The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutSR - BID-178-34 - REJECTION OF BIDS; WATER SYSTEM SCADA & CONTROLS UPGRADES _ _ . .. �oF,o� . G��.��* AGENDA ITEM *: o: :� y. .:oa November 13 2018 : .: .. .. . .-. G'�t,'•�am s.�e;"..:y�c. . .. .. : .�: 7 ' ' . .. . . . . '�'�pN'f1(CP :: . . .. ., , . .. . .. . . .. . .. . . . . . . . . .. . . . . .. .. . . .. .. . . . . .. . . .. . . . . .. . . .. . .. . . .. ' '.' . TO: Honorable Mayor and Reviewed/Vecified:B�: . : .Members of the:City Council City Manager : Finance:Director : THRU:. R1Ck:OttO To Be Presented B : Chcisto her Cash � X Cons Calendar City Mgr.Rpts City Manager Council Rpts Legal Affairs Boards/Cmtes � .:: :: .Public Hrgs : FROlVI: . Cill'1SxOpllei' CaSil Admin Rpts.. - : Plan/Environ � Public Works Directoir: 1. SUBJECT : . Rejection of Bids ,.-. Bid No. 178-34;_ _Water System. S.C.ADA & Controls _upgrades and ., _. .. _ . autlior.ization to re-advertise for bids . : 2. SUMMARY Tllree bids. for tlie Water System SCADA & Controls upgrades .were reee'ived and. opened on _ _ . _. .. October:4; 2018. Due to a protest regarding the bidding process, staff:re:commends the rejection :. of all:bids and re=advertisement of:this project to ensure clarity and understanding of tlie bid documents. _. . . _ ..... .. . _ .. ..... . _ ._.. .. _ _. .. 3.. RECOMMENDED ACTION - Re ect all bids received and.authorize the re-advertisement of th'is: ro ect . . _ .. J P .J . : .. .. . . . ... _ .. . .. . . . . _ 4.. FISCAL IMPACT The total expenditure for tliis project is $1,629,171 and will be funded through the Water:Plant Telemetry—SCADA Pro'ect 18912 tlirou h Water LTtilit O erations 600 : : . . J � ). g Y .P � ) ... . . . 5. STRATEGIC PLAN GOAL(S) 1: Provide for a safe:community: b:Pro.vide and maintairi the infrastructure necessary to ensure the safety of the public:: 2: Be a fiscally healthy community: d. Effectively:mariage and develop City assets. _ _ ._ . _ _ _ _ 4. Provide:outstandin ublic:service: . _ _ g:P . b. Provide facilities and services to:meet customer expectations. : , -- ITEM _ 1 _ 11/13/18 6. GENERAL PLAN IMPLEMENTATION Infrastructure Element Goa16.0: Ensure water, sewer, and storm drain systems that meet the needs of residents and businesses. Policy 1.1: Provide sufficient levels of water, sewer, and storm drain service throughout the community. Economic Development Element Goa16.0: Provide sufficient infrastructure to support anticipated economic development and growth. Policy 6.1: Provide public improvements to support commercial, industrial and institutional uses. 7. DISCUSSION and BACKGROUND The City Council previously approved the advertisement for bids on June 12, 2018. The bids were received and opened on October 4, 2018. Three bidders responded as follows: CONTRACTOR AMOUNT 1. ACS Engineering, Inc. $1,485,550 2. Tesco Control, Inc. $1,661,783 3. Systems Integrated, Inc. $1,999,999 Systems Integrated, Inc. (Sn sent a protest letter on October 10, 2018 protesting the bid procedure. They claim that the City did not universally share Request for Interpretations (RFI) and the answers for RFI's with all bidders. After a thorough review of the protest letter, staff is recommending the rejection of all bids and re-advertisement of the project. While Staff felt that there was not any material inequity in the bidding process, Staff believes that out of an abundance of caution and in the interest of full transparency that the project should be re-bid. 8. ATTACHMENTS • Bid Results • Protest Letter � ITEM 2 11/13/18 City of Orange,Water Division 1 2 3 SCADA Upgrade Engineering Estimate ACS Electrical Tesco Control,Inc. S stems Integrated Bid No.178-34 189 S.Water Street 33 Hammond#209 8440 Florin Road 2200 N.Gtassell St. Date of Bid Opening:10/04/18 Orange,CA 92866 Inrine,CA 92618 Sacramento,CA 95828 Orange,CA 92865 714 288-2475 Attn:Sonn T. 949-297-3777 Attn:Bob K. 916-395-8800 Attn:Delven D. 714-998-0900 Attn:Susan D. ITEM DESCRIPTION OF WORK QUANTITY UNIT PRICE TOTAL PRICE LJNIT PRICE TOTAL PRICE iJNIT