HomeMy WebLinkAbout19 - Irvine Terrace Streetlight Replacement - Award of Contract No. 3298June 27, 2000
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
ITEM NO. 19
TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Public Works Department
SUBJECT: IRVINE TERRACE STREETLIGHT REPLACEMENT - AWARD OF CONTRACT
NO. 3298
RECOMMENDATIONS:
1. Approve the plans and specifications.
2. Reject the bid of Inspection Engineering Construction as non - responsive and find that
this apparent low bidder is not the "lowest responsible bidder".
3. Find the second low bidder is the "lowest responsible bidder" and award Contract No.
3298 to F.J. Johnson, Inc., of Anaheim, for the Total Bid Price of $272,466.30.
4. Authorize the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute the contract.
5. Establish an amount of $22,440.00 to cover the cost of unforeseen work.
DISCUSSION:
At 2:15 PM on June 13, 2000, the City Clerk opened and read the following bids for this
project:
BIDDER
Low Inspection Engineering Construction
2 F.J. Johnson, Inc.
3 ProTech Engineering Corporation
4 Building Energy Consultants
5 DBX, Inc.
6 Steiny and Company, Inc.
7 C.T. & F., Inc.
8 VT Electric, Inc.
9 Dynaelectric
10 L.A. Signal
{
TOTAL BID AMOUNT
$271,719.17 *
$272,466.30 *
$275,229.95 *
$300,759.00
$321,609.00
$324,798.00
$344,740.12
$445,653.15
$450,077.00 *
$469,672.00 *
*Corrected Bid Amount
Subject: Irvine Terrace Street Light Replacement — Award of Contract No. 3298
June 27. 2000
Page: 2
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
The streetlights in Irvine Terrace are slated for replacement under the City's fifteen -year
program to convert the obsolete 5000 -volt series street light circuits and replace the aging
facilities. The project calls for the replacement or refurbishment of ninety -two incandescent
lights and approximately 14,000 feet of obsolete electrical conduit and wiring. As mentioned
previously, the conduit is to be installed by boring and no open cut excavation is required.
Most of the project work is on the eastside of the Irvine Terrace community and replaces the
entire street light system. The contract documents stipulate the existing series street light
system is to remain in service throughout the installation of the new system and that no more
than a seven -day shut down for any one light will be allowed. The, contractor is required to
submit a schedule to show how phasing and cutover from the old system to the new system
will be accomplished. Work also extends on Bayside Drive below Irvine Terrace, see attached
Project Location Map.
THE LOW BIDDER:
Inspection Engineering Construction (IEC), of Costa Mesa, is a general contractor and has
completed projects for Caltrans, San Fernando, and Hermosa. They currently have work in
progress with the cities of Walnut, Tustin, and Seal Beach.
Reference checks on IEC's most recent projects revealed a number of negative comments:
• Inability to perform work in an efficient manner
• Quality of work was below average
• Scope of work tasks were not similar in character to the work involved in this project
They have not done work for the City of Newport Beach or completed any work for other
agencies in the area, nor have they performed the specific type of construction required by
this contract. Contacts made to cities where work is in progress yielded mostly negative
responses.
A summary of the reference check statements included:
• Poor quality of work
• Non - responsiveness to site inspectors
• Repairs needed after completion of work or during the course of the work
• Extensive time overruns
• Inability to deliver required materials or gain credit from suppliers to purchase the material
• Need for greater supervision
• Poor site management
• Unsafe traffic control
• Limited staff
A check of IEC's contractor's license status with the State License Board revealed IEC was
issued a valid General Engineer Contractor's Class "A" License in August 1999. However, at
the time of issuance the board reported the company had no employees. When Staff
Subject: Irvine Terrace Street Light Replacement — Award of Contract No. 3298
June 27, 2000
Page: 3
contacted IEC they indicated they currently have seven employees. Approximately 14,000
feet of "bored" conduit is required for this project, which represents more than two- thirds of
the contract. To minimize impacts to the community and avoid disruption to the frontages
within Irvine Terrace, no open cut excavations will be allowed.
