HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/18/2004, B2 - BUSINESS ITEM 2: FOOTHILL BRIDGE CONTRACT AWARD council memoRanOum
ctt o san tins obis o. aaminist►iation bE aiitmcnt
DATE: May 18, 2004
TO: City Council RED FILE
MEETING AGENDA
FROM: Ken Hampian, CAO DATE ITEM #JRJ
SUBJECT: Business Item 2: Foothill Bridge Contract Award
Recommendation:
Continue Business Item 2 for consideration at a special Council meeting, to be held either on
Friday, May 21 or Tuesday, May 25, 2004, as discussed further below.
Discussion
As explained in my May 17 memorandum, John Madonna Construction (JMC) has sought an
administrative reconsideration hearing pursuant to federal regulations following staffs
determination that JMC's bid did not meet the City's bid requirements. I designated Utilities
Director John Moss to serve as an independent hearing officer in this matter, since he has had no
involvement in the bid of the project. The hearing was held this afternoon. At the conclusion of
the hearing, Mr. Moss, in consultation with the City Attorney, has concluded that he needs added
time to review the material associated with this matter and to consider the testimony provided
during the administrative hearing. Therefore, I am recommending continuation of this item this
evening.
However, the award of the Foothill Bridge project is extremely time sensitive and should not be
delayed more than one week. Therefore,I am proposing the following options for setting a
special Council meeting:
1. Friday, May 21" at a time convenient to the City Council (e.g. 10:00 a.m. or 11:00 a.m.?).
While I will be unavailable on this day due to a commitment to the City of Santa Maria,
the City Attorney and other staff members are well versed in this matter and will be
prepared to address the issues with the Council.
2. Tuesday, May 25th either before or after the study session regarding Palm-Nipomo. The
study session is scheduled from 11:30 a.m. to 1:30 p.m., with lunch provided at 11:30.
Therefore, the special session could be held at perhaps 10:45 a.m. or 1:45 p.m.
I will be seeking Council direction regarding these options under Item 2 of tonight's agenda.
Whichever date is chosen, staff shall provide the results of the hearing and any follow-up
recommendation at least 24 hours before a May 2�1 me ting and earlier, in the case of a May 25
meeting. 000NCIL
1 C CDD DIR
CRO `'N D1R
RECEIVED A
FIRE CHIEF
MAY 18 2004 ATTORNEY PW DIR
CLERK,ORIG POLICE CHF Foothill Bridge Continuation
SLO CITY CLERKDEPT FiE,gDS
� REC DIR
UTIL DIR
------ �IrIDF
RED FILE
MEETING AGENDA
�I���IIIIIIIiIiIIIIIIIIIIi�I����IIIIIIIiI '��P�°y # �S2
�.j • ; council mEmo�2a��TEM
Icity of san Luis oBis o. aDministization of autment
DATE: May 17, 2004
TO: City Council
FROM: Ken Hampian, CAO
SUBJECT: Foothill Bridge Award
Attached is the agenda report to award a construction contract for the Foothill Bridge project to
Whitaker Contractors. As mentioned in a communication last week, however, John Madonna
Construction is protesting their disqualification and the proposed award to Whitaker (the agenda
report explains why his bid was disqualified). Staff has offered an administrative meeting and
review to hear the company's concerns tomorrow, May 18`h. If the company avails themselves
of this procedure, staff will advise Council of the outcome via a"red-file"communication.
:OUI ' IL 01 DIR
r CAO FIN DIR
ACA [ FIRE CHIEF
fI 0 ATTORNEY L PW DIR
i 7 CLERK-ORIG r POLICE CHF
17 DEPT HEADS C3 REC DIR
I — L� UTIL DIR
J -- - PIR DIR
GACouncil Support&Corresp\CAO Memos\Foothill Bridge Award.DOC
Mmu
council `s Mav 18, 2004
j Agenda Report eus
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
FROM: Michael D. McCluskey, Director of Public Works
Prepared By: Barbara Lynch, Civil Engineer
SUBJECT: FOOTHILL BRIDGE REPLACEMENT
CAO RECOMMENDATION
1. Award the construction contract for the Foothill Bridge replacement to Whitaker Contractors
in the amount of $4,198,283.90 per Specification No. 90197D and authorize the Mayor to
execute an agreement with them.
2, Amend the project budget as follows to fund the contract award: $1,058,200 from federal
bridge replacement funds (HBRR) and the transfer of$264,600 from completed and deleted
capital improvement plan (CIP) projects in the Capital Outlay Fund.
3. Transfer the remaining balance from completed and deleted projects in the Capital Outlay Fund
of$18,000 to the CIP Reserve.
REPORT-IN-BRIEF
On February 17, 2004, the Council authorized staff to advertise for bids for the Foothill Bridge
Replacement Project. Bids for the project were opened on May 4, 2004. Three bids were received.
As.summarized below, all bids were over the Engineer's Estimate by over.$1,000,000 and we
recommend rejecting the low bid due to non-compliance with federal disadvantaged business
requirements. The second low bidder was approximately$150,000 higher than the low bidder, and
the high bidder was another$300,000 more than that.
Bid Summary
John Madonna Construction(non-responsive) $4,053,422
Whitaker Contractors 4,198,284
R.Burke Construction 4,493,978
As discussed in greater detail below, these results produced two problems: determining the
lowest responsible bidder and funding the increased cost over the engineer's estimate. We
recommend rejecting the bid from John Madonna Construction as non-responsive; and funding
the "non-grant" shortfall of$264,600 from completed and recommended deleted projects.
DISCUSSION
Award Determination
Typically, construction contracts are awarded to the lowest bidder. The contract actually states
that the award will be made to the lowest responsible bidder whose proposal complies with all
the requirements prescribed. In the case of the Foothill Bridge, the project required the
a-/
Foothill Bridge Replacement Page 2
Contractor's proposal to include work equal to a minimum of 2% of the contract cost to be
completed by Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) contractors. If the contractor was
unable to meet that 2% goal, they must provide evidence of a good faith effort to meet the goal.
Good faith effort documentation is then reviewed by the City to determine if indeed the
appropriate level of effort was made.
