Alder Engineering and
Construction Company to document the affirmative steps they have
taken prior to bid opening to assure that MBE and WBE businesses
were used whenever possible as sources of supplies and
construction services. Hy evaluation is measured against a
literal interpretation of the requirements set forth in
Attachment No. 1 of the Contract Provisions of the State Water
Resources Control Board (SWRCB), Division of Clean Water Grants
(DCWG) Relative to the Utilization of Minority Business
Enterprise (HBE) and Women Business Enterprise (WBE) on Clean
Water Grant - Construction Contracts in California.
Hy recommendation is based upon, what I- believe to be, a
reasonable- assessment of the three lowest bidder's compliance
with those requirements.
EVALUATION OF FIVE AFFIRMATIVE STEPS
1. 'Including qualified HBE /WBE businesses on solicitation
lists.'
6202 AVEMOA ENCINAS CAR:« -+..O. CSLIFORNIA 92009-0171 • (618) 438.8277 FAY ISi9! 438 8892
Evaluation
December 21, 1990
Page 2 of 18
The bidder must document that it requested assistance from
the Small Business Administration and the Office of Minority
Business Enterprise MBE /WBE assistance centers and that this
request for assistance was received by the MBE /WBE
— - assistance centers at least five (5) working days prior to
the need for referrals (see affirmative Step No. 5).
- As part of my review, I retraced the steps outlined in
Kaweah's letter to John Moss, dated November 13, 1990. The
results of that effort is presented as follows:
A. On December 4, 1990 I called the regional office of the
Small Business Administration at (415) 744 -3001. I
requested a list of HBE /WBE contractors. In response,
I was asked where I lived. I replied that the project
was located in San Luis Obispo. I was then referred to
(213) 380 -9471, which is a firm called the Business
Development Center of Southern California and is funded
by the Minority Business Development Agency in
Washington, D.C. (Dept. of Commerce).
I spoke with Hr. Cleveland O'Neil. When I asked for a
list of HBE /WBE firms, Hr. O'Neil explained that his
group did not furnish lists of potential subcontrac-
tors. However, if specific tasks were provided, Hr.
O'Neil would relay them to his clients for their
consideration. When I inquired if Kaweah had contacted
them, Hr. O'Neil indicated that he would have his staff
check and call me back.
Later in the afternoon, a Hr. Humphrey Hontemayor did
call me. He explained that because of the large volume
of calls received, it was impossible to remember
whether or not they had been contacted by Kaweah. From
this, I deduced that telephone logs are not kept.
Hr. Hontemayor explained that when a prime contractor
called for qualified subcontractors the Business
Development Center (BDC) did some screening by asking
if the subcontractor had to be union or if a bond was
required. After the necessary data had been obtained,
the request for subcontractors was presented to its
clients for consideration. He said it would be
difficult for his Los Angeles contractors to be
competitive on a project located in San Luis Obispo.
He indicated that there were BDC's located much closer
to our project, for example, in the Oxnard /Santa
Barbara area.
BROWN AND CALDWELL
6202 AVENUM ENCINAS CAF! BAC. CALWORNIA 92009 -OM -(619) 438-5277 FA):. (y1g) 438 -0892
7-
Evaluation
December 21, 1990
Page 3 of 18
Under these circumstances, I think it's fair to say
that Raweah did contact the Small Business
Administration. However, it probably would have been
more effective to have contacted BDC's closer to the
work.
B. Next, I attempted to contact the Office of Minority
Business Enterprise - U.S. Department of Commerce at
the number listed in the Contract Documents, (415) 556 -
6734.- There was no answer. I then called San
.Francisco information and was given (415) 744 -3001,
which is the Small Business Administration number.
Again, given these circumstances, Raweah should receive
credit for having made an effort to comply with this
requirement.
C. As strongly recommended at the October pre -bid meeting
by Hr. Dick Nasser (SWRCB), Raweah contacted the
California Department of Transportation in Sacramento.
Since the project is located in San Luis Obispo, it was
directed to call Cal Trans in San Luis Obispo. On
12/04/901, I called the Cal Trans office in San Luis
Obispo at (805) 549 -3111, spoke with Hs. Vivian
Hendershot, and asked if she would send me a list of
Cal Trans certified HBE /WBE contractors. She indicated
that Cal Trans did not send out lists, that the SLO
office -had only one copy, that it was approximately 2'
thick, and contained certified contractors for the
entire state. If I wanted to see the list I would have
to go to the SLO office to look at it. Hs. Hendershot
then referred me to NK Creative Enterprises at (213)
216 -1557.
When I called (213) 216 -1557, I reached a Hr. Compton
Williams who briefly explained that his firm did not
give out lists of Cal Trans certified contractors.
Further, that if I did not have a Cal Trans contract
number that he could verify, all he could do for me was
to confirm whether or not a specific contractor was Cal
Trans certified. Hr. Compton was very pleasant and
took the time to explain his contract limitations. If
our project was a Cal Trans project NK Creative
Enterprises would prepare lists of HBE /WBE sub - bidders
for our contractors.
BROWN AND CALDWELL .,- G
GM AVENIDA Erne -•:,s CASLSBAD. CAUFORNIA MN"71 • (619) 1.' -: -ez. ; FAX: (s1s) 438 -68W
Evaluation
December 21, 1990
Page 4 of 18
Kaweah appears to have expended a reasonable good -faith
effort to contact the Small Business Administration and
the Office of Hinority Business Enterprise assistance
centers. However, Kaweah has submitted no evidence of
having obtained any material benefit from -tnat effort.
2. "Assure that HBE /WBE businesses are solicited'Wi,enever they
are potential sources."
'The bidder must document that it has provided invitations
to MBE /WBE bidders at least seven (7) working days prior to
the need of a bid response.
The bidder must document that invitations were sent to at
least .three (3) (or all if less than three) HBE /WBE
contractors /suppliers for each item of work referred by the
HBE /WBE assistance center(s). The invitations must
adequateJ.y specify the item(s) for which sub -bids were
requested. The documentation of the bidder's effort to show
positive efforts must indicate a real desire for a positive
response; i.e., certified letter with return receipt
requested or telephone call documentation. A regular letter
or an unanswered telephone call is not adequate positive
effort.
The bidder must submit to the grantee documentation
consisting of a list of all sub - bidders for each item of
work that HBEs or WBEs were solicited including dollar
amounts for both HBE /WBE and non - HBE /WBE sub - bidders.-
Kaweah has submitted documentation of its advertisements
requesting HBE /WBE /SBE quotes in the following publications:
DAILY PACIFIC BUILDER
- Did advertise 7- working days prior to bid day.
- Ad did request quotations from HBE /DBE /WBE
subcontractors.
- The ad indicated that Bid Day was 11/01/90 allowing a
very short time for subs to submit bids.
DAILY CONSTRUCTION SERVICE
- Did nn_i advertise for HBE /WBE quotations
- The date of publication is shown to be 10/31/90,
which is not 7- working days prior to the 11/07/90 Bid
Date.
BROWN AND CALDWELL -e.
6202 AW N.L IA E •<CGr:A£ CARL.SOAa CAUFORNw 9=9-0+'+ - 1619) 438 -8277 FAX: (6/9) 438.8892
Evaluation
December 21, 1990
Page 5 of 18
DODGE GREEN SHEET
- Did advertise 7- working days prior to Bid Day.
- Ad did request quotations from MBE /WBE /DBE
subcontractors.
- The ad indicated that bids were due 11/01/90 allowing
a very short time for subs to submit bids.
SACRAMENTO BUILDER'S EXCHANGE
- Did advertise 7- working days prior to Bid Day.
- Ad did ant request quotations from HBE /WBE subs.
- The ad indicated that bids were due 11/01/90 allowing
a very short time for subs to submit bids.
CONSTRUCTION DATA AND NEWS
- Nothing submitted shows the above name on any of the
advertisements.
- An unidentifiable ad does show that Raweah advertised
sub -bids from HBE /DBE /WBE /SBE subcontractors and
suppliers.
- The unidentified ad submitted shows no publication
date.
- The unidentified ad shows 11/01/90 as the date when
bids are due.
Raweah has stated that, on October 18, 1990 invitations were
sent by regular mail to a list of HBE /WBE /SBE businesses
gathered from the San Francisco /Oakland Minority Business
Development Center.
A. Raweah's form letter inviting sub -bids does net specify
the item for which sub -bids are requested, as
stipulated in the specific requirements for this step.
B. Raweah, by sending its invitations by regular mail, has
ant demonstrated an adequate positive effort according
to the specific requirements for this step.
C. The list of HBE /WBE /SBE businesses provided was for the
EBHUD, Rheem Pumping Plant. All listed businesses are
located in the San Francisco bay area and are more
appropriate for the EBHUD project than for San Luis
Obispo -Unit 3. Again, it probably would have been more
effective to have solicited businesses located closer
to the project.
