HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 1982-12-01Mayor Roberta Cerri Te§lia
Vice Mayor Mark N. Addiego
Council:
Ronald G. Acosta
Emanuele N. Damonte
Gus Nicolopulos
MINUTES
CITY COUNCIL
Municipal Services Building
Community Room
December 1, 1982
AGENDA
CALL TO ORDER: (Cassette 1)
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
AGENDA REVIEW
City Manager Birkelo requested:
- Add Item 12a. report on the Civic
Center Remodeling by the Subcommittee.
- Closed Session on labor relations
after Item 5.
- Joint meeting with the Housing
Authority for 12/8/82 be cancelled
and substitute a Study Session.
Mayor Teglia requested:
- To make appointments to the Library
Board tonight or agendaize for the
12/15/82 meeting.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
CONSENT CALENDAR
Staff Report 12/1/82 recommending
by Motion to authorize the Purchasing
Officer to advertise for bids for the
purchase of a gasoline powered mobile
pressure washer.
Staff Report 12/1/82 recommending by
Motion to set 1/5/83 as a Public Hear-
ing for the appeal of the Planning
Commission decision on UP-82-636/
Goldner on 11/18/82 (3 video games).
ACTION TAKEN
8:12 p.m. Mayor Teglia presiding.
Council present: Acosta, Nicolopulos,
Addiego, Damonte and
Teglia.
Council absent: None.
Recited.
AGENDA REVIEW
So ordered.
So ordered.
Consensus of Council to not have a
Study Session on 12/8/82 as Acosta
would not be in attendance.
Consensus of Council to place the
item on the 12/15/82 agenda.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
No one chose to speak.
CONSENT CALENDAR
So ordered.
So ordered.
12/1/82
Page 1
AGENDA
ACTION TAKEN
CONSENT CALENDAR
e
Staff Report 12/1/82 recommending by
Motion to set 1/5/83 as a Public
Hearing for reconsideration of
UP-82-636/Aristakessian (French
Moroccan Restaurant).
Staff Report 12/1/82 recommending by
Motion to set 1/5/83 as a Public
Hearing for reconsideration of
UP-82-636/Aristakessian (French
Moroccan Restaurant).
APPROVAL OF BILLS
e
Approval of the Regular Bills of
12/1/82.
CITY MANAGER
Staff Report 12/1/83 recommending
adoption of a Resolution accepting
and approving a Memorandum of
Understanding for Unit No. 2
Communications Dispatchers.
A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING AND APPROVING
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING, UNIT 2,
COMMUNICATIONS DISPATCHERS, REPRES-
ENTED BY AMERICAN FEDERATION OF STATE,
CONSENT CALENDAR
Removed from the Consent Calendar for
discussion by Mayor Teglia.
M/S Addiego/Nicolopulos - Consent
Calendar be approved with the exception
of Item No. 3.
Carried by unanimous voice vote.
Mayor Teglia questioned why this matter
was again before Council when it had
been referred back to the Planning
Commission for handling at an earlier
meeting.
City Attorney Rogers stated that it
had been sent back to the Planning
Commission for a report and that
placing it on the Council Agenda was
part of the Use Permit procedure.
M/S Acosta/Damonte - To set 1/5/83
as a Public Hearing.
Carried by unanimous voice vote.
APPROVAL OF BILLS
M/S Damonte/Acosta - To approve the
Regular Bills in the amount of
$622,197.88.
Carried by unanimous voice vote.
Councilman Addiego did not participate
or vote in the matter of the claim of
Brentwood Market.
CITY MANAGER
12/1/82
Page 2
AGENDA
ACTION TAKEN
CITY MANAGER
5. Staff Report - Continued.
COUNTY AND MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES,
LOCAL 1569, AFL-CIO, JULY 1, 1982
AUGUST 31, 1983
CLOSED SESSION
RECALL TO ORDER
Staff Report 12/1/82 recommending
adoption of a Resolution authorizing
wage increases for Unit 1 (Management),
Unit 5 (Police Officers Association)
and Unit 8 (Confidential).
A RESOLUTION ADOPTING AND AUTHORIZING
A WAGE INCREASE FOR UNIT 1 (MANAGEMENT),
UNIT 5 (POLICE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION)
AND UNIT 8 (CONFIDENTIAL)
CITY MANAGER
M/S Acosta/Addiego - To adopt the
Resolution.