In lieu of having to submit DBE goal and good faith effort information at the time of the bid
opening, bidders are allowed to submit their documentation to 4:00 P.M. on the fourth day
following the bid opening,. This four day allowance is standard language used for federal
contracts and is provided to the City by Caltrans. The low bidder turned their paperwork in
about 10 minutes before the deadline. Their DBE paperwork showed participation over the 2%
goal; however when staff completed verification of the listed DBE's, one of 'them was not a
certified DBE. This dropped the contractor's percent of DBE usage below the 2% goal. At the
time the DBE paperwork for the low bidder was submitted, no documentation from the DBE
contractors was submitted to confirm their intent to participate as required, and no information
was submitted to show a good faith effort had been made to obtain DBE contractors. The
contractor to whom the City makes the award must show the goal was met or that a good faith
effort was made to do so. Failure on the part of the City to follow these guidelines can mean the
loss of federal funding. The low bidder turned in a new list of DBE's showing compliance with
the goal; however, this revised DBE participation paperwork was submitted after the deadline
and so does not comply with the requirements of the contract documents. The next lowest bidder
obtained a 5.8% DBE usage and included copies of the quotes supplied by the DBE's to confirm
their intent to participate. Staff is recommending award to the second low bidder due to the low
bidder's non-responsiveness to the requirements of the contract documents.
Bid Evaluation: Why Is It So Much Higher Than Our Estimate?
While this project is largely federally funded, the City still contributes a 20% match to the 80%
federal funds. Staff undertook a review of the bids to determine where the largest discrepancies
were between the Engineer's Estimate prepared by the consultants and the bids we received.
Those numbers were compared to other bridge projects recently bid, and to bid item cost data for
last .year, compiled by Caltrans. The Caltrans cost data is a compilation of standard highway
work items average bid prices during the previous year.
Staff identified those items that were very high in all three bids for purposes of the comparison.
The review resulted in identifying the main "culprits" in the bidding which drove the price
beyond the Engineer's Estimate. The main contributors are the bridge concrete and steel and the
disposal of contaminated soil from the excavation. Rock slope protection was also somewhat of
a high cost item. Water fund related costs were below the Engineer's Estimate.
Staff was made aware of the spiraling cost of steel after approval of the project for bidding.
Informal discussion with contractors indicates the cost of steel is rising on a nearly daily basis
and is apparently the result of activity in China. The bid item for reinforcing steel accounts for
about $250,000 of the cost difference,with another$100,000 in the bridge concrete. The pre-
cast deck units are also higher than anticipated by about $60,000, most likely because of the steel
they contain. Bids for the bridge concrete averaged 30% less than those prices bid for the Coon
Creek Bridge project and 25% more than the price for a recently bid Paso Robles bridge project.
-�
1 � I
Foothill Bridge Replacement Page 3
Comparing the price bid for reinforcing steel, the costs on the Foothill bids averaged 200%
higher than both the Coon Creek and Paso Robles projects, both having bid openings in the latter
part of April this year.
The review also included a look at the items that were particularly high for any single contractor.
This can provide indications if a particular bid is weighted too heavily to one item or another
which could result in a higher project cost by going with the apparent low bidder. It can.also
identify bid proposals that weight the dollar costs more heavily toward items that are to be
completed early on. After reviewing the bids, the most likely cause of the very high numbers
presented below was the need to include the cost for temporary shoring within the other bid
items. The designers agreed with staff's assessment that this work may have been
underestimated. Based on the bid analysis, it appears contractors may have been estimating as
much as $500,000 for the temporary shoring.
As mentioned above, the cost of disposal of hazardous materials was one of the items that was
significantly higher than the Engineer's Estimate for all the bidders; however, the low bidder's
price was $365,000 higher than the Engineer's Estimate and their unit price was two to three
times higher than the other two bidders.
The low bidder was also $550,000 higher than the Engineer's Estimate for roadway excavation,
with the unit price being five to seven times higher than the other bidders. Mobilization costs in
the low bidder's proposal were $240,000 less than the other bidders, which could be an
indication that mobilization costs have been spread into unit costs.
In the case of the existing culvert removals, the highest bidder's proposal was, on average,
$550,000 higher than the Engineer's Estimate. Staff is assuming that this reflects the costs of
the temporary shoring. This would make sense because the temporary shoring would be needed
for the culvert removal.
The second low bidder's costs were generally either in line with other bidders or the Engineer's
Estimate.
Comparison of a sample of the bid items to the Caltrans cost data revealed that about 50% of the
items had an Engineer's Estimate below the average bid experienced by the. State and the
remaining 50% were either at or above the State's average. Substituting Caltrans average costs
for the Engineer's Estimate figures results in a difference of about $200,000. In other words, had
the design consultant relied on Caltrans data to generate their estimate for the large bridge items,
the bids would still have been over the estimate by $800,000.
Summary. The conclusion is that costs are generally higher for construction than anticipated by
the designers and that those costs are spread throughout the project. While other factors are
involved, key drivers were steel and concrete for the bridge deck, disposal of contaminated soil
from the excavation, rock slope protection and temporary shoring.
� -3
i
Foothill Bridge Replacement Page 4
FISCAL IMPACT
The follow summarizes current and proposed project costs and funding sources for the
construction portion of the project. As reflected in this summary, we will need to fund an
additional $264,600 from the General Fund. As with the Damon Garcia project, the CAO has
directed that staff identify ways to fund such costs from existing projects rather than
recommending use of the General Fund Reserve. This is because the CAO recommends
"protecting" the reserve for use in coping with the significant fiscal challenges expected over the
next two years given more losses to the State, Mardi Gras costs and other anticipated revenue
and cost difficulties. We recommend funding the additional Foothill project costs with transfers
from completed CIP projects along with selected projects recommended for deletion at this time.
As discussed below, recommended "close-outs" total .$282,600. After funding the Foothill
Bridge shortfall, we recommend transferring the balance of$18.000 to the CEP Reserve.
