HomeMy WebLinkAboutEngineering & Operations MINUTES 03-23-23 (Special)Page 2 of 18
LCENTRAL SAN
BOARD OF DIRECTORS:
SPECIAL MEETING OF THE BARBARA D. HOCKETT
CENTRAL CONTRA COSTA President
SANITARY DISTRICT MARIAHNLPresidennttPPro EN
ro Tem
ENGINEERING & OPERATIONS MICHAEL R. MCGILL
COMMITTEE TAD J. P
DIVISION 3_ VACANT
MINUTES PHONE: (925) 228-9500
FAX: (925) 372-0192
Monday, March 23, 2023 1N1N1N.Centralsan.org
3:00 p.m.
Committee:
Chair Tad Pilecki
Member Mike McGill
Guests:
Rafael Lapizco, Pac Shield Roof Services, Inc. (left after Item 3.a.)
Rafael Lapizco Jr., Pac Shield Roof Services, Inc. (left after Item 3.a.)
Amber Hoiska, Pac Shield Roof Services, Inc. (left after Item 3.a.)
Matthew J. Weber, Legal Counsel for Pac Shield Roof Services, Inc. (left after Item 3.a.)
Pete Estrada, Soprema (left after Item 3. a.)
Steven Copeland, Legal Counsel for Roofing and Solar Construction, Inc. (left after Item 3.a.)
Cassy Fabiani, Roofing and Solar Construction, Inc. (left after Item 3.a.)
Phyllis Wesson, Roofing and Solar Construction, Inc. (left after Item 3.a.)
Kyle Lattanizio, Garland (left after Item 3. a.)
Staff.-
Roger S. Bailey, General Manager
Kenton L. Alm, District Counsel
Katie Young, Secretary of the District
Danea Gemmell, Provisional Director of Engineering and Technical Services
Philip Leiber, Director of Finance and Administration
Paul Seitz, Provisional Director of Operations
Edgar Lopez, Capital Projects Division Manager
Craig Mizutani, Senior Engineer
Nathan Hodges, Senior Engineer (left after Item 3.a.)
Mark Wenslawski, Associate Engineer
Nancy Molina, Associate Engineer
Stacey Durocher, Admimistrative Services Assistant
April 6, 2023 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet - Page 160 of 176
Page 3 of 18
Engineering & Operations Committee Minutes
March 23, 2023
Page 2
Call Meetina to Order
Chair Pilecki called the meeting to order at 3:02 p.m.
2. Public Comments
None
3. Items for Committee Recommendation to Board
a.* Review draft Position Paper to reject bid protest by Roofing and Solar
Construction, Inc.; award a construction contract in the amount of
$973,006 to Pac Shield Roof Services, Inc., the lowest responsive and
responsible bidder for the Pump and Blower Building Roof Replacement,
District Project 7370; find the Project is exempt from the California
Environmental Quality Act; and authorize the General Manager to include
two alternative bid items in the total amount of $307,121 to replace the
Machine Shop and Board Room roofs
Chair Pilecki outlined how the discussion item would proceed with the
number of attendees present.
Mr. Lopez discussed the project details and provided a presentation for
discussion purposes (attached).
It was noted that prior to the meeting a second bid protest letter (attached)
was received on March 22, 2023 from Roofing and Solar Construction,
Inc. (RSC).
Member McGill asked if a brief pause was needed for staff to review the
referenced letter. Mr. Alm stated he reviewed the letter and found it did not
contain any new information.
Mr. Copeland discussed RSC's bid protest in detail, suggesting that Pac
Shield has not met the mandatory provisions of the bid documents for
failure to list a subcontractor for asbestos and lead abatement work,
providing a warranty with a rider on it, and for non-payment of Union dues.
Chair Pilecki asked if RSC considers the lack of Labor Trust Fund
contributions to be a responsiveness issue or a responsibility issue. Mr.
Copeland referred to the Public Contract Code and stated that he believes
it is a responsiveness issue.
April 6, 2023 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet - Page 161 of 176
Page 4 of 18
Engineering & Operations Committee Minutes
March 23, 2023
Page 3
Member McGill inquired how Mr. Copeland responded to the question as
to `challenging the award' which would imply there has to be a contract
awarded. Mr. Copeland clarified that there is no requirement for an award,
the staff recommendation is the issue.