RESOLUTION NO. 151-82
Carried by unanimous roll call vote.
Council adjourned to a Closed Session
at 8:18 p.m. to discuss labor negotiations
The meeting was recalled to order at
9:00 p.m., all Council present, no
action taken.
Personnel Director Kutrus stated that
the recommendation was for Council to
unilaterally adopt a 6% wage increase
for Unit 1 (Management Supervisory Unit)
and for Unit 5 (Police Officers Assoc-
iation). He stated that he had been
in negotiations since April 1982 and
had been unable to reach agreement
with the two bargaining units to the
satisfaction of all parties. He stated
that many proposals and counter proposals,
and still have not been able to come to
agreement. He stated that Staff was
making this recommendation to Council
to ensure that the City maintains com-
petitive wages for retention purposes
and also request that the Council direct
Staff to operate under the expired M.O.U.~
which would ensure that the City would
continue the benefit packages for the
employees.
Mayor Teglia stated that the Agenda
included Unit No. 8 in the Resolution
and questioned if that Unit should be
excluded from the Resolution.
Personnel Director Kutrus stated that
Unit No. 8 had come to agreement with
Staff prior to the preparation of the
Agenda. He stated that the Agreement
with Unit No. 8 would be before Council
at the 12/15/82 meeting.
M/S Acosta/Damonte - To adopt the
Resolution by title only for wage
increases for Unit 1 and Unit 5.
RESOLUTION NO. 152-82
p12/1Z82
age m
AGENDA ACTION TAKEN
CITY MANAGER
6. Staff Report - Continued.
Staff Report 12/1/82 recommending
adoption of a Resolution which
determines health and welfare
benefits for the City Council.
A RESOLUTION DETERMINING HEALTH
AND WELFARE BENEFITS FOR THE CITY
COUNCIL
FINANCE
8. Public Hearing - South San Francisco
Proposed Master Fee Schedule.
Staff Report 12/1/82 recommending:
1) Open the Public Hearing and hear
testimony; 2) Close the Public
Hearing; 3) Motion to waive
further reading of the Ordinance;
4) Motion to introduce the Ordinance.
1st Reading/Introduction
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING VARIOUS SECTIONS
OF THE SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO MUNICIPAL
CODE AND OF ORDINANCE NO'S. 193, 353,
369, 384, 442, 491, 565, 632, 661,
675, 714, 718, 757, 758, 762, 763,
783, 794, 798, 848, 849, AND 883; ALL
OF WHICH AMENDMENTS PROVIDE FOR FEES
FOR CERTAIN CITY SERVICES CURRENTLY
BY ORDINANCE TO BE AS SET FORTH IN A
MASTER SCHEDULE TO BE ADOPTED BY
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
CITY MANAGER
Carried by unanimous roll call vote.
Consensus of Council - To remove Item
No. 7 from the Agenda.
FINANCE
City Clerk Battaya read the title of
the Ordinance in its intirety.
Mayor Teglia opened the Public Hearing.
City Manager Birkelo suggested that the
Council introduce the Ordinance tonight
and continue the Public Hearing to
12/15/82 and that at that meeting a
Resolution would be presented to state
all of the fees to be charged by the
City.
Mayor Teglia stated that she had
received a call from Pacific Telephone
expressing concern at Item No. 8 and
No. 10 on the Agenda and that by
continuing the Public Hearing to
12/15/82 it would allow interested
parties to come forward at the next
meeting and voice their concern.
City Manager Birkelo stated that fees
had been established many years ago
and did not bear relationship to
the current circumstances. He stated
that the State Law requires that the
City look at the fees to make sure
that they are not greater than the
cost to provide the service and after
scrutiny of all fees the Master Fee
Schedule had been formulated.
An in-depth discussion followed on
fees for direct alarm systems; elimin-
ation of dollar fees in the Code and
makes reference to the Master Fee for
applications for two car service;
fees for auto wrecking; Health Departmenl
12/1/82
Page 4
AGENDA ACTION TAKEN
FINANCE
8. Public Hearing - Continued.
POLICE
o
Staff Report 12/1/82 recommending: 1)
Motion to waive further reading of the
Ordinance; 2) Motion to introduce
the Ordinance.
