sr-062480-6e15~e vi s~
INFORMATION
b ~ /S
Santa Monica, California June 26, 1980',~Upj 2 ~ tg6Q
(Revised pages 1 and 2 on June 30, 1980)
To: Piayor and City Council
From: City Staff
Subject: AWARD OF BID FOR REFURBISHING OF THE ARCADIA RESERVOIR
Introduction
This report revises the staff report dated June 12, 1980, on the same
subject, and relates additional background on the subject reservoir and
offers alternatives to the recommendation contained in the original report.
Background
The Arcadia reservoir, located at Bundy and 4lilshire Boulevards in West
Los Angeles, was constructed in 1924 with reinforced concrete walls and
a wooden roof structure supported by reinforced concrete columns. Much
maintenance has been required through the years for this roof and although
specific cost records can not be accurately separated from other maintenance
costs, there is ample physical evidence at the site to indicate extensive
replacements of planking and sub-structure over many years time. The
last major repair of record was resurfacing of the roof by Eberhard Roofing
Company, North Hollywood, in 1957, with all subsequent maintenance and
repairs being accomplished by City personnel. The roof has continued to
deteriorate and is currently a safety and operational hazard, as evidenced
incidences of booster pumps clogging with water-logged wood pieces which
have fallen from the roof and one incident in which an employee fell
s'
~,~
SUN ~ 4 19~(~
To: Mayor and City Council - 2 - June 26, 1980
through. to his waist when the roof collapsed beneath him. Additionally,
the California State Health. Department, which entity is the enforcement
agency for the EPA, has repeatedly requested that this roof be replaced
without further delay as they consider it a health hazard.
The use of wooden roofs for small potable water reservoirs has historically
been commonplace but not without ongoing and increasing problems as a wooden
structure ages. Because of the moist environment, deterioration of the wood
is inevitable despite "treating" the wood for moisture resistance. Recent
advances in potable water analytical capabilities have shown that elements
in the moisture resisting treatmeht materials (Chlorinated phenols or arsenic
compounds) can be returned to the water by the condensation cycle, where
~,.~ ~~~,-~~.-.~.~.,,.~,.m,,~,~.~ , _... ~,.. . ~ ~~._ _,, __
moisture first forms on the underside of the roof, then falls back to the water.
Indications from California State Health are that the City may be required
in the future. or find it desireable to perform additional monitoring,
sampling, and analysis for the specific contaminate involved on an ongoing basis.
The only alternative wood suitable for such a structure which would not have
to be treated is redwood, which is extremely costly (more costly than metal).
Also all wood material and especially redwood, contains coliform bacteria,
which can also be returned to the water by the same condensation cycle. This
bacteria, while not toxic in itself, functions as the indicator organism.
in testing for the presence of fecal or other harmful bacteria, and can
effectively "mask" whether or not the reservoir water is actually contaminated.
This could cause frequent and costly chemical disinfection of the reservoir
to meet Public Health requirements.
To: Mayor and City Council - 3 - June 26, 1980
It should be emphasized that while California Department of Health does
not prohibit installations of treated wooden roofs over potable water
reservoirs, they do regulate the quality of the water and proximity
of contaminating agents. For these reasons, they favor and recommend the
construction of all metal roof structures.
In September, 1979, Council awarded a contract to the consulting engineering
firm of Woodside-Kubota for design and specifications for refurbishing the
Arcadia Reservoir, including the roof replacement. The most cost effective
design they .developed was the basic timber supporting structure. On the basis
of this, bids were invited with bidders given the options of proposing wood
sheathing with a felt and hot mop coating or sheathing (roofing) with
aluminum. Bidders were advised that they could bid either method or both,
and that Council reserved the right to award either method or alternatively,
reject all proposals.* Bids were received from seven firms, some who.. bid
one alternative and some who bid both.
* Section A-16, Page A5 of the specifications states "The City Council
reserves the right to reject any or all bids and waive any informality
in any bid received not affected by law. See also 67, page 64, C-3,
page C6.