PRICE TOTAL PRICE iJNIT PRICE TOTAL PRICE 1 Mobilization,Demobilization,Bonds,Pertnits 1 LS $ 63,500.00 $ 63,500.00 $ 30,000.00 $ 30,000.00 $ 60,029.00 $ 60,029.00 $ 99,999.95 $ 99,999.95 2 Provide all required controls and system engineering 1 LS $ 90,000.00 $ 90,000.00 $ 75,400.00 $ 75,400.00 $ 92,168.00 $ 92,168.00 $ 850,999.00 $ 850,999.00 3 Supply and Install 37 RTUs Modicon M340 1 LS $ 550,000.00 $ 550,000.00 $ 319,800.00 $ 319,800.00 $ 456,153.00 $ 456,153.00 $ 450,000.00 $ 450,000.00 4 Supply and Install 39 4.9Ghz Radio uniis 1 LS $ 250,000.00 $ 250,000.00 $ 316,700.00 $ 316,700.00 $ 211,095.00 $ 211,095.00 $ 211,000.00 $ 211,000.00 5 Supply and install MTU with 2 Modicon M580 PLC 7 LS $ 28,000.00 $ 28,000.00 $ 110,300.00 $ 110,300.00 $ 35,627.00 $ 35,627.00 $ 15,000.00 $ 15,000.00 6 Supply&install Radio anlenna and hardware 1 LS $ 30,000.00 $ 30,000.00 $ 58,200.00 $ 58,200.00 $ 90,660.00 $ 90,660.00 $ 65,000.00 $ 65,000.00 7 Supply&install Radio Communicalion Towers 1 LS $ 185,000.00 $ 185,000.00 $ 44,800.00 $ 44,800.00 $ 286,810.00 $ 286,810.00 $ 100,000.00 $ 100,000.00 8 Supply&install fiber optic cable 1 LS $ 50,000.00 $ 50,000.00 $ 128,350.00 $ 128,350.00 $ 50,600.00 $ 50,600.00 $ 75,000.00 $ 75,000.00 9 Supply&install SCADA software 1 LS $ 70,000.00 $ 70,000.00 $ 154,200.00 $ 154,200.00 $ 38,225.00 $ 38,225.00 $ 15,000.00 $ 15,000.00 10 Converse exisling ladder logic programing to new pla 1 LS $ 40,000.00 $ 40,000.00 $ 54,000.00 $ 54,000.00 $ 24,120.00 $ 24,120.00 $ 20,000.00 $ 20,000.00 11 Provide new programing at remote sites 1 LS $ 41,000.00 $ 41,000.00 $ 43,000.00 $ 43,000.00 $ 116,940.00 $ 116,940.00 $ 25,000.00 $ 25,000.00 �2 Modify existing SCADA software to integrate new eq 1 LS $ 35,000.00 $ 35,000.00 $ 54,300.00 $ 54,300.00 $ 58,440.00 $ 58,440.00 $ 25,000.00 $ 25,000.00 13 Provide programing and development of reports 1 LS $ 15,000.00 $ 15,000.00 $ 15,100.00 $ 18,100.00 $ 13,620.00 $ 13,620.00 $ 10,000.00 $ 10,000.00 14 Program and develop new arlam nofification system 1 LS $ 15,000.00 $ 15,000.00 $ 28,900.00 $ 28,900.00 $ 11,670.00 $ 11,670.00 $ 5,000.00 $ 5,000.00 15 Field testing,commissioning,and de-bugging 1 LS $ 39,000.00 $ 39,000.00 $ 32,000.00 $ 32,000.00 $ 87,545.00 $ 87,545.00 $ 20,000.00 $ 20,000.00 16 Provide system O&M manual 1 LS $ 7,000.00 $ 7,000.00 $ 2,500.00 $ 2,500.00 $ 10,024.00 $ 10,024.00 $ 5,000.00 $ 5,000.00 17 Provide on-site training sessions 1 LS $ 7,000.00 $ 7,000.00 $ 2,400.00 $ 2,400.00 $ 9,432.00 $ 9,432.00 $ 3,000.00 $ 3,000.00 18 Prepare Traffic Control,Detour,Lane Closure as nee 1 LS $ 14,500.00 $ 14,500.00 $ 12,600.00 $ 12,600.00 $ 8.625.00 $ 8,625.00 $ 5,000.00 $ 5,000.00 TOf�I $ 1,530,000.00 $ 1,485,550.00 $ 1,661,783.00 $ 1,999,998.95 Capy of Bid Results-Bid 178-34 1 10/24/2018 ,, . ,. . ��,��.. � : SYST'Ef�S..: .: II�9TEGR�►TED � . . 2200 North Glassell Street,Orange,CA 92865-2702�.Tel 714i998-0900•Fax 714/998-6059 October 10;2018 ' Christopher Cash :... � . : _ u ic or Director . . CITY O�'O�tANGE _ _ ..... 300 E.Chapman Ave.: : : Orange,CA 92�66 :. : :: . _. _ __ _. . _ .. . . _. __ _. .. _ .. REF: Bid No: 178-34 Potable Water.System SCADA&Eontrols Upgrades . _ ..... SUBJECT: Protest.of:BidNo. 178-34 . . : _. .. . _. ._ . _. _ . _. .. _ _ . . . _ _ .. .. ... _ .. .. .... _. .. .. ..... . Dear iVir.Cas : .. . _ _ . . . _ Systems Integrated.(`°SI")is protesting this,bid procedure for the following reasons. . ..... 