BROWN AND CALDWELL
5:':_AVFNIOACNC(NA8 CARLSBAD ,CAL(FORNIA?:npo {r1•(579)438 -8277 FAX:(519)436.6892
Evaluation
December 21, 1990
Page 6 of 18
D. The list depicting a display of a random 40 out of 84
companies is of little use. Of the firms listed, only
one (1) is located in the state of California. Host
show addresses in the eastern half of the United
Mates —We do not regard this as an appropriate
positive effort.
E. -I.. its letter to John Moss, dated November 13, 19901,
Kaweah lists five (5) MBE /WBE /SBE firms that it
contacted by telephone. For a project of this size,
,this effort appears to be meager at best.
F. Kaweah has nat submitted to the grantee documentation
consisting of a list of all sub - bidders for each item
of work that HBEs or WBEs were solicited including
dollar amounts for both MBE /WBE and non - MBE /WBE sub -
bidders.
There is no doubt that Kaweah Construction Co. has made an
effort to comply with this requirement. However, as the
prece.eding list of discrepancies indicates, its effort does
not fully satisfy the requirements stipulated for Item No. 2
of the list of five positive affirmative effort steps.
3. "Divide total requirements, when economically feasible, into
small tasks or quantities to permit maximum participation of
HBE /WBE businesses.'
Construction of wastewater facilities involves many
different crafts. The San Luis Obispo -Unit 3 project is
only moderate in size and, accordingly, the size of
subcontracts for painting, reinforcing, landscaping and
electrical, etc. will be some fraction of the modest bid
price of $13 million. Accordingly, we believe this
requirement for this project to be self - satisfying.
4. "Establish delivery schedules where the requirements of the
work permit, which will encourage participation by small,
minority, and women's businesses.'
Contractor will be required to develop a detailed CPH
Construction Schedule immediately after issuance of the
Notice -to- Proceed. The activities on this schedule will, to
some extent, be driven by the need to keep the existing
plant elements functioning and on -line 24 hours per day
during the construction period. This situation and the 25-
BROWN AND CALDWELL a ",• f
620. AVENIDA ENONAS CAgLu6AD.CAUFO=!4!A 95 ^09 -0171 • 18191436.67717 FAX: (619) 438-E :. �2
•
Evaluation
December 21, 1990
Page 7 of 18
month project duration limit scheduling flexibility, but
should still provide sufficient and reasonable time for
MBE /WBE sub - bidders to perform.
5. 'The bidder must present documentation that contact was made
with both the Small Business Administration and the Office
.of Minority Business Enterprise.'
As documented earlier, I have mimicked the steps Kaweah has
taken to contact the offices listed above. The results I
experienced were much the same as Kaweah's. I believe
Kaweah has satisfied this requirement.
SUMMARY:
Brown and Caldwell's review of the three lowest bids as outlined
in our letter dated 11/26/90, identified deficiencies in each of
the contractor bid packages. None of the deficiencies were, in
our opinion, at the time of bid opening, sufficiently severe to
cause rejection of the bids by themselves. However, Kaweah's
failure to submit the appropriate Form 4700 -5 and its further
failure to provide most of the required information was regarded
as a serious defect. During our subsequent review of Kaweah
Construction Company's MBE /WBE positive effort documentation
submitted subsequent to the bid opening, additional errors and
defects were found. In our opinion, Kaweah's failure to fully
comply with various HBE /WBE good -faith effort requirements in
both its bid and in its positive effort documentation,
constitutes a major deviation and exceeds the level of
irregularity which an owner could prudently waive.
EVALUATION OF FIVE AFFIRMATIVE STEPS
1. 'Including qualified HBE /WBE businesses on solicitation
lists.'
The bidder must document that it requested assistance from
the Small Business Administration and the Office of Minority
Business Enterprise MBE /WBE assistance centers and that this
request for assistance was received by the HBE /WBE
assistance centers at least five (5) working days prior to
the need for referrals (see affirmative Step No. 5)_
BROWN AND CALDWELL
8202AVENIDAENCINAS CARL.SEtn•_:.LIFORNIA92009 .0171•(819)438.8277 FAX:(E19!Q8•EE92
R
Evaluation
December 2.1, 1990
Page 8 of 18
As part of my review, I retraced the steps outlined in
Merco's letter to John Moss, dated November 28, 1990. In
its letter, Herco indicated it had contacted the following
associations on October 3 and 4, 1990. The following
information was obtained as a result of retracing those
contacts:
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF WOMEN BUSINESS OWNERS
On December 17, 1990 I called the National Association of
Women Business Owners and spoke with Hs. Bonnie Winter. She
could find no record of having been contacted by Herco
regarding the San Luis Obispo project. However, without a
comprehensive telephone log, there is no evidence that the
National Association of Women Business Owners was not
contacted by Herco.
WOMEN CONSTRUCTION OWNERS - EXECUTIVES
I then called Women Construction Owners- Executives at (415)
568 -6174 and talked with Ed Sumrall. Hr. Sumrall could find
no record of a Herco inquiry.
ASSOCIATED GENERAL CONTRACTORS
Next, I called the Associated General Contractors at (415)
568 -8839 and again reached Ed Sumrall. Hr. Sumrall had sent
Herco a list of northern California HBE /WBE sources of
assistance on October 3, 1990.
MINORITY BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT CENTER
Hy next calls were to the Minority Business Development
Center (HBDC) affiliates; VEDA -San Joaquin Valley at (209)
252 -7551 (Hs. Maureen Barile); NEDA - Bakersfield at (805)
837 =0291 (Hs. Shirley Halverson), and NEDA- Sacramento at
(916) 443 -0700 (Ms. Lawonda Alexander). Hs. Barile of the
San Joaquin Valley office was able to confirm a Herco
contact on October 10, 1990. Mrs. Alexander confirmed that
her office had received an initial contact on October 2,
1990. Hr. Brian Kerfoot of the Sacramento office had
transmitted.a list of MBE companies, sorted by discipline,
and a note suggesting that Herco contact HBDCs in Los
Angeles and Oxnard on October 4, 1990. All of the companies
listed had northern California addresses.
BROWN AND CA
6202 AVENIDA ENCINAS CAF�$cAD. CALIFORNIA 92009.0771 • (619)436-6277 FAXA6%) 438.8892
,J ./r/
Evaluation
December 21, 1.990
Page 9 of 18
It is obvious that Herco contacted several agencies, within
the required time frame, to request assistance in locating
HBE /WBE companies. In its documentation of Item S. Herco
lists its telephone calls to the Small Business
Administration at (415) 744 -3001 with a referral to'(213)
380 -9471, which is the telephone number for the Hinority
Business Development Center in Los Angeles. Herco also
documented its contact with the Office of-Hinority Business
Enterprises and the referral to (213) 380 - 9.471, the Hinority
Business Development Center in Los Angeles.
In the documentation submitted, there was no evidence that
Herco had contacted the California Department of
Transportation.
Again, given these circumstances, I believe Herco did make
an honest effort to contact the designated agencies and
business development centers to obtain lists of HBE /WBE
companies.
2. 'Assure that HBE /WBE businesses are solicited whenever they
are potential sources.'
-The bidder must document that it has provided invitations
to HBE /WBE bidders at least seven (7) working days prior to
the need of a bid response.
The bidder must document that invitations were sent to at
least three (3) (or all, if less than three) HBE /WBE
contractors /suppliers for each item of work referred by the
HBE /WBE assistance center(s). The invitations must
adequately specify the item(s) for which sub -bids were
requested. The documentation of the bidder's effort to show
positive efforts must indicate a real desire for a positive
response; i.e., certified letter with return receipt
requested or telephone call documentation. A regular letter
or an unanswered telephone call is not adequate positive
effort.
The bidder must submit to the grantee documentation
consisting of a list of all sub - bidders for each item of
work that MBEs or WBEs were solicited including dollar
amounts for both MBE /WBE and non - MBE /WBE sub - bidders.-
BROWN AND CALDWELL
6202 AVENIDA ENCINA$ C ARLSBAD. CALIFORNIA 92009-OM • (619) 436.927' FA%: (6 +9) 436.6692
Evaluation
December 21, 1990
Page 10 of 18
Herco has submitted documentation of its advertisements
requesting HBE /WBE /DBE and SBE quotes in the following
publications:
SHALL BUSINESS E%ChARGE� - -"
- Ad did request sub -bids from qualified
HBE /DBE /WBE /LBL -subcontractors and suppliers.
- The Ad that indicated bids were due 11/01/90 allowing
a very short time for subs to submit bids.
The date of publication is not shown.
I contacted Rick Johnson at (415) 255 -6411 who was
able to confirm that the advertisement was published
in the October 4, 1990 issue only.
DODGE GREEN SHEET
- The Ad did request sub -bids from qualified
HBE /WBE /DBE subcontractors and suppliers.
- The Ad indicated that bids were due 11/01/90 allowing
a very short time for subs to submit bids.
- The date of publication was not shown.