1st Reading/Introduction
AN ORDINANCE ADDING CHAPTER 6.62
ENTITLED "PRIVATE PROTECTION AND
SECURITY SERVICES REGULATED" TO THE
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO MUNICIPAL CODE
FINANCE
.inspection fees, etc.
Mayor Teglia stated that the Public
Hearing would be left open for testimony
at the 12/15/82 meeting.
M/S Acosta/Damonte - To waive further
reading of the Ordinance.
Carried by unanimous voice vote.
M/S Acosta/Damonte - To introduce the
Ordinance.
Carried by unanimous roll call vote.
POLICE
City Clerk Battaya read the title of
the Ordinance in its entirety.
Mayor Teglia questioned whether the
City Attorney had a letter on this
matter.
City Attorney Rogers stated that he
had received a letter from a citizen
who stated that he did not like the
procedure to regulate this type of
business. He stated that the citizen
had stated his objections to certain
things that the Police Department was
requiring at this time. He stated
that those requirements are still in the
Ordinance and that in the Attorney's
opinion they were still required
to be in the Ordinance. He stated
that after he talked to the Police
Chief he planned to draft a letter to
the citizen, Mr. Kriletich.
Police Chief Datzman stated that was in
process and that there had been many
conversations with Mr. Kriletich and
invitations for him to come into the
office and go over the Ordinance and
see what his reservations were.
12/1/82
Page 5
POLICE
9.
AGENDA
Staff Report - Continued.
ACTION TAKEN
POLICE
He stated that this Ordinance represents
a document that initially formulated
in 1963 which was updated and combined
with an Ordinance from the League of
California Cities which will allow this
City to regulate private patrols.
Councilman Acosta questioned whether
the City Attorney had reviewed the
Ordinance with the Department of
Consumer Affairs in reference to
private patrol services to determine
that there was not a conflict with
State laws. He stated that the State
would have certified these firms with
complete background checks and quest-
ioned why it was necessary for this
City to do the same check again.
Police Chief Datzman stated that if
the proper information is available
and has been provided there was no
intent to duplicate work. He stated
that he was interested in the type
of vehicles employed, uniforms and
the organization.
Police Sergeant Petrocchi stated that
quite often guard companies or indiv-
idual guards are certified by the
State but prior to receiving their
final license could be under investi-
gation by the Department of Consumer
Affairs. He continued, that during
the Police background investigation
of State licensed guard services that
some were under investigation by the
Department of Consumer Affairs. He
felt that because of deriving current
information on the State licensed
operations it was not a duplication of
background checking.
M/S Damonte/Addiego - To waive further
reading of the Ordinance.
Carried by unanimous voice vote.
M/S Damonte/Addiego - To introduce the
Ordinance.
Carried by unanimous roll call vote.
12/1/82
Page 6
AGENDA
ACTION TAKEN
PUBLIC SERVICES
Staff Report 12/1/82 recommending:
1) Motion to waive further reading
of the Ordinance; 2) Motion to
introduce the Ordinance.
1st Reading/Introduction
AN ORDINANCE REPEALING ORDINANCE ._~f3
NUMBERS 78, 140 AND 260 AND
CHAPTER 13.04 OF THE SOUTH SAN
FRANCISCO MUNICIPAL CODE AND
ADDING CHAPTER 13.04 ENTITLED
"EXCAVATION AND CONSTRUCTION ON
PUBLIC PROPERTY REGULATED" TO THE
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO MUNICIPAL CODE
11. Public Hearing - Gateway Assessment
District No. ST-82-2.
Staff Report 12/1/83 recommending:
1) Open the Public Hearing and hear
testimony; 2) Close the Public
Hearing; 3) Adoption of a Resolution
overruling protests; 4) Adoption of
a Resolution ordering reduction of
assessments; 5) Adoption of a
Resolution adopting the Engineer's
Report, etc., 6) Adoption of a
Resolution determining unpaid
assessments and providing for
issuance of bonds, Adoption of a
Resol uti on awarding sale of bonds;
Adoption of a Resolution to award
the construction contract.