1. Request#'or Interpretation:(RFI)Responses.Were 1Vot Releaseal to A!l�adders .. . Various bidders and/or subcontractors for#his:bid,submitted questions requesting clarification to the City . _ _ . of Orange's("City")engineer regarding the work.The City,cather than releasing tHe RFI:responses to ail bidders, responded individually.to:each particulac.submitfed RFI, therefore not:all bidders had the.same information about the work;vrihich:caused an inconsistent and unfair competitive:bid., _ .. .. . SI submitted.various RFI's,regarding Major Bid.Items to.the City's engine.ers,.and the City_resp.o.nded directly,:to;.SI's RFI's, either;:dire¢ting SI to v.arious::Addenda or p.roviding,additional clarification. Regazdless of the City's.response, when there.was an RFI to.a.Major.Bid Item; and.the.City responded,. . . . . .. that response should have been published.to�11 bidders. Systems Integrated is informed and believes that :. its RFI'.s and.the responses.by the.City to them w.ere not provided to the.other prospective bidders before they.placed:their bids. : Per Section 2-1.4,Request for Interpretation,ofthe City's Special Provisions,the process is defined: `:`If:any person contemplatrng submitting a bid is in doubt as to the true meaning of any part of tlze pldns; specificatioris or ofher..proposeil contract.dacuments; or finds .discrepancies in, or... omissions from;.the drawing nr spec�cations, or discovers substantial difference;be[ween the approximate qudntities s own on t e liid.proposal and his quantity.estimate frorri the plans for _ any of the major bid:iteriis: in the proposal; h.e shall request:the Engineer, in writing,for an interpretation or.correction thereof. :.,,. Ald such interpretations of the contract.documents will: be made only, by Addenda duly:is�ued and a copy:of each:such Addendum, will:be mailed or: _ _ _ : . : delivered to each person receiving a set of coniraat dacuments at his last:address af record'. . : :. : The City did not even follow their own rules:(which were part of the Re uest For Pro osals "RFP" q p. . L l) . ; regarding the handling:of RFI's because all:bidders should: have:received Addenda:addressing the iscrepane�es w�t m the IVla�or Bid Items,which were issued in response#o the RFI's. _ . _ Christopher Cash _ . :. Qctober 10,20.1� :. : . : Page 2 of 4 It can be considered:`.`favoritism"for a:putilic agency to provide any change or clarification to one bidder :. and not a116idders.It is recognized by the courts interpreting construction bidding law that: "VJliece : recognized prior to bid opening;.tlie Owner normal.ly should extend the time for bid opening and issue an. amendment to tfie invitation to bid thaf disclases the changes to all bidders." Bruner.arad.Q'Gonnor on _ . Construction Law, section 2:42 at 119(2002)::A copy of that_section is enclosed:Eichibit:1, . ,.... . . 2. �ecause Caty's Itespomses:to SI's Iteqaaes�s f��:Interpretation.(�� dVese Not Released:to .... . .. .. ... . All Bidders,The Oth�r Bic�ders.Aaeceived an Ute�'aia�Advantage Over 5I. SI was fully aware ofthe errors:and.ambiguities in the RFP documents;it remained aware ofthose:defects . .. even after tfie City.responded to SI's.REI's with its purported.correction or clarification of the defects,: .: wliich was inadequate to correct them all:Had SI been awarded;the contract, it:would nod have been; allowed.to colleot tliose extra costs.ansing oat of the defects ancl ambiguities in tlie RFP documents.:A bidder who is:aware of defects or:ambiguities(even where it brings them to.the attentian of the:owner;yet the owner fails to correct tliem alI properly)may not assert a claim for extra costs it:[ater incurs as a result ofthe known defects.:(Robins Maintenance,:Inc. v. Unfted States,:265 F.3d 1254,:1257=1258 (Fed. Cir.: . . 2001:): .. ..:.: :: In contrast; bidders other than SI likely would, after they aze awarded the contract, be able to assert a: :elaim for e�ctra eosts arising out of the defects::SI is informed arid believes that the:City failed to provide the competing bidders with SI's RFI's arid tlie City's responses to them.:Had the:City provided fihem with copies,:fhose:competing biddeTs would likely be barred:from claiming extra cost§due to the ercors�in ttie bid documents(Robins Maintenance;supra). Since the City did not share thaf information:with the otlier bidders,it is likely:tliat after award of a contcact,they widl be able to:claim extra costs:once:they discover:: the errors and:am6iguities in the design documents: That gives them a competitiye advantage over S.I.:. :I.f _ . they:are:awaided the contract,:;they will be able.to collect the extra costs;. conversely, if SI.had been awarded the contract;it would not have been:able to collect the extra costs. Robins Maintenance,supra. � _ _ . . . _ . . . 