HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Report - January 3, 1990 (31)C0_NCIL COMMUNICATION
TO: THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: THE CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE
COUNCIL MEETING DATE
JANUARY 3, 1990
SUBJECT: CONTRACT AWARD FOR WHITE SLOUGH WATER POLLUTION CONTROL FACILITY
EXPANSION PROJECT, 12751 NORTH THORNTON ROAD
PREPARED BY: City Attorney Bob McNatt
Public Works Director Jack Ronsko
RECOMMENDED ACTION: That the Council consider declaring the bid of Alder
Construction Company nonresponsive, and awarding the bid
for the sewer plant expansion to F&H Construction Company
as second low bidder in the amount of $10,171,000.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Bids on this project were previously opened on November 1,
1989. At that time, the City received six bids ranging
from approximately $12M to $16M. The engineers' estimate
was $8.8M and since the City did not have sufficient
funds to award the project as bid, the City Council
rejected all Lids on November 21, 1989. The Council also
approved a revised set of plans and specifications which removed certain items from
the bid document. The new bid document also provided for deductive alternate bids
on certain items.
On December 15, 1989 the City received the six bids shown on the attached sheet
(Exhibit A). These bids include a base bid plus the following six deductive
alternates:
A. Existing digester cover replacement
B. Storage pond improvements
C. Irrigation system improvements
D. Irrigation pump adjustable frequency controllers
E. Painting existing piping and equipment
F. Adding 60 days to the contract
Contract Award For White Slough Water Pollution Control Facility
Expansion Project, 12751 North Thornton Road
January 3, 1990
Page - 2 -
It was the original intent of staff to recommend that Alder Engineering be awarded
the bid and that the amount of the award be the base bid minus Deductive Alternate
A, existing digester cover replacement, and Deductive Alternate D, irrigation pump
adjustable frequency controllers.
At the Council meeting of December 20, 1989, the award of the contract was on the
agenda. However, on the same day, at approximately 4:00 p.m. a protest was
received from F&H Construction Company (the second low bidder) alleging that
Alder's bid was irregular. The matter was continued to January 3, 1990 so staff
could look further into the matter of the protest. Letters from both Alder and F&H
have been received (Exhibits D and E) as well as F&H's attorney (Exhibit F). After
extensive research, it is now evident that the protest by F&H Construction raises
valid concerns.
BID REQUIREMENTS
The Instructions To Bidders which all bidders received contain several portions
which refer to the regularity and acceptability of bids, such as:
- The owner reserves the right to award the contract by phases, to reject
all bids, to waive informalities, and to reject nonconforming,
nonresponsive or conditional bids. (pp. 1-2)
- On page B-3, it states that "All blank spaces in the bid form shall be
filled. Bids received without all such items completed will be
considered nonresponsive."
- At paragraph 10 on page B-4, it is stated that "Owner reserves the right
to reject all bids, to award the contract by sections, to wave
informalities, and to reject nonconforming, nonresponsive, or conditional
bids."
- In the Questionnaire portion of the bid packet, page Q-1, it states
"Failure to furnish all information requested in the questionnaire may be
a cause for rejection of the bid."
ALDER ENGINEERING'S BID
On page BF -3 of its bid (Exhibit B), Alder failed to identify separately the
amounts included in its base bid for the lagoon dredge, industrial pump controls
and membrane diffused aeration equipment, leaving these lines blank, in apparent
contradiction to bidding instructions which state that all lines left blank will
result in the bid being deemed nonresponsive.
Contract Award For White Slough Water Pollution Control Facility
Expansion Project, 12751 North Thornton, Road
January 3, 1990
Page - 3 -
On page LS -2 of the list of subcontractors, Alder identifies a subcontractor only
as "Environmental" which has been challenged by F&H Construction as inadequately
identifying a subcontractor. Additionally, no addresses for subcontractors were
furnished.
The Questionnaire (pages Q-1 and 2)
mechanical equipment in 26 categories.
the 26 suppliers, delivering the balance
opened. F&H Construction feels this is
be rejected.
ANALYSIS
requires the name of manufacturers of
Alder originally identified only four of
of the names three days after bids were
in irregularity requiring that Alder's bid
Public Contracts Code Sections 20161(c) and 20162 require competitive bids on
public projects such as the White Slough expansion. This same chapter provides
other procedural guidelines for bids on similar projects. To facilitate these
requirements, bid instructions discussed above were drafted by the City and its
consultant Black and Veatch, and were included in the bid information packet.
These constitute the rules under which the bids were to be received and the
contract awarded. The language of these instructions, cited above, states that
where information which bidders "shall" furnish is omitted from the bid forms, the
bid "will" be deemed nonresponsive. On the other hand, the Questionnaire states
that mall information requested on the Questionnaire is not provided, the bid
"mfr" be rejected. The words "will" or "shalt" are generally mandatory, while
"may" implies discretion (58 Cal.Jur. 3d, §147).
A contract made in violation of statues on competitive bidding is illegal and void
(Reams vs Cooley, 171 C. 150;53 Cal.Jur. 3d, Public Works and Contracts,
§Y7')—. The question here is one of interpretation, i.e., whether Alder's omission
in its bid amounted to a simple "informality" (which the Council can waive under
the bid instructions) or was an "irregularity", requiring rejection of the bid as
unresponsive.
The California Attorney General has previously said that if an error or omission in
a bid is "inconsequential" a bid award is proper, but if it is a "substantial
deviation" the bid is invalid (47 Ops.A.G. 129). One of the basis for the
determination is whether the deviation ..gives a bidder an advantage or benefit
not allowed other bidders...." (Id, at 131). As stated in the letter from F&H's
attorney, they feel it did allow ATder an advantage.
Helping further define these terms is the case of Konica Business Machines vs
Regents of the University of California (1988) 253 C.R. 591, which says a
deviation is "substantial" unless it is so inconsequential that it could not affect
the bid amount (Konica, .2 ra, at 594). For example, failure to sign a bid in
one place was deemed a minor defect (or "informality") not so great as to
invalidate a bid (Menefee vs County of Fresno (1985) 210 C.R. 99).
Contract Award For White Slough Water Pollution Control Facility
Expansion Project, 12751 North Thornton Road
January 3, 1990
Page -4-
F&H Construction says that by not including a list of suppliers of mechanical
equipment until after Alder was deemed the low bidder, gave Alder the opportunity
to "bid shop" its suppliers. "Bid shopping" has been defined by California courts
as the use of a low bid already received by the general contractor to pressure
other subcontractors (or suppliers) into submitting even lower bids (Sherman
Company vs Thomason, Inc. (1987) 236 C.R. 577, at 582). This practice a is
mored in—California (Pub. Contracts Code, §4101).
While there is no basis to believe Alder has engaged in bid shopping, F&H points
out that Alder's failure to include the names of mechanical suppliers in its bid
could present an opportunity to do so. "Because of potential for abuse arising
from deviation from strict adherence to the standards which promote public benefit,
the letting of public contracts universally receives close judicial scrutiny and
contracts awarded without compliance with bidding requirements will be set aside.
This preventive approach is applied even where it is certain there was in fact no
corruption ... and the deviations would save the entity money (emphasis added
...
Konica, Supra at 595).