- I contacted Hs. Gail Brantly at (213) 720 -6168 who
confirmed that the advertisement was published in the
October 26, 1990 issue only.
Herco has submitted documentation that on October 3, 1990
invitations to bid were sent to a list of HBE /WBE /SBE /DBE
businesses.
A. Merco's form post -card inviting sub -bids does nn*
specify the item or trade for which sub -bids are
requested, as stipulated in the specific requirements
for this step.
BROWN AND CALDWELL
8202AVENMAP: -INAS CARLSBAXCAUFORNIA92009- OM -(6' =; :38.8 7 FAX:(619)698 -8892
Evaluation
December 21, 1990
Page it of 18
B. Herco sent its invitations by a form of regular mail
known as business reply mail. While this does provide
an opportunity for the recipient to reply at no cost.,
it does nothing to inform the sender that the
-iuvitatr6n was received--by the addressee.- As certified
letters with return receipts requested was not used to
transmit its invitations to bid, Herco has not expended
4111 adequate positive effort.
C. In its letter to John Hoss, dated November 28, 1990,
Herco lists fifteen (15) MBE /WBE /SBE /DBE businesses
contacted. Of these, only one was included on its
4700- S.form. Herco indicates a .08% MBE and a 4.79%
WBE participation. The goal for San Luis Obispo County
is 19.2% and 2 %0 respectively.
D. Herco has net submitted to the grantee documentation
consisting of a list of all sub - bidders for each item
of work that MBEs or WBEs were solicited including
dollar amounts for both MBE/WBE and non - HBE /WBE sub -
bidders.
Herco has also made an effort to satisfy this requirement.
However, its effort does not comply with the requirements
stipulated for Step No. 2 as the preceeding list of defects
indicates.
3. "Divide total requirements, when economically feasible, into
small tasks or quantities to permit maximum participation of
HBE /WBE businesses."
Herco has stated that it has broken the contract into thirty
(30) sections or small portions and when replies to its
invitations -to -bid were received, the prospective sub -
bidders'were.informed of the small segments of the contract
that were available to bid upon. A listing of the broken -
down contract segments was included by Herco in its
documentation package transmitted to the owner /grantee.
Herco also states that when phone bids
day, inquiries were made as to MBE/WBE
form submitted with its documentation
conversation with Hs. Sandra Townsend,
this effort consists of asking whether
was an MBE or a WBE.
BROWN AND CALDWELL
6202 AVENIDA ENCI'. CASLE BAD. CALIFORNIA 92009.0177 • (619) 43' CZ 7 FAX: (619) 436 -8892
were received on bid -
concerns. From the
and my telephone
it appears as though
or not the sub - bidder
Evaluation
December 21, 1990
Page 12 of 18
Construction of wastewater facilities involves many
different crafts. The San Luis Obispo -Unit 3 project is
only moderate in size and, accordingly, the size of
subcontracts for paint, reinforcing, landscaping and
electrical, etc. will be some fraction of the modest bid
price of $13 million. Accordingly, we believe this
requirement for a project of this size to be self -
satisfying.
4. 'Establish delivery schedules where the requirements of the
work permit, which will encourage participation by small,
minority, and women's businesses.'
Contractor will be required to develop a detailed CPM
Construction Schedule immediately after issuance of the
Notice -to- Proceed. The activities on this schedule will, to
some extent, be driven by the need to keep the existing
plant elements functioning and on -line 24 hours per day
during the construction period. This situation and the 25-
month project duration limit scheduling flexibility, but
should still provide sufficient and reasonable time for
MBE /WBE sub - bidders to perform.
5. 'The bidder must present documentation that contact was made
with both the Small Business Administration and the Office
of Minority Business Enterprise.'
As documented earlier, I have duplicated the steps Herco has
taken to contact the offices listed above. The results I
experienced were much the same as Herco's. I believe Herco
has satisfied this requirement.
SUMMARY:
Our review of Herco Construction Engineers, Inc. MBE /WBE positive
effort documentation submitted subsequent to the bid opening
identified several defects. We found that Merco did contact the
listed agencies and it did advertise for MBE /WBE participation
within the time frames specified. However, in its execution of
the requirements for Step No. 2, Herco failed to satisfy several
of the specific stipulations outlined in the requirements for
that activity. Additionally, the level of effort expended in the
pursuit of qualified MBE /WBE businesses appears to be less than
warranted to meet the stated goals for this project. The
BROWN AND CALDWELL
6202 AVENIDA E n,_wFC CAfiL88AD. CALIFORNIA 92 0 0 9-0171 • 1f.•! 438 -6777 FA%: (6791 438.8892
Evaluation
December 21, 1990
Page 13 of 18
combined MBE /KBE goal for San Luis Obispo County is 21.2 %.
Herco's combined MBE /WBE participation, as shown on its 4700 -5
form, is 4.87%. Therefore, we believe that the Merco
Construction Engineers, Inc. bid•for the San Luis Obispo -Unit 3
-- project is non- responsive.
EVALUATION OF FIVE AFFIRMATIVE STEPS
1. °Including qualified MBE /WBE businesses on solicitation
lists.'
The bidder must document that it requested assistance from
the Small Business Administration anal the Office of Minority
Business Enterprise MBE /WBE assistance centers and that this
request for assistance was received by the MBE /WBE
assistance centers at least five (5) working days prior to
the need for referrals (see affirmative Step Ho. 5).
During my review, I attempted to confirm Alder's contact
with the Small Business Administration and the Office of
Minority Business Enterprise. I called the Small Business
Administration at (415) 744 -3001 and spoke with Hs. Marsha
Calhoun. She was unable to confirm that Alder had contacted
that office as no telephone logs are kept. Hs. Calhoun
referred me to their Santa Barbara office at (805) 964 -1136.
Next, I called the Office of Minority Business Enterprise at
its Santa Barbara branch at (805) 964 -1136. I talked with
Hr. Greg Smith who also was unable to confirm contact by
Alder. He indicated that if Alder had contacted that office
and requested a list of MBE /WBE businesses, he would have
taken Alder's name and address and sent the list to them.
Notes in Alder's bid package indicate three (3) unsuccessful
attempts to contact the Office of Minority Business
Enterprise at the (415) 566 -6734 telephone number and the
time and date of its call to the Small-Business
Administration in San Francisco at (415) 744 -3001.
BROWN: AND CALDWELL C�7•��
6202 AVE'•"'. < ENVNAS CARLSBAD. CALIFORNIA 92009.0':+ • i619- t +p.8r7 FAX: (819) 438-8892
Evaluation
December 21, 1990
Page 14 of 18
In its letter to John Moss, dated November 26, 1990, Alder
states that it received a copy of the STATE OF CALIFORNIA,
DEPT. OF TRANS., OFFICE OF CIVIL RIGHTS, DISADVANTAGED
BUSINESS (DB) AND WOMEN BUSINESS ENTERPRISE (WBE) LIST,
dated 10/10/90. Alder further states tinat-1t wets through
the list and selected all of the DBE /WBE firms that
indicated they performed work in the area of this project
and that an invitation to bid was sent -LO this group of
businesses. Alder had not initially provided documentation
to support this claim. At my request, on December 19, 1990,
Alder transmitted the telephone numbers of the potential
sub - bidders selected from the Cal Trans list to which
invitations to bid were mailed. Alder also provided a list
of 570 potential subcontractors and suppliers to which its
letter requesting bids and quotes on this project were sent.
This list includes MBE /WBE businesses. The addresses of
these potential sub - bidders were spread throughout the
western United States, with more than 430 having California
addresses and 64 of those located in the immediate San Luis
Obispo area.
In summary, Alder did contact the Small Business
Administration and the Office of Minority Business
Enterprise and obtained and used the State of California
Department of Transportation, Office of Civil Rights,
Disadvantaged Business (DB) and Women Business Enterprise
(WBE) List to invite 30 sub - bidders to participate in the
San Luis Obispo -Unit 3 project. Alder utilized its data-
base listing of 570+ potential subcontractors and suppliers
in its search for sub - bidders, as well as qualified MBE /WBE
businesses. Further, Alder invited 46 MBE /WBE businesses to
participate in this project through direct mail solicitation
by the Small Business Exchange.
Alder Engineering and Construction Co. has demonstrated that
a significant good -faith effort was expended prior to bid
opening to identify and include MBE /WBE businesses in its
solicitation for sub -bids for this project.
2. 'Assure that MBE /WBE businesses are solicited whenever they
are potential sources.'
'The bidder must document that it has provided invitations
to MBE /WBE bidders at least seven (7) working days prior to
the need of a bid response.
BROWN AND CALDWELL {. 7'17
x.20 AVFN10A ENCINAS CARLSBAD. CALIFORNIi 9240E -0171 • (619) 438 -6277 FAX: (619) 438•e84:
Evaluation
December 21, 1990
Page 15 of 18
The bidder must document that invitations were sent to at
least three (3) (or all, if less than three) MBE /WBE
contractors /suppliers for each item of work referred by the
MBE /WBE assistance center(s). The invitations must
adequately specify Lae"ttem-rul -for which sub =bids were
requested. The documentation of the bidder's effort to show
positive efforts must indicate a real desire for a positive
response; i.e., certikied letter with return receipt
requested or telephone call documentation. A regular letter
or an unanswered telephone call is not adequate positive
effort.
