The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutAGENDA BACKUP 06-04-81 <C<SD Central Contra Costa Sanitary District BOARD OF DIRECTORS POSITION PAPER VIA: ROGER J. DOLAN General Manager-Chief Engineer SUBJECT NO. DATE APPROVAL OF 1981-1982 OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE BUDGET BUDGET APPROVAL SUBMITTED BY Walter N. Funasaki INITIATING DEPT./DIV. Accounting Division ISSUE: The 1981-1982 Operations and Maintenance Budget is scheduled for approval at the June 4, 1981 Board Meeting. BACKGROUND: The 1981-1982 Operations and Maintenance Budget was initially submitted for review and discussion at the May 28, 1981 Board Meeting. As a result of the review, revisions were made to the budget, as summarized below: Employee Benefits - Contra (213,256) Total Revisions Net Operations & Maintenance expenditures, as submitted on May 28, 1981 Net Operations & Maintenance expenditures, as revised Salaries & Wages Management Salaries & Wages - Non-Managament As Submitted 5/28/81 $ 512,638 6,189,511 Liability insurance 99,432 Sludge & Ash Removal 1,118,783 Claims Adjusting Services 4,050 Worker's Compensation 112,600 State Unemployment Insurance 6,702 Retirement Contribution 1,200,000 Deferred Compensation Contribution 395,048 Long Term Disability 50,135 Revised, 6/4/81 Increase (Decrease) Comments Due to wage increase provision Due to wage increase provision Reduction based on broker's estimate Remove effect of increased charges Due to increased rates and fees Due to increase in Salaries and wages Due to increase in Salaries and wages Due to reduction in contribution rates. Due to increase in Salaries and wages Due to increase in Salaries and wages Due to increase in Employee Benefits REVIEWED AND RECOMMENDED FOR BOARD ACTION '7d:~:'~. WN F : dw 535,707 6,468,027 23,069 278,516 91,000 (8,432) 1,016,783 (102,000) 7,050 3,000 112,840 240 7,004 302 1,150,000 (50,000) 418,800 23,752 58,212 8,077 9~989 1 86 , 51 3 (203,267) 16,626,016 $16~812,529 - 2 - Upon approval of the 1981-1982 Operations and Maintenance Budget, the Board of Directors will be required to establish the Environmental Quality Charge for 1981-1982, and authorize the transfer of sufficient funds from available reserves to balance expenditures. The establishment of the 1981-1982 EQC rate is scheduled for the June 18, 1981 Board Meeting. A preliminary computation of the effect of the 1981-1982 budget deficit on alternative levels of EQC rate increases for 1981- 1982 is attached. A more detailed computation will be provided for the June 18, 1981 Board Meeting. RECOMMENDATION: An adjourned meeting should be scheduled for the purpose of perform- ing a detailed- review of the 1981-1982 Operations and Maintenance Budget by the Board, or its Budget and Finance Committee, prior to adoption of the budget on June 18, 1981. CENTRAL CONTRA COSTA SANITARY DISTRICT PRELIMINARY EQC COMPUTATION FISCAL YEAR 1981-1982 1980-1981 Budget Projected 1981-1982 Budget Expenditures: Administration Engineering Collection Systems Operations Plant Operations Pump Stations $ 778,956 $ 898,319 $ 1,61 9,891 1,581,450 1,606,342 1,980,425 2,186,953 2,001,462 2,137,608 8,998,244 8,372,612 10,026,592 759,253 972,673 1,048,013 14,304,856 13,851,408 16,812,529 Projected or Budgeted Revenues: EQC Non-EQC 10,479,000 2,900,000 13,379,000 (925,856) 10,340,850 2,482,881 12,823,731 (1,046,696) (1) 10,687,588 2,839,700 13,527,288 (3,285,241) Projected or Budgeted Deficit RE Fund Reserves as of July 1, 1980 2,034,329 RE Fund Reserves as of July 1, 1981, projected (2,034,329- 1 ,046, 696) $ 98,484 105 987,633 101,787 EQC Equivalent Charge Units EQC Rate-Current EQC Rate Required with no application of Reserves % Increase EQC Rate Required with 50% of Reserves to Balance % Increase EQC Rate Required with 100% of Reserves to Balance % Increase $137 30.4 51}2 25.7 $128 21.9 (1) Computed at current EQC rate of $105 and $.87/HCF. Costa BOARD OF DIRECTORS NO. Co _ _ <t I POSITION PAPER VIA: ROGER J. DOLAN General Manager-Chief Engineer DATE' June 2, 1981 SUBJECT TYPE OF ACTION CONSIDER APPROVAL OR DISAPPROVAL OF THE DOS OSOS/ ALTA VISTA SEWER EXTENSION, PROJECT NO. 3481 PROJECT APPROVAL OR DISAPPROVAL Jay S. McCoy INITIATING DEPT./DIV. Engineering/Collection System SUBMITTED BY ISSUE: With the certification of the final EIR, the proposed sewer project on El Toyonal & Alta Vista Roads can now be considered for approval or disapproval. BACKGROUND: The proposed project consists of a sewer main extension of 1800 feet on El Toyonal and Alta Vista Roads to serve 3 undeveloped parcels. In addition, there are 20 adjacent parcels