SUMMARY
This situation admittedly presents a close call, and my opinion is a conservative
one which I feel best protects the City. Credible arguments have been made by both
bidders, but no matter which course of action the Council may choose, it is
possible the matter may be decided in court. There are numerous cases in which
unsuccessful bidders have sought to recover costs of preparing the bids, and. in
some cases also asked for lost profits. The more legally defensible position at
this point appears to me to be for the Council to find the omissions in Alder's bid
to be substantial, making the bid irregular, nonresponsive and thus unacceptable.
While we would obviously prefer to accept the low bid, I believe that action might
be challenged successfully. I will be in contact with the legal department of
Black & Veatch, the City's consultants, and will keep the Council advised of their
recommendations.
If the Council accepts F&H's bid, (Exhibit C) the total bid award would be:
Base Bid
Deductive Alternate A
Deductive Alternate D
$10,397,000
[181,000]
[45,000]
Bid Award Amount $110,171,000
Contract Award For White Slough Water Pollution Control Facility
Expansion Project, 12751 North Thornton Road
January 3, 1990
Page - 5 -
The Finance Department has determined that over the life of the construction
project `(19 months) we will have approximately $11,250,000 available. The
expenditures to complete the project are estimated as follows:
Construction contract $10,171,000
Contract administration, inspection and 0&M Manual 581,000
Discharge permit and dilution study 23,000
Contingencies 300,000
Estimated Cost Total $11,075,005
Estimated Funds Available $11,250,000
Respectfully submitted,
BobMcNatt
City Attorney
Jac L. Rons o
Publ c Works Director
BMN:br
Attachments
C UN C722
RESOLUTION NO. 90-01
--------------------
--------------------
A RESOLUTION OF THE LODI CITY COUNCIL
AWARDING THE CONTRACT FOR WHITE SLOUGH WATER POLLUTION CONTROL FACILITY
EXPANSION PROJECT, 12751 NORTH THORNTON ROAD
WHEREAS, in answer to notice duly published in accordance with law and
the order of this City Council, sealed bids were received and publicly opened on
November 1, 1989 at 11:00 a.m. for the contract for White Slough Water Pollution
Control Facility Expansion Project, 12751 North Thornton Road, described in the
specifications therefor approved by the City Council on July 19, 1989; and
WHEREAS, at a noticed special meeting of the City Council held November
21, 1989, the City Council:
1) rejected all bids received on November 1, 1989, since the City had
insufficient funds to award the project;
2) approved a revised set of plans and specifications removing certain
items from the bid document; and
3) authorized readvertising of bids for the project; and
WHEREAS, in answer to notice duly published in accordance with law and
the order of this City Council, sealed bilis were received and publicly opened on
December 15, 1989 at 11:00 a.m. for the above described project; and
WHEREAS, said bids have been compared, checked, and tabulated and a
report thereof filed with the City Manager as shown on Exhibit A attached hereto; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the bid of Alder Engineering and
Construction, Salt Lake City Utah, is irregular and thus nonresponsive, and is
rejected; and
WHEREAS, the City Manager recommends that award of the contract for
White Slough Water Pollution Control Facility Expansion Project, 12751 North Thornton
Road, be made to F&H Construction Company, Stockton, California and that the amount
of the award be in the base bid minus Deductive Alternate A, Existing Digester Cover
Replacement, and Deductive Alternate D, Irrigation Pump Adjustable Frequency
Controllers;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Lodi
that award of the contract for White Slough Water Pollution Control Facility
Expansion Project, 12751 North Thornton Road, be and the same is hereby awarded to
F&H Construction Company in the amount of $10,171,000.
Dated: January 3, 1990
90-01
Resolution 90-01
January 3, 1990
Page Two
I hereby certify that Resolution No. 90-01 was passed and adopted by the
City Council of the City of Lodi in a regular meeting held January 3, 1990 by th
following vote:
Ayes: Council Members -
Noes: Council Members -
Absent: Council Members -
Alice M. Reimche
City Cleric
90-01
COUNC722/TXTA.07A
Exhibit A
City of Lodi
White Slough Water Pollution Control Facility Expansion
Bid Tabulation
Bid Opening:
11: 00 am, Dec. 15,1989 Carnegie Forum, Lodi CA
Deductive Alternates
Bidder
Base Bid $
I�on.a«oa.rl s �a.o.►a+a GsrR • as+.o�ea,�lr.neeeo
Alder Engineering & Const.1
$ 9.933.405. 1 227,294.1
326,671.1 152,108.
9Z468.1 5,000.
0.
Salt lake City. UT 1
F&H Construction !
S 10,397.000.1 181,000.1
212.370.1 247,600.1
45,000.1 4.494.1
0.
Stockton. CA
I
1
i
I
Kaweah Construction !
S 10,650,000. ; 200.000.1
320,000.1 210,000.1
40,000.1 3,000.1
0.
Fresno. CA
�
t
Dan Caputo Co. 1
$ 10,667,000.1 296,000.1
98,500.; 186,000.!
44,000.' 30,000.130,000.
San Jose. CA
i
Gateway/Mark
S 10,796,500. 240,417.1 222,969.' 136,461.
53,052.'. 3,559.130,000.
Sacramento. CA
I
I
C.W. Roen Construction
$10,977,400. 257,000.1 215,000. 285,000.
43,000.' 25,000. 1,000.
Danville, CA
i
•
I
i
Engineer's Estimate
S 10,700,000.
ALDER COMPS Exhibii B
3939 SO M SW west Suite #.
Sat taloa CRY, Utah $4123
BID FORM 8Y ALDER
CITY OF LODI. CALIFORNIA
WHITE SLOUGH WATER POLLUTION CONTROL FACILITIES
CAPACITY EXPANSION IMOVEMENTS
To: City of Lodi. California
THE UNDERSIGNED BIDDER, having familiarized himself with the Work required
by the Contract Documents. the site where the Work is to be performed,
local labor conditions and all laws, regulations, and other factors
affecting performance of the Work. and having satisfied himself of the
expense and difficulties attending performance of the Work.
HEREBY PROPOSES and agrees, if this Bid is accepted, to enter into
Agreement in the form attached to perform all Work, including the assump-
tion of all obligations. duties, and responsibilities necessary to the
successful completion of the contract and the furnishing of all materials
and equipment required to be incorporated in and form a permanent part
of the Work; tools, equipment, supplies, transportation, facilities,
labor, superintendence, and services required to perform the Work; and
Bonds. insurance and submittals; all as indicated or specified in the
Contract Documents to be performed or furnished by Contractor for the
lump sums:
AF BID. All work complete as specified for the lump sum of
�d 1Y (�4JK/pr�a� T��ttt
Dollars ($ 2 13 3 yo -5- )
Deductive Alternative A. The following deductive price is to be used in
reducing the base bid amount if this alternative is selected by the Owner.
:or deleting existing digester cover replacement, deduct from the Base Bid
the lump sum price of: 4 c ✓ iA.«+_.cd
(words)
Dollars ($ 22- 12- LZ 3
(Lodi. CA WSWPCF)
(Capacity Expansion) BF -1
(14915 ) (AD4-16)
(11/28/89 )
Deductive Alternative $. The following deductive price is to be used in
reducing the Base Bid amount if this alternative is selected by the Owner.
For deleting the storage pond improvements, deduct from the Base Bid the
lump sum price of: r-tew n ,cs,,r .d,--4 SNA, s
(words)
U n
Dollars (S� 6 7-1 )
Deductive Alternative C. The following deductive price is to be used in
reducing the Base Bid amount if this alternative is selected by the Owner.