The bidder must submit to the grantee documentation con-
sisting of a list of all sub - bidders for each item of work
that MBEs or WBEs were solicited including dollar amounts
for both MBE /WBE and non- MBE /WBE sub - bidders."
Alder has submitted documentation of its advertisements
requesting MBE /WBE /SBE quotes in the following publications:
DAILY PACIFIC BUILDER
- Did advertise 7- working days prior to bid day.
- Ad did request quotations from MBE /DBE /WBE
subcontractors.
- The ad indicated that Bid Day was 11/01/90. However,
the ad was published in the October 16, 1990 edition
which allowed ample time for subs to submit bids.
DODGE GREEN SHEET
Did advertise 7- working days prior to Bid Day.
Ad did request quotations from MBE /WBE /DBE
subcontractors.
- -The ad indicated that bids were due 11/01/90.
However, the ad was published in the October 16, 1990
edition which allowed ample time for subs to submit
bids.
INTERMOUNTAIN CONTRACTOR
- This advertisement is for quotations and sub -bids
from MBE /DBE /WBE /SBE businesses for the Tucson,
Arizona WWTP and is not germane to the San Luis
Obispo -Unit 3 project..
BROWN AND CALDWELL e- '0)-/,
6202 AVENIDA ENCINAS CARLSM.CALIrCr,!JIA920%- 0171•(818)436.697 FAX:(619)438 -t%F_2
Evaluation
December 21, 1990
Page 16 of 18
Alder has submitted documentation that on October 26, 1990
invitations requesting sub -bids and quotations were sent to
DBE /WBE firms obtained from the Cal Trans list. On October
29, 1990, on behalf of Alder Engineering and Construction
- '-Co:, thi! Small Business-Exchange mailed an advertisement
soliciting MBE /DBE /WBE businesses for the Unit 3 project.
The Small Business Exchange had inadvertently not included
the ad in its October 25, 1990 publication. On September
25, 1990 Alder mailed its main solicitation for sub -bids to
California businesses from its database list of potential
subcontractors and suppliers. This is a general list that
does include DBE /WBE businesses.
A. Alder's form letter does specify the item or trade for
which sub -bids are requested.
B. Alder sent its invitations by regular mail. As
certified letters with return receipts requested was
not used to transmit its invitations to bid, Alder has.
not expended adequate positive effort.
C. In its bid Alder indicated its intent to have 3% MBE
and 18% WBE participation. A check of the arithmetic
shows these percentages to be 2.5% and 16.9 %,
respectively. In its letter to John Moss dated,
November 26, 1990, Alder indicates its intention to
issue DBE /WBE contracts amounting to 19.5% DBE /WBE
participation.
D. Alder has nat submitted to the grantee documentation
consisting of a list of all sub - bidders for each item
of work that MBEs or WBEs were solicited including
dollar amounts for both HBE /WBE and non -HBE /WBE sub -
bidders.
Alder.has.made a serious effort to comply with this
requirement. Its effort does not fully comply with the
requirements for Step No. 2 as the preceeding list of
defects indicates. However, Alder has indicated its
intention to award subcontracts to DBE /WBE businesses that
closely approximates the combined HBE /WBE goals for San Luis
Obispo County.
BROWN AND CALDWELL elA /?
6202 AVENIDA ENCINAS CARL ^F qp, Ca.IrORNIA 92009-0171 • (819) 438.8277 FAY. (5191 4 38 -8e92
Evaluation
December 21, 1990
Page 17 of 18
3. 'Divide total requirements, when economically feasible, into
small tasks or quantities to permit maximum participation of
MBE /WBE businesses.'
— Construction of wastewater facilities involves many
different crafts. The San Luis Obispo -Unit 3 project is
only moderate in size and, accordingly, the size of
subcontracts for painting, reinforcing, landscaping and
electrical, etc. will be some fraction of the modest bid
price of $13 million. Accordingly, we believe this
requirement for this project to be self- satisfying.
4. 'Establish delivery schedules where the requirements of the
work permit, which will encourage participation by small,
minority, and women's businesses."
Contractor will be required to develop a detailed CPH
Construction Schedule immediately after issuance of the
Notice -to- Proceed. The activities on this schedule will, to
some extent, be driven by the need to keep the existing
plant elements functioning and on -line 24 hours per day
during the construction period. This situation and the 25-
month project duration limit scheduling flexibility, but
should still provide sufficient and reasonable time for
MBE /WBE sub - bidders to perform.
S. 'The bidder must present documentation that contact was made
with both the Small Business Administration and the Office
of Minority Business Enterprise.'
As documented earlier, Alder did contact the Small Business
Administration and the Office of minority Business
Enterprise and was apparently the only one of the three (3)
lowest bidders to obtain the Cal Trans list of certified
MBE /WBE businesses. I believe Alder has satisfied this
requirement.
SUMMARY:
Our review of Alder Engineering and Construction Company's
MBE /WBE positive effort documentation submitted subsequent to bid
opening also identified several defects. Alder did contact the
required agencies within the specified time frame and was able to
obtain a copy of the Cal Trans list of MBE /WBE businesses,
BROWN AND CALDWELL
6202 AVEMDA ENCINAS c;- kLSFAD. CALIFORNIA MO-OM • (619) 439.9277 FA%:(6 0) 498.8892
?•ao
Evaluation
December 21, 1990
Page 18-of 18
something neither of the other two lowest bidders were able to
accomplish. In its pursuit of the requirements for Step No. 2,
Alder also failed to comply with several of the specific
stipulations for that activity. However, the level of effort it
expended to contact qualified HBE /WBE businesses appears to be
significantly greater than that of the other two lowest bidders._
Alder's combined HBE /WBE participation, as shown on its 4700 -5
form, is 19.4% (corrected from 21 %). The combined HBE /WBE goal
for San Luis Obispo County is 21.2%
RECOMMENDATION:
Brown and Caldwell has reviewed the three lowest bids and the
HBE /WBE positive effort documentation each of the three lowest
bidders has submitted subsequent to the bid opening. Each of the
bid packages contained deficiencies that were identified in our
letter dated November 26; 1990. Each of the HBE /WBE positive
effort documentation packages also contained defects that have
been identified previously in this letter.
If the narrowest interpretation of the requirements contained in
Attachment #1 was administered, each of the three lowest bids
could be declared non - responsive. In that case the contract
would be rebid. However, the bid and HBE /WBE positive effort
packages submitted by Alder Engineering and Construction Company
contained the fewest defects and came closest to meeting the
stated HBE /WBE goals (within 2 %). Accordingly, we believe that
Alder has satisfied the intent of the Attachment #1 requirements,
achieved satisfactory HBE /WBE participation and, subject to
agreement by your attorney, should be awarded the San Luis Obispo
Unit 3 WWTP.Improvements contract.
Given that each of the three bid and documentation packages
contained defects, a protest of any award of this contract to any
of the three lowest bidders is likely. Consequently, we suggest
you review this matter with your attorney prior to acting upon
this recommendation.
Very truly yours,
BROWN AND CCALDW LL
Robert J. Dancoisne
Project Manager
RJD:kr
BROWN AND CALDWELL ` _ ? OCP/
6202 AVENIDA ENCII.:F. C:F364D.CAUFORNIA 92009-0771 • (619) 43P•E2?7 FAX: (619) 438.9892
. _
6Water
Resources
Control
Board
III E
rJ�K+
ATTACHMENT B
CLEAN WATER GRANT PROGRAM
BULLETIN
STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD
Division of Clean Water Grants
Jesse M. Diaz, Chief
Manager. CLEAN WATER GRANT PROGRAM
P.O. Box 100, Sacramento, California 95801
February 10, 1986
NO. 113A MINORITY BUSINESS ENTERPRISE /WOMEN'S BUSINESS ENTERPRISE
(MBE/WBE) REQUIREMENTS FOR CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTS UNDER GRANTS
AWARDED ON OR AFTER MAY 12, 1982
This Clean Water Grant Bulletin supersedes Bulletin No. 113 and transmits
current State Water Resources Control Board Policy on the use of MBE/WBE's in
the Clean Water Grant Program. This Policy is based on regulations set forth
in the Code of Federal Regulations (40 CFR 33.240) dated May 12, 1982 (Interim -
final rule) and March 28, 1983 (final rule) -refer to Attachment 1A. This
Bulletin is applicable to all construction contracts exceeding $10,000 issued
under grants awarded on or after May 12, 1982 where the construction contract
is advertised after the date of this Bulletin. For construction contracts
Issued under grants awarded prior to May 12, 1982, refer to Clean Water Grant
Bulletin No. 77E.
