12. Sports Court/Tennis Lighting UpgradeCUPERTINO
Summary
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
AGENDA ITEM ~ °~ AGENDA DATE January 20. 2009
SITBJECT AND ISSUE
Award of a contract for the Sports Court/Te~mis Lighting Upgrade Project at the Sports Center
to Cupertino Electric in the amount of $254,000.00 for the Tennis Court Lighting Upgrade
Base Bid and authorize a construction contnsgency in the amount of $ 35,000 and approve the
installation of a safety cover over the swimming pool.
Merge Account 420-9236 -Tennis Court Li'.ghting into Account 420-9231 -Sports Court and
Pool Demo for a total budget for the combined project of $750,000.
BACKGROUND
On October 7, 2008, the Council received a :report on bids received on September 25, 2008 for
the Sports Court/Tennis Court Lighting Upgrade Project. The engineer's estimate and low bid
from the October 7, 2008 report aze as follows:
Bidder Base Bid
Robert A. Bothman,Inc $ 736,472.00
Engineer's Estimate $ 536,500.00
Because the low bid exceeded the budget by more than $230,000 the Council rejected all bids
for the Sports Court/Tennis Court Lighting Upgrade Project and directed staff to re-bid the
project with the Tennis Court Lighting Upgrade as the base bid and with the Sports Court and
Restrooms as Add Atternate No_ 1.
After careful evaluation of the bids and the unit prices within the bid documents, staff and the
design engineers revised the enginee='s estimate to more accurately reflect the market and
bidding climate as well as the possible effect of splitting the project into a base bid of lesser
cost and an add alternate of greater cost. T1ie revised estimate for the re-bid of the project is
shown in the table of the report of bids received.
Note that the estimate from October 7 shown above does not include the original alternate for
additional lighting and electrical work_ However, that work was included in the base bid of the
current project scope.
12-1
The order of the bids $om highest to lowest is determined by the base bid only, not by the
combination of the base bid and add alternate No. 1. In addition, the apparent low bidders at
the time the bids were opened on December 4, 2008, Rodan Builders, Inc, and ICC General
Contractors Inc. were disqualified because they did not meet the experience requirements as
specified in the bid documents.
Report of Bids Received
On December 4, 2008 the City received a total of six (6) bids for this project as follows:
Bidder Base Bid Add Alternate Total
General Lighting Service, Inc. $314,161.00 $465,024.00 $779,185.00
R 8c H Industries Best Electric $302,000.00 $460;720.93 $762,720.93
Vellutini Corp.Royal Electric $294,999.00 $296,666.00 $591,665.00
Engineer's Estimate $275,000.00 $490,000.00 $765,000.00
Cupertino Electric $254,000.00 $479,800.00 $733,800.00
Disqualified Bidders
ICC General Contractors, Inc. $244,650.00 $425,000.00 $669,650.00
Rodan Builders, Inc_ $240,000.00 $375,000.00 $615,000.00
The new combined low bid received on 12/4/08 (base bid plus add alternate) of $733,800.00,
in comparison to the original tow base bid without the additional lighting component received
on September 25, 2008, in the amount of $ 736,472.00 is now Lower by $ 2,672.00.
As noted above, the contract award is to be based on the base bid only_ Council may, at its
discretion, choose to include the low bidder's add alternate bid, but that cost may not be used
to determine the low bidder_
Council should also know that the two low bidders, as shown on the chart and noted above,
Rodan Builders, Inc. and ICC General Contractors, Inc. did not meet the City's business
experience requirement, clearly stated in the bid documents, and were formally disqualified by
letter on December 5, 2008 and December 22, 2008 respectively.
Following a careful evaluation of the next lowest bidder's documents, Cupertino Electric was
found to be Responsive, Responsible and Qualified, in accordance with the criteria of the
Public Contract Code.
2 12-2
The Project Budget as contained in the adopted FY 2008-2009 Capital Improvement Program
is the following:
420-9236 -Tennis Court Lighting $250,000
420-9231 -Snorts Court and Pool Demo 500,000
Total Combined Project $750,000
The total current costs estimated for the project assuming award of the contract including Add
Alternate No. 1 to Cupertino Electric are as follows:
Engineering Services $145,000
Construction -Base bid 254,000
Construction -Add Alternate No.l 479,800
Construction Contingency (15%Z_ 100.000
Total Combined Project
PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION OPTIONS
$978,800
Option 1: Award Contract to Cupertino Electric for Base Bid Only
Engineering Services $145,000
Base Bid: Tennis Court Lighting 254,000
Construction Contingency (15%) 35,000
Pool Safetv Cover 30.000
Project Total
$464,000
Selection of this Alternative will require spending up to an additional $30,000 for a pool cover
as a safety measure if the pool is not demolished_ This option will result in a project cost
reduction of approximately $286,000, however, the pool demolition and sports court portion
of the project will not be constructed.