A summary of the corrected totals as received is as follows:
rnntv~a r+nv
Alt. "A"-Aluminum Alt. "B"-flood
$396,233.75
No Bid
$475,740.00
$492,950.00
$500,615.00
No Bid
No Bid
$298,000.OC
Lang-Miller Construction No Bid
Cushman Contractor Corp. X473,189.00
Merco Construction Engrs. Inc. No Bid
Kruse Construction Company $517,950.00
Equinox-Malibu $530,215.00
Eco Contractors, Inc. $537,525.00
Schwartz Construction $40,339,038.00
Engineers Estimate $298,000.00
To: Mayor and City Council - 4 - June 26, 1980
Schwartz Construction inadvertently entered its apparent extensions as unit
prices in words (no unit prices in figures were shown) which, when corrected,
caused their total to be obviously incorrect. This irregularity is sufficient
to be cause for rejection of the proposal.
Several of the bids, including the lowest bidder, contained various
irregularities. These irregularities were considered minor by staff not
affecting the. overall evaluation of the proposals, but could be considered
justification for rejection of all bids. (See Alternative 3).
Woodside-Kubota, who was engaged as the consulting engineering firm, evaluated
the bids received and recommended to staff that we award to the lowest bidder
proposing.. wood roofing,-based in part on their understanding of State Health
Department's requirements. Subsequent to the consultant's report and to the
time bids were received, the staff held detailed discussions with Mr. Frank
Bauman of the State Health Department because of the recent emphasis by
Council on reducing or eliminating potential health hazards from the
drinking water, i.e. TCE, asbestos. Based on these discussions and concerns
of the Department, staff elected to recommend the lowest bidder proposing the
aluminum roofing alternative as the best alternative meeting the perceived new
goals and the original (June 12, 1980) staff report reflected that recommendation.
Alternatives
The following alternatives, with comments pertinent to each, appear feasible
to staff:
1. Approve the lowest bidder's proposal for an all wood structure.
Due to the contamination possibilities described above, stringent
monitoring and analysis costs would be incurred, and would approximate
$13,624 in today's dollars for each ten years of life, assuming no
To
Mayor and City Council - 5 - June 26, 1980
actual contamination problems actually occur. Additionally after ten
years, maintenance costs of a wooden structure begin to increase
on a sharply rising curve (thoroughly mis-stated in the original staff
report) and will approximate an annual expense of $5,000.00._
2
3
Approve the lowest bid for timber framework with aluminum roofing
as recommended in the June 12 staff report.
The likelihood of contamination from the treated wood portions of the
structure would be sharply reduced due to the fact that most of the
undersurface of the roof would be the aluminum sheeting; and sampling
and analysis costs could be reduced
Maintenance costs would approximate
$1,000.00 annually.
Reject all bids and:
A. Call for new proposals utilizing all redwood construction.
This is undoubtedly be the most costly alternative initially
and could incur the ongoing costs of chemical disinfection due
to the coliform contamination as previously described.
B. Call for new proposals utilizing an all metal design (either
an aluminum of enameled steel support structure) with aluminum
roofing.
This alternative will result in a significant increase
in initial expense, but will eliminate the additional
ongoing expenses of monitoring due to the aforementioned
To: Mayor and Ci_ Council - 6 - Jung G6, 1980
proximity of contaminants. Maintenance cost would be limited to
eventual re-coating of enameled steel structures (if chosen)
or minor repairs if required to the aluminum structure.
Recommendation
Staff recommends Cushman Contracting Corporation .be awarded a contract for
installating a timber framework with aluminum roofing as being the most
cost effective (Alternative 2 above) in the amount of $473,189. Staff
also recommends that an appropriation of the contract amount plus a
5% contingency for a total of $496,849 from the Water Reserves fund
be authorized for the completion of this project.
Prepared by: Stan Scholl
Ed Lash