A RESOLUTION OVERRULING PROTESTS
THE GATEWAY ASSESSMENT DISTRICT
NO. ST-82-2
A RESOLUTION ORDERING REDUCTION OF
ASSESSMENTS - THE GATEWAY ASSESS-
MENT DISTRICT NO. ST-82-2
A RESOLUTION ADOPTING ENGINEER'S
REPORT, CONFIRMING THE ASSESSMENT
AND ORDERING THE WORK AND ACQUIS-
ITIONS, DIRECTING RECORDING AND
FILING OF ASSESSMENT, ASSESSMENT
DIAGRAM AND NOTICE OF ASSESSMENT,
APPOINTING COLLECTION OFFICER,
AND PROVIDING FOR NOTICE TO PAY
ASSESSMENTS - THE GATEWAY ASSESS-
MENT DISTRICT NO. ST-82-2
PUBLIC SERVICES
City Clerk Battaya read the
title of the Ordinance in its
entirety.
M/S Damonte/Acosta - To waive further
reading of the Ordinance.
Carried by unanimous voice vote.
M/S Acosta/Nicolopulos- To introduce
the Ordinance.
Carried by unanimous roll call vote.
Mayor Teglia declared the Public Hearing
open and read the following into the
record: "The purpose of the public
hearing is to hear what the protes-
tants and the proponents have to say
about the project. Until the hearing
has been closed, members of the Council
should not express opinions, judgments
or decisions on the matters being
considered. The Council is acting in a
quasi-judicial capacity, so that the
property owners are entitled to be
heard before members of the Council
arrive at their decisions. Council
members should feel free, of course, to
ask any questions of or seek any
information they may desire from anyone
appearing before them, either property
owners, consultants or staff." She
stated that the Engineer of Work would
give a summary of the project which
would include the Engineer's Report.
Director of Public Services Yee stated
that in October of 1982 the Council
adopted a Resolution and authorized
the Preliminary Engineer's Report be
filed, which was done. He continued,
authorization had been given to go to
bid on the project, seven bids were
opened on November 17th which ranged
from $10,285,751 to $8,168,676. He
stated that the bid from Gradeway
Construction was incomplete and that
O. C. Jones & Sons was awarded the bid
as the lowest responsible bidder
12/1/82
P age 7
AGENDA
PUBLIC SERVICES
ll. Public Hearing - Continued.
A RESOLUTION DETERMINING
UNPAID ASSESSMENTS AND
PROVIDING FOR ISSUANCE OF
BONDS - THE GATEWAY ASSESSMENT
DISTRICT NO. ST-82-2
A RESOLUTION AWARDING SALE OF
BONDS - THE GATEWAY ASSESSMENT
DISTRICT NO. ST-82-2
A RESOLUTION OF AWARD OF CON-
STRUCTION CONTRACT - THE
GATEWAY ASSESSMENT DISTRICT
NO. ST-82-2
ACTION TAKEN
PUBLIC SERVICES
He stated that United Engineers sent
a letter of protest and that the City
Attorney had ruled that O. C. Jones &
Sons bid was legal and valid and the
recommendation was that United Engineers
protest be overruled and the project
be awarded to O. C. Jones and Sons as
the lowest responsible bidder. He
spoke in detail of the Engineer's
Report and the estimated assessment.
He stated that the proposed bond sale
consisted of two bond sales: the amount
of the bond for the first sale to
finance Phase I work is approximately
$15,800,000 and that the second sale
is approximately $6,000,000 which
would be sold at a later date.
Steve Casaleggio, Esq., Jones, Hall,
Hill & White, stated that the financing
was being conducted under the Municipal
Improvement Act of 1913 with 15A Bonds.
He stated that the process was conducted
through a consideration by the Council
of the Engineer's Report and the hearing
of public testimony and that if at the
conclusion of the hearing Council Wished,
a series of Resolution would be presented
to confirm the assessments. He stated
that once that was done liens would be
attached to the property in proportion
to the benefits to be derived by those
properties; upon those liens bonds
would be issued; the bonds would be
payable with the tax bills and collected
on those properties on the term of the
bond. He concluded by stating that
in terms of the bonds that they were
fixed lien assessments.
Mr. Tom Gaffney, Bartle Wells
Associates, stated that his firm was
representing the City on the negotiation
of the placement of the bonds and
attempting to obtain the lowest interest
rate possible. He stated that there
had been a meeting with his firm, the
City Manager, Director of Finance and
representatives of the Developer and
received Stone & Youngberg Investment
12/1/82
Page 8
AGENDA ACTION TAKEN
PUBLIC SERVICES
ll. Public Hearing - Continued.