which could ultimately connect to this project sewer. Fifteen homes are presently on septic tank systems, with the remaining 5 lots being vacant. The public may appear before the Board to present their views. RECOMMENDATION: 1. Make a finding that changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated, into the project which mitigate or avoid the significant environmental effects thereof as identified in the final EIR. 2. Approve the project conditioned upon the proposed mitigations as outlined in the certified EIR. REVIEWED AND RECOMMENDED FOR BOARD ACTION ~~ Central Contra Costa Sanitary District BOARD OF DIRECTORS NO. POSITION PAPER VIA: ROGER J. DOLAN General Manager-Chief Engineer DATE 6-4-81 SUBJECT AWARD OF.CONTRACT FOR DISTRICT PROJECT 3000 - HEAD- QUARTERS OFFICE BUILDING AND AUTHORIZE $5,088,080 IN ADDITIONAL FUNDING FOR PROJECT COMPLETION. TYPE OF ACTION AWARD CONTRACT AND AUTHORIZE FUNDS SUBMITTED BY.J S M C ay . c oy INITIATING DEPT./DIV. Collection/Engineering System BACKGROUND: The Board on subject project at subsequently received ulation. authorized staff to proceed with advertising for bids the April 9, 1981 meeting. A total of 7 bids were on June 2, 1981, as summarized on the attached tab- The low bids of $4,560,000 (14 months completion) and $4,600,000 (12 months completion) were submitted by W.A. Thomas Company of Benicia. The bid for completion within 14 months is approximately 8.6% above the $4,200,000 estimate prepared by the Architect. A further analysis of the bids has been made with respect to the variation of the high and low bids from the mean of all bids as follows: low bid = $4,560,000 : 5.4% below mean mean = $4,807,843 high bid = $5,295,000 io% above mean Looking also at the fairly tight grouping of the lowest four bids (within $138,000), it appears that all contractors understood the project plans and specifications and that the low bid is not the result of an omission or error in preparation of the proposal. In view of the fact that the lowest bonafide bid exceeds the engineers' esti- mate, the District has the option of revising the Project scope and quality as required for subsequent rebidding to reduce the construction cost. Since a fixed limit of construction cost was not established as a condition of the District's agreement with the Architect, there would be a fee associated with the Architect's work to modify the plans and specifications. If factors such as the District's staff time involved with revising the project, in- flation, possible incr~ase in construction activity for contractors, the approach of wet weather and the detrimental impacts associated with longer use of trailer city are also considered, a decision to readvertise the same or a modified project is expected to have a detrimental affect on the current low bid amount. There is every indication that a higher bid would resu 1 t. Page I of 2 REVIEWED AND RECOMMENDED FOR BOARD ACTION NG. C~CLW CENTRA CONTRA COSTA Sj...~ITARY DISTRICT Headquarter.s Office Building JOB No. 3000 CCCSO LOCATION Treatment Plant DATE June 2, 1981 ENGR. EST $4,200,000 - B I DOE R NAME BID PR CE ADDRESS Item 1 Item 2 PHONE 14 mo. Completion 12 mo. Completio W. A. Thomas . ..... .i. ";.~ 175 Industrial Way Benecia, CA 94510 I!, 560,000 4,600,000 Engstrom-Norse-Stolte 1303 Underwood Dr. San Francisco, CA 94124 4,617,000 (Same) Dickman Builders 120 Pioneer ~/ay 4,642,000 4,679,000 Mt View, CA 94041 - The Geggatt Co. 470 F lakeside Dr. Sunnyvale, CA 94086 46g7.g00 No Bid Christenson-Foster P.O. Box 6445 San ta Rosa, CA 95406 4,910,000 5,020,000 Barnhardt Construction P.O. Box 149 Santa Clara, CA 95050 4,933,000 No Bid The Vassar Corp. 2975 Scott Blvd. Santa Clara, CA 95050 5,295,000 5,595,000 JOB CHKD.BY BY DATE: DATE-___ . SHEET NO._ OF -- Mackinlay Winnacker McNeil AlA & Associates Architects, Engineers, Planners, Incorporated 2333 Harrison, Oakland, California 94612 USA Tel. (415) 832 5242/Telex 336 456 MWM OAK 3 June 1981 Central Contra Costa Sanitary District P. O. Box 5266 Walnut Creek, California 94596 Attention: Roger Dolan, Chief Engineer and General Manager Subject: Headquarters Office Building Gentlemen: We have reviewed the results of yesterday's bid opening for the subject project. Of the seven bids received, six of them were within 8% of the low bid, four of them were within 3% of the low bid. This tight grouping indicates that the project was well understood by the bidders and that the low bid is not <;J wild anomaly. The bids would seem to confirm a project value of approximately $4.625 million. The engineering estimate of 4.2 was obviously low, perhaps