3: Tlae: Unfair Advantage :to:Otber �idd�rs Over SI �ecause the .Ci4y's Responses to SI's . . . 13eyues�s for Interpr�ta�ion (RFn Wer� Not:Released to All Bidd.ers, Was Aggraeated - _.. _.. Eecause the.Cify's Addemda Did.Not Resolve the Conf�icts:Within the Bid Documemts '. � _. .. .. . City.failed:to correct the defective RFP despite the RFI's from SI: In an.email:dated September 26;2018, Jose Diaz, City..o.f..Orange's Water..Manager for Public...Works,..advised Larry.Pomatto; Systems . .. . Integrated, that."We [tlie CityJ have addressed every issue thaf.you have brought to our attention. . regarding.the.original spec�cation.document ivith several.ciddendums. .Addendums take precedent.over the ori,ginal.documents." THe City of Orange's: Special Provisions ori page 1, provides aii.order of lP�ecedemmce of Contrac�; : . . I9ocu�nents as follows: _ . _ . 1)Bidder's:Prapo.sa[ 2)Contract Agreement.. . 3):Special Provisions(Section SP) 4)Additional Special Provision(Section 1:0)and Technical Provisions _ : � 5)Bid Documents:See Appendix B: 6 Ci of Oran e Water Standard Plans and S ecifications OWD Book . � _. .. .. .._ ) tY; : g P � ) . . .. 7):Gity of Orange DP1N Standaid Plans and Specifi:cations(Orange Book) : , _ _ _ _ Christopher Cash October 10,20.18 Page 3 of 4 The City's Special Provision's Precedence of.�ontract Docuinents does not make it clear as to the weight of an Addendum iri this order of precedence,:however, based upon Jose Diaz's Sept:26 email to SI, an _ _ . Addendum::is:more important tlian. item 5, Bid Documents(,�ppendix B).And the Bidder's Proposal :is considered:the,primary documentfor.interpretation ofthe:project. In the responses to Systems Integrated's RFIs; the City Engineer referencad various.Addenda as having beeri issued that addressed SI's RF'Is:However,t}ie very:doeuments that the City directs the bidder.foc:the answer.{s), :r.eplicat�s the conflict::because eacli referenced Addendum includes references back: to Appendix B: Flans and:Specifications:.The conflicts within Appendix B were never resolved.Nor were, . the Special Provisions,:which include Table 1.0 —MTU/RTU.Equipinent Summary, ever:modified and conflicts witli:the Addendum#S.revised Lump Sum Prices descriptions. Example A: The City's response to Systems Integrated's RFI regarding Major Bid Item 4;indicated that the.informarion was"documented,in Bid Addendum,#2.and reitepated�n,the modification fo Bid Ite»a,#4 ` released with Addendum#S." ... . : _ Major Bid Item 4 .(Lump Sum description) was modified in Addendum #5, which.states: "Purchase,. su 1. &..install thir nine. �9 ,4.9 GHZ radio, communication units, .twa. cellular modems, .... PP:Y tY- C �� Remove.and.replace existing:rcrdi.o communication:urtits; radio antennas, antenna cabling, antenna connectors; lighting/surge arresters and maunting accessories at locattons speci�ed in the Froject Plims... . and Spec�cations (Appendrx B): The Modi,fications to the quantities above are to reflect:tlie deletion of the�ber. connection work between.Tdr�k 1/lA and the.Villa Real BPS.which is fo be replaced with.the addition of d radio system at Tank l/lA R?7I." However,the quantities defined in Addendurii#5 Lump Sum Item 4;do not match the;quantities on Table: 1.O located in tHe Special Provisions..Further;Appendix.B:is also ieferenced in.L�ip Sum Item#4,and it was not updated. , .Example B: The City.'s.:response to $ystems Integrated's RFI:regarding Major �id Item 6:(Lump Sum: description);:indicated fhat:the information was "doeumented in Bid Addendum:#2 and reiterated in the mod�cation fo Bid Item#6 released:with Addendum.#S.:":: : Nlajor Bid Item 6:was modified in Adderidurri #5, which state5: :"Purchase, supply.&:install ten (10): omni-direetional and tiven nine: 29 directional 4.9: GHz rddio antennas; antenria cablin and rY- ( � connectors; and mounting dccessbries for replacement of'.existing antennas a�d:irssociated equipment:at locatians s eci.ed in the Pro'ect Plans and S eci ications A endix'B : The.Modi_ cations to tlie _ P .