Construction Cost Summary
Current Proposed Variance
Construction 3,000,000 4,198,300 1,198,300
Contingencies 300,000 424,500 124,500
Total $ 3,300,000 $ 4,622,800 $ 1,322,800
Construction Funding Summary
Current Proposed Variance
Capital,OutlaFund _ _ 3,247,200 4,570,000 1,322,800
HBRR Grant 2,597,800 3,656,000]_71,058 2 ,200
General Fund 649,400 914,000 64,600
Water Fund 52,800 _ 52,800 0
HBRR Grant 42,200 42,200 0
Water Revenues 10,600 10,600 0
Total $ 3,300,000 $ 4,622,800 $ 1,322,800
Funding Sources
CIP Review Committee Evaluation: Fiscal Status of Current CIP Projects
As part of the City's regular budget preparation process, we take a close look at the fiscal status
of all current CIP projects in order to surface funding that may be available in funding other
operating or capital needs.
This review has two components:
1. Projects that have been completed, all costs have been charged and they are under
budget. In this case, there are no policy or fiscal impacts associated with closing the projects
and "unlocking" the remaining budget balances for other purposes. This is the "low hanging
fruit" in the budget review process.
Foothill Bridge Replacement Page 5
2. Projects that have not _yet been initiated, funds are uncommitted and should be
reconsidered for funding given higher priorities since they were approved. Deleting
"lagging" projects is a tougher call. After detailed review by the CIP Review Committee and
the Budget Review Team, the CAO typically makes recommendations to the Council
regarding deletion of projects as appropriate as part of the Preliminary Budget.
For projects in the first category, this is largely a technical and analytical exercise to ensure that
all costs have in fact been paid, and that there are no outstanding encumbrances or other fiscal
commitments. As such, there are no policy impacts associated with this review. However, as
noted above, this is not the case for projects in the second category: deleting previously approved
projects is solely a Council decision to make, and is typically surfaced as part of the budget
process.
For these reasons, the CIP Review Committee had already been tasked with performing this
review as part of the 2004-05 budget process. The initial results of this effort were presented to
the Council on May 4, 2004 as part of the report on the Damon-Garcia sports fields funding
shortfall. At that time, we identified $241,600 in funding that could be made available from
completed projects, which the Council allocated as follows:
1. $200,000 to the Damon-Garcia sports fields project.
2. $41,600 to the CIP Reserve, which had no funding at the time, in better positioning us for the
2004-05 budget process. (Note: The May 4, 2004 report incorrectly showed a slightly higher
number of$45,200 due to a mathematical error.)
As noted in the May 4, 2004 report, given the need to identify funding options for the Damon-
Garcia sports fields, the CIP Review Committee "fast-tracked" its review of the "completed"
projects category. However, there were several completed projects where more research was
needed to confirm that all costs have been paid before closing current budget balances; and the
Committee needed more time to complete its review of lagging projects.
This subsequent analysis is now completed, and the following summarizes the CIP Review
Committee's findings and recommendations for CIP project balances that should be closed and
made available for other purposes:
i
a-s
r
Foothill Bridge Replacement Page 6
Supplemental CIP Fiscal Status Review Summary
Project Expended/ Balance
Budget Encumbered Remaining
Completed CIP Projects 115,480.
Laguna Hills Park 188,100 185,588 2,512
Tree Maintenance: South Higuera 32,000 24,249 7,751
New Sidewalk Construction 220,000 208,095 11,905
Creekwalk Public Art 20,600 17,182 3,418
Railroad Multi-Modal Transportation Center(1) 744,700 670,768 73;932
Downtown Transfer Center(1) 130,000 114,038 15,962
Recommended Deletions _` 167,128
Laguna Lake Park(2) 67,058 40,000 27,058
Records Management System. 123,973 41,303 82,670
Public Art 57,400 - 57,400
Total _ __$__282,608..
1. Only reflects General Fund share of project costs: there were also significant grant funds.
2. $40,000 designated for log barrier replacement.
As noted above, projects in the "completed" category are relatively straightforward: since the
project is completed, there are no policy impacts associated with closing project balances and
making them available for other purposes. The following summarizes the status of the three
projects that are not completed, but we recommend closing their budget balances at this time:
1. Laguna Lake Park. The original budget workscope envisioned making "simple"
improvements that would not be affected by future dredging plans or require Army Corps
approval. At this point, based on improvements already made and the planned replacement
of log barriers, there are no "simple" improvement projects remaining that can be designed
and built in the near future.
2. Records Management System. Given other priorities, and in light of our plans to
implement improvements in the near future in our internal network that will make finding
electronic documents easier (which will meet many - but not all - of the record management
needs that this project was intended to address), we recommend deleting the remaining
budget for this project.
3. Public Art. On October 21, 2003, the Council approved "project-specific" public art
funding based on 2003-05 Financial Plan allocations ($43,100 over two years) and developer
in-lieu contributions ($58,900). Including prior year allocations, the following summarizes
the funding status of public art projects:
�2-�n
�V
Foothill Bridge Replacement Page 7
Project
Budget
Continued Funding Recommended' 135,000
Mitchell Park 12,900
Railroad Museum Roundabout 19,000
Marsh Street Fountain 40,000
Damon-Garcia Sports Fields 40,000
Therapy Pool 23,100
Recommended Deletions 57, 400
Santa Rosa Park 18,500
Laguna Lake Park 10,000
Police Station 18,900
Sinsheimer Park 10,000
Total $ _ 192,400_
As reflected above, there is $192,400 available in public art funding that is not yet formally
committed. Of this amount, we recommend retaining $135,000 for the following reasons:
■ Mitchell Park. The artwork has already been selected and a formal contract will be
coming forward soon. Given the significant work that has been invested to-date, we
recommend going forward with this project.
■ Railroad Museum Roundabout. Again, we have already invested significant work on
this to-date, and are ready to issue a formal request for proposals. Moreover, this is an
excellent, highly visible location for public art, at a site where significant public
improvements were recently made.
® Marsh Street Fountain. This is a major entrance to the City and a highly visible
location.
■ Damon-Garcia Sports Fields and Therapy Pool. These are also highly visible locations
that tie to major City improvement projects.
■ Developer In-Lieu Contributions. Of the $135,000 we recommend retaining, $58,900 is
funded from developer in-lieu contributions: only $76,100 represents General Fund
resources.