PUBLIC SERVICES
Securities offer for the placement of
the bonds. He stated that subject to
Council approval the bonds would be
sold at a cost of 11.4% which included
a discount of 3.9% which would reduce
the amount of the assessment. He
spoke in detail of bond underwriters,
coupons, favorable bids.
Mayor Teglia questioned why the bonds
were not in denominations of $1,000
rather than all but one bid being in
the amount of $5,000.
Mr. Gaffney stated that the problem
was with the bond printers in that
the cost was increased for denominations
lower than $5,000 and this bond issue
was in excess of $16,000,000 which was
a significant saving. He stated that
these bonds represented phase I and
would be effective January 1, 1983.
Mayor Teglia stated that she had two
letters of protest, one from United
Engineers, Inc. and another from
Dingus, Haley & Holderness.
Mr. Casaleggio stated that the two
documents were not truly protests against
the assessment, but pertained to the
construction contract and it was proper
if the Mayor chose to read the letters
into the record.
Mayor Teglia asked if there were any
written protests to be read - there was
no response. She then asked if there
were any proponents that wished to
speak - there was no response.
Mr. Casaleggio requested that the
testimony, both oral and written,
the Engineer's Report as revised to
reflect the bond bids, construction bids
and other matters pertaining to this
proceeding be made a part of the record.
M/S Acosta/Damonte - That all oral and
written testimony, the revised Engineer's
Report and all proceedings be made a
part of the record.
12/1/82
Page 9
AGENDA ACTION TAKEN
PUBLIC SERVICES
· Public Hearing - Continued·
PUBLIC SERVICES
Carried by unanimous voice vote.
Mayor Teglia closed the Public Hearing.
She then read into the record letters
from United Engineers, Inc., dated
11/18/82, Dingus, Hal ey & Holderness,
dated 11/24/82, Wilsey & Ham, dated
11/18/82 (these are attached and are a
permanent part of the minutes).
M/S Acosta/Damonte- To adopt the
Resolution overruling protests.
RESOLUTION NO. 153-82
Carried by unanimous roll call vote.
M/S Damonte/Addiego - To adopt the Reso-
lution ordering reduction of assessments.
RESOLUTION NO. 154-82
Carried by unanimous roll call vote.
M/S Addiego/Acosta- to adopt the
Resolution for the Engineer's Report.
RESOLUTION NO. 155-82
Carried by unanimous roll call vote.
M/S Nicolopulos/Acosta- To adopt the
Resolution determining unpaid assess-
ment and the issuance of bonds.
RESOLUTION NO. 156-82
Carried by unanimous roll call vote.
M/S Nicolopulos/Acosta- To adopt the
Resolution awarding the sale of bonds.
RESOLUTION NO. 157-82
Carried by unanimous roll call vote.
M/S Addiego/Acosta - To adopt the
Resolution awarding the construction
contract.
RESOLUTION NO. 158-82
Carried by unanimous roll call vote.
12/1/82
Page 10
UNITED ENGINEERS, INC.
ENGINEERS AND CONSTRUCTORS
2630 BAYSHORE BOULEVARD · SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94134
Telephone: {415I 337-1577
5 55
November 18, 1982
The City Council
The City of South San Francisco
City Hall
400 Grand Avenue
South San Francisco, California 94080
Re:
GATEWAY ASSESSMENT DISTRICT
Project No. St-82-2
City of South San Francisco
Bid Opened: November 17, 1982 (2 p.m.)
Dear Members:
In reference to the above assessment project which was bid yesterday for the
City of South San Francisco, we hereby formally protest to the bids submitted
by Grade-Way Construction and O. C. Jones & Sons, the apparent low bidders
as being defective based on the following:
I. Grade-Way Construction:
1. No extensions for Bid Items 22, 22A, 24, 75, 78, 79, 93, 94 and 97.
2. No bid for Bid Item 67.
3. No listing of manufacturer for Items 5 through 12 inclusive.
4. Total contract amount not accurate, unintelligent and meaningless.
II. O.C. Jones & Sons:
1. No bid on total contract amount. Item was left blank.
Listing of manufacturer for Item 6 is incorrect and improper.
Fairbanks, Ambrosini & Chalmers does not manufacture pumps.