because the last detailed estimate was performed before the final revisions and Addendum No. I were incorporated into the documents. The low bid is 8-1/2% over the estimate. MWM believes that any attempt to reduce this by rebidding would not achieve great savings without significant degrading of the building design criteria. If the District wishes to search for cost reductions through negotiation and change order with the awarded Contractor, MWM stands ready to participate in that effort. Our recommendation, however, is that the District accept the low bid for Bid Item No. I only and commence with construction immediately. The second low bidder, Engstrom and Nourse, completed our School of Optometry Building on the University of California Berkeley campus in 1978 and we have high regard for their ability and integrity. We have never had the low bidder, W. A. Thomas, as General Contractor on one of our jobs so I've made inquiries to both Owners and Architects of their recent projects at West Contra Costa Sanitary District (Administrative Building, Maintenance Facility and Treatment Plant Modifications), Port of Oakland (Airport Terminal Addition), Oakland Housing Authority (Public Housing Project Remodel) and the Ratcliff Architects (Rochdale Village Housing in Berkeley and Alameda Hospital Addition). Without exception, the responses have been positive--the projects have been performed on schedule, the quality of construction was acceptable, the superintendents were responsive and capable, the paperwork aspects were well done, the Contractor handled the subs and coordinated the work well. Ian Mackinlay FAIA, George S. Winnacker AlA, Murray C. McNeil FAIA, Eugene F. Gigoux PE., Robert M Wood AlA, Michael D. Thomas AlA, Anan H. Deal AlA, Richard S. Flood AlA, Lesley}. Thomson, Judy L Rowe AlA, Carlos R IIdeionso , ......:..;..;..:-:.:...,..;:.:.=.:~~..::;:.::.::.:.::~"::;.::;.;~:::~...~..:.::~:..'..;.:..:.:..."'~.:......:.:.:,~~-'.:.;.. BOARD OF DIRECTORS NO. VI. ENGINEERING - 1 6 4 81 POSITION PAPER VIA: ROGER J. DOLAN General Manager-Chief Engineer DATE 5-28-81 SUBJECT TYPE OF ACTION ACTION REGARDING THE REQUEST FROM THE ORINDA ASSOCIAT- ION FOR AN EIGHT MONTH S~WfR MORATORIUM 1M THE lAKE ORINDA HIGHLANDS AREA. Jay S. McCoy INITIATING DEPT.!DIV. Collection/Engineering SUBMITTED BY BACKGROUND: On April 10, 1981, the District received a letter from the Orinda Association in which they requested the District to defer action on sewer extensions in the lake Orinda Highlands area for a period not to exceed eight months. A series of letters followed and are attached. The key point in these letters is the opinion of District Counsel (letter dated May 6, 1981) that a sewer construction moratorium imposed on an isolated area would be illegal. RECOMMENDATION: Deny the request from the Orinda Association for an eight month sewer mora tor i um in the lake Or i nda High 1 ands area. Attachments REVIEWED AND RECOMMENDED FOR BOARD ACTION e~ Cl\.t Central Contra Costa BOARD OF DIRECTORS District NO.V. ~ONSENT67~7a~DAR POSITION PAPER VIA: ROGER J. DOLAN General Manager-Chief Engineer DATE SUBJECT ACCEPT GRANT OF TEMPORARY WORKING EASEMENT FROM DONALD G. WEST, ET UX, D.S.P. 2695, PARCEL 2 - WALNUT CREEK AREA, AT A COST OF $200.00 TO THE DISTRICT. June 1 1981 TYPE OF ACTION RIGHT OF WAY SUBMITTED BY Jay S. McCoy INITIATING DEPT./DIV. Collection/Engineerin S stem ISSUE: The subject easement is one of fourteen easements required for Job 2695. BACKGROUND: The District Board previously authorized staff to proceed with easement acquisition for this District Sewering Project. All easements must be obtained before sewer construction may begin. The subject easement is the tenth easement acquired for this job. RECOMMENDATION: Accept easement, authorize payment of $200.00 to grantor and authorize recording of said easement. REVIEWED AND RECOMMENDED FOR BOARD ACT/ON c~ CLW -----.--..--...------------.--.,---...-----.,,-.----..--,.,...._._._.,,_.._--_.._.__...._~..,..~,,----- ----_.._.~._~---,.__..--..---,,---,-~.._...._.,--_.~,.._.-._......._--,..~_.