Staff notified IEC of their non - responsiveness to the provisions of the City bid documents,
page 5, Technical Ability and Experience References. Instructions to bidders for this page
read: "The undersigned submits herewith a statement of the work of similar character to that
proposed herein which he/she has performed and successfully completed." IEC provided
references relating solely to traffic signal installations or modifications. IEC indicated they
have not done specific street light projects similar to the project proposed. Though both
Traffic Signal and Street Light Replacement projects deal with electrical components, the
series street light replacement project deals with a 5000 volt existing circuit which needs to
be maintained during construction.
Traffic Signals are operated with 120 and 240 -volt systems and include streetlights integral to
the signal poles with some safety lighting in advance of the intersection. Traffic signal
projects are confined to a relatively small work area without a significant amount of conduit
installation and when conduit is installed it usually is along an arterial and not through a
residential neighborhood. The conversion of a traffic signal is a different process compared
to maintaining an existing 5000 -volt series streetlight system throughout an entire residential
tract. In an effort to save City funds, many of the existing streetlights are to be reused by
rewiring the light from a 5000 -volt circuit to the new multiple 240 -volt circuit. In order to do
this without risking public safety or causing an interruption in service of the fifty -year old
series system lights for the duration of the project, the contract bid documents require the
contractor to provide information to show experience in projects of similar character (series
streetlight conversion projects). The projects listed by the contractor in his bid document
were not similar in character to a series streetlight conversion project and no subsequent
references for projects of similar character have been provided as of June 21, 2000.
IEC was told of the City's concern regarding having enough manpower and experience to
complete the project and the marginal performance by IEC noted by other agencies. IEC
believes they are capable of performing the work. IEC also denies having any problems
dealing with the public agencies they listed. Staff met with the owner and foremen of IEC to
discuss the matter further and to allow IEC to provide additional references to show related
streetlight experience. It was evident during this meeting that IEC had not completed a series
streetlight conversion project of the scope and size of the Irvine Terrace project. They
appeared to be inexperienced with the approach necessary to complete the work. IEC
provided two additional references and clarification on two other previously submitted
references. Staff was only able to contract three of the four new references, which gave
more favorable responses. However, each reference was still for traffic signal projects or
inspection services and not series street light replacement and conversion. Staff met with
the City Attorney's office to discuss IEC's marginal references and lack of specific project
experience. The City Attorney advised that if the City Council finds IEC fails to provide
satisfactory references for performing work of a similar character, the bid submitted by IEC
could be rejected as non - responsive.
Subject: Irvine Terrace Street Light Replacement — Award of Contract No. 3298
June 27, 2000
Page: 4
Staff, along with the Assistant City Attorney, met a second time with the owner of IEC and
their attorney to discuss the recommendations contained in this staff report. Staff reiterated
the fact that IEC has not provided references for work of a similar nature. IEC was unable to
provide any additional references at that time and promised to provide letters of
recommendations for related work. However, at the writing of this report, nothing has been
received. If additional information is received, Staff will make that available to Council either
by Friday or at the Council meeting. IEC voiced again their firm belief that they are capable
of performing the work. They further indicated that they own new state of the art directional
boring equipment that they believe will allow them to complete the project more efficiently and
with less impact to the community.
If the IEC bid were rejected as non - responsive, the lowest responsible bidder would then be
F.J. Johnson, Inc., of Anaheim. This firm has approximately twenty employees and the
ability to man five crews. They also own five boring machines and most employees can
operate the equipment. F.J. Johnson, Inc., has been in business for over fourteen years.
The two owners have over fifty years of experience between them and have been working
together since 1972. Their bid is 8 percent below the Engineer's Estimate of $294,000.00
and they possess a General Engineering Contractor Classification "A" contractor's license, as
required by the project specifications. F.J. Johnson, Inc., has satisfactorily completed
projects of similar character to the Irvine Terrace project for many public agencies, including
the City of Newport Beach. F.J. Johnson has the manpower and necessary equipment to
complete the project within the specified time.
PROJECT SCHEDULE, FUNDING AND RECOMMENDATION:
The time of completion for the project is ninety working days. Award of the contract at this
time will allow the contractor to complete the work prior to December 1, 2000. Staff believes
the second low bid contractor can complete the project satisfactorily and recommends award
of the contract to the lowest responsible bidder, F. J. Johnson, Inc., of Anaheim, California
and find that this company is the lowest responsible bidder.