We recommend closing balances for the other four projects (totaling $57,400) in light of
other City priorities, and the fact that from a workload perspective, we are not likely to make
any progress on these projects in the coming year any way.
Summary of CIP Fiscal Status Review
As part of its evaluation, the CIP Review Committee has identified $524,200 in CIP project
balances that should be closed and made available for other purposes as follows:
1. $200,000 to the Damon-Garcia sports fields (approved by the Council on May 4, 2004).
�"7
Foothill Bridge Replacement Page 8
2. $264,600 to the Foothill Bridge replacement project.
3. $59,600 to the CIP Reserve in better positioning us for the 2004-05 budget process ($41,600
from the May 4, 2004 review and another$18,000 from this one).
Grant Funding Approval
Staff has already notified CalTrans, who administers the funding for the federal bridge program,
of the increased costs. We will submit an increased cost request with an analysis of the bids to
receive the funding authorization. We do not expect any difficulties in being awarded the
supplemental funding of$1,058,200.
Potential Cost Reductions
1. Sale of the Temporary Bridges. Staff has been working with the California Men's:Colony to
sell them one of the temporary vehicle bridges at the site. The City paid $98,000 for each of
the two bridges. Negotiations are underway with CMC to recoup that cost. The other bridge
is already slated for use at the golf course, where, in an emergency, it could be removed to a
needed site within the City. The pedestrian bridge was purchased with the grant money for
the Montalban Bicycle Bridge project currently under design and so will be used there.
2. Completing the Project in One Year. The other possible cost savings would be if the
contractor should determine that it is able to complete the project in a single year and
proposes a cost savings incentive to the City. Under this program, outlined in the contract
documents, a contractor can propose an alternative way to complete the project. The cost
savings is then shared evenly between the City and the contractor. This provides an incentive
to the contractor as well as cost savings for the City. We should know the status of this
option in about three weeks; and if we go forward with it, we will amend the contract as a
project change order.
Potential Cost Increases
There are two known risks for increased costs in this project:
1. Contamination. The contamination is not of a "pipeline" type and so we anticipate it will be
localized. There is believed to be a very old Union Oil line in the vicinity. Staff has notified
the current owner and they have agreed to cooperate. If any City funds are spent on this
activity,we would expect to recover them.
2. Archeological. The only other potential area for cost increases that staff is currently aware
of is the discovery of archeological materials. If the find is significant, it could delay the
project, which would likely drive up the cost.
"d
Foothill Bridge Replacement Page 9
CONCURRENCES
The Director of Finance & Information Technology and the CIP Review Committee concur with
this recommendation.
ALTERNATIVES
1. Reject Bids and Re-Bid This Year. The City has the option to reject all the bids and rebid
the project. Rebidding this year would delay the project into at least July 2004. Steel prices
would probably still be high and we would have lost a month of construction time in the
creek, which would probably drive the construction costs higher or put us at risk for the
project to need a third construction season. That in tum could trigger additional.mitigation
requirements from regulatory agencies as happened on the Higuera Bridge project..
2. Reject Bids and Re-Bid Next Year. We could delay rebidding until nekt,.year in the hopes
that,steel prices will come down and the general bidding climate would be,more favorable for
the City. A delay such as this will require revisions to the City's.regulatory permits issued
for the project. It also impacts the acquisition settlements underway. Certain property
owners impacted by the construction have already put into motion certain activities to
accommodate the effect of the project on their property. Costs are incurred and most likely,
those property owners will want the City to pay those costs. Even if the City were able to
defend against such a claim, money would be spent in our defense.
We-do not believe that the City has a lot, if anything, to gain by delaying the award of this
project.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment 1 - Bid Detail
Attachment 2- Agreement
g:\—current projects\btidges\90197 foothill stenner bridge\_documents\l-staff reports\90197d awa.doc
N
O
Y
oa
� pp
¢ U S o 0 0 0 S S S S S S S S O S S O 00 S S o O S 0 S S S O S o O O O p Cl C> o
0 Q 0 0 0 0 0 0 S O S S O O O O O O O O O � O Co O COn 0 C�l0 0 0 S O CO O S S N
CL O O O O O O O pp p
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 co O O O O O C") O O_ O w O N S V• O 1, N CC O CO O .* C) O O O CA
O I, CO N N O O N 7 to N O cn 0! N O to N CD to C7 N V O 0 0 r� V' 1. r 0
lbJ 6s to N 1O r � N N In n to to O N 1, M to m N m r to N O r r a to N fR
=O Q to 413. tt) 6% fA to 6rJ 16% to � 6,91 fA , H3 to 60 fl) 6c> V> t9 fR fH tfs V>
.2 U
o n
Q 0FWSo o o o o 0000 o o o oo SS o S O S o o S Cl S o o o o o 00000
UOZV oop000000000 o cd �nt, 0000000cn0000000
O a) w D Q S O O S 0 0 0 Co 0 0 r O O S S O S S N ch O O O CO O O O w to O LO O O O N
N �' •� O- pp O O u r 0 0 0 cn p r 0 0 Cn m 0 0 0 O O N N N N r w O R In O O m