For deleting the irrigation system improvements, deduct from the Base Bid
the lump sum price of:
e .P (words)
f t
Dollars ($ i z
Deductive Alternative Q. The following deductive price is to be used in
reducing the Base Bid amount if this alternative is selected by the Owner.
For deleting the irrigation pumps adjustable frequency controllers. deduct
from the Base Bid the lump sum price of:
f/ (words)
M?t-4114 frdd_-� a'�r.-'� tdd✓ (itUr�c(��coi Si g e,Tt.��'+�
Dollars
Deductive Alternative E. The following deductive price is to be used in
reducing the Base Bid amount if this alternative is selected by the Owner.
For deleting the painting of existing piping and equipment. deduct from the
Base Bid the lump sump ice of:
(words)
Dollars ($ ,._A d d )
Deductive Alternative F. The following deductive
reducing the Base Bid amount if this alternative
For adding sixty (60) calendar days to the contra
Base Bid the lump sum price of:
price is to be used in
is selected by the Owner.
ct time, deduct from the
(words)
Dollars ($ Q )
( Lodi , CA WSWPCF )
(Capacity Expansion) BF -2
(14915 ) (AD4-17)
(11128189 )
For purposes of project administration, the following amounts which are
included in the above Base Bid total apply to the items listed below:
Lagoon dredge $
Industrial pumps controls $
Hembrane diffused aeration S
equipment
Adequate sheeting. shoring, S G21000.�
and bracing for the pro-
tection of life or limb
conforming to all applicable
governmental safety orders
The undersigned Bidder agrees to furnish the required Bonds and to enter
into a contract within ten days after owner's acceptance of this Bid, and
further agrees to substantially complete the Work within 510 days, and to
complete all Work within 510 days, after the commencement of Contract Time
as defined in the General Conditions.
The undersigned Bidder hereby certifies (a) that this Bid is genuine and is
not made in the interest of, or in the behalf of, any undisclosed person,
firm..or corporation. and is not submitted in conformity,,vith-any'agreement
or rules of any group. association. organization. or corporation; (b) that
he has not diret-Uy or indirectly induced or solicited-any_other Bidder to
put in a false or sham Bid; (c) that he has not solicited or induced any
person, firm, or corporation to refrain from bidding; and_(d), that he has
not sought by collusion to obtain for himself any advantage over any other
Bidder or over the owner.
The undersigned Bidder acknowledges receipt of the following Addenda, which
have been considered in preparation of this Bid: b
No. Dated
No. Dated
No. Dated A0 Z&
No. I Dated /f 3e "
No.
Dated
No. Dated /�
Dated in / L _ this %J "'day of G�.s.iiGl�19,�
(Lodi. CA WSWPCF)
(Capacity Expansion) BF -3
(14915 ) (AD4-18)
(11/28/89 )
SIGNATM SE BIDDER: ,f�J
California Contractor's License Number ✓ /Wi� /
Class t4
If an Individual: , doing business
as
If a California General Partnership:
by general partner
If a Corporation: Ale, A9WOg dumef!'x� f
(a Corporation)
�,/ ��� (SEAL U
Title j e;e ��'�S� "'��! (ATTEST)
Business Address of Bidder_3�
If Bidder is a joint venture, other party must sign below. fal —1266 8 gS%
California Zontractor's License Number
If an Individual:
doing business as
If a California General Partnership:
If a Corporation:
by
Title
(a
, general partner
Corporation)
by
(SEAL &)
(ATTEST)
Title
(Lodi, CA WSWPCF)
(Capacity Expansion) BF -4
(14915 ) (AD4-19)
(11/28/89 )
LIST OF SUBCONTRACTORS _
The name and location of place of business of each subcontractor who will
perform work or labor or render service to the general contractor in or
about the construction of the work or improvements in an amount in excess
of one-half of one percent (0.52) of the Seneral contractors total base
bid. and the portion of work which will be done by each subcontractor is
set forth as follows:
NAME OF SUBCONTRACTOR: a e4R� F(Ate iv:e A4[
PORTION i TYPE OF WORK: �1tGi✓iu-1�
ADDRESS:
PHONE:
NAME OF SUBCONTRACTOR:
PORTION i TYPE OF YORK: �n►uwteHR�T�AI
ADDRESS:
PHONE: t I
NAME OF SUBCONTRACTOR: &;- 1., 1., s
PORTION i TYPE OF YORK: Zk 1yT 10 4
ADDRESS:
PHONE: t
(Lodi. CA YSYPCF)
(Capacity Expansion) LS -1
(14915 (AD4-20)
LIST OF SUBCONTRACTORS (Continued)
NAm OF SUBCONTRACTOR: f d a _ &I1cS bcGi St✓Uie-L
PORTION i TYPE OF WORL: �cTtit+o�'►
ADDRESS:
PHONE: t I
NAM OF SUBCONTRACTOR: is S N^rt.
PORTION S TYPE OF WORE: &d SoN[LV
ADDRESS:
PHONE:
NAME OF SUBCONTRACTOR: d r,-- vs -_
PORTION i TYPE OF WOREs A I v W t Lt, .A
ADDRESS:
PRONE: � )
NAME OF SUBCONTRACTOR: EwyP fOAwPu tlai
PORTION i TYPE OF WORK:
ADDRESS:
PHONE: f )
( Lodi . CA VSWPCF )
(Capacity Expansion) LS -2
(14915 ) (AD4-21)
Each Bidder shall enter in the spaces provided the names of the manu-
facturers of equipment which he proposes to furnish. Upon award of a
contract, the named equipment shall be furnished. Substitutions will
be permitted only if named equipment does not meet the requirements of
the Contract Documents. the manufacturer is unable to meet, the delivery
requirements of the construction schedule, or the manufacturer ir`dilatory
in complying with the requirements of the Contract Documents. Substitu
tions shall be subject to concurrence of the Owner and shall be confirmed
by Change Order.
Preliminary acceptance of equipment listed by msnufacturor•s:name shall not
in any way constitute a waiver of the specifications covering such
equipment; final acceptance will be based on full conformity with the
Contract Documents.
Failure to furnish all information requested in the Questionnaire may be
cause for rejection of the Bid.
Specifi-
cation
Section Eauinment Manufacturer
11115 Horizontal Aonclog End Suction Centrifugal
(Lodi, CA NSWPCF)
(Capacity Expansion) Q-1
(14915 )
(AD4-23)
Pumps
11117
Vortex Type Horizontal Fuad Suction
Centrifugal Pumps
11119
Horizontal End Suction Centrifugal Pumps
11160
Progressing Cavity Pumps
11170
Sludge Macerator
11320
Grit Removal Equipment - Cyclone Separator
with Classifier
11332
Digester Gas Mizing Equipment
11334
Sludge Heat Exchangers
11336
Digester Gas Control Equipment
11338
Digester Gas Compressors
11410
Circular Sludge Collecting Equipment
11440
Sludge Flotation Thickener Equipment
(Lodi, CA NSWPCF)
(Capacity Expansion) Q-1
(14915 )
(AD4-23)
11450 Straight Line Sludge Collecting Equipment
11510 Rapid Mix Equipment
11570 Membrane Diffused Aeration Equipment
11620 Centrifugal Aeration Compressors
11720 Chemical Feed Systems
13232 Fixed Digester Covers
13234 Floating Gasholder Digester Covers
13400 Instrumentation Kdrtt� ��t.e?w�ir,Ks
13410 Program able Logic Controller M4>eo 4z 98Y-CaSc:
14950 Lagoon'Pumping System
15102 Eccentric Plug Valves
15120 Hydraulic Poorer System
vC
16100 Major Electrical Equipment thT.Ys P
. • GC
16150 Adjustable Frequency Controllers
(Lodi. CA WSWPCF)
(Capacity Expansion) Q-2
(1491.5 ) (AD4-24)
it
Exhibit C
BID FORM by
CITY OF LODI. CALIFORNIA
WHITE SLOUGH WATER POLLUTION CONTROL FACILITIES
CAPACITY EXPANSION IMPROVEMENTS
To: City of Lodi. California
THE UNDERSIGNED BIDDER. having familiarized himself with the Work required
by the Contract Documents, the site where the Work is to be performed,
local labor conditions and all laws, regulations, and other factors
affecting performance of the Work, and having satisfied himself of the
expense and difficulties attending performance of the Work.
