AgdaPkt 2004-04-26 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

� � � ■ 1 ■ ■ �■ � B� 3 With regard to the timing of the award, the City was unable to award the contract ,� within 45 days of the bid opening due to IGP's protest. The bids were opened on February 18, 2004. IGP, thereafter, filed a bid protest. In response, City staff has had to review Dryco's bid, give Dryao an opportunity to respond to the protest, and analyze the issues. Nothing witf,in the bidding documents either limi�s the time in which an inquiry into a bid prdtest �nust occur, or makes such'an inquiry subject to the 45 day period, as set forth in Section 00200, Subsection 1.20(b). The delay IGP created with its protest cannot become grounds for an award to IGP. Moreover, the language IGP cites is irrelevant, because Dryco has not refused or failed to execute any contract, which would enable the City to award the contract to the next lowest bidder as set f4rth in Section 00200, Subsection 1.20(c). 2. Irregularities in Drvco's bid The bid from Dryco Construction also contains several irregularities in the listing of unit prices. However, all line items are priced, and the information is sufficient to determine payments to the contractor during construction. Counsel from the City Attorney's Office, the City's consulting engineers and the City's consulting attomey have reviewed the matter and determined that the irregularities were immaterial and could be waived. 3. Letter from San Mateo Countv Buildina & Construction Trades Council. In a letter to the City Council Members and City Manager dated April 2, 2004, this organization informed the City of a certain enforcement action by the State of " California Department of Industrial Relations (DIR) against Dryco in 2002 and requested that the City reject Dryco's bid. The documents show that in 2002 Dryco satisfactorily paid all prevaiting wages and penalties related to the referenced Notice of Co�nplain? an� that the DIR closed the file. Dryco confirmed that the matter had been resolved and that it has had no further prevailing wage or related violations since that time. An isolated incident that Dryco fully and satisfactorily resolved should not make the contractor ineligible to receive this contract. The prevailing wage rate laws are multifaceted and are very complicated. Minor infractions are not uncommon among larger non-union Contractors. The City Attorney concurs with this approach. With the Contract allowing 90 working days, the completion of the field shouid be in late October. Had we awarded the Contract in September, the Project would have cost at least 20% more than the current low bid, due to overtime work, winterization and remobilization, and it is not clear when the Contractor might have completed the project. A complete copy of the agreement is available for review in the City Clerk's office. Construction is not scheduled to..start uiatil the conclusion of the Adutt Soccer Le�gue, in June. � Page 3 of 4 720268v1 33786/0002