For grantees subject to the MBE/WBE policy in this Bulletin, the following
procedures are to be followed:
1. Cooperate with the MBE/WBE assistance center(s) to increase MBE/WBE
participation in this program.
2. Insert OCWG's 'MBE/WBE Construction Contract Provisions° (Attachment
Nos. 1, 1A9 1B and 1C) in all construction contracts. Grantees may
also utilize their own program for increased MBE/WBE participation.
The grantees are encouraged to establish local goals provided they
meet the minimum requirements of the EPA /DCWG program by requiring
that all five affirmative steps be taken.
3. Submit the following items to OCWG with the request for Approval -to-
Award (ATA) of the construction contract(s):
a) The Grantee MBE/WBE Certification (Attachment No. 2) and upon
request, additional documentation to support the contractor's
positive effort.
-2-
b) The MBE/WBE Information Form No. 4700 -5 (Attachment No. 1 -8 that
was submitted with the bid). This is in addition to the
provisions of Government Code Section 4100, et. seq. of the State
of California regarding designation of each subcontract in excess
of one -half of one percent.
c) The MBE/WBE Self.- Certification Form (Attachment No. 1 -C) must be
submitted for each MBE /WBE firm listed on Form No. 4700 -5.
The Prime Construction Contractor shall:
1. Comply with the requirements contained in this Bulletin, EPA
Regulations, and if applicable, the grantee's MOE/WBE requirements.
The prine contractor must make positive efforts prior*to bid opening
as directed in Attachment No. 1.
Positive Effort Requirements
Attachment No. 1A (40 CFR 33.240) defines "positive effort ". The grantees and
their prime construction contractors are encouraged to go beyond the required
minimum effort to utilize MBE /WBE firms.
Historical averages for MBE's have been developed over the last few years.
These averages are shown for 12 geographical areas In Attachment 3. Grantees
not achieving within 3 percent of the historical averiQe for MBE in their area
and 2 percent for WBE participation will be required to submit documentation on
positive effort discussed in the following paragrApils. This documentation will
be thoroughly reviewed to assure that the grantee or his contractor has taken
positive efforts in carrying out the five affirmative steps set forth in
federal regulation 40 CFR 33.240. The Division may also require submittal of
documentation of positive efforts in cases of protest or appeals.. The five
affirmative steps and information required for documentation follows:
1. "Including qualified small, minority, and women's businesses on
solicitation lists.
The grantee must submit documentation that the successful
bidder(s) requested assistance from both the Small Business
Administration and the Office of Minority Business Enterprise
assistance centers and that this request for assistance was
received at least five (5) working days prior to the need for
referrals (see affirmative Step No. 5),
2. "Assuring that small, minority, and women's husinesses are solicited,
whenever they are potential sources."
The grantee must submit documentation that the initial
invitations to bidders were provided to MOE /WBE firms at least
seven (7) working days prior to its need for a bid response.
Also, documentation must be provided that invitations for bids
were sent to at least three (3) (or all if less than three)
MBE /WBE contractors /suppliers for-each item of work referred by
the MBE/WBE assistance center. Requests for sub -bids must
adequately specify the item(S) on which sub -bids are requested.
L'•� -a3
-3-
—e documentation of the selected bidder's efforts to receive a response from
z mn/wSE f i rm must i ndi cate perf ormance j�,� oosi ti ve ef f ort, i - e I etters or
-zlephone c?lls. An unanswered telephone call would not be considered adequate
=sitive effort.
Finally, the grantee must sutmit documentation consisting of a
list of all sub-bids received for each item of work that MSE's or
WBE's were solicitedo including the dollar amounts for both
MBE/WBE and non-MBE/WBE sub-bidders.
3 "Dividing total requirements9 when economically feasible, into small
tasks or quantities to permit maximum participation of small, minority
and womengs businesses."
The grantee must submit doc=entation which shows that the
successful bidder(s) gave consideration to dividing �he contract
into small proprietary portions (pavings electrical, landscaping,
etc.). If this was not done, documentation must be submitted to
explain why it could not be done.
4. uEst-2blishing delivery schedules where the requirements of the work
pertrit, which will encourage participation by small, minority, and
9
won211 s businesses'."
The grantee must submit docL-*ntation that the successful
bidder(s) gave consideration to establishing a-project schedule
which would allow MBE/WBE firms to bid the work as
subcontractors or suppliers. If this was not done, document
reasons why the project schedule ;e or portions thereof, cannot be
modified so as to accomnodate in rested MBE/WBE firms.
%s-.ng the services and assistance of the (11 Small Business
Adrr-nistration, and (2) the office of Minority Business Enterprise of
the J.S. Department of Commerces as appropriate."
The grantee must submit documentation to show that the successful
bidder(s) made contact with both of the above offices. If
contact was made with neither, documentation must be submitted
explaining why such contact was not made.
MiE/WBE Assistance Centers
The following MBE/WBE Assistance Centers are under contract with
EPA and will provide assistance at no cost to grantees and
construction contractors:
SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION - Regional Office
Attn: Pete Saugman, P.A.
450 Golden Gate Avenue
San Francisco, CA 94102
Telephone No: (415) 556-1619
A 2-.J#
-4-
2. OFFICE OF MINORITY BUSINESS ENTERPRISE -
Department of Commerce -
Regional Office
Attn: Victor Casaus
Enterprise Development
Minority Business Development Agency
San Francisco, CA 94102
Telephone No: (415) 556 -6734
Please contact the above office by telephone. Do not write. You will
be given the location and phone number of the nearest inority
Business Development Center, which is under contract to'the Regional
Office. It will provide you with a listing of MBE /WBE firms.
In addition, grantees are encouraged to urge the bidders at the prebid
conference to procure supplies and services from labor surplus area firms.
Responsibilities of Grantee
The responsibility for assurance of compliance with the policy in this Bulletin
rests upon the grantee through the certification process (Attachment No. 2).
The grantee must stress the importance of this MBE/WBE program to all bidders
at the prebid conference. The prebid conference must be held far enough in
advance of the bid opening to allow all bidders to perform their affirmative
steps. 1.
The grantee must declare any bidder nonresponsive who fails to Perform, prior
to bid opening, the affirmative steps listed in Attachmen*. No. 1.
Summary
To be eligible for continued grant funding, the grantee must assure
compliance throughout the life of the construction contract(s) and apply
sanctions if and when required. Failure to do so may lead to annulment,
suspension or termination of the grant.
If you have any questions regarding the procedures
please contact th MBE E Unit at (916) 445 -3114.
'G
Jesse M. D az, hief
Divis on of Clean Water Grants
Manaa r - Clean Water Grant Program
ttachments
listed in this Bulletin,
d
-; -'d'
ATTACHMENT #1
CONTRACT PROVISIONS OF THE
STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD (SWRCB)
DIVISION OF CLEAN WATER GRANTS (DCWG)
RELATIVE TO THE UTILIZATION OF
MINORITY BUSINESS ENTERPRISE (MBE) AND
WOMEN BUSINESS ENitRPRISE (WBE)
ON CLEAN WATER GRANT CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTS IN CALIFORNIA
This document and attachments shall be included by the owner /grantee as a
contract provision for all construction contracts exceeding $10,000.
Compliance with the requirements of this document and attachment satisfies
the MBE /WBE requirements of the Environmental Protection Agency as published in
the Federal Register, Volume 48, No. 60, March 28, 1983, and Volume 47, No. 92,
May 12, 19A2.
DEFINITIONS
BONA FIDE MINORITY BUSINESS ENTERPRISE (MBE) MEANS:
A minority business enterprise that has submitted a "Minority Business
Enterprise /Women Business Enterprise Self- Certification" to, and been accepted
as, a bona fide MBE by the owner /grantee. In addition the following
requirements apply:
1. An independent business concern which is at least 51% owned and
controlled by minority group member(s) (see definition of Minority
Group Member). Ownership and control can be measured by:
a. Responsibility for performance of contract work.
b. Management responsibility
C. At least 514. share of profits and risk.
d. Other.data (such as voting rights) that may be related to
ownership and /or control.
` 2. In cases where a firm is owned and controlled by a minority woman or
women, the percentage may be credited towards MBE participation or as
WBE participation, or alldcated, but may not be credited fully to
both.
BONA FIDE WOMEN BUSINESS ENTERPRISE (WBE)
A women business enterprise that has submitted a "Minority Business
Enterprise/Women Business Enterprise Self- Certification" to, and been accepted,
as, a bona fide 'WBE by the owner /grantee. In addition, the following
requirements apply:
-2-
1. An independent business which is at least 511 owned by a woman or
women who also control and operate it.
a. Ownership. Determination of whether a business is at least 51%
owned by a woman or women shall be made without regard to
community property laws. For example, an otherwise qualified WEE
which is 511 owned by a married woman in a community property
state will not be disqualified because her husband has a 501
interest in her share.