HEREBY PROPOSES and agrees. if this Bid is accepted, to enter into
Agreement in the form attached to perform all Work. including the assump-
tion of all obligations. duties, and responsibilities necessary to the
successful completion of the contract and the furnishing of all materials
and equipment required to be incorporated in"and-form a permanent part
of the Work; tools, equipment. supplies, transportation, facilities,
labor. superintendence, and services required to perform the Work; and
Bonds, insurance and submittals; all as indicated or specified in the
Contract Documents to be performed or furnished by Contractor for the
lump sums:
BASF. BID. All work complete as specified for the lump sum of:
(words)
�w .':/Gi i'%_,.� ! /•rsi //u .7.I .�i.� /RiilY+/ �/A.J -�/7 /�ia•. ✓'�H7
i ..
Dollars (S / '.?�`• �QJ. )
Deductive_ Alternative A. The following deductive price is to be used in
reducing the base bid amount if this alternative is selected by the Owner.
For deleting existing digester cover replacement, deduct from the Base Bid
the lump sum price of:
_ (words)
16izhl z 0.,v t• /71046_4"'V,
Dollars ($ C Cd,
(Lodi. CA WSWPCF)
(Capacity Expansion) BF -1
(14915 ) (AD4-16)
(11/28189 )
Deductive Alternative $. The following deductive price is to be used in
reducing the Base Bid amount if this alternative is selected by the Owner.
For deleting the storage pond improvements, deduct from the Base Bid the
lump gum price of:
(words)
S4?, t. I1 v
Dollars ($ -2/�, id, V )
Deductive Alternative G. The following deductive price is to be used in
reducing the Base Bid amount if this alternative is selected by the Owner..
For deleting the irrigation system improvements, deduct from the Base Bid
the lump sum price of:
-�.,.s %:»✓ ..i/ :�7�. ' .,�+, %6..,.K�% .Sim �.:.�• (words)
ds)
Dollars ($ 2,q 1 G Q 4. sa )
Deductive Alternative P. The following deductive price is to be used in
reducing the Base Bid amount if this alternative is. selected by the Owner.
For deleting the irrigation pumps adjustable frequency controllers, deduct
from the Base Bid the lump sum price of:
r r, _(w�(ords)ZZ ±�JT
c F
6.A %;n O ' %yi .f @ ' �I7Hc /�..: / :JJt Y'Y / /I t / h& -j -IL
Dollars ( � 46, dc3v
Deductive Alternative 1. The following deductive price is to be used in
reducing the Base Bid amount if this alternative is selected by the Owner.
For deleting the painting of existing piping and equipment, deduct from the
Base Bid the lump sum price of:
(words)
Dollars (SCJ,=� )
Deductive Alternative L. The following deductive price is to be used in
reducing the Base Bid amount if this alternative is selected by the Owner.
For adding sixty (60) calendar days to the contract time, deduct from the
Base Bid the lump sum price of:
(words)
Dollars ($ We-
(Lodi, CA WSWPCF)
(Capacity Expansion) BF -2
(14915 ) (AD4-17)
(11/28/89 )
For purposes of project administration. the following amounts which are
included in the above Base Bid total apply to the items listed below:
Lagoon dredge
$-Z-0 GG Ci
Industrial pumps controls $ 1. d d G- sa,
Membrane diffused aeration $ -3 _7 ;j- ay
equipment
Adequate sheeting. shoring. $ G c) c3
and bracing for the pro-
tection of life or limb
conforming to all applicable
governmental safety orders
The undersigned Bidder agrees to furnish the required Bonds and to enter
into a contract within ten days after Owner's acceptance of this Bid, and
further agrees to substantially complete the Stork within 510 days, and to
complete all Stork within 570 days. after the commencement of Contract Time
as defined in the General Conditions.
The undersigned Bidder hereby certifies (a) that this Bid is genuine and is
not made in the interest of. or in the behalf of, any undisclosed person,
firm. -or corporation. and is not submitted in conformity with any agreement
or rules of any group, association, organization. or corporation; (b) that
he has not directly or indirectly induced or solicited any other.Bidder to
put in a false or sham Bid; (c) that he has not solicited or induced any
person, firm. or corporation to refrain from bidding; and (d) that he has
not sought by collusion to obtain for himself any advantage over any other
Bidder or over the Owner.
The undersigned Bidder acknowledges receipt of the following Addenda, which
have been considered in preparation of this Bid:
No.
ONE
No.
TWO
No.
THREE
No.
FOUR
No.
No.
Dated OCTOBER 16, 198
Dated OCTOBER 17, 1989
Dated OCTOBER 25, 1989
Dated DECEMBER 4. t9R9
Dated
Dated
Dated in STOCKTON this 15TH day of DECEMBER . 19-U.
(Lodi. CA WSWPCF)
(Capacity Expansion) BF -3
(14915 ) (AD4-18)
(11128/89 )
SIGNATURE OF BIDDER:
California Contractor's License Number 293306
Class R - STM A
If an Individual: doing business
as
If a California General Partnership:
by general partner
If a Corporations F-& B CONSTRUCTION
(a CALIFORNU--*� Corporation)
by �; PR
(SEAL S)
tle - (ATTEST)
UM GI
Business Address,of Bidder 4945 WA 00 ROAD
STOCKTON, CA. 95205
If Bidder is a joint venture, other party must sip below. ,
California Contractor's License Number
If an Individuals
doing business as
If a California General Partnership:
by
general partner
Title
If a Corporation:
(a Corporation)
by -
(SEAL U
(ATTEST)
Title
(Lodi, CA WSWPCF)
(Capacity Expansion) BF -4
(14915 ) (AD4-19)
(11/28/89 )
LIST OF SUBCONTRACTORS _
The name and location of place of business of each subcontractor who will
perform work or labor or render service to the =*neral contractor in or
about the construction of the work or improvements in an amount in excess
of one-half of one percent (0.5=) of the general contractor's total base
bid. and the portion of work which will be done by each subcontractor is
set forth as follows:
NAME OF SUBCONTRACTOR: ��0 1� R r
PORTION i TYPE`OF WORK: EXCAVATE & A. C. PAVE
ADDRESS: 1-. •"t& '-e
PHONE:
_o"s i 37 3 - 1/a/
w
NAME OF SUBCONTRACTOR:
PORTION i TYPE OF WORK: YARD PT�PTxr.