There are sufficient funds available for the project in Capital Project Account No. 7014 -
05300035, Street Light Replacement Program.
Respectfully submitte
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
Don Webb, Director
By:
Michael J. Sinacori, P.E.
Utilities Engineer
Attachment: Bid Summary
x rq�Z'
fNa
a W
0a
y
N
11 O
0 r�
SyO;
L H
H
a
H 0
a
0
0
7
h
N
a
!
2
F
(V �
S
U
u
p O o
m 4 y
U
U m
n U
V
z 0
O 0
U
K ❑ C
O m
v
❑ Y
m
m
E
u
a
W
m
d
d
c
O
O
o �
N
O
a
N u
2 N
pqU, Iai1 F
E z y
0 z O
u w N
m
m
d
O
U
D
8
m
U
m
0
0
s
U
0
a
0
E
D
m'
n
Al,
Z
O
O
(V
O
(V
Q
Q
(V
O
(V
O
N
8
m
8
N
UOf
8
QN
n
P
n
N
S
Cl
N
8
O
pp
Q
S
8
t7
m
N
N
_
<
v
Q
n N
Vi
O
p
O
S
S
p
O
S
S
S
S
S
O
O
Q
Vl
P
p
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
p
O
OO
O
N
O
O
V)
N
O
O
O
p
O
p
O
0-
O
O
N
N
N
N
p
N
m
I�
O
O
O
N
N
N
Q
-�
O
(V
p
N
t7
O
(V
Q
m
(V
O
(V
O
-
O
-
N
P
Cl
O
Q
�
0
ZQ
O
O
O
p
O
O
p
O
P
O
p
S
S
O
O
O
O
N
O
O
O
O
O
O
N
O
(o
m
O
O
O
S
O
p
O
p
p p
S
—
S
pj
p
N
�
yN
°o
°o
o
O
d
N
Q
O
V)
m
P-
N
p
oo^
O
N
p
O
gi
O
O
h
O
d
t0
P
m
P
m
O
O
^ O
Q
P
�
O
P
e
O
O
in
O
O
e
O
O
P
S
O
N
N
O
p
p
O
p
p
O
O
O
O
O O
-
pp
Q
O
O 0
O
Z
Z
Q
Q
O
O
.p
O
N
O
m
t7
O
O
Uf
m
O
N
p
N
p
p
O
O
O
O
O
O
N
m
O
O
Z
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
o
0
p
0
p
0
o
0
o
0
p
0
in
0
p
0
o
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
F
O
O
O
O
pOO
QOO
O
O
OO
O
C
OO
Q
1Yj
a
Q
N
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
o
0
0
0
F
Z
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
p
Ilf
O
O
O
O
N
O
S
m
pp
S
I�
n
w
W
W
w
a
a<
a
u3
u
w
w
w
w
w
W
w
ZQ
_
M
m
N
N
p
(V
O
m
L
N
n
p
m
P
N
d
O
n
O
n
m
0
0
'
D
0
u
D
Z
0
N
w
O
U
d
0
D
0
D
co
m
C
E
0
O
O
D
Q
m
t
O
y
0
d
0
D
O
D
CO
m
p
C
CE
S
0
D
O
y
t
==
m
h
0
D
O
y
m
y
0
j
O
O
a
0
m
m
U
m
N
N❑
"'
U
0
O
u
u
N
D
0
i
Q
0
O
Bi
J
m
p
O
00
m'
J
m
0
_
C>>
0
n
C
O
v
CO
m
n
)
2
c
O
U
O
m
o
y
N
oo
_0
0
D
O
D
0
mO
-
p
u
5
C
V
0
0
fl
j
A
n
R
C
m
n
N
m
m
d
O
U
D
8
m
U
m
0
0
s
U
0
a
0
E
D
m'
n
Al,
x�Z
�i
W
fA
0 W
� q
M
Ti 0
0
yl N
Ha
H
a
O
G
n
E
a
m F
N Q
Z
m
O O ow
Y
m c U
U
A
Z 41 M
p 4 U
q q C
O y
q x
c
m
u
m
m
m
u
0
c
2
H
E
Z
u
0
U
z
nNi 4
z
m uuE
2 41
w
O
41 d
z
O
S
d
P
c
V
ri
.p
O ri
N
m
V)
N
e
Nj
m
1p
1p
�
p
P
in
m
Q
m
m
P
N
1-
j.
