AgdaPkt 2014-09-22 Closed and Joint with SA

Browse Search

Specifically, the drivers of the higher costs were the project schedule and details around coordination management. Because staff views the barge as a significant liability to the City, there was a focus on the soonest possible removal. This became a problem for all of the potential bidders given the volume of demolition work now available in the Bay Area. To expedite a project involves a significant cost premium. Consequently, the proposers are able to determine a delivery schedule as part of their proposals. Also, key to establishing the appropriate schedule is the tide. Because the barge must be floated out of the Marina, the contractor needs a high tide. The timing of tide and working hours is a critical component to the ease of the project and, consequently, the project cost. A less critical element, but one with cost implications is the need for coordinating the actual removal of the barge with other supporting work. Specifically, there is an adjoining houseboat that must be temporarily removed while the barge is disconnected from its mooring and moved out of the Marina. Staff anticipated the need for an practice run at this coordination, but the contractors have proposed a more cost effective effort. Staff believes the proposed effort to coordinate remains appropriate for safety and for coordination with the other property owner. Silverado proposes to remove the barge from the Marina and demolish it in San Francisco. The company does $30 million per year in demolition work. They have been in business for 13 years. Of significant note is that they are the demolition contractor for the Bay Bridge project and other pier and bridge demolition projects in the Bay Area. They are qualified contractors possessing the experience and expertise for the removal of the Pan Am Barge and floating it to San Francisco for demolition. Staff solicited proposals from seven firms: Silverado Construction, CS Marine, FERMA Corporation, San Diego Marine, Buccaneer Demolition, Joe Ryan Construction, and Bishop Diving. Only Silverado and Bishop Diving formally responded to the request. The Bishop Diving proposal was deemed incomplete and non-responsive, although the proposed cost was $63,700, there was no description of how the project would be coordinated, nor other required information sufficient to determine the validity of the proposal. ALTERNATIVES The Council can reject the proposal and direct staff to re-bid the project. FISCAL IMPACT There is $50,000 in the Capital Improvement Program Budget line 357-66433, the additional $44,875 is available in Fund 357 Contingency. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW This action is Categorically Exempt under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) as a Class 30 exemption under §15330. Minor actions to prevent, minimize, stabilize, mitigate or eliminate the release or threat of release of hazardous waste or hazardous substances. 7.1.D. - Page 2