Similarly, a business which is 51% owned by anmarried man and 491
by an unmarried woman will not become a qualified WBE by virtue
of his wife's 501 interest in his share of the business.
b. Control and operation. "Control" means exercising the power to
make policy decisions and "operate" means being actively involved
in the day -to -day management of the business.
JOINT VENTURE (JV)
A business enterprise formed by a combination of firms under a joint venture
agreement. To qualify as a bona fide MBE /WBE, the minority- owned /woman or
women owned and controlled firms in the joint venture must:
1. Satisfy all requirements for bona fide MBE/WBE participation in their
own right.
In cases where a minority woman or women -owned firm participates in a
JV, the percentage may be credited towards MBE participation or as WEE
participation, or allocated, but may not be credited fully to both.
2. Share a clearly defined percentage of the ownership, management
responsibilities, risks, and profits of the JV. Only this percentage
will be credited towards the MBE /WBE goal.
MINORITY GROUP MEMBERS
A minority group member is an individual who is a citizen•of the United States
and one of the following:
1. Native Americans consist of American Indian, Eskimo, Aleut, and Native
Hawaiian.
2. Black Americans consist of U. S. Citizens, other than Hispanic,
having origins in any of the black racial groups of Africa.
3. Asian Pacific Americans consist of U.S. citizens having origins in any
of the original npnples of the Far East, Southeast Asia, and the
Indian subcontinent. This area includes, for example, China, Japan,
Korea, the Philippines, Vietnam, Samoa, Guam, the U.S. Trust
Territories of the Pacific, Northern Marianas, Laos, Cambodia, and
Taiwan. The Indian subcontinent takes in the countries of India,
Pakistan, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Sikkim, and Bhutan.
6F -a?
�II
J
I
J
-3-
4. Hispanic Americans consist of U.S. citizens with origins from Puerto
Rico, Mexico, Cuba, or South or Central America. Only those persons
from Central and South - American countries who are of Spanish origin,
descent, or culture should be included in this category. Persons from
Brazil, Guyana, Surinam or Trinidad, for example, would be classified
according to their race and would not necessarily be included in the
Hispanic category. In addition, this category does not include
persons from Portugal, who should be classified according to race.
BROKERAGE MEANS
Buying and selling for others on commission or other fee basis without
maintaining a warehouse or other similar inventory storage facilities (supplier
and wholesale arrangements may also fall into this .business enterprise
category) .
CONSTRUCTION MEANS
Erection, building, alteration, remodeling, improvement or extension of
buildings, structures, or other property.
I SUBAGREEMENT MEANS
A written agreement between the grantee and contractor and any lower tier
agreement for services, supplies, or construction necessary to complete the
project.
REQUIREMENTS
A. Positive Effort Documentation
The bidder must take affirmative steps prior to bid opening to assure that
minority and women businesses are used whenever possible as sources of
supplies, construction and services. Failure to take such steps prior to
bid opening shall cause the bid to be rejec a as non responsive.
Irma ive steps snall De as tollUws.
1. Including qualified MBE/WBE businesses on solicitation lists.
The bidder must document that it requested assistance from the Small
Business Administration and the Office of Minority Business Enterprise
MBE /WBE assistance centers and that this request for assistance was
received by the MBE /WBE assistance centers at least five (5) working
days prior to the need for referrals (see affirmative step no. 5).
2. Assure that MBE /WBE businesses are solicited whenever they are
potential sources.
The bidder must document that it has provided invitations to MBE /WBE
bidders at least seven (7) working days. prior to the need of a bid
response.
e 7j8
-4-
The bidder must document that invitations were sent to at least three
(3) (or all if less than three) MBE /WBE contractors /suppliers for each
item of work referred by the MBE /WBE assistance center(s). The
invitations must adequately specify the item(s) for which sub -bids
were requested. The documentation of the bidder's effort to show
positive efforts must indicate a real desire for a positive response;
i.e., certified letter with return receipt requested or telephone call
documentation. A regular letter or an unanswered telephone call is
not adequate positive effort.
The bidder must submit to the grantee documentation cohsisting of a
list of all sub - bidders for each item of work that MBEs or WBEs were
soliciteifincluding dollar amounts for both MBE /WBE and non - MBE /WBE -
sub- bidders.
3. Divide total requirements, when economically feasible, into small
tasks or quantities to permit maximum participation of MBE/WBE
businesses.
A bidder must document that it gave consideration to dividing the
contract into small proprietary portions (paving, electrical,
landscaping, etc.). If this was not done, documentation must be
submitted explaining why it could not be done.
4. Establish delivery schedules where the requirements of the work
permit, which will encourage participation by MBE /WBE businesses.
The bidder must document that it gave consideration to•establishing a
project schedule which would allow MBE /WBE businesses to bid the work
as subcontractors or suppliers. If this is not done., document reasons
why the project schedule, or portions thereof, cannot be modified 'so
as to accomodate interested MBE /WBE businesses.
S. Use of the services and assistance of the Small Business
Administration, and the Office of Minority Business Enterprise' of the
U.S. Department of Commerce, as appropriate.
The bidder must present documentation that contact was made with both
of the offices listed below. Their services are provided at no cost
to the bidder. If contact was made with neither, documentation must
be presented to explain why contact was not made.
ev-a ?
1 -5_
Small Business -Administration: Regional Office
45n Golden Gate Avenue _
San Francisco, CA 94102
ATTN: Pete Saugman, P.A.
Telephone: (415) 556 -1619
Off i C.o. _of Ni nor!4 Business -Victor Casaus -
Enterprise: Regional Office Minority Business Devevlopment
U.S. Dept. of Commerce: Agency (MBDA)
-- - San Francisco, CA 94102
Telephone: (415) 556 -6734
Please contact the MBDA by telephone. Do not write. You will be
given the location and phone number of a nearest inority Business -
Development Center, which is under contract to the Regional Office.
It will provide you with a listing of MBE /WBE firms.
In addition, the bidder is encouraged to procure supplies and-services
from labor surplus area firms.
B. Other Requirements
1. The apparent "successful low bidder must submit documentation showing
that, prior to bid opening, all required positive efforts were made.
1� This documentation must be received by the owner /grantee within ten
+•! (10) working days following bid opening (except Attachment 1 -B which
is to be submitted with the bid).
2. If the apparent successful low bidder has rejected or considered as
nonresponsible and /or nonresponsive any low MBE or WBE sub- bidder, a
complete explanation must be provided to the owner /grantee.
3. Each MBE/WBE firm to be utilized must complete the "MBE/WBE Self -
Certification" Form.(Attachment 1 -C).
I4. If additional MBE /WBE subcontracts become necessary after the award of
the prime - contract, Attachment 1- 8'must be provided to the
owner /grantee by the Prime Contractor within ten (10) working days
following the award of each new subcontract.
5. Any deviation from the information contained in Form 4700 -5
(Attachment 1 -B) shall not result in a reduction of MBE /WBE
participation without prior approval of the owner /grantee.
5. When brokerage type arrangements are utilized, only the amount of
commission or fee will be eligible for MBE /WBE consideration.
I
7. Failure of the apparent low bidder to perform the five affirmative
steps prior to bid opening and /or to submit attachment 1 -8 with its
bid will lead to its bid being declared non- responsive by the owner/
grantee. The owner /grantee may then award the contract to the next
low responsive, responsible bidder meeting the requirements of this
bulletin. The owners /grantee also may rebid the contract.
OPTIONAL
C. Local /Regional Goals
In addition to complying with the positive effort requirements, the
owner /grantee has established the following goals for this •project:
A goal of percent of the total bid dollar amount of this
contract Me reinafter described as the contract goal percentage) has
been established for the utilization of.Minority Business Enterprises
(MBE).
A goal of percent of the total bid dollar amount of his contract
has been esbM shed for the utilization of Women Business Enterprise
(WBE).
The MBE and WBE goals are separate goals and shall not be interchangable.
They may be achieved when one of the following conditions is met:•
1. The bidder is a joint venture, of which at least one member of the
firm is a MBE or WBE and shares responsiblity for.a.t least the
contract goal percentage of the contract work to be-performed. A copy
of the joint venture agreement must be submitted to the
owner /grantee within ten (10) working days following bid opening, or
2. Subagreement totaling at least the contract goal percentages are
awarded to both MBE(s) and WBE(s), or
3. Any combination of (1) and (2) that meet the contract goal percentage
for MBE(s) and the separate goal percentage for WBE(s).
e? 7-3/
r
I
i
1
ATTACHMENT NO. 1A
Monday
March 28, IM
Part If
Environmental
Protection Agency
Procurement Under Assletance
Agreennnts
132 =40 Snra1t, tat am ,, vro wen'R end
labor surpkr area busy oswa&
(a) It Is EPA policy to award a fair
share of subegreements to small.
minority, and women's businesses. The
recipient must take affirmative steps to
aseurc that small, minority, and
women's businesses are used when
possible as sources of supplies.
construction and services. Affirmative
steps shell include the following:
(1) Including qualified small, minority,
and women's businesses on solicitation
Lisa
(2) Assuring that aatall. minority. and
women's businesses are solicited
whenever they are potential sources;
(a) Dividing total requirements. wben
economically feasible, into small taaks
or quantities to parmlt maximum
participation of small. minority, and
women's businesses:
(4) Establishing delivery schedules,
when the requirenen!f of the work
permit, which will eccourace
Participation by anal:. m incrity, and
women a businesses:
Its) Using the services and assistance
of the Small Business Administratian
and the Office of Minority Busineof
Enterprise of the U.S. Department of
Commerce, as appropriate. and
'TO] 11 (hi contractor awards
subagreements. requiring the contrarfo-
to take the affirmative steps in
paragraphs (a)(t) through (a)(S) of thrz
section.
