Loading...
12. Bids Sports Court/Tennis Lighting UpgradeCUPERTIN~ PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT Summary AGENDA ITEM ~ ~- AGENDA DATE October 7, 2008 SUBJECT AND ISSUE Reject all bids received for the Sports Court/Tennis Lighting Upgrade Project at the Sports Center and authorize the Public Works Director to re-bid the project. without the restroom component or the tennis light upgrade. . BACKGROUND Report of Bids Received On October 25, 2008 the city received bids from three contractors for this project. All bids exceeded the Engineer's Estimate as follows: Bidder Base Bid Difference ESR Construction ICC Contractors, Tnc. Robert A. Bothman,Inc Engineer's Estimate $ 844,000.00 5$% $ 842,000.00 57% $ 736,472.00 37% $ 535,500.00 The bids are well above the engineer's estimate and the project total including the law bid exceeds the project budget by a significant amount. Staff and the City's design consultant discussed the bids and unit costs with representatives of all three bidders. There seemed to be two main issues that caused the deviation from the estimate. First of all, all the bidders indicated that while each of the project tasks are not especially difficult, the combination and the very tight site constraints, along with the requirement to maintain full operation capacity in the tennis courts, and with the resulting need to maintain a clean operation on adjacent courts and walkways, added considerable difficulty and cost to the construction. Additionally, the cost of the restrooms was considerably higher than expected. To a lesser extent, the uncertainty around the highly volatile credit markets, upon which many contractors depend for cash flow during construction, caused them to increase their bids to hedge against this uncertainly. 12-1 The Project Budget as contained in the adopted FY 2008-2009 Capital Improvement Program is the following: 420-9236 Tennis Court Lighting $ 250,000 570-9231 Sports Court and Pool Demo 500,000 Total Combined Project $ 750,000 The total current costs estimated for the project are as follows: Engineering Services $ 133,500 Construction 536,500 Construction Contingency 80.000 Total Combined Project $ 750,000 However, if the project were to proceed with the award to the low bidder, Robert A. Bothman, Inc. the project costs would be as follows: Engineering Services $ 133,500 Construction (Bothman Low Bid) 737,000 Construction Contingency (15%) 110,000 Total Combined Project $ 980,500 To proceed with the project under this scenario would require the appropriation of an additional $230,500 to fully fund the project costs. PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION ALTERNATIVES i .Increase the Budget -Award Contract to Low Bidder This approach would be to take advantage of the bids received and maintain the project schedule. However, it would also require an increase in the project budget by an appropriation of $230,500 from the General Fund ~ Reserve or other source not yet identif ed. 2. Reiect all bids -Redesign to current budget -Rebid the Project The two major items of cost increase in the bids is the addition of two- restrooms at the sports court and a higher than expected cost for the tennis lighting upgrade. In the current low bid, these items represent a cost of over $200,000. The restrooms are not required by code but were included in the project as a convenience. While perhaps less convenient, there are ample restroom facilities in the adjacent Sports Center building. The 12 tennis courts scheduled for the lighting upgrade are already lighted, but at a recreational instead of a competition level. ~z-z Under this alternative, Staff would propose to remove the restrooms from the scope of the project and re-bid it in November 2008. This, along with some other minor adjustments relating to schedule, should result in a bid that would be less than Alternative 1 but still not within the current budget. - The only difficulty with this approach would be that the delay in. re-bidding the project under his scenario could create conflicts with the Tennis Court Lighting portion .since the heavy usage of the tennis courts occurs from March to November. Some very careful coordination conditions would need to be included in the re-bid package and the cooperation of the tennis club operator and patrons would be essential to ensure a timely and cost effective completion. 