Option 2: Award Contract to Cupertino Electric for Base Bid and Add Alternate No. I
Engineering Services $145,000
Base Bid: Tennis Court Lighting 254,000
Add Alternate No. 1: Sport Court/Re:;trooms 479,800
Construction Contingency (15%) 100.000
Project Total
$978,800
To proceed with the project under this scenario would require the appropriation of an
additional $ 228,800 to fully fund the proje~~t costs. (The additional funds required from the
October 7, 2008 proposal for this same option was $230,500.)
3 ~2-3
Option 3: Award Base Bid -Rebid Alternate 1 without Restrooms
The major cost increase in the bids is the inclusion of two restrooms at the sports court, which
represents an estimated cost of approximately $200,000. T`he retrooms are not required by
code but were included in the project as a convenience. While perhaps less convenient, there
aze ample restroom facilities in the adjacent Sports Center building. A revised estimate for this
option based on costs from the current bid and an escalation factor to account for the rebid as
a separate project is as follows:
Engineering Services $155,000
Tennis Court Lighting (Low Bid) 254,000
Sport Court/Pool Demo/ without Restrooms 310,000
Construction Contingency f15%) 100.000
Project Total
$ 819,000
Under this alternative, staff would propose to iemove the retrooms from the scope of the
project and re-bid it daring February and March 2009. This alternative represents an estimate
that exceeds the budget by $69,000_ However, the number of bidders and the narrow range of
bids appear to strongly indicate a high level of interest in these two projects. Local
contractors, no doubt, are already feeling some of the effects of the economic downturn.
Under those C1rC~~mctaneeS, it is possible that this scope change (i.e., no bathrooms) may
result in a bid that could be closer to the current budget so no increase in the budget is
recommended at this time. However, that remains an unknown since this scope has never been
bid as a separate package_
It should be noted that this is the same as Alternative 3 proposed and recommended by staff
on October 7, 2008 except that it now includes the tennis court lighting upgrade. This is
incorporated into the recommendation at this time as requested by the tennis community
which the Council declazed to be the higher priority in directing staff to make it the base bid
component of the current bid documents. The following Table is a comparison of the cost
implications of each alternative:
Option 1 Optioa 2 Option 3
Low Bid Award Base Award Base
Base Only 8s Alt. 1 Re-bid Alt. 1
Base Only &c Alt. I no bathrooms
Engr. Svcs $ 145,000 $ 145,000 $ 155,000
Tennis Lighting 254,000 254,000
Tennis w/Court/Pool 733,800
Court/Pool w/o BR 310,000
Pool Cover 30,000
Contingency 35,000 100,000 100,000
Total $ 464,000 $ 978,800 $ 819,000
Budeet $ 750.000 $ 750.000 $ 750.000
Net (Short) $ 286,000 ($228,800) ($ 69,000)
12-4
CONCLUSION
When all the above options are considered wi#h their respective pros and cons, stall' believes
that the most prudent course of action would be to pursue the project under Option 1, i.e.,
award of the base bid project, Tennis Court bighting to Cupertino Electric, install a cover over
the pool as noted above and defer action on the Sports Court and Pool Demolition portion of
the project.
However, there remains one final option ths~t, given the fiscal crisis that the State is facing,
Council may wish to put this decision off entirely until we see what the State will do to our
budget and our financial future becomes clearer. In that case, staff would suggest that the
Council reject all bids and defer any further activity on any component of this project. The
cost implications of this option are as follow::.
Engineering Services (previously expended) $ 90,000
Close out costs (Estimated) 20,000
Pool Cover 30.000
Project Total
$ 140,000
Budget $ 750,000
Net
$ 610,000
FISCAL I1~~ACT
In order to continue the projects as combined, a budget action is necessary to combine both
budget accounts (420-9236 -Tennis Court Lighting and 420-9231 -Sports Court and Pool
Demo) into one line item in one account. However, if the Council elects to reject all bids and
defer any fiirther activity on the project, this budget action would not be necessary.
STAFF IZI;COMMENDATION
Award of a contract for the Sports Court/Tennis Lighting Upgrade Project at the Sports Center
to Cupertino Electric in the amount of $254,000.00 for the Tennis Court Lighting Upgrade
Base Bid and authorize a construction contingency in the amount of $ 35,000 and defer action
on the Pool Demolition and Sports Court portion of the project and approve the installation of
a safety cover over the swimming pool.
iz-s
Merge Account 420-9236 -Tennis Court Lighting into Account 420-9231 -Sports Court and
Pool Demo for a total budget for the combined project of $750,000.
Submitted by_
Ralph A. Qualls, Jr.
Director, Public Works
Approved for submission:
~~
David W. Knapp
City Manager
.~~~"~/
Mark finder
Director, Parks and Recreation
~2-s