3. No listing of manufacturer for Item 7. Item 7 was left blank.
Minutes of 12/1/82
Page 11
BUILDINGS · HEAVY & HIGHWAY CONSTRUCTION · PIPELINES · UTILITIES
The City Council
The City &County of So. San Francisco
Page 2
11-18-82
Due to the fact that we were not given the opportunity to review the low
bidders' submittal in detail at the bid opening, we are unable to determine if
any other defects exist that are not known to us. However, based on our initial
examination of the deficiencies, we believe there are sufficient discrepancies
to warrant a formal protest and we respectfully request that the mentioned
bids be declared null and void as being nonresponsive.
In addition to the gross errors in the bid amounts, Grade-Way Construction and
O. C. Jones & Sons have not fullfilled the statutory bidding requirements and
are contrary to the subletting and subcontracting Fair Practice Act. Further-
more, it is contrary to the standard bidding requirements of the City of South
San Francisco and the State of California.
The method and deficiencies of the two bidders certainly focus into view the
question whether they are the lowest responsive bidders. The irregularities in
the bids are material and of a substantial nature that it affords Grade-Way
Construction and O. C. Jones & Sons, Inc. an advantage over the other bidders.
This advantage affects the elements considered in reaching the final price of
the total amount of their bids for this project.
Not to protest and to allow such defects to go unchallenged would set a
precedent for future contractors' bidding on public works projects and further
deteriorating the bidding process. We trust that being a public governing body
that you will address the issue of our protest and that you will respond
accordingly wtth further action.
Very truly yours,
UNITED ENGINEERS, INC.
,he ' Attorney, City & County of South San Francisco
The City Engineer, City & County of South San Francisco
vTlqe City Clerk, City & County of South San Francisco
Minutes of 12/1/82
Page 12
LARRY D. DINGUS
~ETER C. HALE¥
~}CHARD A, HOLDERNESS
LINDA FOUST
FREDERICK T. WILLIAMS
LAW OFFICES OF ~; ~ ,,
DINGUS, HALEY & HOLDERNESS. ~,'~6;
SAN ,
TELEPHONE
391-0405
AREA CODE 415
DIX BORING
OF COUNSEl
November 24, 1982
5 53
The City Council
The City of South San Francisco
City Hall
400 Grand Avenue
South San Francisco, CA 94080
Re:
Gateway Assessment District
Project No. St-82-2
City of South San Francisco
Bid Opened: November 17, 1982 (2 p.m.)
Dear City Council:
This office represents United Engineers, Inc., in its
protest of the bids of Grade-Way Construction and O. C. Jones &
Sons.
United Engineers' letter dated November 18, 1982,
depicts the serious deficiencies and irregularities of the bids
of Grade-Way and Jones. This letter will not repeat those
deficiencies and irregularities but will highlight some of them.
Grade-Way's bid is not responsive because it fails to
list any amount for bid item 67, listed by Jones at $380,000.00
and United Engineers at $287,000.00. If either of those two
amounts is added to the amount of Grade-Way's bid, that bid is
no longer low. In addition, Grade-Way seriously unbalanced its
bid by loading bid item 3 (clearing, grubbing, and demolition)
to give itself a large infusion of money early in the project.
For bid item 3, Grade-Way bid $626,000, Jones bid $163,000, and
United Engineers bid $100,000. Such a seriously unbalanced bid
should be rejected under bid instruction 1.10 which provides
that obviously unbalanced bids may be rejected. Grade-Way did
not even bother to sign its bid.
Jones' bid has several deficiencies and irregularities
which, taken together, make the bid unresponsive. Jones lists
as its sewage pump manufacturer a company that does not
manufacture pumps. It then fails to list any manufacturer for
the motor control equipment for the pump station. These
Minutes of 12/1/82
Page 13
The City Council
The City of South San Francisco
November 24, 1982
Page 2
deficiencies are serious because they allow Jones to circumvent
the two prime purposes of the requirement for listing
manufacturers. First, Jones' failure to list the manufacturers
prevents the owner from analyzing the adequacy of the
manufacturer and its equipment. Second, Jones' failure to list
manufacturers allows Jones to "shop" the bids of the unlisted
manufacturers by telling each of them that it must beat the
lowest price received by Jones if Jones is to use its
equipment. These serious deficiencies when combined with the
other deficiencies in Jones' bid make Jones' bid not responsive.