3 R~ect all Bids -Defer Tennis Lighting - Re-bid Sports Court without Bathrooms This alternative would allow the Sports Court and Pool Demo portion of the project to proceed without alteration for well under the $750,000 budget as the sports court is not time sensitive to customer usage and to defer the Tennis Lighting to FY 2009-2010 whew it was originally budgeted However, in the interim, this project would include changing out all the lamps for more energy efficient lamps and either cleaning or replacing the lenses on the lamps which will provide some improvement in the lighting, though not to a competitive standard as originally proposed. However, the tennis community, who have been anticipating that this lighting work would be completed this fiscal year will be disappointed and will face the uncertainty of a budget decision in June as to whether the project will proceed at all. The Tennis Court Lighting project, if bid separately following the June budget decisions, would require a budget allocation of at least $450,000 at that time to proceed with construction, due to the increased cost identified by the low bid as well as redesign and escalation or other unknowns. The following Table is a comparison of the cost implications of each alternative: Alt No. 1 Low Bid Alt. No. 2 no bathrooms w/li it upgrade Alt. No 3 no bathrooms Lamy changes Engr. Svcs , $ 133,500 $ 145,000 $ 145,000 Construction 737,000 550,000 340,400 Contingency 110 000 85,000 55,000 Total $ 980,500 ~ $ 780,000 $ 540,000 12-3 CONCLUSION When all the above options are considered with their respective pros and cons, Staff believes that the most prudent course of action would be to pursue the project under alternative number 3, i.e., reject all bids, redo the bid package without the restrooms or the tennis light upgrade but include change-out of lamps to energy efficient lamps and re- bid the projec# in November 2Q08. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Reject all bids received for the Sports Court/Tennis Lighting Upgrade Project at the Sports Center and authorize the Public Works Director to re-bid the project without the restroom component or the tennis light upgrade. Submitted by: `72..,~ (:~-mil R.a1ph A: Qualls, Jr. Director of Public Works Approved for submission: David W. Knapp City Manager 12-4 EXHIBITS BEGIN HERE T-lea-n #~ l ~- CC Ie~?l0~ Cupertino Tennis Club October 3, 2008 Edward Hirshfield Cupertino City Council Attention: Dolly Sandoval, Omn Mahoney Kris Wang Gilbert Wong Mark Santoro Subject: Sports Court/Lighting Upgrade Project, Agenda Item 12 for October 7, 2008 Honorable City Council Members, We, the Cupertino Tennis Club have reviewed the Staff Report created by the Publics Works Department and offer the following comments: 1. We thank the Public Works Department, Parks and Recreation Department and the City Council for all the hard work committed to the project up to this point. 2. We would be happy if the city could find its way clear to fund the project as proposed. But, if not: 3. It is not surprising that the bids came: in over the budget estimate because that estimate was made 3 years ago and there has been, significant inflation of construction costs since the intervening time. 4. We do not agree that the best course of action for the city is a complete re-bid of the subject project because: a: According to the public Works department, a complete re-bid could take an undisclosed number of months, and in that time costs could perhaps escalate to erase any saving=~ resulting from re-bidding. b. Re-bidding could also delay the project into the new fiscal year and we fear that unforeseen events could delay or completely remove the project from the City's agenda 5. We do agree that removing the rest room would not decrease value of the project to the city. 6. We note, not doing anything cause; the court lighting to remain significantly below the standard for recreational play set by the USTA. This is a health and safety hazard; especially to senior citizens like myself and many other Sports Center members. Leaving the court lighting unimproved is not good. 7. We believe that Public Works should ask the bidders fora "Best and Final offer" and be allotted 1 week to: a. Redline the current version of the specification and Statement of Work to delete the rest rooms and a~lother week to obtain these best and final offers against that redlined specification. This is common practice in U.S. Government contracting. b. The amendments could be detailed as follows: ---- i. Remove-the-lRestr-ooms. -- ii. Frontload the payment schedule to prevent cost escalation due to unlciiown interest expense by the contractor selected. iii. Remove or amend the requirement to keep more than 6 courts open during reconstruction. (The Tennis Club will work with the Parks and Recreation department to define a court availability solution that works best for League play, the need of the general CSC membership, and the contractor.) 3. We do not tlunk that any of the other alternatives offered make sense. There are hundreds of advocates within the community for improved lighting as we have testified many times in the past. Removing and replacing the pool with a general purpose court may be perceived as necessary to eliminate an eyesore and utilize city property more effectively. The priority, however, is clearly to renovate the lights. 