r 3 J O fes. r N CO N r N CD W V' N O N W W r C) C3 r r T O
M c n
cc
2 U
.C] J W O p O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0
O F U co S O O O O OO O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O S O S O 0 0 0 0 0
y UQ O O O O 6 0 C7 C O C O O O O O 0 0 06 6 C O G O 0 0 0 C7 O O O O O C C O
� O ao O O V• O O O O O O O O O O O O O to O n O Cn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 n O O O O
CL O co N co V' O O O O w " 0 0 0 t� O co O C`•) co N co V' O V• O V• w V• O r CO O O Cn
V• co 00 r- N CO �O{ to cnO coa7 to cnO to O C 00 C' to N O Lo r Cc r� Wn cn r� In CO cn r cn
Q b9 (0 to .T CM W fA fA % V> EA to r to V> 0% (A E9 r� to EH fA ea O r� 69 H3 EH f9 r� tH
o U its t» its
U
C _
O a1 H W O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 p O O O O O CD 0 0 0 0 to 0 p 0 0 0 0 0 p 0 O. O. O. 0 C. 0 0 0 0
CD 0 al Z - 0 0 0 0 n O O S S O V' O S S O S O SCO CO') ^ S lCR S S S S OBD 000 rn 0 0
o `o m cc a 8coc m CDcc000O2iroo .nr, 000 ocoocoo cornvvCDLOw
CA r N N w O LO O w co N c7 O H O � r CV r C7 to
N L N N N Q N V" I� cn N N V•
O l� cc r
Ofco
W O O O O O O O O O O O O O' O O O O' O O O O o pp O O O O O O O O O O O O O
Q U O O O O O Cl O O Co O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O S O 0 0 0 0
F' - p C7 C) O C O O O O O O O O O O CO O O O C to O O O O O In O O N
¢ ppp o O o w o Op pp 0 Op O p o Ln pp o p o o O to 0 n W o V- CD o CO in r--
a. 0 0 'V_ N c0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 P_ O O O O a0 -Cr O co O IZ M W W N. O O O to Ln O N
O y Co O c'7 N LO LO (p N CO Cn � to O cn CO M M U) r O N r M CA LO Q CO C7 r r
U 6% fA fR r� � 6-> fR fR N� Q' N� EH � 4cli0 Ns w � EA Cl) fA � EA E9 N� t9 fi! fH ER to r� 59
O C b9 EA
cx
co a c
0 O Z v S o 0 0 0 o S Cl 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o g o 0 0 o S
y co !2 Q O O p lui O O O O O Ln 1616 O O opo O O O C6.1.6.6.O O O cO to to O O O cO O O O N
d J d 0 0 co 000 N w O O O O S O S 1l 6 0 S C) V• S V' O cn .T co r V• rco O S V' Lo tOn N
N V• N co cD N.. co N V• OOH cn N r C7 co N C7 to
L R N to C)
m O M OO pp p p p p pp pp pp OO
¢ V O O O O S O O S S O S O O S O S O O S O O O S O O O O O O S S S O S O S
y 0 - p p CD p O O O O O O pp O O O CD pp C O O O O O CJ O O CJ 0 0 0 G O O O C
Q1 U ¢ O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O S O O tl7 O S O cn V• O O O O c0 �O O O O cD
O r d 0 m co C O O O_ O O O O r O O O O O N co O O r C O co V'_ O � CO O N M r to LO M
N O N N OD 117 O O Cn O CV CO O r CV O O N V- C7 O N O aD CV CO a0 V" V
O fA fA CO N toQ N r r r r VT b9 u7 N N to !� N FA MEA r r a0 403, 03. EA fA
r r d9 tts ffJ H9 GFs <A tf} EA Id% r ttT tfa r to to to ti3 to 69
'i fA fA tR
O
I- W O O O O O O O O O O O O O S O O O SCD C, S O o Sc. S S S o o O O O O O O o O S
O O O O
E ¢cc UJW U O O p O O O O O O O O O O pp O pp p po
m 3 W ~ ¢ p O O � .r O O O O O c0 O O 9 0 8 0 0 N N � 0 0 0 �i � O m � O c00 u0.1 � b si t00
tQ Q Z Q a O CO O O O O O O. O O to O O O O I� co O V' O V' r V' CO
E c N ui O O cn O O m N O LO Cl O r r C7 v C7
U H O N W V' N r r r m N. N 1,
Z CO
W W W
H
W Z O O O O O O O
_ ? r m DD r r r r Cl r r N r r r r �- lcnl—
V' N '4'
N O r
� O
Z J J Q r2 CO cn J co J J J CO W J J J J J W W W W Lr z W W M
C
� a•
w E
c c m
m m = o 3
CD O c ccts o 0> c E E c
aS -1 o aci Co Cp D a> > •E ca
N CL C fa c OE CD a)
co CKSO N d
O =p N E cc cnW m U CD Cc a) O o U0 CL o y y L m a� 6 F € m m mrx
- '- C m
M m U ~ m a E a a o c U min o C cmU '`� o a m o E c m ac0i a) c � OU) 2 U)
$ m cn m y � NC .� a 5 co c m � E m 2 w o o m c g ¢ o � m E a� U V
cnma. mo a) � _ 3 a� E y c
Z o as coi E c E o m ¢ yC oU m .EO o o > Q ¢ ¢ -W o
Q LL o� w m m is m U o LCL ¢ ¢ U U > z as a a� c E ¢ a v> E E E m U
to c .o H E 0- 0 m o a) o 3 r o . E E Q �- o f E r
U. U C N N N N U E > E E E � E � o p ` ab o E E N U E O 0 0 -`�- c
C m0 a� m v = = m: LLI a) wa3 � co� � rO1ccGccc� � Ewau`� wmc`n. a) Ln
H O-p r N c'r1 V' LO t0 I-- 00 CA O r N CO T W CO t� O CD O &p.V' to (0 I� a0 O> O N c'n In CO
V C m a Z r r r N N N N N N N N Co C7 C7 R C"R C7
N v
0
O
N
O
OA
m
4. O op O O O O o 0 o Cl O O o O O O 0p 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O o o O
CD o 0 0 0 o O S S 0 0 0 0 S o 0 0 0 o 0 O S O O 0 O S O 0 o S 0 0 0 Cl O o O O O
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 m t0 m N m 0 (O CO O O O g O O O O O O Q O G O O O pp pp O O O O pp m
W r m .Zr 0 W In m m r 0 CD N r 1, O O O o (O m 0 0 CO o 0 m t0 t0 a 0 o N O S m Q O 1%-
1�_ Q m tD 1._ N VD. V) o N N to V} U) Q m LO CO N 1l. O m N m. Q r CM r r O N N = r N 0 0
m m m Va N V3. V% to), VD. t9 m N c') 1. Of O O O> CD r O N O LO O O l0 O r 1, N lA C
N V) V! to fA V) to In r W (D r QQm LO C'7 r N N. Un r N fR 09. Un m
V> Vi fA N fA (f) V> b9 fR EH EH fA ER v% tH N" -t
CD CD CD o o O O O O O o CD o o O O CD o O O O co, S O O o 1(? O O O O m o O O O O O O o Ol *1
O Cl O y�
O O O O S O O Q w r N N Q r r 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Q t0 to O O O f` m 0 0 0 0
U') r M CD �-+ tD to O N N to r N O O P) O O o m N r r o N O (7 m O
N r r N W r, n t0 r r (A 1� CD a0 (O (O N r r N Cn N O
m T tD
to
N
O O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cl 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o
O O O O OO 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O O o O O o O O to O O O O O O o T O m
0 o Q Cn O O to O (n m o R O m w O o O LO O O w O N. O O O O m- O o O LO O m uO O o (�
O N N O m m m 1� o m O to fA CD t0 t0 O O I._ N m O (O O (O 1_ LO (OO O m
m N CD
I� w m N O !� m T (� 0 CO CO O (n CO N 1- O m 1.- r CO O � DO Q m O P� S m m Q M O N.