The bids of Grade-Way and Jones must be rejected
because of the serious deficiencies and irregularities in both
bids. The deficiencies and irregularities are too serious to be
waived, and waiver of these irregularities would make a mockery
of the "Instructions to Bidders" and the competitive bidding
process on this project. Failure to reject those two bids will
force United Engineers to pursue its legal rights for the
damages caused to it by the City's failure to award the contract
to the lowest responsible bidder.
Sincerely,
DINGUS, H~ALEY ~ HOLDERNESS
Richard A. Holderness
cc: Yee
Minutes of 12/1/82
Page 14
- 2 -
WILSEY& HAM
1035 E. Hillsdale Blvd./Foster City, CA 94404
(415) 349-2151
1-21t, 7-0502-03
November 13, 1932
Mr. Robert Rogers
City Attorney
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
t~00 Grand Avenue
South San Francisco, California 9#080
Reference: Gateway Assessment District No. ST-82-2,
Phase I Construction
Subject: Alleged Bid Irregularities of O. C. 3ones and Gradeway
Dear Mr. Rogers:
We have reviewed the proposal of O. C. 3ones that was received on November 17, 1982,
as regards to three alleged irregularities that were called to the City's attention by
another bidder, United Engineering. Our comments relating to these irregularities follow:
The first irregularity relates to the fact that O. C. Jones failed to fill in the total con-
tract cost on page P7 of the Proposal Bidding Schedule. While this is an inconvenience,
it should be noted that all unit and lump sum prices for each bid item were filled in; and
all that was required to determine this total was to perform a tabulation of the indicated
amounts for the various bid items. When this tabulation was perlormed by both the City
and Wilsey & Hah, the total was determined to be $8,168,676.00, which made O. C. Jones
the apparent Iow bidder. It should be noted that under the Instructions to Bidders,
Article 1.3. on page INV 4, it is stated that "If the unit price and the total amount named
by any bidder for any item do not agree, the unit price shall govern." Also on page INV 6,
Article 2.1, it is stated that "The City reserves the right to waive any irregularities in
the bids as received." Finally, ir should be noted that five (5) of the other six (6) bidders
(Homer 3. Olson excepted) had numerically incorrect total amounts which had to be
adjusted by the same method used to tabulate O. C. Jones' missing total.
The second and third irregularities concern Item Nos. 6 & 7 of the listing of manufacturers
of major materials and equipment items that was included on page P? oi the proposal
submitted by O. C. 3ones. United Engineering contends /or Item No. 6, Sewage Pumps,
"Fairbanks-Ambrosini & Chalmers" who is indicated to be the maufacturer of sewage
pumps is not a legitimate manufacturer. United Engineering further claims that the
check mark indicated after Item No. 7, Motor Control Equipment, does not indicate the
manufacturer oi this equipment. In our opinion, "Fairbanks" is an obvious abbreviation
that relers to "Fairbanks Morse" whose name is indicated as the "or equal" pump manu-
facturer on Sheet t40/93 of the Contract Drawings. Ambrosini & Chalmers are well-
known to be manufacturer's representatives of motor control equipment. In fact, they
Minutes of 12/1/82
~n~i,,ccrin~."pla,min~,,'survcyin~ Page 1 5
Oflriceslocatedim Foster City, Calil~ornia · Fresno, California · Portland, Oregon ·Tacoma, Washinglon · Bellevue.~¥a.~hington
1-2107-0502-03
Mr. Robert Rogers
November 18, 1982
Page Two
are authorized manufacturer's representatives for, and service the equipment made by
Control Manufacturing Co., the "or equal" motor control equipment manufacturer named
in the Specifications.
In our opinion, the combined naming of "Fairbanks-Ambrosini & Chalmers" for Item
No. 6, with the check mark below for Item 7, clearly defines the type of pump and motor
equipment to be provided and fulfills the intent of the listing. Further, it should be
noted that cost for motor control equipment is approximately $15,000, a minor cost
consideration when compared with a possible rejection of O. C. 3ones' bid and award to
second bidder who is $#25,000 higher in total contract cost.