--. BOARD OF DIRECTORS NO. ft> - LJ -9/ POSITION PAPER VIA: ROGER J. DOLAN General Manager-Chief Engineer DATE SUBJECT CONSIDER STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS TO DENY D.W. YOUNG'S PROTEST REGARDING REJECTION OF ALL BIDS FOR DSP 3272 TYPE OF ACTION SUBMITTED BY Clark L. Weddle INITIATING DEPT./DIV. Engineering ISSUE: D.W. Young's protest to the Board of Directors for rejecting all bids for DSP 3272, Dechlorination Facilities Improvement, dated Feb, 24,1981. BACKGROUND: A chronological listing of events re D.W. Young's Protest on Project 3272, Dechlorination facil ity, is attached as Exhibit A. On March 19, 1981, a public hearing was held before the Board of Directors on D.W. Young Construction Company's protest to the Districts decision to reject all bids. Following this hearing the matter was referred to staff for conference with appropriate State and EPA staff and report back to the Board with a recommendation. On March 25, Mr. Jim Carniato, Mr. John Larson, and Dr. Clark Weddle met with Mr. Hal German of the State to discuss the basis for the Board's re- jection of all bids. At that time Mr. Carniato presented to Mr. German a letter documenting the District's position on this matter (see Exhibit B). Attempts were made to meet with the EPA to discuss this matter and to ob- tain advice on the proper procedures to follow. The EPA would not meet with the District's staff until "a recommendation was given by the State". On May 29, 1981, Mr. Roger Dolan, Mr. Jim Carniato, Mr. John Larson, and Dr. Clark Weddle met in Sacramento with members of the State Water Qual ity Control Board to again discuss the protest by D.W. Young Construction Co. regarding the Board decision to reject all bids, and the basis for this decision. It was explained to the State people our attempts to meet with the EPA and the Districts desire to obtain advice on the proper procedures to carry out so that we did not violate rules which could result in the State EPA grant funds being rejected. Several alternatives were considered by the State which all apparently hinged on the Board's decision of D.W. Young's protest of rejecting all bids. It was explained to the State that the District has had their engineer revise the plans and specifications to conform with changed conditions and new regulations enacted since the original plans and speci- fications were approved by the State. The District's desire to re-advert- ise the project, award a contract, and get the construction work completed was emphasized. REVIEWED AND RECOMMENDED FOR BOARD ACTION INITIATING DEPT./DIV. ~~.~ Page 2 of 2 RECOMMENDATION: Based on a review of the background of the Dechlorination Facilities Improvements Project, the public hearing, legal considerations, and discussions with the State and EPA, the staff recommends that D.W. Young's protest of 2/24/81 be rejected and the Board of Directors authorize District staff to re-advertise for bids for DSP 3272 as soon as possible. Ex CHRONOLOGICAL LISTING OF EVENTS RE D. W. YOUNG PROTEST ON PROJECT 3272, DECHLORINATION FACILITY 1. August 7, 1980: Bids were submitted to Central Contra Costa Sani- tary District for Project No. 3272. Apparent low bidder was the C. W. Roen Construction Company. 2. August 20, 1980: D. W. Young Construction Company, Inc., apparent third low bidder, formally protested the intent of District to award the dechlorination facility improvement project to C. W. Roen Construc- tion Company or Pacific Mechanical Corporation, the second low bidder. The protest was based essentially on the allegations that the low bidder, or bidders, failed to comply with Clean Water Grant Bulletin 77-A. 3. Letters were received by the respective parties on August 26,1980, September 3, 1980, September 12, 1980, September 18, 1980 and Septem- 26, 1980. 4. On September 24, 1980, District Counsel's office corresponded to all interested parties regarding D. W. Young Construction Company's protest and advising all parties of a hearing to be held on October 2, 1980. This letter set forth the procedure in compliance with Federal guidelines and the Board's hearing was recorded consistent with Federal and State procedures. 5. On October 2, 1980, the Board of Directors of the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District, after considering all evidence presented, announced their intention to award the contract to C. W. Roen Com- pany. 6. On or about January 23, 1981, a decision issued from the E.P.A. ruling in effect that C. W. Roen Company did not comply with Clean Water Grants Bulletin 77-A. ~ 7. On February 12, 1981, the Board of Directors of the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District rejected all bids. 8. On February 19, 1981, D. W. Young Construction Company protested the District's action to reject all bids. 9. On March 19, 1981, a hearing was held, after appropriate notice, before the Board of Directors on D.W. Young Construction Company's protest to the District's decision to reject all bids. Following that hearing the matter was referred to staff for confer- ence with appropriate State and E.P.A. staff and a report back to the Board with a recommendation. LAW OFFICES CARNIATO & DODGE , L ..