O m CV to r CV m m m (O C r m 0 (d 0 m 0 (A O r N N r (p N N Cn CV O m
V) V) V3 GH 69 V> V) M r- N 1\ 0 Q 1QQ, n r I%- C9 N dm9 � d2 W" a EA ER S O
6% V) C0 EA VJ E� m V3 EA V3 V! d0VJ 9 Vl
O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O o O O O O O O O t0 O O O to O O O O o
O O O O ;O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O o O O o O O O O O m O O O N O O Cl M O
O O m to O O (n to to m m m m CO CO r CO O to m Co O to to m Cl o Q to N O O O m N OD to O
poo m l� o m rn m Q cn m rn T o o r- m r W m rn o l� r r. T o
nT (D .: NCDnr TNmCDcocomnr o
D' o
o m
rn
0 0 Cl 0 Cl 0 0 0 o m torn o o m m o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
O m CD o 0 0 o N CO n r W to M o 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 o LO 0 0 0 0 0 0 t0 CO O N
1� to t0 m rn rn CO (Ci CO o m m S < O to O Q CO 1, m c0 O CO to LO m t0 O to t0 O O O (n O N
• O m I� P_ C7 CO r !!> m N % Vi m m m N Q 0) I� r O O Q 0 CO r r CV m Q Q o r O Q
ZQ m N a T � N � � � � O m Cn m m m m p Q O O 1z o O Ot O C N (cpp N to C7
N V! Vi fA V3 V) V3 r m CD t0 m to N CD cQt CO Q m m V3 r Csi tli N t0
V Vl V) � V! 69 , f/a M N fR V3 mn V) V3 lf) fA V) Vi V3 V3 0
CD
co69CL
o 0 0 o 0 0 0 o 0 0 o 0 o to 0 0 0 0 C. 0 0 0 0 o 0 C. 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0
0000000momtoOtDmmo000o0o0o000tootoo0ot o0000
CO Co M O ld 1c; lvi l0 O r CV m O O CDN ICTIC; O 161619,15 oQ to CD O O O N CO CD to 1l O
CA " m Cn O Q mO CD O m CO LO r r r r m 0 1� ON m 0 m r m Q 1, T Q N O
t0
N
O' O O o O O O O O O o O O o O O o O O O O O o O O o O O O O O O O O O o O O O
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 t0 Q 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cl 0 0 S o O O O 0 o m
O O O C 6 O C O O ci Q Cn C C C7 O C7 O 0' C* C7 O C7 6 C7 O u) 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 C7 C5 O O T
1, O O N N M m m 1- T W r 1� I� r O O O O W O r- O O to O m M W O W Cl LO r O m M N O (O
1� r N t0 yr C' m (A. (D N 6s 1� O r (D o Q O U'� •cf .T (O O. 1- r m N N. W 1� T O m O O o
r CO V3 V) EA03. (") Q CO r N CO O r o C') CO o O CO O (O l0 (O m f7 M
V! fiT VT Q m Q ��y.r O 11 Cn Q to m Va O r N T a (+7 EA (H t% EH Q� =
VT T r r A 6% T N T V) T V) V3 V) fR
V) V) V3 Vf V? V3 ER V) � N
O O O O O O O O O O O O to O O O O O O O O O O O
O O O O O to CO 9 1 2 co; O. 11:3 O m 0 0 o 0 0 t0 O O O O O
O O O O IO O O O
r r O f` r r Q O t0 ll') tt Q Q t00 CD r l(A') ON tO0 Ot0 mO C7 rn G OOO N
o
m m
O
N
w m m O O In O to O) N N O O O to O to O O
w o m co r r m N A �- O m n r m N m m o CO to N coO m ^ Q O m m N T
co N r N (D m Q m m Om m T m m N T. Q
y
Q
`c W W W J Y
C
cn m .1
D m Q
m m o oCL
a ¢ m O a€i € € m L m
O mcl) L ma. o m of =al ccf)
y lD fn m m s L t t F p C Q1.m. a -¢p O .m.
m O) p C N m m m O c m O1
a c c � ¢ v _ .S LLmm �n ¢ ra L m o m c
> i c c Nmmrnrn - - of p F- � _
yap C7 .c = o ,o rn NNmmm � ml-- Yd v v v C c cg � Q rnm
— U O U m m m — cm
v v v y a"i a"i :° m (° :° m ra x x m a5 a o 0 o U m 0° = o ¢ m c c c
c c c ¢ y y m m m m m m w w m a? U U U y m O F (� .� v m m - g
Z o 0 0 o C= C= p Cl Cl �_ d Cn m d m V R m F- v O a m m S 'tQ
Q O D U U m m m m m 2 2 m m S m m m a m
to LL oC c c c E m m m m m m �° (n a a a w a w o (n �' U w E �' `m m .N
LL z c c c m 0 € > CL CL> .c c c c c c 2 Z 2 2 2 2 " y n D D_ o_ a n
m m o '= o 'o m m m m m cn o o m o
m g �, H 1- � aav`� �n in in in in LLC�n� iQn in LL, o ipnp in v� ILw � mo mmm ¢ in UI C
H O I� m O O N m Q to CD 1� m O O r N Cn CO t0 tt� tO t0 CO 0 c0 [O CD 0 CO t0 r n r t`
U a Lo
m (o m Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q to (n
a-Il
Affachment
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
CALIFORNIA
AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT, made on this day of 20_,by and between the City of San Luis Obispo,
a municipal corporation and charter city,San Luis Obispo County,California(hereinafter called the Owner)and
Whitaker Contractors Inc.(hereinafter called the Contractor).