In summary, it is Wilsey & Ham's conclusion that the above alleged irregularities are ail
minor in nature, caused by pressure of the bidding process. There is every indication
that O. C. 3ones attempted to meet the spirit and intent of proposal preparation require-
ments. As stated in the Instructions to Bidders, in conformance with Article 2.1 on page
INV 6, "The right is reserved to accept the proposal deemed best for the City." and "The
City reserves the right to waive any irregularities of any kind."
Regarding United Engineers' comments relating to the Gradeway bid. Said bid was origi-
nally considered to be apparent low bidder with a total contract cost of Sg,100,000.00.
However, various missing extensions of dollar amounts, that became apparent in our
review resulted in the actual cost rising to $8,427,565. In addition, cost for one signifi-
cant bid item was actually omitted in its entirety. Hence, it would appear that the
Gradeway bid can be considered non-responsive.
Very truly yours,
WILSEY & HAM
CC:
Robert S. Yee, Director of Public Services
WOG, BP
GEH/sjr/W-2
Minutes of 12/1/82
Page 16
AGENDA ACTION TAKEN
ITEMS FROM STAFF
12. Report on video arcade code
enforcement.
12a.
Report on the Civic Center
Remodeling by the Subcommittee.
(Cassette 2)
ITEMS FROM COUNCIL
Councilman Damonte:
Mayor Teglia
ITEMS FROM STAFF
Code Enforcement Officer Meloni
spoke at length on the number of
business establishments with video
games; number of violations issued
for violations; enforcement follow
through; methods of informing new
and established businesses that if
a video game is on the premises the
firm required a license for that
machine.
Vice Mayor Addiego spoke of the
revised budget for the Civic Center
Remodeling in the amount of
$1,280,000 which consisted of serious
roof problems, heating ventilation
system at the Grand Avenue Library,
etc.
Discussion followed on renovation
of the old police building; basement
of City Hall; elevator installation;
handicapped ramp; architectural drawings;
new furniture; when the project would
go to bid; temporary housing of
departments using trailers or leasing
buildings, etc.
M/S Damonte/Acosta - A commitment to
the whole project and to spend $10,000
for architectural drawings.
Carried by majority roll call vote,
Addiego and Teglia voted no.
ITEMS FROM COUNCIL
Questioned disbursement of the Close
Up Program.
Assistant City Manager Wilson stated
that he had made contact with all
the schoolsand told them of the avail-
ability of the funds of $25.00 per
student.
Questioned the renovation of the
Spruce Gym.
Director of Parks & Recreation Norton
stated that if the School District
developed the gym it would require
12/1/82
Page 17
AGENDA
ACTION TAKEN
ITEMS FROM COUNCIL
Mayor Tegl ia
GOOD AND WELFARE
CLOSED SESSION
13. Discussion of personnel matters,
labor relations and litigation.
14.
Request to adjourn the meeting to
12/13/82, 6:00 p.m., at the Oyster
Point Yacht Club at the Marina for
a Joint Meetingwith the Harborr.)l]~
District to discuss items of /~_
mutual concern.
ADJOURNMENT:
ITEMS FROM COUNCIL
$200,000 in improvements.
City Manager Birkelo stated that the City
would be liable for 60% of the $200,000 -
must wait and look at the Capital
Improvements Budget.
Requested that the Buri Buri Fire
Station be sold.
City Manager Birkelo stated that an
appraisal had been received but that
there was a need for a formal declara-
tion of the property being surplus
before bids could be advertised.
GOOD AND WELFARE
No one chose to speak.
CLOSED SESSION
Council adjourned to a Closed Session
at 10:35 p.m. to discuss personnel
matters, labor relations and litiga-
tion.
The meeting was recalled to order at
11:45 p.m., all Council present, no
action taken.
M/S Addiego/Damonte - That the meeting
be adjourned to 12/13/82 at 6:00 p.m.,
at the Oyster Point Yacht Club at
the Marina for the purpose of dinner
and a Joint Meeting with the Harbor
District to discuss items of mutual
concern.
Time of adjournment ll :46 p.m.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Barbara A.
City of South San Francisco
APPROVED:
City of South San Francisco
The entries of this Council meeting show the action taken by the City Council to dispose
of an item. Oral presentations, arguments, and comments are recorded on tape. The tape
and documents related to the items are on file in the office of the City Clerk and are
available for inspection, review and copying. 12/1/82
Page 18