-r,r" Hal German March 25, 1981 Page 2 With regard to the appropriate Environmental Protection Agency regulations, 40 CFR ~35-938-4(h) (2) provides that the grantee may reserve the right to reject all bids. The E.P.A. requires a showing of good cause for such action utilizing certain cri- teria. One of the criteria found to be good cause for rejection of all bids is that the needs of the grantee have changed and the change cannot be imposed upon bidders consistent with appli- cable procurement requirements. Since the date of the original bid, the CCCSD has made the following changes in the scope of work: (a) A new 4" sulphur dioxide vacuum. line has been in- stalled and it will have to be extended and connected to the building under this contract; (b) A new electrical conduit has been added eliminat- ing the need for the contractor to provide temporary power, ex- cavate the buried pole boxes and replace the wire in the exist- ing conduits; (c) Part of the grading has been completed reducing the import of fill required by the contractor. My information derived from the District's Engineering Depart- ment regarding relative cost values to the above changes indi- cates that those changes would constitute a "change in scope of work." It was my advice to the Board of Directors of the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District that an attempt to let the contract and thereafter to renegotiate the changes would be a violation of applicable California law and that the project must in fact be rebid. There is one other peripheral issue which I believe should at least be briefly discussed in considering both the District's rejection of all bids and Mr. Young's protest of that action. Presumably if the District had not rejected all bids, it would have been forced to either let the contract to the second low bidder or, as Mr. Young would obviously prefer, to himself as third low bidder. . --_.----._~,-~-_.._._-- ..~._--_._....._..__._..- ------------..-.-- _._.~-------_._-_._~._------_.._,._--- .-. -......- -'-'-~-- --.- '.- _..._._._-...;.;....,-~... -"-- ...-.-- LAW OFFICES CARNIATO & DODGE f' I Hal German March 25, 1981 Page 3 In my opinion, there is a substantial question as to not only whether Mr. Young met the specifications as outlined by the District with regard to MBE requirements, but also whether that bid as submitted meets the applicable standards of infor- mation required by the California Subletting and Subcontract- ing Fair Practices Act and also the informational standards required by Clean Water Grant Bulletin 77-A. Mr. Young's sole listing under BD-5 of his proposal shows under "Name", IIFrank Mock II , underllLocation of Businessll, IIS.F.II and under "Portion or Type of Workll, IICivil and Buildingll and closes with the ini- tials uMBEII. I believe that it is at least questionable whether that listing satisfies the requirements for description of the portion of the work to be done by subcontractors pursuant to the Califor- nia Government Code and inferentially by 77-A.: / ~ J ~ ounsel, Central Contra ~~ osta Sanitary District JJC/pv :. .,. -.-.-......-"..-..-.--....-.-------:.......-.--. ...---.- ~- _.._-_.._-~--_._.._. --'- .-..._--~~.- .- "_.- I BOARD OF DIRECTORS NO. POSITION PAPER VIA: ROGER J. DOLAN General Manager-Chief Engineer DATE 6-4-81 SUBJECT AWARD OF CONTRACT FOR DISTRICT PROJECT 3000 - HEAD- QUARTERS OFFICE BUILDING AND AUTHORIZE $5,088,080 IN ADDITIONAL FUNDING FOR PROJECT COMPLETION. TYPE OF ACTION AWARD CONTRACT AND AUTHORIZE FUNDS SUBMITTED BY.J S M C ay . c oy INITIATING DEPT./DIV. Collection/Engineering System BACKGROUND: The Board on subject project at subsequently received ulation. authorized staff to proceed with advertising for bids the April 9, 1981 meeting. A total of 7 bids were on June 2, 1981, as summarized on the attached tab- The low bids of $4,560,000 (14 months completion) and $4,600,000 (12 months completion) were submitted by W.A. Thomas Company of Benicia. The bid for completion within 14 months is approximately 8.6% above the $4,200,000 estimate prepared by the Architect. A further analysis of the bids has been made with respect to the variation of the high and low bids from the mean of all bids as follows: low bid = $4,560,000 : 5.4% below mean mean = $4,807,843 high bid = $5,295,000 10% above mean Looking also at the faitly tight grouping of the lowest four bids (within $138,000), it appears that all contractors understood the project plans and specifications and that the low bid is not the result of an omission or error in