WITNESSETH:
That the Owner and the Contractor for the consideration stated herein agree as follows:
ARTICLE 1, SCOPE OF WORK: The Contractor shall perform everything required to be performed, shall
provide and furnish all of the labor, materials, necessary tools, expendable equipment, and all utility and
transportation services required to complete all the work of construction of
FOOTHILL BOULEVARD BRIDGE REPLACEMENT,SPEC NO.90197D
in strict accordance with the plans and specifications therefor, including any and all Addenda,adopted by the Owner,in
strict compliance with the Contract Documents hereinafter enumerated.
It is agreed that said labor, materials, tools, equipment, and services shall be furnished and said work performed and
completed under the direction and supervision and.subject to the approval of the Owner or its authorized representatives.
ARTICLE II, CONTRACT PRICE: The Owner shall pay the Contractor as full consideration for the faithful
performance of this Contract,subject to any additions or deductions as provided in the Contract Documents,the contract
prices as follows:
Relevant
P-F-S SP Unit of Estimated Item Price Total
Item No. (Note 1 Section Item Measure Ouanti in ti res in figures)
1 4-1.04 CONTRACT SUSPENSION LS 1 24000.00 24,000.00
HAZARDOUS MATERIAL--HEALTH AND
2 5-1.09 SAFETY PLAN PREPARATION LS 1 1850.00 $1.850.00
HAZARDOUS MATERIAL--PRELIMINARY
3 5-1.09 SITE MONITORING DAY 8 650.0 $5,200.00
HAZARDOUS MATERIAL--HEALTH AND
4 5-1.09 SAFETY PLAN IMPLEMENTATION DAY 8 2350 $18,800.00
HAZARDOUS MATERIAL--DISPOSAL OF
5 5-1.09 CONTAMINATED MATERIAL M3 1520 97.00 $147.440.00
6 5-1.20 OFFICE TRAILER FOR ENGINEER LS 1 22000.00 $22,000.00
7 10-1.11 TEMPORARY CREEK DIVERSION LS 1 26600.00 $26,600.00
5-1.16
8 F 10-1.08 ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE LS 1 40000.00 $40,000.00
5-1.16 PREPARE WATER POLLUTION CONTROL
9 F 10-1.09 PROGRAM LS 1 25000.00 $25.000.00
10 F 10-1.09 WATER POLLUTION CONTROL IS 1 .9500.00 $9,500.00
11 F 10-1.19 TEMPORARY RAILING TYPE K M 200 41.00 8200.00
12 S 10-1.13 CONSTRUCTION AREA SIGNS LS 1 $46,000.00
10-1.15
13 1 S 10-1.16 TRAFFIC CONTROL SYSTEM LS 1 76000.00 000.00
f
Attachment2--
Relevant Relevant
P-F-S SP Unit of Estimated Item Price Total
Item No. Note 1 Section Item Measure Quantity (in Figures) (in figures)
14 S 10-1.20 TEMPORARY CRASH CUSHION MODULE EA 2 2500.00 $5,000.00
15 10-1.27 1 REMOVE AND RELOCATE BUS SHELTER LS 1 1 3700.00 $3.700.00
5-1.15
16 F 10-1.23 BRIDGE REMOVAL CMP CULVERT) LS 1 150000.00 $150,000.00
5-1.15 REMOVE AND SALVAGE TEMPORARY
17 10-1.24 BRIDGES LS 1 25000.00 $25,000.00
5-1.15
18 10-1.21 1 CLEARING AND GRUBBING LS 1 20000.00 $20,000.00
19 10-1.28 ROADWAY EXCAVATION M3 5100 18.50 $94,350.00
20 10-1.28 IMPORTED BORROW M3 1600 30.50 8,800.00
21 S 10-1.29 EROSION CONTROL PED M2 610 7.00 4,270.00
22 10-1.30 PLANTING LS 1 45000.00 $45.000.00
23 10-1.30 STREET TREE EA 13 650.00 $8,450.00
24 10-1.30 ESTABLISHMENT&MAINTENANCE EA 10 1000.00 $10,000.00
25 P 10-1.50 350mm DUCTILE IRON PIPE WATER MAIN M 59 600.00 $35,400.00
26 1 10-1.50 1 25mm AIR RELEASE VALVE ASSEMBLY EA 1 1 1000.00 $1,000.00
27 10-1.50 1 TEMPORARY BLOWOFF ASSEMBLY EA 4 2100.00 $8,400.00
28 10-1.32 CLASS 2 AGGREGATE BASE M3 280 135.00 $37,800.00
29 10-1.33 ASPHALT CONCRETE TYPE B TONNE 1240 85.00 $105,400,00
30 F 10-1.34 CONCRETE PAVEMENT(BUS PAD) M3 1 20 650.00 $13,000.00
REMOVE AND RELOCATE MASONRY
31 1 10-1.25 1 BLOCK WALL M 8 980.00 . 7840.00
450mm RCP(CLASS III,RUBBER GASKET
32 P 10-1.51 JOI M 11 470.00 5170.00
900mm RCP(CLASS III RUBBER GASKET
33 P 10-1.51 JOI M 14 490.00 $6,860.00
1200mm PRECAST CONCRETE PIPE
34 P 10-1.51 MANHOLE EA 1 3000.00 $3.000.00
35 P 10-1.51 CATCH BASIN EA 2 5500.00 $11.000.00
36 F 10-1.49 MINOR CONCRETE(BUS SHELTER PAD) M2 6 650.00 $3,900.00
MINOR CONCRETE(CURB.GUTTER,AND
37 F 10-1.49 SIDEWALK) M 107 100.00 $10,700.00
38 1 F 10-1.49 1 MINOR CONCRETE DRIVEWAY M2 31 600.00 $18,600.00
39 F 10-1.49 1 MINOR CONCRETE CURB M 28 83.00 - S2,324.00
324.00
40 P-S 10-1.52 METAL BEAM GUARD RAILING M 19 275.00 $5,225.00
TERMINAL ANCHOR ASSEMBLY(TYPE
41 P-S 10-1.52 qFn EA 1 1 1600.00 1600.00
42 P-S 10-1.52 TERMINAL SECTION PE B EA 1 760.00 $760.00
43 P-S 10-1.52 TERMINAL SECTION PE C EA 3 795.00 $2,385.00
44 S 10-1.53 1 THERMOPLASTIC PAVEMENT MARKING M2 22 65.00 $1,430.00