Mr. Weber, counsel for Pac Shield, responded to the RSC's claims stating
that late payments of union dues is a baseless claim and Pac Shield is
current; Alliance Contracting Services, Inc. has all the necessary licenses
to perform the demolition and asbestos abatement removal; Soprema is
listed as an acceptable manufacturer in the technical specifications and is
providing the warranty. Mr. Estrada also confirmed the warranty statement
as through Soprema and not a third -party provider.
Mr. Alm responded to questions posed by Member McGill regarding case
interpretation, warranty and labeling. Mr. Alm said he is familiar with the
case law presented by RSC. A listing of a subcontractor must include a
description of the "portion" of the work to be performed by the
subcontractor. The issue to be considered is whether "roof removal" would
reasonably include abatement work. As it pertained to warranty, Mr. Alm
opined that warrant document provided is not a formal submittal so
perhaps it needn't be considered at this time, but invited further discussion
from either side on the topic. Lastly, in response to the "rider" issue, Mr.
Alm stated the document does use the term "rider'; but as discussed it is
through Soprema. Mr. Alm opined it was not enough to determine the bid
as non -responsive.
Chair Pilecki asked Mr. Lopez if the first recommended manufacturer is
the basis of the design, and whether there was a second or more
manufacturers listed as equals that would meet the requirements. Mr.
Lopez confirmed that was correct, and there were four manufacturers
included in the technical specifications and considered as equals in
General Conditions
Chair Pilecki asked if non-payment of union dues was considered a
responsiveness issue or a responsibility issue. Mr. Alm responded that it is
a responsibility issue, and there has been no evidence provided to support
this claim. If the Board were to accept the bid protest, staff would not be
able to award to the second low bidder because Pac Shield would then be
entitled to a responsibility hearing to defend themselves.
Mr. Copeland and Mr. Weber were provided an opportunity for rebuttal.
Member McGill commented that the documents received by Soprema
looked more like additional information, than riders.
April 6, 2023 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet - Page 162 of 176
Page 5 of 18
Engineering & Operations Committee Minutes
March 23, 2023
Page 4
Mr. Lopez stated that there are going to be differences between products
listed and the technical information being discussed was not requested by
staff and is not considered a formal submittal for the project. However, the
warranty requirement being discussed is referenced in the technical
specifications because it is the type of warranty provided by Garland and
Garland is the first listed manufacturer. Product warranties can have
differences as explained by Mr. Lopez, however the main emphasis is that
the project requires a 30-year roofing system and Soprema has been
already determined to have the ability to meet the project specifications by
the designers and through District experience under past projects. There
has been no evidence to show Pac Shield as non- responsive or made
any errors in completing the bid documents.
Ms. Fabiani stated Mr. Lopez's explanation did not address why the
second low -bidder was not recommended as an alternative to be awarded
the project. Mr. Alm responded stating the law does not allow staff to list
that specifically. Ms. Wesson asked for further explanation.
Member McGill requested to clarify the alternatives and stated that
awarding to the second low bidder could have been an option if the Board
elected to consider that as an acceptable alternative.
Chair Pilecki asked with everything that has been received for this item, is
this considered a material or immaterial issue. Mr. Alm responded saying
Mr. Lopez provided a sufficient response that the matter was referenced in
the technical specifications and the project was designed based on the
first -named manufacturer.
Further spirited discussion ensued.
Member McGill requested that staff add an alternative to the final Position
Paper to accept the bid protest, reject the first low bidder and award to the
second low bidder; Mr. Alm agreed to adding the alternative as requested
by Member McGill.
Member McGill then recommended to accept staffs proposed
recommendation in the draft Position Paper to reject the bid protest and
award the contract to Pac Shield.
Chair Pilecki concurred with Member McGill.
COMMITTEE ACTION: Recommended Board approval, with the
addition of a new alternative to the final Position Paper.
April 6, 2023 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet - Page 163 of 176
Page 6 of 18
Engineering & Operations Committee Minutes
March 23, 2023
Page 5
b. Review draft Position Paper to authorize the General Manager to
execute a construction contract change order in the amount not to
exceed $350,000 with Auburn Constructors, LLC to upgrade the wet
weather bypass structure under the Influent Pump Electrical
Improvements, District Project 7328; and authorize a budget transfer
in the amount of $800,000 from the Capital Improvement Budget
Contingency account
Ms. Molina presented the material included in the agenda packet and
discussed the details of the project.
Mr. Lopez discussed additional information pertaining to the recent wet -
weather events and why the bypass pumps and structure is important. He
explained the Operations group strongly agrees with Engineering's
recommendation to complete the upgrades before the next wet -weather
season.
