SR-06101986-6GC~ - G
JUM ~ 0 tgBB
GS:SES:JAS
Council Meeting: June 10, 1986 Santa Monica, California
T0: Mayor and City Council
FROM: City Staff
SUBJECT: Recommendation to Award Contract for the Construction
of Streetlights for La Mesa Drive
Introduction
This report requests that the City Council award a contract for
the construction of streetlights for La Mesa Drive to C. T. & F.,
Inc., the lowest responsible bidder, in the amount of $215,450.
Background
The Capital Infrastructure Needs Assessment study completed and
presented to City Council in 1984 recommended that deteriorated
and energy-inefficient streetlight circuits be replaced at
various locations throughout the City. Several streets needing
circuit and pole replacement were identified in the study, and of
those streets staff determined that La Mesa Drive's streetlight
system was in the worst condition.
Staff recommended that the special post top streetlights be
replaced in kind to preserve the aesthetic quality of the street.
Also, the dense overgrowth of ficus trees on La Mesa Drive
prevents the installation of the taller, standard streetlight.
Since the cost of installing special post lights is more
expensive than standard streetlights, it was proposed that the
City pay for half the cost of the standard streetlight and the
residents would be assessed for the remaining cost. City Council
approved the formation of the assessment district using the
JllN 10 1986
- 1 -
proposed assessment formula on April 23, 1986, and set a public
hearing for May 28, 1985
At the public hearing, several residents of La Mesa expressed
their concerns regarding changing the aesthetic value of the
neighborhood by removing the original ornate poles and light s
City Council directed staff to meet with the residents to discuss
types of lights available A meeting was held on August 5, 1985,
and it was decided that the City staff would request two
estimates from contractors: 1} replace the streetlights with the
type of ornate pole selected by the residents, and 2)
rehabilitate the existing system City staff would meet with the
residents after the estimates were received to choose which
method (replacement or rehabilitation) would be selected based on
cost and feasibility
On January 6 and 7, 1986, the project was advertised for bidY No
bids were received, The project engineer called the contractors
who picked up plans to ask why they had not submitted a bids The
majority responded that they were too busy and would bid at a
later date if the project were readvertisedr
A second Notice Inviting Bids was published on February 28 and
March 1, 1986, in the Evening Outlook and in five construction
journals. The notice was also sent to four minority business
associations. Plans and specifications were issued to twelve
contractorsr Bids were opened and read publicly on April 7,
1986, by the Deputy City Clerk
_ 2
Three bids were received as follows:
Replace
C~ T~ & Fy, Incr $215,450
Smith Electric Supply '133,444
Paul Gardner Corporation 314,733
Engineer's Estimate: $192,000
Rehab
$218,650
N/A
N/A
No minority or woman owned firm submitted a bid for this projec t
C~ Ty & F., Inc., has successfully completed other projects for
the City.
On May 5, 1986, City staff and La Mesa residents met to decide
which method would be used. After discussing the pros and cons
of each method, the residents cYiose to replace the entire system
with the new ornate poles selected at the previous meeting.
Budget/Financial Impact
Contract
Incidental
Expenses*
Contingencies
Total
Funds Required
Property
Owners' City's
Share 48~ Share 52~
$102,911.60 $112,538Y40
8, 274 00
10,341y60
8, 963 00
11,203.40
$121,152 72
$132,704y80
Total
$215,450~OU
17, 236 00
21, 545 00
$254,231 00
*This streetlight district was formed in accordance with the
Improvement Act of 1911 which provides for inclusion of
incidental costs in the property owners' assessments and City's
contribution Incidental expenses include cost of engineering,
inspection, bond preparation, advertising and recordation fees
- 3 -
The City is paying 50~ of the cost of the project using standard
light fixtures in the price base. The ornate, post-top fixtures
add approximately $3.00 per linear foot to the cost of the
project. The City is also paying 80~ of the side footage which
is the current policy. Since there is considerable side footage
(1568 lineal feet out of a total of 7934 lineal feet) the total
City share is approximately 52~ of the project.
The original estimate for this project was for the replacement of
the streetlight circuit and funds were budgeted in accordance
with the estimate. However, after inspecting the poles, it was
evident that the entire streetlight system needed to be replaced
which resulted in a higher project cost. It is proposed to use
funds available in the account designated for new streetlight
systems in addition to the funds originally appropriated for this
project. Funds remaining in the new streetlight account and
unused contingency funds from a streetlight project currently
under construction totaling approximately $113,000 will be
carried over to next fiscal year to form other streetlight
districts when an adequate number of petitions are returned.
The accounts are as follows:
Streetlight Circuit Replacement
01-770-453-000-904 $ 85,449.26
New Streetlight Systems
01-770-453-000-903 81,508.18
Total funds available: $166,957.44
- 4 -
Recommendation
It is recommended that the City Council:
1~ Award a contract for the construction of streetlights for La
Mesa Drive to C~ Ty & F „ Inca, the lowest responsible
bidder, in the amount of $215,450; and
2~ Authorize the City Engineer to issue any change orders
necessary to complete additional work to the extent of funds
available in accordance with the Administrative Instruction
on Change Orders
Prepared by: Stan Scholl, Director of General Services
Jean Stanley, Administrative Analyst
- 5
Reference Contract
No. 4693 (CCS).