ADDRESS: S / • ° �f ""
PRONE: iL I 1-z 114
NAME OF SUBCONTRACTOR:
PORTION S TYPE OF WORT.: CONCRETE REINFORCING
ADDRESS:
PHONE: (f& 1 `72=- 's I
(Lodi. CA WSWPCF)
(Capacity Expansion) LS -1
(14915 ) (AD4-20)
LIST OF SUBCONTRACTORS (Continued)
NAME OF SUBCONTRACTOR: A.
PORTION i TYPE OF WORE: MASONRY
ADDRESS:
nf�� &
PHONE:. k—.
W&ME OF SUBCONTRACTOR: t� � '-+-Prl
PORTION 4 TYPE OF STORE: PAINTING
ADDRESS: Sa G: a•
PHONE: (-ql4l 7,
NAtz OF SUBCONTRACTOR: on�i■. S e...�y ��<<r/
PORTION : TYPE OF YORK: INSTRUMENTATION & CONTROL.-
ADDRESS:
PHONE: V -1m 1 1.2'- 7'' 7 -
NAME OF SUBCONTRACTOR: --
PORTION i TYPE OF WORE: PROCESS PLUMBING
ADDRESS:
PHONE: L
(Lodi. CA BSNPCF)
(Capacity Expansion) LS -2
(14915 ) (AD4-21)
LIST OF SUBCONTRACTORS (Continued)
NAME OF SUBCONTRACTORS L n vines rn-etiTe,�
PORTION : TYPE OF WORK: EMTT.sTTAN
ADDRESS: s /c
PHONE: f4it=Sl- ava'�
NAME OF SUBCONTRACTORS C�.�7.� J; �rr.Y /•' �Y.7�
PORTION i TYPE OF WORK: ELECTRICAL
ADDRESS: -
PHONE: K -t )
NAME OF SUBCONTRACTOR:
PORTION i TYPE OF WORK:
ADDRESS:
PHONE:
NAME OF SUBCONTRACTOR:
PORTION & TYPE OF WORK:
ADDRESS:
PHONE:
(Lodi. CA WSWPCF)
(Capacity Ezpansi0n) LS -3
(14915 .) (AD4-22)
QUESTIONNAIRE -
Each Bidder shall enter in the spaces provided the names of the manu-
facturers of equipment which he proposes to furnish. Upon award of a
contract. the named equipment shall be furnished. Substitutions will
be permitted only if named equipment does not meat the requirements of
the Contract Documents. the manufacturer is unable to meet the delivery
requirements of the construction schedule. or the manufacturer is dilatory .
in complying with the requirements of the Contract Documents. Substitu-
tions shall be subject to concurrence of the Owner and shall be confirmed
by Change Order.
Preliminary acceptance of equipment listed by manufacturer's name shall not
in any way constitute a waiver of the specifications covering such
equipment: final acceptance will be based on full conformity with the
Contract Documents.
Failure to furnish all information requested in the Questionnaire may be
cause for rejection of the Bid.
Specifi-
cation
section
Eeuioment
Manufacturer
11115
Horizontal Nonelog End Suction Centrifugal
fsH.►y+�::�,f
Pumps
11117
Vortex 'type Horizontal End Suction
C'i„caon
Centrifugal Pumps
11119
Horizontal End Suction Centrifugal Pumps
le -4
11160
Progressing Cavity Pumps
= =�
11170
Sludge Macerator
�u
11320
Grit Removal Equipment - Cyclone Separator
S S_^
with Classifier
11332
Digester Gas Mixing EquipmentarJ^�'
11334
Sludge Heat Exchangers
�!
11336
Digester Gas Control Equipment
%u eMr
11338
Digester Gas Compressors
11410
Circular Sludge Collecting Equipment
11440
Sludge Flotation Thickener Equipment
lento
(Lodi. CA
WSWPCF)
(Capacity
Expansion) Q-1
(14915
) (AD4-23)
11450
Straight Line Sludge Collecting Equipment
11510
Rapid Mix Equipment
11570
Membrane Diffused Aeration Equipment
11620
Centrifugal Aeration Compressors
11720
Chemical Feed. Systems
13232
Fixed Digester Covers
13234
Floating Gasholder Digester Covers
13400
Instrumentation
13410
Programmable Logic Controller
14950
Lagoon"Pumping System
15102
Eccentric Plug Valves
15120
Hydraulic Power System
16100
Major Electrical Equipment
16150
Adjustable Frequency Controllers
(Lodi. CA WSWPCF)
(Capacity Expansion) Q-2
(14915 ) (AD4-24)
t[ 2
Exhibit D
KH
CaW"NRUCTION
Lty Attorney 50tH"
December 20, 1989
City of Lodi
221 W. Pine
Lodi, Ca. 95241
Re: Bid Proposal for: White Slough Water Pollution
Control Facilities 12-15-89
Attn: Bob HcNatt -. City Attorney
221 W. Pine
Lodi, California 95241
Reference the bid proposal as submitted by Alder Engineering and
Construction Company for the work as referenced. The bid was sub-
mitted on 12-15-89.
F&H Construction, a qualified bidder on the project hereby protests the
submission of the bid by Alder Engineering and Construction Company.
The basis for protest is referenced in the General Conditions of the bid
documents, specifically page E-3, paragraph four (4).. The text reads,
all blank spaces in the bid forts shall be filled. Bids receive7d without
all such items completed will be considered nonresponsive.
In addition the questionnaire portion of the submitted bid document,
which is to have a listing of the names of the manufacturers of equipment,
specifically states that failure to furnish all information requested
in the Questionnaire may be cause for rejection of the bid. In fact
Alder Engineering and Construction Company completed only four of the
required twenty-five required items. This in itself puts the City of
Lodi in a disadvantage in deteraining the award as they will not be in
a position to know the manufacturer of at least eight -four (84%) of the
equipment to be supplied. In addition the apparent low contractor has
the continued ability after the bid (five days) to reduce the price of
equipment supplied by manufacturers, and not let the City of Lodi benefit.
In conclusion our company feels that a fair bid was not presented to the
City as called for by the bidd_:ig documents, and ask that the bid of Alder
Engineering and Construction Co =pang be deemed non-responsive.
ncerely,
&4&
Clark Freg e
V,p f
Sec. Treas.
cc: Jack L. Ronsko
Public Works Director
General Engineering and Building Contractors
4945 Waterloo Road • P.O. Box 55245 • Teleptone (209) 911-3738 • Stockton. California 95205 • FAX (209) 931-4427
Lae No. 293306
12./27/89 16:49
et 2668856 ALDER CONST C Exhibit E
CONSTRUCTION COMPANY
So Lake CRY. uah 4123
DECEMBER 27, 1989
JACK L. ROKSKO. Public Works Director
CITY OF LODI, CITY HALL
221 WM PINE STR88T
LODI, CALIFORNIA 95241-5634
R8: Award of the White Slough Water Pollution Control
Facility Expansion Project.
Gentlemen:
We received your letter of December 21. 1989 and we are
also anxious to get this project awarded and under
construction.