(b)(Reservedl.
(e) EPA encourages recipients to
procure supplies and services from labor
surplus area firms.
ew 7 -32
MINORITY BUSINESS ENT RISE /WOMEN BUSINESS ENTERPRISE
, AANTEE NAME EPA GRANT NO.
PROJECT OESCAIPTSON PROJECT LOCATION
4TTACIAME"'T 1 -E
ORMATION
PRIME CONTRACTOR INFORMATION -
NAME AND ADDRESS (Include ZIPcoce) TYPE OF CONTRACT .
C:I ARCHITECT /ENGINEER (A /E)
CONSTRUCTION
L ' .i s
r•( SUPPLIER/SERVICE ISM
AMOUNT OF CONTRACT
1 USE I I qBE INIIIIIIIIIIII
MBLIWBE INFORMATION
NAME AND ADDRESS (IRCluDe ZIP Code)
MBE I ( WOE
I SUBCONTRACTOR ( I SUPPLIER /SERVICE
I :DINT VENTURE I I BROKER
CONTRACT AMOUNT
rTTPE OF CONTRACT
PHONE
ACTUAL MBE PARTICIPATION: ACTUAL WBE PARTICIPATION: __ %
MBE GOAL: -% WBE GOAL:
SIGNATURE OF PERSON COMPLETING FORM:
TITLE:
PHONE: DATE
left *10 e
7
MBE
I.� qBE
NAME AND ADDRESS (InClude ZIP Code)
'-7- ^.._ ... —. ___.�
I.1 SUBCONTRACTOR
( I SUPPLIER /SERVICE
( I JOINT VENTURE
( ( BROKER
_--
CONTRACT AMOUNT
PHONE
TTPE OF CONTRACT
d
NAME AND ADDRESS ZIP
I ( MOE
( ( WOE
(Include Code)
I_ I SUBCONTRACTOR
( I SUPPLIER/SERVICE
JOINT Vl NTURE
I. 1 BROKER
.CONTRACT AMOUNT
PHONE
TTPE OF CONTRACT
NAME AND ACORE53 (IncluCe ZIP COoe)
( ( USE
( ( qBE
.�(.
L.I SUBCONTRACTOR
(, SUPPLIER/SERVICC
I.1 JOINT VENTURE
(_(,BROKER
CONTRACT AMOUNT
PHONE
TTPE OF CONTRACT
— •- -_ - -•_ -- .--.. —
- _
C#03
TOTAL MBE
TOTAL WBE
AMOUNTS: $
AMOUNTS: $
�..�
ACTUAL MBE PARTICIPATION: ACTUAL WBE PARTICIPATION: __ %
MBE GOAL: -% WBE GOAL:
SIGNATURE OF PERSON COMPLETING FORM:
TITLE:
PHONE: DATE
left *10 e
7
MEETING DATE:
'14 "�'i'III�IIII �illlli city o[ San lulS OBISp0 August 7 1990
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT ITEM NUMBER:
FROM: WiIliam T. Hetland W ` Prepared By: John E. Mos d'-
Utilities Director Wastewater Division ManageA
SUBJECT:
Wastewater Management Plan Implementation, Approval of Plans and
Specifications for Unit 3 Wastewater Treatment Improvements and
Phase 1 Collection System Improvements.
CAO RECOMMENDATION:
By motion, 1) approve plans and specifications for Unit 3
Wastewater Treatment Plant Improvements and Phase 1 Collection
System Improvements and authorize solicitation of bids; 2)
authorize CAO to award if within engineer's estimate and SRF loan
funding approved.
DISCUSSION:
Background:
On October.28, 1986, the City retained Brown and Caldwell
Engineers to prepare the Wastewater Management Plan (WWMP). The'
purpose of the plan was to identify needed improvements to the
City's wastewater treatment and collection facilities to meet all
discharge requirements and treat expected future flows to the
year 2015.
Implementation of the WWMP to date has included activities
related to planning, research, design and funding. The City has
been working closely with the State Division of Loans and Grants
(SDLG) in order to obtain low interest loan funding for the
needed projects. On May 17, 1990 the State Water Resources
Control Board approved loan funding of the City's projects in the
amount of $35 million.
Plans and specifications for Unit 3 Wastewater Treatment Plant
Improvements . a•nd -Phase 1 Collection System Improvements projects
were completed in May 1990 and submitted to the State Division of
Loans and Grants for review and approval. The SDLG has
subsequently completed their review of the plans and
specifications and staff is now ready to advertise these two
projects for bids.
Unit 3 Wastewater Treatment Plant Improvements project consists
of those modifications and additions to the City's treatment
facility necessary to meet the effluent requirements identified
in the City's National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System.
(NPDES) permit. This includes processes for influent screening,
aerated grit removal, ammonia removal and BOD and suspended
solids removal.
eI° *?,P0
h,!1�ilu�lllll��� 11 city o� San tins OBIspo
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Plans and specs Approv
Page 2
Phase 1 Collection System Improvements consist of approximately
3.2 miles of parallel relief and replacement sewers. These
sewers are being installed to relieve the problem of surcharging
of the collection system and subsequent spills resulting from
high Infiltration /Inflow (I /I) during storm events. The new
sewers will convey the high flows to the City's wastewater
treatment plant for proper treatment and disposal.
Consequences of Not Taking the Recommended Action:
Staff has negotiated with the State Regional Water Quality
Control Board (SRWQCB) , the final terms of a Consent Decree. The
Consent Decree is a court documented agreement between the City
and the State for achieving compliance with the discharge
requirements in the City's NPDES permit. The Consent Decree
includes a schedule of key activities or milestones necessary to
achieve full compliance. Under the Consent Decree the City is
required approve plans and specifications for Unit 3 by August
28, 1990 and to advertise these projects no later than October
10, 1990. Failure to meet the dates specified in the compliance
schedule of the Consent Decree will result in fines from the
State. It is essential to proceed with each step in the process
in a timely manner in order to stay ahead of the compliance dates
as much as possible.
Conclusion:
In order to obtain full compliance with the discharge
requirements in the City's NPDES permit and to meet the
compliance schedule in the Consent Decree the City must proceed
with each step of the improvements projects in a timely manner.
Authorizing staff to advertise for bids is the next step in
process of achieving full compliance and is therefore recommended
at this time..
FISCAL IMPACT:-
The City is seeking and has obtained concept approval for State
low interest loan funding of the needed improvements. Based on
the cost projections and a 4 percent interest rate loan from the
State, Council, on June 12, 1990, adopted Resolution No. 6824
approving rate increases of $2.00 per month each year for the
next 3 years for a single family residence and a financing
plan /revenue program sufficient to cover the debt service expense
of the projects. Funding for these.projects has been approved
and is identified in the 1989 -91 Financial Plan and Approved
1989 -90 Budget, Page E -17.
`�7— S
i
city of San Luis OBIspo
►II�II
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Plans and Specs Approval
Page 3 -
In the review of the plans and specifications the State has
identified certain elements of the construction which are not
eligible for loan funding. Those items found ineligible relate
primarily to reserve capacity. The State will fund up to 12
years capacity from the date of project initiation. An example _
of this is; The State will not fund the difference in cost of a
54 inch versus a 48 inch influent line as the 54 in line is
designed for year 2015 flows and only a 48 inch line is needed to
handle the flows in the next 12 years. This difference in cost
is minor in comparison to the cost of reconstruction of the line
at a later date to accommodate the 2015 flows. Those items found
ineligible for loan funding and their estimated cost are as
follows:
Components found ineligible for funding:
UNIT 3 IMPROVEMENTS-
Additional costs of providing a 54 inch
diameter influent sewer in lieu of a 48
inch diameter sewer . ........................$17,000
Additional costs of providing 2 influent
pumps at 22 mgd capacity in lieu of 2
pumps at 12 mgd . .... ........................$80,000
Additional costs of providing new pavement
around the existing digesters . ..............$12,000
Additional costs of providing landscaping
around the existing structures . .............$10,000
TOTAL INELIGIBLE $119,000
PHASE 1 COLLECTION SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS-
Bid..Item No. 25 - Comply with Corps and
Fish 4nd Game Permits . ......................$10,000
Bid Item No. 26 - Comply with Caltrans
Encroachment Permit . ........................$15,000
Additive Alternate No.l - Televise
Existing Service Laterals. ... • ... ...$99,840
TOTAL INELIGIBLE$124,840
The total engineer's estimate for each project are identified
below. The number in parentheses is the total estimated amount
found ineligible for loan funding which will have to be funded
through working capital balances or other debt financing.
