SR-502-002-03 (5)
SUPPLEMENTAL STAFF REPORT TO ITEM 1A
EPWM: CP: AA: DB: SL: F:\DATA\SPFILES\Sp1792 \Supplemental cc1792award.1doc
Deleted:
SP1609
Council Meeting: February 12, 2002 Santa Monica, California
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: City Staff
SUBJECT: Supplemental Report for Award of Contract for the Riviera Reservoir
Rehabilitation Project
Introduction
This supplemental report provides additional information regarding the recommendation to
award a construction contract for the Riviera Reservoir Rehabilitation Project to the best
bidder Spiess Construction Co., Inc.
Discussion
Because the Riviera Reservoir is located on land owned by the Riviera Country Club,
construction activities must be coordinated with the Country Club. The Country Club
has a narrow window of time where construction would not interfere with ongoing club
activities. Thus, adherence to schedule is particularly crucial to this project. In staff?s
experience, a contractor?s adherence to schedule and performance on previous jobs is
a good indicator of future performance. Accordingly, staff conducted a detailed
reference check on the two lowest monetary bidders.
Deleted:
¶
MERCO Construction Engineers, Inc., the lowest monetary bidder, submitted 50
Deleted:
¶
references of which five were selected as representative in project scope, construction cost
1
SUPPLEMENTAL STAFF REPORT TO ITEM 1A
and relevant time period. These projects were:
?
Booster Pump Station Improvements for the City of Ventura.
?
Hill Canyon Wastewater Treatment Plant Phases II and I, for the City of Thousand
Oaks
?
Seawater System Renewal for the University of California at Santa Barbara.
?
Wastewater Reclamation Facilities Upgrades for the City of Ventura.
?
Antelope Valley/Acton Chlorination Stations for the Los Angeles County Department
of Public Works.
Contacts to the agencies reported the following:
?
While they submitted the lowest bid, their primary goal was to obtain change orders.
?
Delayed project by submitting excessive extra work requests, which impacted the
schedule adversely.
?
Had difficulty staying on schedule.
?
Their personnel in general had difficulty taking instruction from agency staff or
representatatives.
?
Lack of coordination between the superintendents and subcontractors
developed into time delays and associated claims asserted by the contractor.
?
Poorly qualified and non-responsive construction superintendents
?
Project manager difficult to work with (i.e. lacking in cooperation).
?
Numerous disputes.
?
Sub-contracted out most of the work and did not adequately control sub-consultants
2
SUPPLEMENTAL STAFF REPORT TO ITEM 1A
resulting in a poor quality final product.
?
Sub-contractors did not follow the inspector?s instructions in many cases.
Additionally, staff conducted an independent review with the City of Los Angeles
Department of Public Works (LADPW) for the San Pedro City Hall Seismic Upgrade
Restoration Project. The findings regarding MERCO Construction Engineers, Inc., are
listed below:
?
Generally behind schedule and over budget.
?
Being the lowest bidder resulted in excessive, unjustified change
order requests.
?
Their sub-consultants and their construction crew were generally
uncooperative and non-responsive.
?
Lack of communication regarding the contract documents to their
construction personnel brought uncertainty to the project that
resulted in delays and disputes.
?
Submittals often late and incomplete.
?
Half way into the project, the Los Angeles Department of Public
Works (LADPW) requested a change in the project scope and
presented it to MERCO Construction Engineers, Inc., to
renegotiate the contract. MERCO Construction Engineers, Inc.
responded with the threat of unjustified, excessive claims. The
LADPW decided that it was in the City?s best interest to cancel the
contract with MERCO Construction Engineers, Inc., in part due to
MERCO?s overly aggressive and unjustifiable pricing for the
requested scope changes.
?
The LADPW completed the balance of the construction through the
use of City forces.
3
SUPPLEMENTAL STAFF REPORT TO ITEM 1A
In addition, staff checked references provided by Spiess Construction Co., Inc., for projects
with a similar project scope, construction budget and relevant time period. Spiess
Construction Co., Inc., submitted 50 references of which staff selected six that were very
similar in scope and construction cost. All contacts consistently reported that the quality of
their work was excellent, on schedule, conducted in a cost efficient manner, and
performed with minimal change orders.
Based on the staff reference checks on both companies, staff recommends that Spiess
Construction Co., Inc. be selected as the best bidder in order to avoid project schedule
creep, to minimize contract disputes and potential claims, and to avoid administrative
problems within contractor's personnel.
Deleted:
¶
Recommendation
1. Staff recommends that Council take the actions specified in the original staff report.
Prepared by: Craig Perkins, Director of Environmental and Public Works Management
Anthony Antich, P.E., City Engineer
Gilbert Borboa Jr., P.E., Utilities Manager
Dave Britton, P.E., Sr. Civil Engineer
Charmaine Yambao, P.E., Utilities Engineer
Bob Harvey, Water Production Treatment Superintendent
Cara Silver, Deputy City Attorney
Spiros A. Lazaris, P.E., Project Manager
Attachment: Copy of Staff Report for Item 1D, January 22, 2002.
4
SUPPLEMENTAL STAFF REPORT TO ITEM 1A
Supplemental llcc1792award.chg.doc
5