preparation of the proposal. In view of the fact that the lowest bonafide bid exceeds the engineers' esti- mate, the District has the option of revising the Project scope and quality as required for subsequent rebidding to reduce the construction cost. Since a fixed limit of construction cost was not establ ished as a condition of the District's agreement with the Architect, there would be a fee associated with the Architect's work to modify the plans and specifications. If factors such as the District's staff time involved with revising the project, in- flation, possible incr~ase in construction activity for contractors, the approach of wet weather and the detrimental impacts associated with longer use of trailer city are also considered, a decision to readvertise the same or a modified project is expected to have a detrimental affect on the current low bid amount. There is every indication that a higher bid would resu 1 t. Page 1 of 2 REVIEWED AND RECOMMENDED FOR BOARD ACTION JSM ~~CLW Page 2 of 2 Another option available to reduce the project costs would be to consider deductive change orders for any contract items that can be modified or eliminated without seriously affecting the overall quality or design of the building. Although every effort was made to provide an economical building design, the contractor may be able to provide information on certain items where a less expensive substitute could be considered. This action could proceed concurrent with the construction to avoid any delay in project completion. The Architect has contacted various references provided by the W.A. Thomas Company to determine the type of performance these agencies have experienced in working with this contractor. As outlined in the attached evaluation from Mackinley Winnacker and McNeil, all responses were highly favorable. The contractor's project supervision, control of subcontractors and ability to complete the project on time were considered excellent according to the Architects information. A decision is required as to whether bid item 1 or 2, regarding the time of construction, should be selected. Consideration should be given to whether there would be any significant benefit to the District in select- ing the 12 month completion period for an additional $40,000 expense. In recognition of the IINo Bid" submitted by two of the bidders for early completion, there appears to be some question as to whether the project can be completed in 12 months. Without an overriding need to complete the project in the shortest possible time, there does not appear to be ample justification for paying an additional $40,000, in addition to possibly confronting the legal expenses involved with failure to complete the project in 12 months. A postbid - preconstruct ion estimate of costs is attached. Total project costs have been estimated at $5,564,080, using the bid associated with the 12 month completion period. Of this amount, $432,000 has been pre- viously authorized, thereby requiring $5,132,000 in additional funds to complete the project. Slightly less funding ($44,000) would be required if the 14 month completion period is selected, due mainly to the reduced construction cost. RECOMMENDATION: Award contract to W.A. Thomas Company for bid item 1 (14 month completion) and authorize $5,088,080 in additional funding for project completion. ~"_"__"__..___....____._...._,_.__..______u,.."..~_..___._."..__.__"....__"._",,"".._..,____"___~,______,_,~___._.>______._..~__._~. CENTRAL CONTRA COSTA SA~~ITARY DISTRICT Headquarters Office Building JOB No. 3000 CCCSD LOCATION Treatment Plant DATE June 2, 1981 ENGR. EST $4,200,000 ~ BIDDER NAME BID PR CE ADDRESS Item 1 Item 2 PHONE 14 mo. Comp 1 et i on 12 mo. Comp 1 e t i 01 W. A. Thomas" .. -. ~., 175 Industrial Way Benecia, CA 94510 L, , 560 , 000 4,600,000 Engstrom-Norse-Stolte 1303 Underwood Dr. San Francisco, CA 94124 4,617,000 (Same) Dickman Builders 120 Pioneer Way 4,642,000 4,679,000 Mt View, CA 94041 The Geggatt Co. 470 F lakeside Dr. Sunnyvale, CA 94086 4,697,900 No Bid Christenson-Foster P.O. Box 6445 San ta Rosa, CA 95406 4,910,000 5,020,000 Barnhardt Construction P.O. Box 149 Santa Clara, CA 95050 4,933,000 No Bid The Vassar Corp. 2975 Scott Blvd. Santa Clara, CA 95050 5,295,000 5,595,000 JOB CHKD.BY BY DATE: DATE____ , SHEET NO._ OF 10. 6/4/81 POST BID - PRECONSTRUCTlON ESTIMATE OF COSTS FOR DISTRICT SDlIMfm PROJECT 3000 ITEM DESCRIPTION ITEM AMOUNT 1. Construction Contract (As Bid) . (j t em . 2 ) . . . . . . 2. Estimated Construction Contingencies 3. Estimated.ConstructiDn Incidentals to Project Completion$ lestlng Services. . . . . . . . . . . Survey. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ Inspection /~ol)s~ru.ct.io':l ~glT!t .(5~) . $ Engineering Arc;:hi.te.ct. &.Mtsc.. . $ Total Estimated Construction Incidentals 4. Street Resurfacing or Seal Coat . . . . . . . . . . $ 5. Total Estimate Required to Complete Project 6. Pre Bid Expenditures Survey, Engineering, Printing, Advertising Special Services Right-ot-Way Acquisition. . 40.000 t;jOOO 230.000 65.000 .$ 340.000 . $394.080 . $ 0 . $ 0 7. Total Preconstruct ion Incidentals (as of 4/81 ). . $394.080 8. Total Estimated Project Cost (Items 5 & 7) 9. Funds Previously Authorized Total Additional Funds Required to Complete Project. (Item 8 minus Item 9) . . . . . . . $ TOTAL . $ 4.600.000 . . . $ 230.000 $ 340.000 N/A . $ 5.170.000 $ 394.080 . $ 5.564.080 432.000 % CONST. CONTRACT 5% 7.4% 112,4% 8.6% 121% .$5.132.080 (item 2) ( 5.088.080 item 1) 2050-8-78 c((SD Central Contra Costa Sanitary District BOARD OF DIRECTORS NO. POSITION PAPER VIA: ROGER J. DOLAN General Manager-Chief Engineer DATE June 2,1981 SUBJECT TYPE OF ACTION APPROVAL OF 1981-1982 EQUIPMENT BUDGET Budget Approval SUBMITTED BY Walter N. Funasaki, Finance Officer INITIATING DEPT./DIV. Accounting Division ISSUE: The 1981-1982 Equipment Budget was submitted for review and discussion at the May 28, 1981 Board Meeting. The Equipment Budget is scheduled for approval at the June 4, 1981 Board Meeting. BACKGROUND: As a result of the review and discussion at the May 28, 1981 Board Meeting, the following deletions were made to the Equip. Requests which were originally submitted in the amount of $186,035: Reference to future specific approval for new Financial Management Information System - Administration/Accounting. $-- Reference to future specific approval for new Microfilm Filing System - Administration/Personnel $-- One Hewlett Packard Programmable Calculator - Engineering/Collection System Engineering & Services $1,040 Two Typing Desk Paper Holders - Engineering/Construction $ 100 Two Bulletin Boards - Engineering/Construction One Power Factor Meter - Plant Operations $ 150 $ 800 $ 110 $2,200 One Desk Calculator - Plant Operations The revised 1981-1982 Equip. Requests totaling $183,835 are submitted for approval herewith under separate cover. RECOMMENDATION: The 1981-1982 Equipment Budget, comprised of Equipment Requests of $183,835 and a 10% contingency, and totaling $202,335 is recommended for approva 1. REVIEWED AND RECOMMENDED FOR BOARD ACTION Costa San BOARD OF DIRECTORS NO. VIA: ROGER J. DOLAN General Manager-Chief Engineer DATE SUBJECT POSITION PAPER SUBMITTED BY June 2, 1981 TYPE OF ACTION CERTIFICATION OF THE FINAL EIR FOR THE DOS OSOS/ALTA VISTA SEWER LINE EXTENSION ' CERTIFICATION OF THE FINAL EIR Ja S stem ISSUE: The final EIR for the subject property has been prepared. BACKGROUND: On Feb. 9, 1981, a public hearing was held on this project. At that time, members of the publ ic and the Alta Vista/ Dos Osos Association presented both oral and written comments on the sufficiency of the draft EIR. Because of the evidence supplied which indicated insufficient public input into the report, an amended draft EIR was required. This amended Draft EIR (April, 1981) was reviewed by the Board on April 23, 1981. All comments received on the amended draft during the subsequent review period have been reviewed and responded to in the "Addendum of Comments and Responses". The major concerns and mitigations and/or comments are as follows: 1. In response to concerns regarding soil instabili~y, the consultant is recommending preparation of a geologic report with recommendations to be implemented in the design of the sewer, trench inspection by a soils engineer and erosion control practices to be implemented in the rainy season. 2. AlsoJ in response to soil instabil ity concernsJthe warranty period for trenching and paving work has been increased from the normal one year period to a total of five years from the acceptance date. This warranty covers all trench areas plus any repairs on the roadway surface due to construction equip- ment. 3. In response to traffic delays due to road closures during construction, the consultant has recommended a maximum delay of ten minutes or 5 cars be allowed. 4. Supplemental figures S-l, and S-2 have been provided to show the following information: 1) Existing road blockages on Alta Vista and Camino Del Monte. REVIEWED AND RECOMMENDED FOR BOARD ACTION Page 1 of 2 INITIATING, D~DIV. q/ll 1- JSM ~~ CLW Page 2 of 2 2) Lands1 ide locations on the proposed route (A). 3) The 5 undeveloped lots adjacent to the proposed sewer line ( in addition to project sponser's 3 lots). 