-2- -/3
- Attachments
Relevant
P-F-S SP Unit of Estimated Item Price Total
Item No Note 1 Section Item Measure Quantit in fi res in fi res
45 S 10-1.54 PAINT PAVEMENT MARKING M2 7 45.00 $315.00
THERMOPLASTIC TRAFFIC STRIPE
46 S 10-1.53 DETAIL M 613 6.00 $3,678.00
THERMOPLASTIC TRAFFIC STRIPE
47 S 10-1.53 DETAIL 22 M 101 6.00 $606.00
THERMOPLASTIC TRAFFIC STRIPE
48 S 10-1.53 DETAIL 32 M 134 6.00 $804.00
THERMOPLASTIC TRAFFIC STRIPE
49 S 10-1.53 DETAIL 38 M 30 6.00 $180.00
THERMOPLASTIC TRAFFIC STRIPE
50 S 10-1.53 DETAIL 39 M 516 6.00 $3.096.00
THERMOPLASTIC TRAFFIC STRIPE
5.1 S 10-1.53 DETAIL 39A M 76 6.00 $456.00
52 14-FR-15 FEDERAL TRAINEES LS 1 1.00 $1.00
53 1 F 10-1.28 STRUCTURE EXCAVATION- BRIDGE M3 2620 38.00 99 560.00
54 F 10-1.28 STRUCTURE EXCAVATION PED M3 1 1280 60.00 $76.800.00
55 F 10-1.28 STRUCTURE BACKFILL BRIDGE M3 2350 95.00 $223,250.00
56 P 10-1.35 FURNISH STEEL PILING HP 310X125 M 635 113.00 $71.755.00
57 S 10-1.35 DRIVE STEEL PILING HP 310X125 EA 184 2000.00 $368,000.00
STRUCTURAL CONCRETE,
58 F 10-1.38 BRIDGE FOOTING M3 301 1 800.00 $240.800.00
59 F 10-1.38 STRUCTURAL CONCRETE BRIDGE. M3 489 975.00 $476,775.00
STRUCTURAL CONCRETE,RETAINING
60 F 10-1.38 WALL M3 312 885.00 $276,120.00
FURNISH PRECAST PRESTRESSED
61 P-F 10-1.37 CONCRETE SLABS TYPE SIV M2 352 616.00 $216.832.00
ERECT PRECAST PRESTRESSED
62 S 10-1.37 CONCRETE DECK UNITS EA 20 3500.00 $70,000.00
63 S 10-1.40 JOINT SEAL E A M 63 150.00 $9,450.00
64 P-F-S 10-1.41 BAR REINFORCING STEEL BRIDGE KG 80100 4.00 $320,400.00
65 S 10-1.42 DECK SEAL M2 310 135.00 $41.850.00
66 P-F-S 10-1.43 MISCELLANEOUS METAL BRIDGE KG 1010 12.35 $12,473.50
ROCK SLOPE PROTECTION(1 TON,
67 1 10-1.47 METHOD A) M3 1 365 90.00 $32,850.00
ROCK SLOPE PROTECTION(1/4 TON,
68 10-1.47 METHOD B) M3 810 100.00 $81,000.00
CONCRETED-ROCK SLOPE PROTECTION
69 10-1.47 1/4 TON METHOD A M3 275 170.00 $46,750.00
70 10-1.47 ROCK SLOPE PROTECTION FABRIC M2 1460 8.25 $12,045.00
71 10-1.48 STREAMBED AGGREGATE GRAVEL M3 400. - 132.00 $5Z800.00
72 F 10-1.44 CONCRETE BARRIER PE 26 M 31 158.00 898.00
73 P-F-S 10-1.46 TUBULAR HANDRAILING M 31 1 175.00 5A25.00
- 3 -
o?^l/
- Anachment-.&
Relevant
P-F-S SP Unit of Estimated Item Price Total
Item No. Note 1 Section Item Measure Ouanti in fi res in ti res
74 F . 10-1.45 CABLE RAILING M 28 84.30 $2,360.40
75 1 1 10-1.06 1 MOBILIZATION @ 10% 1 LS I I 1 300000.00 $300,000.00
(Note 1) P-Denotes Partial Pay;F-Denotes Final Pay;S-Denotes Specialty Item
BID TOTAL: $4,19R-283.90
Payments are to be made to the Contractor in accordance with and subject to the provisions embodied in the documents
made a part of this Contract.
Should any dispute arise respecting the true value of any work omitted, or of any extra work.which the Contractor may
be required to do, or respecting the size of any payment to the Contractor,during the performance of this Contract,said
dispute shall be decided by the Owner and its decision shall be final,and conclusive.
ARTICLE III,COMPONENT PARTS OF THIS CONTRACT: The Contract consists of the following documents,
all of which are as fully a part thereof as if herein set out in full,and if not attached,as if hereto attached:
1. Notice to Bidders and information for bidders.
2. Standard Specifications,Engineering Standards and Special Provisions.
2. Accepted Proposal.
4. Public Contract code Section 10285.1 Statement and 10162 Questionnaire.
5. Noncollusion Declaration.
6. Plans.
7. List of Subcontractors.
8. Agreement and Bonds.
9. Insurance Requirements and Forms.
ARTICLE IV. It is further expressly agreed by and between the parties hereto that should there be any conflict between
the terms of this instrument and the bid or proposal of said Contractor, then this instrument shall control and nothing
herein shall be considered as an acceptance of the said terms of said proposal conflicting herewith.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties to these presents have hereunto set their hands this year and date fust above
written.
ATTEST: CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO,
A Municipal Corporation
City Clerk David F.Romero,Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM: CONTRACTOR
P.Lowell Whitaker Contractors Inc.
City Attorney Kathy Whitaker,CFO
-4- �-/S