In the above letter you mention that the City Council in
it's meeting December 20, 1989 has two concerns that have
delayed the award of the contract to Alder Engineering &
Construction_
First, in a letter from F & H Construction protesting our
bid as being nonresponsive, because we did not fill out
all of the blank* on the bid form. Please note F & H
Construction's reference to paragraph 4 page B-3
states... "All blank spaces on the bid form shall be
filled..", yet the Questionnaire states "Failure to
furnish information.... ..MAY be cause for rejection of
the Bid."
The bid documents are defined by the INVITATION TO BID, as
consisting of the SPECIFICATION AND DOCUMENTS, for the
WRITE SLOUGH WATER POLLUTION CONTROL FACILITIES CAPACITY
EXPANSION IMPROVEMENTS, CITY OF LODI, CALIFORNIA, VOLUME
I, VOLUME II and contract drawings for the construction
of: This Plant_
12/27/89 16:49 QP`2668(M ALM CONST r`
Award of White Slough Water P C F Expansion
Alder Engineering do Construction Co.
3939 South 500 Went
Salt Luke City, Utah 84123
The INVITATION TO BID as amended by addendum #4 states
that "The owner reserves the right to award the contract
base bid with no, all, or any combination of deductive
alternatives, to reject all Bids, to waivo informalities,
and to reject nonconforming, nonresponsive, or conditional
Bide." The INSTRUCTION TO BIDDBRS, Item 10. AWARD OF
CONTRACT also statna that you "... can waive
informalitiee," .
This clause gives The City the option to choose any bid
from the bids submitted that best meets your needs and
reject those that don't..
Alder Engineering and Construction's Bid of $9,933,405.00
is a responsive bid from a construction company that hats
thirty years experience in municipal water and wastewater
treatment works, and meets your needs. The information
miaeins on our bid form at bid time has been provided to
the City, as requested by the project engineers.
Your reserved right to waive informalities would allow you
to accept our bid as submitted.
The second concern seems to be "the fact that you (Alder)
have not yet submitted an instrumentation supplier which
meets the qualifications in the specifications."
Section 13400 - INSTRUMENTATION
2. SUPPLIER'S QUALIFICATIONS. The entire system shall be
designed, coordinated, and supplied by a qualified system
supplier who is regularly engaged in the business of
designing and building instrument control systems for
water and wastewater products.
The specification does not name any manufacturer as an
approved source of supply, and therefore does not
eliminate any manufanturer as a possible supplier.
Before the first bidding of thin project November 1, 1989
Karris Engineering contacted Black and Veatch, requesting
approval to bid on the instrumentation package on this
project. Karris Engineering wan not told that they could
not bid, and assumed that since they were not rejected
they could bid the project and work out the details of
approval later.
12/27/89 16:50 12W2668856 ALDER CONST CP --
Award of White Slough Water P C F Expansion
Alder Engineering do Construction Co.
3939 South 500 West
Salt Lake City, Utah 84123
They submitted a bid to all electrical subcontractors
involved in the November 11 bidding and also gave the
general contractors a copy of their bid. At Bid time some
of the General Contractors may have listed them as a
s•pplier of instrumentation equipment. Alder listed
Analog and Digital Systems as our instrumentation
supplier.
All bids from the November 1, 1989 bidding were rejected
and new bids were called for on December 15, 1989.
Addendum #4 was written November 30, 1989, to set forth
the conditions for the rebid.
Addendum #4 does not indicate that there was any problem
with using Karris Engineering as a supplier of
instrumentation equipment.
As a result Barris Engineering again submitted a bid to
all electrical subcontractors to supply the Section 13400
INSTRUMENTATION.
For the December bidding BEARD CORPORATION, an electrical
subcontractor, submitted us an unpriced facsimile bid form
to Alder to outline the items they intend to cover in
their bid. The pricing was called to us by telephone as
well as the list of suppliers they intended to use.
Beard Corporation was the low electrical subcontractor and
included Karris Engineering as their instrumentation
supplier.
We understand that BEARD ELECTRIC CORPORATION was listed
as the lour electrical subcontractor by almost all other
General Contractors bidding this project the second time
and Karris Engineering was listed as the instrumentation
supplier by all of the general contractors.
Any cost advantage gained by using Karris Engineering as
the supplier for Section 13400 INSTRUMENTATION was given
to the OWNER in our bid on the contract.
I was told at one point in time before the bid opening of
December 15, 1989 that if I used either TRANS -DYNE
CONTROLS or CMC that I would have no resistance to their
approval as a Instrumentation Suppliers.
These manufacturers or suppliers names were not included
in the specifications as a standard of quality and it is
industry standard that other manufacturers could be used
pending review of their qualifications after the award of
the General Contract but before issuance of the
subcontracts.
rnnsAr.r T% rmrd n___ 7
0 903
r_.
12/27/89 16:50 vfp _ 2668856 ALDER CONST r, —
Award of White Sloush.Water P C F 8xpaneion
Alder 8nsin,eering= & Construction Co.
3939 South 500 West
Salt Lake %City, Utah 84123
We will provide -an Instrumentations Supplier that best
meets:thequalification requirement of the specification.
Ws: x311 have to revfeo►.: wfth: the _project ensinser, to be
,acre- hether-CMC or''Khrris.Snsineering is beat -qualified
to do thix work.
acc2�'a9
cwova
RIC-ARD E. MACEY
LAWRENCE R. BRISCOE
JULIE M. MACEY
City of Lodi
221 W. Pine
Lodi, CA 95241
MACEY & BRISCOE
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
ASSOCIATED IN T..E PRACTICE OF LAW
4609 OuA.L .AAES DRIVE. SUITE 4
STOCKTON. CALIFORNIA 95207
December 27, 1989
Attention: Bob McNatt - City Attorney
Re: Bid Proposal for:
Dear Mr. McNatt:
Exhibit F
White Slough Water Pollution
Control Facilities - 12/15/89
TELEP.ONE
12091 9S.-8227
FACSIMILE
12091 474-6867
This letter is being written to you in accordance with our
telephone conversation of this date.
As you are aware, this office represents F & H Construction
Company who bid on the above designated project.
At the time of the bid openings it was thought by the City
of Lodi that Alder Engineering and Construction Company was the
lowest responsible bidder. On that basis, F & H Construction
Company would have had the second lowest responsible bid.
However, it is the position of F & H Construction Company and in
accordance with a previous letter forwarded on December 20, 1989,
by said Company that F & H Construction is the lowest responsible
bidder on this project and that the contract should be awarded to
F & H Construction Company.
The bid of Alder Engineering and Construction Company is an
irregular bid, which irregularity is of such a substantial nature
that it afforded the Alder Company an advantage over the other
bidders and affects one or more of the main and substantial
elements that were contemplated and considered in reaching a
price figure and the result then would affect the amount cf the
bid to the detriment of the City of Lodi and the other bidders.
The irregularity of which F & H Construction is complaining
and which should make the bid in any decision reached by the City
of Lodi an irregular and unacceptable bid is that the bidder
Alder Engineering and Construction Company, although it had
numerous other discrepancies in it's bid, failed to furnish all
information requested in the "Questionnaire" which according to
Addendum "4" was a bid form requiring a listing for all
manufacturers of equipment and which form is designated (Q-1).