4) The 17 developable lots in the upstream watershed which could connect to the project sewer with future main extensions. In summary, staff considers that comments received on the Draft EIR have been responded to satisfactorily and that the Final EIR has been completed in accordance with CEQA guidelines. The Final EIR consists of the Draft EIR plus an addendum titled "Addendum of Comments and Responses - Final Envi ronmenta1 Impact Report". RECOMMENDATIONS: 1. Make findings that the Final EIR is in order, and that changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the project which mitigate or avoid the significant environmental effects thereof as indentified in the final EIR. 2. Certify that the Final EIR has been completed in compliance with the Ca1 ifornia Environmental Quality Act and the State Guidelines and that the Board has reviewed and considered the information con- tained in the EIR. BOARD OF DIRECTORS AUTHORIZATION FOR P.A. 81-12 (CONCORD AREA) TO BE INCLUDED IN A FUTURE FORMAL ANNEXATION TO THE DISTRICT. POSITION PAPER VIA: ROGER J. DOLAN General Manager-Chief Engineer SUBJECT NO. DATE 3 6-1-81 6/4/81 TYPE OF ACTION ANNEXATION SUBMITTED BY Jay S. McCoy INITIATING DEPT./9IV. COllection/Engineering System Parcel No Area Owner Address Parcel No. & Acreage 81-12 Memory Gardens of Contra Costa, Inc. P.O. Box 5756 Concord, CA 94524 159-080-027 4.84 Acres Concord Rema rks Lead Agency The property owners are developing the remainder of their property. District staff has requested the owners to peti- tion for annexation of the subject pro- perty to eliminate a future island. District to prepare "Not i ce of Exempt i on'.1 CCCSD RECOMMENDATION: Authorize P.A. 81-12 to be included in the next formal annexation to the District. REVIEWED AND RECOMMENDED FOR BOARD ACTION JSM ~~ CLW G. ((sD Central Contra Costa Sanitary District BOARD OF DIRECTORS NO. IV. Bids & Awards-la b 6/4/81 POSITION PAPER VIA: ROGER J. DOLAN General Manager-Chief Engineer DATE SUBJECT BID ACCEPTANCE FOR SUPPLYING AN AERATION BLOWER AND ELECTRIC MOTOR ASSEMBLY FOR THE STAGE 5B-I PROJECT Ma 26, 1981 TYPE OF ACTION SUBMITT~.o BY . lUrtlS Swanson, Associate Engineer INITIA;l:ING D.ER,T.!,.QIV.. t ~peclal rroJec s Engineering BAC KGROUND: On February 13, 1981, the Board authorized solicitation of bids for prepurchase of an aeration blower and electric motor assembly for the District Water Reclamation Plant. The aeration blower is part of the Stage 5B-I plant expansion project. Requests for bids were published in the Contra Costa Times, San Francisco Chronicle, and Daily Pacific Builder. Specifications were sent to three prospective bidders. One bid was received and opened on April 21, 1981. The price from the only bidder, Dresser Industries, was $597,341. The engineer1s cost estimate for the blower assembly was $575,700 (see attached tabulation). The bid has been reviewed by District staff, and all outstanding bid issues have been resolved. The bid price, although slightly greater than the engineer1s estimate, is reasonable. The State Water Resources Control Board has conceptually approved instal- lation of the aeration blower as part of the Stage 5B-I project. However, a grant for this project has not yet been awarded. The District received approval from the State Water Resources Control Board to prepurchase the blower and electric motor assembly on February 23,1981. This approval will allow reimbursement of the cost of the assembly if a grant is awarded for construction of the Stage 5B-l project. The Board should be aware that State Water Resources Control Board prepurchase approval does not guarantee funding. If State Water Resources Control Board does not award a construc- tion grant, the District must pay for the entire cost of the blower and electric motor assembly. RECOMMENDATION: Accept the bid from Dresser Industries for supplying the aeration blower and motor assembly for $597,341. Authorize the General Manager-Chief Engineer to issue a purchase order. Authorize the expenditure of sewer construction funds for this purchase order. Attachment: Bid Tabulation REVIEWED AND RECOMMENDED FOR BOARD ACTION I NIT(}j...;:;T .!DIV 'cws UAt-JAL e CLW CENTRAL CONTRA COSTA SANITARY DISTRICT ELECTRIC MOTOR AND BLOWER ASSEMBLY CONTRACT GRANT NO. C-06-1000-210 BID TABULATION ITEM ENGINEERS DRESSER ESTIMATE INDUSTRIES El ectric Motor and Blower Assembly $498,000 $531 ,400 On-site Services(l) 20,400 20,400 Sales Tax(2) 32,300 34,541 Freight 25,000 11,000 Tota 1 $575,700 $597,341 (1) Not originally included in Engineers Estimate (2) 6 1/2%