Chair Pilecki asked how many pumps were discharging into the bypass
structure; staff answered up to three.
Mr. Lopez mentioned that bypassing into this structure is not adequate for
the type of incoming flow. Staff believes a change order is the best
solution and Auburn Constructors is still working on site and is able to
perform the work. This change order would add another 5% to the
construction contract to cover the work and other associated expenses.
Member McGill agreed that it makes sense to do this work now and as a
change order with the contractor still being on site.
Chair Pilecki asked if any bidding law requirements are being
circumvented with this action. Mr. Alm discussed with staff and opined the
change order is justified since the work is within the scope of the project
and completion time recommended.
COMMITTEE ACTION: Recommended Board approval.
5. Announcements
Mr. Bailey announced a memorial service for David Williams will be at the
Boundary Oaks Golf Course on April 15, 2023 at 10:00 a.m. The Williams family
has requested that anyone who wants to attend to RSVP. Staff can also let Mr.
Bailey know and he will forward the information to the family.
April 6, 2023 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet - Page 164 of 176
Page 7 of 18
Engineering & Operations Committee Minutes
March 23, 2023
Page 6
6. Suggestions for Future Agenda Items
a. Receive list of upcoming agenda items and provide suggestions for any
other future agenda items
COMMITTEE ACTION: Received the list.
7. Future Scheduled Meetings
Monday, April 3, 2023 at 9:00 a.m.
Monday, May 8, 2023 at 9:00 a.m. (Budget Review)
Monday, May 15, 2023 at 9:00 a.m.
8. Adjournment — at 4:35 p.m.
* Attachments
April 6, 2023 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet - Page 165 of 176
A
ROOFING&SOL,AR
CONSTRUCT/ON INC
License # 1018877 / DIR #1000043217
630 Hunter Lane, Santa Rosa, CA 95404
Certified Woman -Owned Business
SENT VIA EMAIL
March 22, 2023
CONTRA COSTA SANITARY DISTRICT
5019 Imhoff Place
Martinez, CA 94553
RE: BID PROTEST — PUMP AND BLOWER BUILDING ROOF REPLACEMENT
PROJECT — PAC SHIELD ROOFING SERVICES
Dear Board and Committee Members:
Thank you for the opportunity to participate in the Engineering and Technical Services —
Capital Projects meeting scheduled for March 23, 2023.
Page 8 of 18
Item 3.a.
(Handout)
RSC, a certified small, woman -owned and operated company, has reviewed the Position Paper
submitted by the Engineering and Technical Services Department in response to RSC's protest,
along with our attorney, Steven Copeland, and would respectfully like to respond, as it appears
from the Report there are critical misunderstandings as to RSC's grounds for the bid protest.
PAC's Failure to List a Subcontractor for Asbestos/Lead Abatement:
As required in the Bid Documents - Notice to Bidders, Section 9 (attached) — prime contractors
were required to list each subcontractor to perform each portion of work. PAC listed only one
subcontractor and listed their scope as performing "roofing demolition." And in their
responses to RSC's protest, PAC confirmed the value of work exceeded more than 1/2 of 1
percent of their bid and that they could not self -perform the work, as they lacked the required
license and OSHA certification. PAC did not list a subcontractor to perform asbestos/lead
abatement, which is significantly different than "roof demolition."
RSC, and other bidders, by comparison, did list a subcontractor to perform asbestos/lead
abatement.
Respectfully, roofing demolition and asbestos/lead abatement cannot be conflated, as they are
diametrically opposite scopes of work. The asbestos -contaminated material requires special
handling and disposal by a specialty contractor and specially trained workers, whereas, the
demolition of non -contaminated roofing does not require any special handling. What's more,
the asbestos abatement on this project is not simply limited to just the roofing membrane. As
confirmed in Addendum #1, Asbestos/Lead Report, asbestos -containing materials have been
identified in the metal expansion joints, the joint caulking on the concrete parapet wall, and
the curb/base metal flashing. Lead has also been identified. Clearly, the extent of the asbestos
and lead abatement is much greater than "roofing demolition."
Regardless of whether it was PAC's intention to use the same subcontractor for both roofing
demolition and asbestos and lead abatement, PAC failed to list a subcontractor specifically for
April 6, 2023 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet - Page 166 of 176
CCSD
Bid Protest
March 22, 2023
Page 2
Page 9 of 18
each scope of work as required under the bid documents and subcontracting listing laws and
this blatant omission cannot be waived by the District. To do so, would amount to preferential
treatment to PAC over contractors such as RSC who did specifically list an asbestos/lead
abatement subcontractor.