I
0'14110111illl 11' city of sa►n L"IS OBlspo
1 COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Plans and Specs Approval
-Page 4
Total Engineer's Estimate: Total Cost (Total Ineligible)
* UNIT 3 IMPROVEMENTS - $15,245,005 ($119,000)
** PHASE 1 COLLECTION
SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS - $ 71152,577 ($124,840)
* Includes 3% contingency
** Includes 20% contingency
RECOMMENDATION:
By motion, approve plans and specifications for Unit 3 Wastewater
Treatment Plant Improvements and Phase 1 Collection System
Improvements and authorize solicitation of bids.
Attachments:
Plans and Specifications are available in the Utilities Office
for review.
r-° KAWEAH -7
CONSTRUCTION CO.
W1 GENERAL ENGINEERING CONTRACTORS
=J•�1 v
-C--J
POST OFFICE BOX 7780. FRESNO. CALIFORNIA 93747 REPLY TO: SACRAMENTO DIVISION
PHONE (209) 252.9492 • FAX (209) 252.7377 P.O. BO:: 26057. SACRAMENTO. CALIF. 95628
CALIFORNIA CONTRACTOR'S No. 130865 PHONE :916) 739 -6830 • FAX (916) 739-6319
l \ErCE' Y ED FCLERK/
14 January 1991 JAN 14199 Q FY!
DIX
CITY couNCiu � -��
SAN LUIS OBISPO, SSA ❑�� ��EECHIEF
City of San Luis Obispo IV' DUL
City C o un c i 1 O PO[10ECH
955 Morro Str eet FA
0 0 MGMT.7M O RBCDIR
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Cam' TD� �I1 A
RE: SAN LUIS OBISPO WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT
The Brown and Caldwell engineering firm's recommendation to
the City of San Luis Obispo to rebid the city's planned
waste water treatment plant (WWTP) is based on requirements
not included in the project specifications and unsound
logic. It is inherently unfair and unnecessary to rebid the
San Luis Obispo waste water treatment plant as Brown and
Caldwell (the city's hired engineering firm) recommends.
The decision to rebid could lead to a project delay,
decreased quality, litigation and additional costs to the
city. We therefore suggest, in fairness to all, that the
city, instead, requests authorization to award the project
to Kaweah Construction Company from the California State
Water Resources Board.
Our position is based on the following key points:
a. Kaweah's bid not only conforms with the Minority
Business and Women Owned Business solicitation
requirements, but has exceeded the Grant Agency's
requirements.
It is our understanding that the most serious objection
to our bid is that Kaweah did not meet the documentation
requirements of Bulletin 113A, Attachment 1, Step #2:
"The bidder must document that invitations were
sent to . . . MBE /WBE contractors /suppliers .
. referred by the MBE /WBE assistance
center(s)."
Brown and Caldwell acknowledges Kaweah's efforts to
secure the lists of MBE /WBE (Minority Business
Enterprise /Women Owned Business Enterprise) contractors
from the assistance centers; however, none of the
MBE /WBE assistance centers were able to provide Kaweah
with any usable lists. Without these lists we were
obviously unable to send any documented invitations.
Therefore, the requirements of step #2 do not apply.
This point was confirmed by Dick Wasser of the State
Water Resources Control Board when contractors at the
construction prejob meeting complained about their
inability to get assistance from the MBE /WBE assistance
centers.
Mr. Wasser stated that the only requirement would be a
documented good faith effort to contact the MBE /WBE
assistance centers. Brown and Caldwell has also
acknowledged that Kaweah complied with this requirement.
Mr. Wasser also suggested that we call Cal Trans, which
our firm did, but Cal Trans said they weren't allowed to
give us their list of MBE /WBE firms as this was not a
highway project.
So in response Kaweah took the following steps, beyond
the technical requirements of the grant body, to try and
meet its intent:
(1) Paid for extensive advertisements for.MBE /WBE
firms in the Green Sheet, Daily Pacific Builder and
Southern California Small Business Exchange. These
paid advertisements, at a cost of $2,481.00 were
beyond the efforts of other firms.
(2) Sent out solicitation letters to 20 MBOE /WBE
firms from a list provided by East Bay Municipal
Utility District. These are firms familiar with
treatment plant work and many are familiar with our
firm.
(3) Documented phone calls to nine MBE /WBE firms,
seven of whom ultimately bid on the project..,0ur
phone calls, well in advance of the bid, encouraged
several MBE /WBE firms to bid on the project.
b. Any failure in the minority business solicitations
is attributable to Brown and Caldwell. The State Water
Quality Control Board Bulletin 113A requires the grantee
to help the MBE /WBE Centers develop these lists of
MBE /WBE contractors prior to the bid. Brown and
Caldwell did not do this, therefore, they can not
objectively review the bid proposals.
C. Kaweah is supportive of minorities and women.
Forty -five percent of Kaweah field personnel are
minorities. Our assigned project manager for this
project is a minority. The chairperson of our parent
company is a woman. Our second largest subco.n. *ractor on
the project (the rebar subcontractor) is a WBE. Our
landscape subcontractor is also a WBE.
If the project is not awarded to Kaweah, and hence
rebid, there is no guarantee that any MBE /WBE
subcontractors will land a portion of the work.
d. The contract specifications and state law grant the
city the right to disregard minor bid irregularities.
e. A rebid due to minor irregularities implies that
only a perfect bid will be considered. All bids
reviewed contained some sort of minor irregularity,
therefore the city must recognize that there is a high
probability of irregularities if it were rebid. The
city will have no choice but to apply the same standards
established in the November bid and will be unable to
award any bid less than 100% perfect. Doing so could
result in protest, litigation, additional costs and time
delays. Ultimately, this could threaten the Cty's
grant and expose the City to fines for failure to meet
the obligations imposed by the cease and desist order.
f. A rebid is inherently unfair because all prices have
been exposed corrupting the competitive bid process.
Not only for the general contractor, but also for the
sub - contractors and suppliers. This includes the
minority owned businesses that Kaweah would be using if
awarded the project.
Kaweah has met the solicitation requirements of the Clean
Water Grant Program Bulletin 113A. In addition, we have
documented a substantial good faith effort to assist MBE /WBE
firms. Steps taken by Kaweah have been well in excess of
the simple good faith effort to contact the MBE /WBE
assistance centers expressed by Mr. Dick Wasser at the
prebid meeting.
Kaweah is a highly qualified, union, Fresno based firm that
would provide San Luis Obispo with the project management
skills required for this demanding project.
It is very clear that the proper decision for the City
Council is to request permission from the State .Water
Quality Control Board to award the San Luis Obispo Waste
Water Treatment Plant project to Kaweah Construction
Company. Any other decision is unfair, unnecessary and
potentially damaging to the city of San Luis Obispo.
We look forward to
Brown and Caldwell
project.
Respectfully yours,
Will Lyles
Division Manager
the opportunity to work with the City and
engineers to make this a successful
MEr'NG AGENDA/��
DA1'e� ITEM # s�.,C
city Of sAn luis oBispo
955 Morro Street • San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
January 15, 1991
TO: City Council �.'.
FROM: William T. Hetland, Utilities Director
VIA: John Dunn, City Administrative Officer
SUBJECT: Rejection of Wastewater Treatment Plant Unit 3 Bids
As you are aware, Kaweah Construction Company has been lobbying
the City Council and staff to not reject our Wastewater Treatment
Plant (WWTP) bids. They are suggesting that their inability to
comply with the Minority Business (MB) and Women Owned Business
(WOB) requirements are minor and should be waived by the City
Council. The staff report presents in detail the review process
the City and our consultant, Brown and Caldwell undertook before
reaching the conclusion to reject all bids.
Staff has reviewed Kaweah's letter dated January 14, 1991
regarding their bid and a suggestion that the State Department of
Water Resources review the award determination. The letter
contains incorrect statements and misrepresentations. It also
presents a number of issues that do not apply to the MB and WOB
requirements.
City staff contacted the State Department of Water Resources and
their attorney. We asked if the State would participate in a
review of our determination regarding the MB and WOB enterprises.
They responded that they would not, it was the City's
responsibility. They were also of the opinion that the City
could not waive these requirements as minor bid irregularities.
Based on this response from the State, staff continues to support
our recommendation in rejecting the WWTP bids.
RECEIVED
WTH:bja JAN 1 5 1991
3."go P
CITY CLERK
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA
�'IFliK FYI /C=aWn ❑ cnnnL F,CA0 ❑ FIN.DIR
�C CA O E� A FIRn
/ORIC❑
mucEat
❑ mcml -. RECDIR