Out of a list of 26 equipment suppliers only four (4) were
designated by Alder Engineering which amounts to an omission of
Bob McNatt - City Attorney
December 27, 1989
Page Two
almost 84% of the equipment to be supplied. That particular
portion of the bid was substantially left unanswered. This is a
very substantial portion of any contractor's bid because it would
be normal to get a price as F & H Construction did from each
equipment manufacturer so you could base your bid price on the
quoted price of each equipment manufacturer. The vital nature of
this information is further demonstrated by the fact that Alder
Engineering and Construction Company when approximately three
days after the bid opening, submitted a document purporting to
contain the information requested. In examining that document
it should be noted that even that creates what must further be
determined to be an irregular bid and unacceptable.
Specification Section 11332 contains three alternative equipment
manufacturers, Section 11334 contains two alternates, Section
13232 lists two alternates and finally, Specification Section
11234 contain two alternates. By the use of these alternates
Alder is still able to get counter -bidding which could reduce
the price and cost of their work depriving the City of Lodi of a
benefit that should have been given to the City of Lodi and as
well acts detrimentally against the other bidders who submitted
the manufacturers of their equipment and were bound by their
submittals.
Not only did Alder Engineering and Construction Company
enable itself to get competitive bids from the majority of its
equipment manufacturers by not complying at all with the bid
form, but it still is in a position to competitively reduce it's
cost, again, without giving the City of Lodi any advantage of
that reduction and detrimentally affecting the other bidders.
The matter of irregular bids and the legal effect is
discussed in Attorneys Guide to California Construction Contracts
and Disputes authored by James Acret. In Section 4.17 it is
stated in regard to "Irregular Bids":
"If there is an irregularity or a clerical
error in the bid the public authority is
faced with a question of whether it can award
the contract to the apparent low bidder if
both parties are willing to waive the
irregularity. If the irregularity does not
materially affect the proposal the awarding
official may waive the admission or variance.
In determining whether an irregularity is of
Bob McNatt - City Attorney
December 27, 1989
Page Three
a substantial nature the question is whether
it affords the bidder an advantage over other
bidders and affects one or more of the
elements that were contemplated or considered
attects the amount or the Dia. to
added) Citing authorities)" P. 175
The principle of law is cited in Menefee vs. County of
Fresno, 163 Cal App 3d, 1180; 210 Cal Rptr, 99, 102. In that
case it was stated that there should be no waiver of an
irregularity in a bid which would give the bidder an unfair
advantage stating as follows:
"Williams vs. Bergin, 129 Cal, 461; 62 P, 59
establishes the principle that waiver should
not be allowed if the irregularity would give
the bidder an unfair advantage..."
In that case, the contractor failed to sign the bid form but the
Court held that since he had also signed the bond plus other
areas of signature that in itself was not an irregularity that
gave the bidder an unfair advantage, but the case recognizes the
theory of an unfair advantage over other bidders.
In City Counsel of Beverly Hills vs. Superior Court (1969)
272 C.A. 2d, 876, the lowest responsible bidder did not have a
license at the time the bid was submitted but at that time the
contract was awarded the bidder did have the proper license.
Nevertheless, in that case, the Court held that that was an
irregularity that would require the City to turn down the bid.
The requirement of listing the equipment supplier is
completely analogous to the "Subletting and Subcontracting Fair
Practices Act, Public Contract Code Sections 4100-4114." The
same reasoning that caused the Legislature to enact the
Subcontracting Fair Practices Act obviously would affect the
failure of the listing of the material suppliers. It was stated
by the Legislature:
"The Legislature finds that the practices of
bid shopping and bid peddling in connection
with the construction, alteration and repair
of public improvements often results in poor
quality of material and workmanship to the
detriment of the public, deprive the public
Bob McNatt -
December 27,
Page Four
City Attorney
1989
of the full benefits of fair competition
among prime contractors and subcontractors,
and lead to insolvencies, loss of wages to
employees and other evils." (Addendum to
Section 4104 of the Public Contract Code)
Certainly every one of those practices that the Legislature
hoped to eliminate is present in the requirement of the listing
of the material suppliers. The same principles would apply to
the situation now before the City Council of Lodi wherein the
contractor is promiscuously substituting equipment suppliers and
it would appear it is obviously shopping for bids to its own
advantage contrary to the interest of the other bidders and the
best interests of the 'City of Lodi which should have received the
advantage of any reduced bid.
It is the position of F & H Construction Company that the
irregularity referred to herein was of a substantial nature in
that it afforded Alder Engineering and Construction Company an
advantage over the other bidders and not only in that respect but
also in the respect that it affected one or more of the elements
that were contemplated and considered in reaching a price figure
so that the result did affect the amount of the bid and also
detrimentally effected the City of Lodi to the advantage of Alder
Engineering and Construction Company.
It is also the opinion of F & H Construction Company that if
it is not awarded the bid, it would be entitled to it's loss of
profits as well as the costs of preparing the bid and it's bid
bond.
It is my understanding that F & H Construction will be given
the opportunity of appearing at the City Council Meeting of
January 3, 1990, to further present its case.
Sincerely,
MACEY & BRISCOE
Richard E. Macey
Attorney at Law
REM: jg
ALDER CONSTRUCTION COMPANY
PROJECT M 198 to 1989
j
WWTP (72,Wo)
Figure Two
VVTP (14.49x)
Other (7.3't'*)
Idings (7.590)
iindges (1.y )
Notes:
WWTP = Wastewater Treatment Plants
WTP = Water Treatment Plants
Other = Water Pumping Plants, Co -generation Facilities,
Hydro -electric Plants, and Reservoirs
W.
. EXHIBITS
No. 1: City of Evanston, Wyoming
No. 2: Salt Lake County Water Conservancy District
i
No. 3: James M. Montgomery Engineers
No. 4: Terco Pipe and Fabricating, Inc.
No. 5: Ted R. Brawn and Associates
a-3
cXHiBIT ONE
CITY OF EVANSTON
1 IoM*u 4�
F:VANti ON. NVY()MING 829'()
G
( 307) 789-9690
�STO x
12 October 1989
Ms. Karen Hayes. Director
Board of Trustees
Clark County Sanitation District
5857 East Flamingo Road
Las Vegas, Nevada 89122
Dear Ms. Hayes:
Alder Construction Company is now closing out a Water Treatment
Plant reconstruction project for the City of Evanston, Wyoming.
Our involvement with Alder Construction in this project has been
very positive. The project has been completed within time and
budget constraints set forth by the contract documents.
Mr. Donald Fryor asked me to inform you of our projects successful
completion and advise you of the character and quality of Alder's
work.
Alder Construction Company has been an excellent contractor to work
with. They have high standards and work ethics. They have been
cooperative regarding changes. They have accepted responsibility
and performed within the confines of the contract documents and
specification to complete this project on a pleasing manner to the
owner. tie are pleased to respond favorably for this company since
it was largely their work and cooperation that made our project'a
success.
If you would like specific information relating to th:.s letter of
recommendation, please call me at (307) 789-9805.
Sincereey
el,
Zrian L. Ii�,ney
City Engineer
BFI/lk
GERALD K. MALONEY. Charman and O -rector
VERNE BREEZE. Vico Chairman and D.ecior
October 16, 1989
iwo
Ms. Karen Hayes
Chairman, Board of Trustees
Clark County Sanitation District
5857 East Flamingo Road
Las Vegas, Nevada 89122
Attention: William Mahorney
Dear Ms. Hayes:
DAVID G. OVARD
Genera! Manager
FF r Secretary, Treasurer
SUBJECT: Experience with Alder Construction Company
This letter is sent to inform you of our recent=xperi.ence with
Alder Construction Company-. In particular, I believe it may be of
assistance to you as you consider an award of contract for your recently
bid construction project.