PAC's Listed Material Manufacturer Fails to Meet The Mandatory Requirements
of the Roofing Specifications:
While PAC's proposed roofing manufacturer, Soprema, was listed as an approved company,
their bid fails to meet various critical and mandatory aspects of the roofing specifications for
this project. In particular, and should be of great importance to the District, are the warranties.
The Specifications demanded that any proposed roofing system be backed up with a riderless
warranty meeting the minimum requirements. The Report seems to have missed this explicit
portion of RSC's bid protest. The specifications contained mandatory compliance with this
warranty requirement and the product data provided by PAC for the Soprema system is out of
specification as it includes warranty "riders" which are specifically prohibited under the
warranty requirements of the specifications, attached, for valid reasons. Should the roofing
system fail, the District will have to rely on a third party for claims.
Regardless of whether Soprema is an approved company with the District, their system as
proposed by PAC does not meet the minimum roofing specifications and makes up the price
difference between RSC (using Garland) and PAC's bid price, as stated in our last letter.
PAC's Failure to Make Trust Fund Contributions:
In PAC's response to RSC's protest, the company did not dispute they have failed to pay
workers' Trust Fund contributions that make up approx. 40% of the prevailing wage rate for
roofers. A search of the DIR registration or Contractor's State License Board would not be a
source that would disclose unpaid contributions by a contractor. But such website searches are
typically at least 6 months out of date and are not reliable compliant searches by the District.
Only direct voice contact with the sources would be appropriate contact to verify the
information. RSC invited the District to contact the Bay Area Roofers Health and Welfare Trust
Funds directly.
Of note, in addition to RSC's protest, we are aware that one or more other contractors who bid
on this project contacted the District in protest of PAC.
Recommendations:
The Report is recommending three options: 1) Reject RSC's protest; 2) Award to PAC; 3)
Reject all bids and rebid the project.
There is a fourth option the District can consider and that is to award the project to RSC, the
second lowest, responsible bidder. RSC has listed Garland as the roofing manufacturer, a
highly reputable company, whose products are the benchmark for this project which the
District has used in the past and RSC has installed in excess of $15M in Garland roofing
systems.
RSC's bid price with alternates also falls within the District's budget: Base Bid $1,022,198.1o,
Alternate No. 1$236,107.o9, and Alternate No. 2 $91,693.51, for a total price of
$1,349,998.70.
April 6, 2023 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet - Page 167 of 176
CCSD
Bid Protest
March 22, 2023
Page 3
Page 10 of 18
In conclusion, public bidding requires transparency and compliance with the public contract
code. PAC's bid does not meet the mandatory subcontractor listing requirements or minimum
mandatory roofing specifications per the project specifications, and thus PAC's bid is required
to be rejected by the District. As the second lowest, responsible bidder, RSC should receive the
award and remains willing and able to perform the work.
Thank you for your consideration, and we welcome any questions you may have.
Cc: CCSD Board
Engineering and Technical Services Committee
Engineering and Capital Projects Staff
Steven Copeland, Esq.
Kyle Lattanzio, Garland Industries
April 6, 2023 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet - Page 168 of 176
3/22/23, 7:07 AM image001.png Page 11 of 18
SECTION 9 — BIDDER'S STATEMENT OF SUBCONTRACTORS
In the form entitled Section 4, Bidder's Statement of Subcontractors, provided within Part III of
this Project Manual, and pursuant to Section 4100 et seq. of the Public Contract Code, the
Bidder shall submit the name, California State License Board (CSLB) license number and DIR
registration number, expiration dates, city and state of the place of business of each
subcontractor who will perform work or labor or render service to the prime contractor in or
about the construction of the work or improvement, or a subcontractor licensed by the State of
California who, under subcontract to the prime contractor, specially fabricates and installs a
portion of the work or improvement according to the Project Documents, in an amount in excess
of one-half of one percent (°/2%) of the bid total as set forth in the Schedule of Bid, Part III,
Section 2. The prime contractor shall indicate the portion that will be done by each such
subcontractor for each such portion as is defined by the subcontractor in its bid.