� I P .r �PP. . ) .� . uantities above are to re ect the deletion o the ber connection ivork between Tank 1/lA and the Ijilla: , 9. . Rea1:BPS which is to be replaced with the addition of a radio system af Tank 1/If1.R7ZI." . . . Appendix B is a flawed document, but the City:continued to reference it in revised Lump:Sums provided in the Proposal Schedule._ Example;C:The City's response to Systems Integate.d's RFI regarding:Major Bid Item�, indicated:that the.information was "documented in Bid Addendum #2 and reiterated:in the mod�cdtion:to Bid Item #8 released with Addendum#S."' Major Sid Item 8 was modifed in Addendum#5,wliich:sfates:"Purchase,supply and install 5;000:liizear. eet o 6-iber D' lex 11?'ultimode OM4 ber a hc cable tivifh.-a ro riate ferrriinations, or raew _ .f. . .f .f �. . : . .� . . P � , PP P .f communication links to adjacent RTU sites:af locatiot�s spec�ed in 1he Project Plans and Specifications _ - _.. _. . Christopher Cash _ October 10,2Q18: _ Page 4 of 4: :: {Appendix B): The 1lMod�cations to the qurintiries above are to reflect the delefion of the conduif installation beriuee�_Booster Pump Station 9A:artd Tanks 9A,& TD:which can utilized:tlze existing 2" ... communication conduit already installed." � Tl�e City continues,fo;reference the flawed Appendix B in the revised Lump Sums provided in the :. . . P.roposal Schedule: , _ .. . _ . . _ . . . The Gity k�ows that Appendix S and the Special Frovisions are�lawed documents,but rather thari correct :the conflicts in Appendix B and the .Special :Provisions, so that:tliere is no ambiguity:regazding the . material and the sco e of.wor the Ci forced.bidders to submit thsir ro osals based u on a defective .. P tY P. .P.. ..... P technical .specification; that will:inevitably result in the contract awardee'.s:submission to the City: of re uests for:additive chan e ordeis:durin the course of erformance of the varibus Major B�d Items:on 9. g g.. P the project. 4. SI Iias Good Reason To:�elieve TE�at the City's Responses to$I's:RFI's Were Not,Shared With the O#her.Bidders; More�y�r,.if the City Eailed .to..Share Wfith.SI its Respo�ses to... .. .. ..... RFI's fro�othea�Bidders,SI Vbras Frejud'aced. , On Septem6er 21, 2018 Custom Controls Corp. senf the City an;RFI: re.questing clari.ficahon of ambiguities or errors:in:the bid package to:the City's engineers;: consisting of three:questions. (see attached Exhibit.2);:.On September 24, 2Q1$ the City responded.to.Gustom Controls Corp:'s RFI. The:. . City provided:its response only to:Custom Controls Cotp:,cather than releasing its response to all of:the �. bidders: Though Custom Gontrols.was only a subcontractor bidder, the.City;rather than reject Custom . Control's RFI,provided its clarification to a IVlajor Bid Item only to:Gustom Controls.Systems Integrated has no idea what other. RFI's were receive8.from other bidders and/or subcontractor.bidders, and the: ,.. .. .. ..... ,. . . _ . City s responses to such RFI s (without providing a copy:of the response fo SI). Assummg theie were .. responses. to :other RFI's that:were not shared :witli.SI,:the additional clarifcation based :upon such responses was thvs unavailable to SI for use in preparing its bid. _ . . - -. .. .._. Based upon_t}ie multiple and serious irregularities in this:bid procedure; SI:protests this procedure; ; SI . . . requests :tliat:the City not:.award:the contract to another bidder. SI has�been .prejudiced by,this bid pr9cedure. While it.may;not have been City':s:intent to give favoritism to SI's competitors,:the manner in . which the City hanctled:this bid inevifably resul.ted in prejudice to:SI:. Were SI awarded tlie contract, it . would liave:been unable to. asser[;claims for extra costs caused by the.defects:in the RFP documents, because they:were ful] known to SI. Robins Maintenance, su ra. Conversel ., other bidders who were _.. intentionally