Alder has ompleted a two-phase project for the Salt Lake County
Water Conservancy District which is known as the Jordan Narrows Pump
Station. Construction for this project sunned a period of 18 months.
It included construction of a $4,000,000 pumping station and related
facilities on the bank and within the channel of the Jordan River.
Construction time constraints and substantial dewatering efforts on this
project are probebly similar to key concerns on your project. Mr. Don
Fryer acted as project manager and the contractor's engineer for this
project.
Our experience with Alder has been very good. Alder proved to be
successful in shoring and dewatering methcds. We found Alder to be very
capable in these work items because of the engineering expertise of Mr.
Fryer and the skill of choir project superintendent. Our experience on
the Jordan Narrows project has been that Alder Construction Company has
not requested extra payment for construction technique failures. Costs
for the few construction errors were absorbed by Alder.
8215 South S:?00'ti ort • P C� Sox ,, t:.e'St Jordan. ij!, �•:Q?a - ,201,0 • (80.) 565-630J Fa, (F30t) 56:r83t7
Ms. Karen Hayes
Chairman, Board of Trustees
Clark County Sanitation District
October 16, 1989
Page Two
I hope this description of our experience is of assistance to you in
your considerations. I would be happy to discuss our experience further
with you if you desire.
Sincerely,
Richard P. Bay, PE
Chief Engineer
cW
c: Don Fryer
50oth Wa..11Ch ({<)t:1�•v.v1(J
:iudC 200 .51:111 l Ake C"v
I ItBh 84 124 -
JM,James. i A Mta vlgot t a;cv
11
Clark County Sanitation District
5857 East Flamingo Road
Las Vegas, NV 89122
ATTN: Karen Hughes, Chairman
Board of Trustees
PROJECT: New Aerated Grit Chamber
SUBJECT: Alder Construction Company B'd
Gentlemen:
October 16, 1989
i.•t.•(rtyln.'
We have been asked by Don Fryer of Alder Construction Company to provide the
following information regarding the Jordan Narrows River Intake Pumping
Station, a project Alder recently completed for the Salt Lake County Water
Conservancy District, and for which JMM served as design and construction
management consultants. The job included construction of a major raw water
pumping facility (11,000 horsepower, 165 mvd) on the bark of the Jordan River in
southern Salt Lake County on an extrem^_ly difficult site. The project site was
very small with limited access, located on steep terrain with highly permeable
gravelly soils and high groundwater conditions resulting from the adjacent river.
Alder Construction Company, with Don Fryer as project manager, was low bidder
for the work. According to Mr. Fryer, a major factor which differentiated
themselves from other bidders, was Alder's proposed excavation and dewatering
method. Their dewatering system and excavation control method relied on
limited use of sheet piling and construction of a perimeter gravel drain and
sump. Alder used this system successfully to control the excavation and
accomplish the work to meet critical construction schedule deadlines. The
construction methodology employed appeared to he appropriate for the job, and
the project r:ever was at risk from the contractor's construction methods.
We regard Alder Construction Company as .' \\•«11 qualified general contractor
and Don Fryer a competent project manager. We do not hesitate to recommend
Clark County Sanitation
District
_Z_
October 16, 1989
them for the types of water and wastewater related public works projects they
have constructed for our clients.
Sincerely,
JAMES M. MONTGOMERY
Consulting Engineers, Inc.
Robert Mayers, P.E.
/kbt
cc: William Mahoney, CCSD
Marc Brown
Don Fryer
FrillhI,r Fnuu
Terco Pipe & Fabricating, Inc.
14907 TREICIiEL RD. P.O. DRAWER 400
TomRALL. TEXAS 77375
713-351-1008
October 13, 1989
Clark County Sanitation District
Board of Trustees
Ms. Karen Hayes, Chairman
5857 East Flamingo Road
Las Vegas, Nevada 89121
Attn: William Mahorney
Gentlemen:
I was recently contacted by Mr. Don Fryer of Alder Construction Co.
concerning a project his firm bid for work in your facilities. He
stated that you had concerns for his construction methods and asked,
k. as our firms have successfully completed several projects together
over the yeers, would I write a letter to you summing my experience
with Alder Construction Co.
Alder has been one of the top General Contractors in the Utah region
for decades. We, along with their competitors, are sometimes amazed
i'. how competetive their bids are. Given the fact that often their
,ids are low due to use of alternative construction methods, and they
emain extremely strong financially, one cannot argue with the fact
:hat they know what they're doing.
believe the secret to their success is in their engineering and
.ianagement. I have often been impressed with the thoroughness of
:heir deliberations before bid time and many times have been requested
:o redesign certain aspects of a project before the bid in order to be
note competetive and, ultimately, save the owner money with a Well
:onstructed project.
Another key factor in Alder's success has been the quality of their
field supervisors. mt. mice Alder, and his father Jack before him,
have employed extremely qualified supervisors. In many instances we
have been presented with pipe installation problems due to soils,
hazards, etc. and the solutions pro;noted by their field supervisors
have always worKed. Never have we failed and been required to
"re -think" the problem.
Alder is strong financiaily. They pay their bills promptly and
without argument. This is an oddity in the municipal construction
field and enables the= to get lower bids -4r -0m their—vendors.
Finally, if Mr. Fryer is convinced of his construction methods for
your project, he has proven those methods before. Often I have
disagreed with his ideas, but he has always proven me wrong.
If I may be of further assistance please call.
sincerely,
f;4 - i
Billy R. Terrell, President
Terco Pipe,& Fabricating, Inc.
BRT/rdb
J
Ted R. Brown and A s s (-) c i a t es
t 11 C. ManuJacl ure; s `Rerc.�enfafitiei
P. O. sw 1356
Tel: (801) 484-7241 1401A1,jtKSq.
FAX X01.467-SV 1 \ Salt Lae City. Utah 64110
October 12, 1989
CLARK COUNTN SANITATION DISTRICT
Chairperson of the Board of Trustees
5857 East Flamingo Road
Las Vegas, Nevada 89122
Attention: Ms. Karen Hayes
Reference: Aerated Grit & Secondary Treatment Plant Ordor Control
Oear Ms. Hayes:
in being one of the leading sales representative companies in Salt Lz!ke
City for the past 36 years, I would like to share with you our experiences
in working with Alder Construction.
in this mountain area it is common knowledge that Alder Construction has
the highest ethical standards in the business.
As a supplier, I feel confident In awing prices out early to them knowing
rely numbers w i I l be kept in strict cont idence. I t is also my experience
that after the bid, products are never "shopped" around or cheaper
substitutes used. As an Application Engineer I work closely with all of
the major engineer companies who manage these projects. Here again, it
is common knowledge about the quality of work Alder does in the fielcl
It is my expressed opinion that the Sanit2tlon District should be pleased
to have Alder instal l the above mentioned project and feel reassured about
the quality of work, management and engineering skills that Alder can
of t er.
fl
Please fine enclosed a coy of our line card showing some of the major
lines we carry. Also P1ease find the article that ran Ina local
construction magazine showcasing some of Alders major projects
If need be, please feel free to call. Thank you and good luck on your
project.
Regards,
TED R. BROWN &
ASSOC I ATES, INC.
SalesS. Pappas
S
ales & Application Engineer
JSP/lm
Enclosure