Failure to list subcontractors in Part III, Bid Forms, Section 4, Bidder's Statement of
Subcontractors, is an express statement by the Bidder that it will perform that portion of the
work with its own forces. The prime contractor may not substitute any person or subcontractor
for a listed subcontractor without first obtaining written permission of the District Board of
Directors pursuant to provisions of Section 4107 of the Public Contract Code.
https://mjgpp�e.)/�$�l( ��@py@jv},{y�I�q�IfjR�IptrGi���¢j�iyt�r=1 &messagePart1d=0.1 1 /1
1.12 WARRANTY
Page 12 of 18
A. Upon completion of the work, provide the Manufacturer's written and signed NDL
Warranty, warranting that, if a leak develops in the roof during the term of this
warranty, due either to defective material or defective workmanship by the
installing contractor, the manufacturer shall provide the Owner, at the
Manufacturer's expense, with the labor and material necessary to return the
defective area to a watertight condition. Warranty shall be solely provided by the
roof system manufacturer and must cover the calculated wind speed of 115mph.
No 3`d party warranties, or insurance riders will be accepted.
1. Warranty Period: 30 years from date of acceptance.
B. Installer is to guarantee all work against defects in materials and workmanship for
a period indicated following final acceptance of the Work. Contractor will submit a
copy of the warranty to the membrane manufacturer.
1. Warranty Period: 5 years from date of acceptance.
April 6, 2023 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet - Page 170 of 176
Page 13 of 18
M
s
System Rider
Rider No.: 101-000000-ET-1
Warranty No.: 101-000000-ET I Warranty Start Date: 00.00.2023
Building Name: Central Contra Costa Sanitary District (CCCD)-Pump & Blower Bldg.
This rider amends the warranty described above (for convenience, referred to below as the "Warranty").
All of the materials covered by the Warranty are listed below, when sold by SOPREMA:
• Membrane ply(s)
• Flashing ply(s)
• Liquid -applied membrane and flashing products
• Primers
• Adhesives
• Coverboard
• Insulation
• Vapor retarder
• Air barrier
Section 1 of the Terms, Conditions and Limitations is amended accordingly.
Warranty claims must be submitted within two business days after a leak or other related issue is
discovered. Time is of the essence. The Warranty Claim Procedure (Form 900) is modified accordingly.
In the event of a conflict between the provisions of the Warranty and the provisions of this rider, the
provisions of this rider shall control.
Except as modified by this rider (and any other riders that are issued contemporaneously herewith), the
terms of the Warranty remain in full force and effect.
Dated: 00.00.2023
(09/2016)
April 6, 2023 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet - Page 171 of 176
Page 14 of 18
SOPR Aw
System Rider
Rider No.: 101-000000-ET-1
Warranty No.: 101-000000-ET I Warranty Start Date: 00.00.2023
Building Name: Central Contra Costa Sanitary District (CCCD)-Pump & Blower Bldg.
This rider amends the warranty described above (for convenience, referred to below as the "Warranty").
All of the materials covered by the Warranty are listed below, when sold by SOPREMA:
• Membrane ply(s)
• Flashing ply(s)
• Liquid -applied membrane and flashing products
+ Primers
Adhesives
• Coverboard
• Insulation
• Vapor retarder
• Air barrier
Section 1 of the Terms, Conditions and Limitations is amended accordingly.
Warranty claims must be submitted within two business days after a leak or other related issue is
discovered. Time is of the essence. The Warranty Claim Procedure (Form 900) is modified accordingly.
In the event of a conflict between the provisions of the Warranty and the provisions of this rider, the
provisions of this rider shall control.
Except as modified by this rider (and any other riders that are issued contemporaneously herewith), the
terms of the Warranty remain in full force and effect.
Dated: 00.00.2023
(0912016)
April 6, 2023 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet - Page 172 of 176
Page 15 of 18
Rider No. 101-000000-ET-2
Design Wind Speed Rider
Warranty No.: 101-000000-ET I Warranty Start Date: 00.00.2023
Building Name: Central Contra Costa Sanitary District (CCCD)-Pump& Blower Bldg.
The Basic Design Wind Speed (V in the Table Below) = 115 m.p.h.
This rider amends the warranty described above (for convenience, referred to below as the "Warranty").
If you believe you are experiencing a leak caused by a single wind event with a speed not exceeding the design wind
speed (referred to as a "Covered Wind Event"), then you should follow the Warranty Claim Procedure set forth in the
Warranty (see Form 900).