Z
-L
O
Q
N
d
P
CJ
N
Yl
m
l7
CS
d
N
m
.p
Q
.Yj
N
P
�
O
U
¢
m
�
dS
W
O
O
O
O
I(f
�
O
O
O
CS
p
l7
N
(V
O
Q
N
O
m
P
O
O
Q
O
CS
N
O
N
p
p
p
m
cO
(V
m
N
O
O
(V
N
N
Q
m
O
Q
pp
O
P=
�
p
0
O
0
O
0
O
0
O
0
O
0
p
p
p
a
O
o
O
0
O
O
0
O
o
O
p
O
o
p
0
O
0
O
0
O
o
O
p
p
On
N
O
n
Ln
CJ
Q
p p
N
S
ri
O
O
Ci
O
d
O
P
p�
N�
m
U
Z
�
m
p
p
0
p
0
o
0
0
0
0
0
g
0
0
0
o
o
p
pp
p
o
o
o
0
m
0
o
0
0
0
0
o
o
p
p
o
o
0
0
0
0
p
p
p
o
o
p
p
p
p
o
o
p
0
o
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
o
0
p
o
o
p
p
o
o
0
0
0
0
0
0
o
o
p
p
p
o
8
m
O
H
p O
I(f
O
n
O
m0
p p
N
p O
m
O O
VI
00
17
pOp
O
pN
P
IN
q
P
C
VN
p
NP
p
OCJ
p O
Q
Op
p
O
OO
O
m
8
V
0
m
O
Wz
¢
O
U
z
9
p
O
O
O
p
p
O
g
p
p
p
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
N
p0
H
H
H
00
00
p0
pp
pO
S
m
p
O
p O
S
O
O
O
N
N
V
O
O
O
p O
p
N
m
O
{
Z
j
-
�
�n
m
N
CS
O
N
Q
_
O
m
m
O
CS
n
O
m
Q
P
O
N
O
o
`u
]
D
D
o
u
Q]
r
¢
N
W
i
n
°
o
2
C
4
0
o
CO
m
'E
3
S
D]
0
o
v`�
m
d
n
n
]
0
Un
CO
m
E
3
a
D
o
`o
h
r
m
in
a
O
o
0
m
trn
m
y
s
a�Di
0
m
c
d
n
x
c
o
u
.N
.�
D
U
a
P
u
D
pUU
N
o
cP
U
m
U
D
o
n
p
o
n
a
o
m�
0
2
0
.9
a
0]
m
I
o
o
O
N
O
LL-
p
R
c
N
e
m
m
W
p
FN
N
N
m
CD
0
a
x�Z
fA Pj
a�wV
oa
x
z�a
0
0 u
H
H fA
u w
0
0
7
�n W
a
N [�
O �
= F
U
d
U
O O Q
� Y
� c U
i 2
c -
V
.H
0
u
W
4 � C
� N
q x
N
W �
W
c
m
O
0
w
0
U
E
H
2
F
E
O
U
P P U
fNil N
H
z
4
z m
U w
0 z
o z w m
Q w a
0
n
m
0
6
n
N
d
m
a
n.