9. Notwithstanding all of the above, we strongly advocate. that the "Add Alternate #1" already in the RFP because it is necessary to bring the lighting to the standard Parks and Recreation and Public Works agreed on at the beguuung of the project. The USTA defines lighting as "Excellent," "Very Good", "Good" and "Fair".The basic RFP calls for Standards close to "Good", but Parks and Recreation requested "Very Good" which is close to the "Add Alternate #1"performance. If we are going to do this project, «~e should do it right. The ~$26K additional cost is not large compared to the cost of the entire project; and it is important. So, we strongly support the city and hope that the Sorts Center Court/Tennis Lighting project proceeds now. We think delay is dangerous to the eventual outcome and hope that the Council can find the ftu~ds and the way to make it work. Edward Hirshfield Conununity Relations Cupertino Teimis Club ~~~1'~ ~ln sr.~ e~z.-f-z~ Te Greene From: Terry Greene Sent: - Monday, October 06, 2008 11:56 f~M To: Mark Linder - Cc: cGarthy; Carme aught Sammy Fernandez (sfernand@amceinc.com); Ralph Qualls Subject: Hirshfield letter 10.3.08 Hirshfield Itr 0.3,08 to Coun. Mark, the following is a point by point resp~~nse to Mr. Hirshfield's letter (attached) to the City Council regarding the Tennis Court Lighting project on the October 7th agenda. I notice that you did not receive a copy of his letter so I've attached it as a pdf for your review. 1. Mr. Hirshfield says the "estimate was made 3 years ago"... He is blatantly incorrect. The CIP, adopted by Council in June 2006, authorized $50,000 for design fn FY 06/07 and $200,000 for construction in FY 08/09. During the FY 07/08 CIP di~:cussions, Council agreed to move the $200,000 up to FY 07/08 with Ralph's encouragement. An estimate of $190,000 for construction, without tf~e Add Alternate, was prepared by the design consultant in July 2008. The PW "budget" for construction was $185,000 and deemed sufficiently close for the purposes of bidding. 2. Public Works can re-bid the combined projects after minor changes to the bid documents. The project must be advertised for 30 calendar days to comply with the Public Contract Code due to its value. It is estimated that new bids could be opened on December 4th and considered by Council on December 16th. If the meeting on December 16th is cancelled, as is often the case, the next available date would be January 6th. 3. Re-bidding the project as outlined with the alternatives presented in the Staff Report, will not result in delay of the project into the next fiscal year. 4. Yes, the court lighting levels are below the U~TA standards that Mr. Hirshfield initially wanted.... those standards were not used in establishing the light level at the beginning of the project. The design engineer used the Illuminating Engineering Society of North America (IESNA) standards with Mr. Hirshfield's concurrence. 5. At no time during the many project meetings that Mr. Hirshfield attended did he or anyone else suggest that the existing lighting levels constituted e~ health or safety risk. 5, We don't believe the City of Cupertino can use the "Best and Final" option that Mr. Hirshfield states is commonly used at the Federal level. We believe the City must comply with the California Public Contract Code and that particular feature is not offered in the code to our knowledge. Attorney- Mark Hines, acting on behalf of Chuck Kilian, is researching this and will have a response prior to the meeting. 7. Public Works did not agree, as stated by Mr. Hirshfield, that Add Alternate No. 1 was necessary.. We agreed with trying to achieve the IESNA standard of Class IV of 50 (min 40) foot candles per square foot or possibly Class III of 60 (min 50) foot candles per square foot. Class IV is considered suitable for recreation play and Class III is considered suitable for competition play with spectators. Using some interpretation of the IESNA standards, it seems clear that light levels greater than 60 foot candles per square foot are necessary only to enable or improve spectator viewing. Only court No. 1 has spectator seating and those light levels have been designed to be increased to the range of 42 -95 foot candles, with an average of 74. Of the remaining 12 courts, 1 court is not used for tennis play. The remaining it courts do not have any spectator seating beyond a few chairs, nor do they comply with fire department exiting requirements if formal spectator play is contemplated. It is unfortunate that Mr. Hirshfield has chosen to misstate the facts of this project to such an extent. Thanks, Terry W. Greene, AIA City Architect City of Cupertino 10300 Torre Ave Cupertino, California 95014 650 799 1837 (cell) 408 777 3248 or 408 777 3354 408 777 3333 (fax) terryg@cupertino.org 2 rt~rn -~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~,-~~~. ~ ~`~ Qom- ~ ____~