kept'in the dark by the City,tnay:weil be able to recover their extra costs,sirice they may not _ .. have had actual knowl:edge of the defects when:they submitted theic bid. , ..._ _. . Per the Gi 's re uirements,.this:is to advise ou that:I:am the re resen�ative:for the rotestin � tY:. . . q.. .. ..... Y. P... P..... g P�Y�... .. .. . Susan Corrales-Diaz,2200 North Glassell.Street;Orange,CA.92865;Tel: 714/998-0900.: : : Sincerely,:: . '. ... .. .. S�STElVIS INTE 1tATEI9 : :::. Susan Corrales-Diaz . , : . .Presi erit :.. ... .. _:.. .. SER:.5060-18b Enclosure. . , M f' n � ... ....,. . .. . P ( �ii. �!�� ' ' ' ' '__ " _ ' _' ' ' ' ' '�. ' �� ^ � ��. � �frr;i3�. � � ��C��4{y;I'�:� . � �S i ; ��'�,#f�, �� i ��f��•�E� �.� ,.�� q� �,P rd--'� �• �� w�s..:�;-a�.;�sa��as,�r.�:w^s�.��•:::,�;.^�zue�+:u:er*r.rL,sr,s,w,:a�a�vr:,cuv..�v:r�r,uks«t�r�,.t-,�u�:'.Asv�;wt�ca°r.F !t'r�`,��'�� 'Nf�' t � ��E ��"i °� ��' � ;�t �� +�� ,.,i �;�k s�: !�j '�` �1��+* * '`„.`m� r s.� r:tz.q'��, �1 ��h�5"��`�:'�at�"-�`�� il��rk�.�,,� `� . �S('S�`� 1 ��j$}ev��1 ( ., �11✓�'��1� `! i l!'' f . 'I�I��F�a ii ar� e - � ..' � � . ..L'� ` ti: 't F �� .f. �a iS. �'{��;`��?�{�c �.' � `� w..o�. .•�c1„� � �� ( t�' " � J� �' '� �1ft�C4'iuM� �^�� G �3,, �� t'� 4 J 4 l �F�E �� 54 x C 1�,�� t *. {��`t i '.�u� i t: ��, �j��,�fi� � , , ��. �� ,,r��,^� �� ,, aSs� � ��+,�� r � r ,�� '� �s d��° � �, n� : � ��. �'� ��'�j. s 'F z '�� tis7 ,�' �t��tr�v;:,.- ., . ,� +} N r� 4 ' J� �{{y�.�y,'�' . • ��r�J ��'�.�� µ �S �� G .d'vYwY.a•i�s°oirYE'aA,�'•+!�yea�'.�+wS�.'�k�hx:f.p�e'�Y.#!��r.v,::7+�?n't...""C�,r,sir'�'i.d�t�..'^�,.:u�ie+:a:!�S:��iO�,tif++:.:3@�asrc�+;�4:;ta'a.w;l�.'�r'w f fj t``'R � e, E n �t�� . � I u�nr,��v'�� -� .i li �'+�`rr�x�;• .y � i ��*�,�� _� � r s..„a� !t�s;t:!Eii a.�-.+.� °'; i (;�i��`� �� `,` ;3� "� �1}�`�f� � ;.� , ��, .� ;� , ; ,o, ��r�!,l � i :�:� ' i�#�?�{��' f �`f '� � �� ' '°� � ��• �� i '� ��'�i� ' ` ,� �i��.;��({� %:�� t '�• f t:` �t yt tf�f��i , ` �x�;�►�� l�.��:,�, . ::{ 1;�;�,,,�� :. ��f =, �r �,�i L ��e � ��3��z��,�� • 1 `��,r ��`� , � ,a ,� �Y�;.�jh& ,�° �' i P � � � �,Y",r( .+a��,`�v" �i ,�•`-'�,j��i �� ;��.,�a�x�.��"',�""�,,:� ;.,�. �d,; B�:' « � a 't rV1� � � .�12�..e�`"""s'�°`d+°,�'n1��. ��i�{ i �t;� � ��:�. ��"'�� ' '��"r�� (r�.� � `� • k f�{ ; ^'• 1 r e7it�'�,$ r�F+A+°1.-;µ.. `�'�[ '� t !?zk,� "�G' a ��I t '� ��- rr� ,�'..,3 �. �i`.�k�'�� T4i.,�' `I C`rt1A `�. C 1 },�� ` ; �S��G�yF,�4 �`�l � � i{��;i�� 7 ' ' 0 �� j , ��•,�il�Ij��'. n "� � • • • '� }.,`F�j��ji� � `�:�'•.i�!I'�'t ', j • . � � :/I :I '�:',�:Il�ij; R ;`°:G�(il�, ' `'t+' i� �j �.=t,Jt��. ��J I.i�f II� � ' :1 �N�,`f;�' , J �.��,i �; t . . i•,; '+' ,. + � o Y_. . ...._ - . ,.. _ .. .. . a^ ... : � __ . . . .� .. ��,( t '.�-.^ �"a=-.w.-.-,� '-.�.s._.. ^..�.,,:5::..,....�., ..>-,-,..1-�.�.-.�..a�;�,s,e.w.�v�,a�.c��,�,_ ' $n, c4� _ . . .. .. . . � � � .� �` . c ,� 5 ,�t d . �a ' : Exhibit I ;Page:2 of 2 � ` ' ' `� /� �4. ' . " . ' . , " - i;i ��• �j L�''pNTRACT FORMATION . .. . .. ..... ��L7�`�.! � . ' , "= S`' ` � .�u . r . � � , . '` ~ �,''��ompetitively bid contract dependa entirely upon whether: tbe �,' , M , �,�-... . . � . � >;� � ;��changes were or should have been recogYuzed as necessary. rior �' ' � � f� '��to aubnussion and openi.ng of bids. . ere recognized prior.to bid ; , . g; , �� .. .. ; ,�, � ope g, e own.er norma y s o d extend the time for bid open �� , . � �� ,� ,�ig and issue an amendment.�o the invitation to liid�Ehat disctose = � �" discovery of the:need for ` �� ; , , � ��e to all bzddere. cnntxast> �= �;�y'z�"Bignificant changea after bid opening but before awaxd,° such as � j. �' ��, ,the�need to reduce the low:bid to bri.ng it within appropriated . ��. . f, ? '��fiiiids,' ordi.narily should.reault in rejection of all. bide and iasu- �: � � t ��'�� ance of a new i.nvitation to bid with:a:reduced acope of.work.But • �, � � �� rl yvliere the'neceasity for making changes is diecovered after � s V � �``��: contract award, and such changee ar.e with'in:the ecope of.the � �,�'=�j '4 � ' '��f { " � '' ' 1� » . . 