O
S0
pp
N
M
O
O
0
O
O
d
0
O
S
o
N
0
p
N
N
0
O
O
0
O
O
,d
N
0
O
O
N
h
0
O
O
vi
O
O
N
M
p
p
p
ui
O
O
N
O
O
VJ
O
O
I�
N
n
p
p
O
O
O
vi
O
O
o
N
O
o
o
m
�
O
N
Q
Ol
�
Q
O
S
O
S
O
S
S
S
S
S
M
h
O
S
S
Q
O
O
O
O
O
O
h
h
O
O
O
O
ill
P
(V
O
N
p
O
p
h
h
O
G
N
O
m
M
N
M
O
O
p
p
(V
O
G
N
O
N
N
N
d
CI
N
d
N
N
F
Q
M
0
0
O
o
0
0
p
p
0
o
Q
P
g
N
P
0
o
m
`O
0
0
O
P
0
0
Cp
ill
0
0
O
o
o
0
O
vl
p
o
O
d
p
p
n
p
o
M
o-
p
p
N
p
o
o
p
o
p
o
p
p
R
0
p
OO
o
0
o
p
p
o
o
O
h
G
r
N
S
ci
e'i
ry
ri
n
ri
W
U
w
O
a
�
Z
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
N
O
O
O
O
O
p
O
O
O
D
O
O
M
N
P P
N
N
N
N
N
m
N
p
p
p
p
O
p
O
p
O
p
O
N
p
p
p
n
p
O
p
p
p
(h
Z_
U
¢
h
°v
c
�
jp
�
0
vi
p
0
p
0
p
0
N
p
0
p
0
ri
O
0
N
p
0
p
p 0
O
0
O
1�
O
N
N
N
O
pOp
p
p O
d
p
p
p
O
N
p
O
p
p
N
N
W
a
a
W
w
W
w
w
w
�b
w
a
a<
W<
w
pp
d
O
n
O
n
N
p
c
O
j
D
C
U
D
O_
~
a
W
O
c
D
V
N
E
O
D
L
in
4
D
V
0
E
nD
C
t
v`i
D
D
t
in
U
p
U
L
M
L
zi
M
1
2
U
U
D
N
m
j
o
m
U
5
O
O
N
o
n
Q
N
3
a
p
c
c
0
O
C
0
D
0-
m
C
a
d
a
N
M
Q
N
10
1�
W
OI
O
N
M'
N
W
OI
N
0
n
m
0
6
n
N
d
m
a
n.
N
w E 0 250 500 750 Feet
S (7 inch = 750 feet)
Irvine Terrace Street Light
Replacement Modifications
Contract 3298
• Proposed New or Modified Street Light
N%q-T
...
•
June 27, 2000
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
SUPPLEMENTAL ITEM NO. 19
TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Public Works Department
SUBJECT: IRVINE TERRACE STREETLIGHT REPLACEMENT - AWARD OF
CONTRACT NO. 3298 — SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL
Attached is a summary memorandum regarding the review of references for Inspection
Engineering Construction. Also attached, is a summary of conversations with the Public
Works Directors from the cities of Seal Beach and Tustin.
The Contractor has submitted a written notice of protest to the City if the Council
proceeds with Staffs recommendation to reject his bid as "non- responsive." He has
requested to be heard at the City Council meeting.
• At the Staffs meeting with IEC on June 20, 2000, the contractor was requested to
provide additional references for work done that was similar in character to the Irvine
Terrace Street Light Conversion project. No additional information has been received.
It is still recommended that the ICE bid be rejected as non - responsive.
Resp
r y su d,
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
Don Webb, Director
By.
Mich I J. Sinaco ' E.
Utilities Enginee
Attachments: Memorandum from Mike Sinacori to Don Webb Dated June 22, 2000, Reference Review
Don Webb's Summary of Conversations with Seal Beach and Tustin
Letter from IEC advising of protest and request to address City Council
•
FROM : IEC FAX NO. : 7144347719 Jun. 21 2000 09 :49AN P1
•
6/22/00
Mr. Don Webb
Director of Public Work
City of Newport
3300 Newport Blvd
P-0-BOX 1768
Newport Reach, Ca 92658
Ref Irvine Terrace Street Light Replacement
Dear Don:
Inspection Engineering Construction (I.E.C) are able to construct the a above mentioned
• project to your city standard and in the time that allowed, and the reason because our
company have the machine and labor experience that can finish the project in the fastest
way possible with the minimal impact to the community and residence as possible, as
will as we perform this kind and similar work in different projects.
If your city doesn't think IEC can perform this project, IEC on Jun 27' at 6:00 P.M will
Protest your decision in front the city council and will like to have the opportunity to
speak to the city council.
If you have any question please contact me at 714 - 814 -9596.