For purposes of this rider `design wind speed" means the allowable stress design (asd) wind speed as allowed by
ASCE 7 to determine the roof design pressures, and in accordance with Table 1609.3.1 of the 2021 International
Building Code, reproduced below (all Section and Figure references are to the IBC):
IBC Table 1609.3.1
Wind Speed Conversions sbx
30 1 140 150 1 f
Vasd = V 0.6
For Si: 1 m.p.h. = 0.44 m/s.
a. Linear interpolation is permitted.
b. Vesd = allowable stress design wind speed applicable to methods specified in Exceptions 1 through 5 of Section 1609.1.1.
c, V = basic design wind speeds determined from Figures 1609.3(1) through 1609.3(12).
If SOPREMAO determines that your SOPREMA roofing or waterproofing materials are leaking from damage caused
by a Covered Wind Event, then SOPREMA will provide you with the remedy set forth in the Warranty, using methods
and materials it deems appropriate to the situation. The decisions of SOPREMA with respect to the cause(s) of
damage and scope of repairs are final and binding.
This wind speed warranty is made subject to the following conditions:
1. The roofing or waterproofing membranes and all associated components are installed by an
authorized contractor on a properly designed and constructed building in strict accordance with
applicable codes and approvals.
2. Each time the building is exposed to a severe wind event, Owner must examine the roofing or
waterproofing and photo document conditions before cleanup or repair efforts begin. If any
damage is discovered, Owner should hire a roofing or waterproofing professional to evaluate
conditions, and document the extent of the damages, if any.
3. Owner must take reasonable actions to mitigate further damage.
4. Owner must make a wind -related claim within 14 days following the date of the Covered Wind
Event, not counting any days when Owner is unable to access the Building due to publically
imposed or naturally occurring travel restrictions.
The issuance of this rider does not imply that SOPREMA made a determination as to whether the materials were
installed in compliance with SOPREMA's details and General Requirements, Owner's specifications, or any
applicable laws, codes, regulations, or approvals, or that the Building or the roofing or waterproofing assembly is
properly designed and constructed.
In the event of a conflict between the provisions of the Warranty and the provisions of this rider, the provisions of this
rider shall control.
Except as modified by this rider (and any other riders that are issued contemporaneously herewith), the terms of the
Warranty remain in full force and effect. Among other things, this rider does not extend the term of the Warranty,
even if this rider is dated after the date of the Warranty.
(11/2022)
April 6, 2023 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet - Page 173 of 176
Page 16 of 18
Item 3.a.
(Handout)
Background and Drivers
ROOF REPLACEMENT
District Project 7370
$ Martinez. California
April 6, 2023 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet - Page 174 of 176
Page 17 of 18
Engineer's Estimate: $1,050,000
Bid Results ($1,350,000 with alternates)
Ten Bids (10) bids received
Lowest Bidder: Pac Shield
NO.
BIDDER
BID PRICE
1
Pac Shield Roof Services, Inc.
$973,006
Modesto, California
2
Roofing and Solar Construction, Inc.
$1,022.198.10
Santa Rosa, California
3
Stronger Building Services
$1,075,000
San Leandro, California
4
San Francisco Roofing Services, Inc.
$1.200,000
San Francisco, California
5
State Roofing Systems, Inc.
$1,217,661
San Leandro, California
6
I&A Contractor, Inc.
$1,299,000
Redwood City, California
7
Waterproofing Associates, Inc.
$1,306,200
Santa Clara, California
8
Andy's Roofing Company, Inc.
$1,373,200
San Leandro, California
9
Western Roofing Service
f1,395,000
San Leandro, California
10
Pioneer Contractors, Inc -
San San Francisco, California
April 6, 2023 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet - Page 175 of 176 2
Page 18 of 18
Bid Information
*precise wordino from bid
Name of
Bidder
Subcontractor
Portion of Work to be Done*
Manufacturer
1
Soprema
Alliance Contracting Services,
Roof Demolition
Inc.
2
Garland
PARC Specialty Contractors
Abatement
3
Garland
B&M Tear Off Inc.
Demo + Abatement
4
Garland
B&M Tear Off Inc.
Demo/Hazmat
5
Soprema
Alliance Contracting Services,
Demo Roof Removal
Inc.
6
Garland
B&M Tear Off Inc.
Demo & Abatment
7
Garland
B&M Tear Off Inc.
Roof Demo
8
Garland
Alliance Contracting Services,
Demo and Abatement
Inc.
Garland/Siplast/
9
B&M Tear Off Inc.
Demolition
Soprema
10
Garland
Alliance Contracting Services,
Demolition
Inc.
April 6, 2023 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet - Page 176 of 176