8.. . �if^��`�f S14hn . �� I�'�� Contract :changes clause, they properly may be made without T � �.� ° �` �'¢r34'��in'validatin tfie contract. Public a enciss are accorded:broad ``�° �t�.,� B g. . - .. , � r'�� 'discretion to negota;ate past-award ahanges found to be necessary ,.,� �� }-�.."' � � �. � r �s�+�{ "sia]iject only to the"cardinal change"Iimitat�.on.e "'� y ��, . 1.3 , _ _ _ ' � ` ��h`� : 1383(1990).Poat-bid:dieclosures of propoeed eub�ontractore or.correction of bid °��' ''�;``:', errors do not:conetitute prohibited "post-bid:nagotiationa." 8ee:Rainey v. � �_• ��,� . .-. u �t . . . . •- -. Borou h of D 163 Pa. Commw.606,641 A.2d 698(1994); ':' i ' �.�.��..:._.. g . �TY� , G; � � ,��t `;„; °See F:A.R.§ 14.4041(c),:4�C.I'.R.§ 14.4U4-1(c):(federal reasons for rejec- "{ 'a;'�� " '? ' �,`� taon of all bide?. ns M , �� : �"�`Za�.'" �See 2000 Nlodel Procurement Code for�State and Local Governmeata y��r :��' �`,,z.,, • ts . : ��`��,�,�. §3-202(7):..... ��#L � - , � ' '' -' Itt the event all bids for a conetruction '''� � � , yr F r}r px�ject exceed aveilable.funde. � .and the low . . ��,� �, �,�� 'z�'' ';.responeive and respone�le liid daes not eacead sudi funde by mme tl�an[flve]percent; ' � ��t?i • the[ownerJ ie authoriaed:in eituations where time or ecanomic coneiderations preclude '.� '� reaoliritation o,f wark o£a reduced e c a to ne '� " op gotiate an adjuetment oF the bid price, ; '�w <��;`. includiug chaagee in tha:bid requirementa,with the low reeponive and reeponeible ._.4;: r�}�;��,"T� ' bidder;in�order to bring tlie.bid within the emonnt of available funde. : ,� t ' �"��'��'! To:avoid tlua roblem bid.aIternates t icall are iacluded ia the invitation ` r t '. � ��'�'�-' P � YP Y ,. �. „�,� �f� .Poet-bid negotiations'with the low bidder to:bring the bid-within:ava.ilsble ; �� , ', �' ,�"� ,: 'funde give the bidder"two bitea at the apple"and thue are ille�al,:although con= � �'`� " 'f :,x,,trary authority ean be faiind.See BraaBeld'&Gorrie Generel.Contraator;Inc,v. ''�„' ' � � �:i�k Ajax.Conet:.Co., Inc., of Tallahaeaee, 62? So.2d 1200.(Fla. Diet. Ct. App, lat '� ' :G,,' �� * . • � ,� 'Dist.1999):(rev�sing a lower court;decision invslidating a contract for conatruc :y� , trr: , '�; ,tion of a downtown parking garage hecauae::of post-award negotiat'ions. Al- r : .�` r i ; r, r Ft n� . +',�,A:though all eeven Bide ieceived for the project were above the aty's projected �� j �-:�_. �j ; �'''budget, the City neveittietesa.awarded the contract.to the.low biddei an:d then - �, ' � � ��;,,entered,into,aegotiations to reduce the acope of work to bring the contxact priee ,'. r,� $'� ;� � = within its:btidget.Althougli tlie triel court ruled that the ci.ty.had aubverted the . ,,' �x ' � '�. tiid�roceee by merely using it to aelect a boinpany with which to negotiate,the ' '� j ` � . q r.;: ,F l o n d a D i s t r i c t C o u r t o f A p p e a l s c o n c l u d e d t h a t a u c h p o s t-a w a r d n e g o t i a t i o n s - :, � j j ' .' � %, tivere within the diacretion of the city). . . "} } �"� BSee§§4i2 to 4:9. �� ,; �` �K,,�,! '. , � �� BSee§§4:18.to.4:21. . , ��t� ; � . `. . , +� . � y� . . ' t f+:. .� . .�. .� ,. . � . ' { .. �� . . .. . _': ' . . . . ... .. . ... . . . . . ..�. . . ._... . . . . .... � � . . ..... . . ... . . . . : .�. . . . j`{ y� i� r N1 • � v f5'.'.� . . . , , .. . . .. �k'i ,t . .::' �3.t:.� ' . .� . . . . . . , � ,. r,�,Y�. �� _ �`ar.,- . . - 119 �. �� J. . . . . . . . . .;}��i � f.:. {j ! � � f � i �Y_�'�� F � +.,� � . . . . . . .. '� . .. ' � 4' �� - 1�;,5 . . . . . . . _ �.�'i�F ,V.r•. . . ' .f� .. .. . .. . .. .. .. .. . .. -. .. . . . .. . �� , . , [ i,'Gl � . . , . ' ��. ,�', . , ( � ��4 ' . ' . . f , . 0.?