Inspection Engineering Construction
' Jamal Deaifi
• Owner
2775 Mena Verde Drive Ease. Suit M 103, Costa Mesa, Ca 92626 (714)-285 -6965. Fax (7t4)434 -7719
License 767793
MEMORANDUM
DATE: June 22, 2000
TO: Don Webb
Director of Public Works
FROM: Mike Sinacori
Utilities Engineer & Project Manager
SUBJECT: Irvine Terrace Street Light Replacement Project
Contract C -3298 — IEC Reference Review Summary
Bids were opened on the subject project at 2:15 p.m., June 13, 2000. This
memorandum summarizes the reference review of the apparent low bid Contractor in
roughly the order of contact to the agency. It was determined that the low bidder,
Inspection Engineering Construction (IEC), provided references to projects that were
not similar in character to the type of work that is included in the subject project. The
references also provided comments that indicated this contractor require more than
normal supervision to satisfactorily complete the traffic signal contracts and in some
instances the contractor was not very responsive.
There were no references provided that indicated this contractor had done any work
on conversion of series circuit streetlight or any other project similar in character to
the Irvine Terrace Project.
honeymoon) 431 -2527
In Progress
City of Seal Beach
Jake Ngo (on (562)
Traffic Signal Modifications ($119,000)
Bill Zimmerman - (562)- 594 -8589, Ext. 11
(877) 674 -2324 Cell Phone
In Progress
City of Tustin
Douglas Anderson
Traffic Signal ($90,000)
(714) 573 -3150
In Progress
City of Walnut
David Gilbertson
Traffic Signal ($154,000)
(909) 594 -9702
6 /1 /00
City of Hermosa
Homayoun Behboodi
Traffic Signal ($164,000)
(310) 318 -0212
9/99
City of San Fernando
Pats Orozco (maternity leave)
Inspection Services
(818898 -1224
Edwin Galves, City Engineer
7/99
City of Montebello
Kwok Tom
Flashing Beacon ($21,000)
(323) 887 -1469
12/99
Caltrans (subcontractor) *
Abdallah Alfakouri
Traffic Signal ($300,000)
(562)- 401 -3333, Ext. 235
8/99
Caltrans (subcontractor)
Wahib Jeraje
Traffic Signal ($150,000)
(213) 897 -6066
2/1/00
City of Baldwin Park*
Mr. Shafique Naiyer, PWD
Inspection Services
(626)- 579 -5255
In Progress
City of Anaheim*
Mr. Ken Riggins
•
Traffic Signal ($130,000)
(714) 343 -1521
* Additional references provided on June 19, 2000
Page 2
• Irvine Terrace Street Light Replacement Project
Contractor Review (C -3298
June 21, 2000
City of Seal Beach, Bill Zimmerman
Jake Ngo was listed by IEC as their contact for Seal Beach. Jake is on his
honeymoon and I was referred to W. Zimmerman Engineering. Bill Zimmerman was
contracted on June 13, 2000. He is the contract engineering and construction
manager for the City. IEC is currently working on several different traffic signal
upgrades under a single contract. Short conduit runs were included without the use
of boring. equipment and streetlights were not a part of the project.
Bill provided a list of problems that they had with IEC:
• Limited resources and staff
• Lack of timely response; referencing a problem with a pedestrian control
button that they had not responded to In over a week
• Poor attitude toward inspectors
• Working without notifying the inspectors
• Refusal to provide requested daily reports
• Tendency to have poor site maintenance
• Need for constant supervision
• Not adhering to accepted project schedule
• Contractor seemed confused about how to complete the work
• Contractor would disappear from project without notification
Citv of Tustin. Steve Sasaki
On June 13'" Steve Sasaki was contacted because Doug Anderson was not
available. I asked Steve if he had knowledge of IEC. He explained that they were
doing a traffic signal project for the City and that he had the following difficulties in
working with the Contractor:
1. The project was near a very busy MacDonald's restaurant and the contractor had
off - loaded some of the traffic poles onto the public sidewalk without permission
and without appropriate sidewalk detour plans or with enough barricades to make
them safe. Contractor refused to address the issue and a written Notice of
Correction (NOC) was issued, which is when the contractor took action.
2. Some potholing had taken place in the intersection where the signal work was
taken place. The temporary pavement patches failed and Steve had requested
IEC to correct the problem. Not until another NOC was sent to IEC were the
potholes corrected.
3. Traffic control was insufficient and contractor refused to install additional traffic
control. A third NOC was written, which again is when the contractor took action.
In addition, IEC had difficulty obtaining the controller for the traffic signal. When the
City of Tustin contacted the supplier, they informed them that they were waiting for
payment from IEC. This lead to the City agreeing to pay the control company directly
• for the materials to expedite the project.