�4 s��Sl:>. `�x't!"j',C"�.bS�' 47>". :: . Exh�bi#2=Page 1 of 2 4630 S6T"$t,E Sutte;B24 Fde,Washington 98424 _ CUSTOM . Pnone �2s3)sii-�a�a FaX: (2U)926-3262 ; � Vc#.0 STOCC0752D O . R :LS _. .. OC �tl��/c►grill��tr u A�issiun" RE_ UEST FOla.IN�'O1�1VI:�TI�N 1. Carver Booster:Station has an existing: I"mast. Are we allowed to re-use the existing mast or is a. new 2"mast re uired er Table I.0 E ui ment Symmar � . . q P., 9 p. y. ?. Reservoir_I AND.IA botFi have.PLC control panels, but only,one is shown as.being.replaced on.. .. . ..... Table 1.0.Equipment Summary: [s:this intentional or is a second PLC panel,mast,&:radio required. � 3. Do any:of the non-resecvoir sites that require a 15:':schedule 40 pipe per Table I.O Equipment: Summary need an in-ground to.wer or will all of`the 2''pipes:specified be mounted:on an existing structure? . T an s , Tom,Gibelyou +Commercfal/Indusfrlal E/ectrlcal ContracEor *tlL.508 Panel Shop/OEM Product Assemb/y 'Automafion/Solucions .. Exhibit 2-P�ge.2 of 2 : .: . .. . . :, _. . _ . : . y . From:`Sonn Tran<stran@citvoforanse.ors> Sent:.Monday,September 24;2018 927 AM :. To:Tom Gilielyou.<toms@customec.com>:. . : Subject:RE:Requestfor Information � � ... _ ..... . . . .. .. .. .. HelloTom, ... .. . - ... _. .. .. . . Carver PS existing�"mast need to be replaced with new 2":mest: Reservoir 1/1A PLC control panel wlll he replace per Table.l.Equipment Summary. .Only the sites specified in table 1 require in-ground tower: ... .. . . Regards,. Sonny . . . . . ..... From;Tom Gibelyou<toms@customec.com>. Sent: Friday,September 21,2018 11:57 AM To:Sonny Tran.<stran@citvoforan�e.or�>::: . Subje.ct:.Request for Information . : Please see attached.request for information based upon the 9/20.jo6 walti. Thanks. � _ . Tom Gibelyou Custom Electric&Controls . 463016th St:E: .. Suite 6-24 : Fife WA 98424 _ . . ... _ . . ... . . � 253-922-.5874 1 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES NOVEMBER 13, 2018 3. CONSENT CALENDAR(Continued) 3.15 Final Acceptance of Bid No. 178-12; Villa Real Drive Southern California Edison (SCE) Service Undergrounding for electrical service to Reservoir No.2; and authorization to file Notice of Completion with the County Recorder. (AGR-6576) ACTION: Accepted Villa Real Drive Southern California Edison (SCE) Service Undergrounding, for electrical service to Reservoir No.2 project as complete; and authorized the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the Notice of Completion. 3.16 Final Acceptance of Bid No. 178-33, SB-1 Street Improvements, FY18; and authorization to file Notice of Completion with the County Recorder. (AGR-6621) ACTION: Accepted SB-1 Street Improvements, FY18 as complete; and authorized the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the Notice of Completion. 3.17 Rejection of Bids; Bid No. 178-34; Water System SCADA & Controls upgrades and authorization to re-advertise for bids. (C2500.P) ACTION: Rejected all bids received, and authorized the re-advertisement of this project. 3.18 Claims for Damages. (C3200.0) ACTION: Denied the following claims for damages and referred to City Attorney and Claims Adjuster: a. So Cal Gas b. Leonardo Sandoval c. Michele Stepp d. Meghan Taylor on behalf of minor e. Daniel C. Roth 3.19 Award of Contract for Bid No. 178-02, two Federal Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) Left Turn Phasing Signal Modification Projects: 1) Glassell Street and Walnut Avenue; and 2) Chapman Avenue and James Street. (AGR-6668) ACTION: 1) Transferred $207,000 from the Tustin/Meats Intersection Right Turn Lane Addition Project account 284.5011.56330.30025 to 284.5032.56100.30029 TSIP B, HSIP Glassell and Walnut;2)Authorized the appropriation of$5,300 from the Renewed Measure M2 Traffic Improvement Fund (263) unreserved fund balance to expenditure account number 263.5032.56100.30030,Measure M2,HSIP Chapman and James; and 3)Awarded the contract in the amount of$711,611 to International Line Builders, Inc., and authorized the Mayor and City to execute on behalf of the City. 3.20 Mills Act Contract No. MAC-271.0-18 (Historic Property Preservation Agreement), 272 N. Cambridge Street. (AGR-6669) ACTION: Approved a Mills Act Contract (Historic Property Preservation Agreement) between City of Orange and property owner for the preservation and rehabilitation of a qualified historic property. PAGE 6