•
Page 3
Irvine Terrace Street Light Replacement Project
Contractor Review (G3298
June 21, 2000
City of Tustin (cont'd), Doug Anderson
A subsequent conversation took place with Doug Anderson on June 215' to discuss
the project further and to review the comments of his staff. The project was a traffic
signal upgrade project where new poles and controllers were installed. Limited
conduit work had taken place and he was not aware of any boring that had been
done on the project. He informed me that the only time that a NOC is issued is when
the inspector working with a contractor requested assistance in .motivating a
contractor. I requested a copy of the NOC's issued on the project along with a copy
of the credit/payment agreement with the supplier. Each of these documents needs
to be formally requested through their City Attorney's office. Doug did confirm the
statements made above by Steve Sasaki.
City of San Fernando (9/99) Edwin Galvez
IEC provided the reference name of Patsy Orozco. Patsy is on maternity leave and
we contacted her supervisor, City Engineer Edwin Galvez. Edwin indicated that he
knew of IEC as an inspection company, which is consistent with IEC's name. I
informed him that they claimed to have completed a $100,000 traffic signal
construction project within the past year for the City. He assured me that IEC had
not completed a signal project for the City. He indicated that they have performed
• inspection services of $40,000 to $50,000.
City of Hermosa (6 /1/00) Homayoun Behoodi
Contacted on Tuesday, June 13'h. Scope of work included traffic signal modifications
at two intersections and interconnection to a third. Approximately 600 feet of conduit
boring was included in the project. Homayoun indicated that IEC was a typical "low"
bid contractor and performed okay. They were not the best contractor the City of
Hermosa Beach had worked with, but they did complete the project successfully.
Oily of Walnut (in Dro rq ess) David Gilbertson
Contracted on Wednesday, June 14'h. IEC is in the process of completing two
signals and an interconnect (1000 feet of conduit). Project did not include any street
lights and only minimal conduit work at each intersection (200 feet at each
intersection). The conduit was installed with boring equipment. David Gilbertson
Indicated the contractor, specifically Jamal Deaifi, was a sort of one -man show.
Small company with limited staff. It would take two or three phone calls for Jamal
Deaifi to respond to requests to repair broken irrigation lines or potholes. Difficult for
David to make a final judgement regarding the performance of the contractor
because the projected is not completed.
City of Montebello (7199) Tom Kwok
City of Montebello was not contacted. The listed referenced project was for a
$21,000 flashing beacon which did not have any similarities in scope to the project
• bid. It wouldn't compare to the almost $300,000 Irvine Terrace Street Light project.
it
Page 4
Irvine Terrace Street Light Replacement Project
Contractor Review (03298
June 21, 2000
Cty of Baldwin Park (2/00) Shafique Naiyer
IEC had provided the reference of Shafique Naiyer, Director of Public Works, for the
City, who was contracted on June 19". Shafique had worked with Jamal Deaifi many
years ago at the City of Southgate under the former owners of IEC. However, he
has not had any direct dealing with IEC at Baldwin Park. According the State
Contractor's Board, IEC's license was issued in September of 1999. 1 informed
Shafique that IEC had listed him as a reference for a $250,000 traffic signal
construction project. He didn't recall the project but referred me to the Engineering
Manager, Arjan Indani.
Arjan called back to discuss IEC experience. According to him, IEC had only
provided him with inspection services and he had no knowledge of any traffic signal
work. I informed Arjan that IEC had listed a $250,000 traffic signal project completed
in February 2000. He said there was no such project completed by IEC and that
they had only provided inspection services to the City.
Caltrans (12/99) Abdallah Alfakoud
Reference phone number provided in bid was not correct phone number. New
reference number provided in meeting with IEC on Monday, June 19". Abdallah was
contacted on Tuesday, June 200. Initial statements from Abdallah were favorable
• and stated that they had completed a streetlight and traffic signal project. He
volunteered this before I asked him any questions.
Abdallah was asked what type of project did IEC perform for you and when? Traffic
Signal modifications that were part of an overall bigger bridge construction.
Was there a subcontractor? Yes. Did they do streetlights? Yes, approximately nine
lights. Was there any boring of conduit? No.
I asked Abdallah to provide me any information regarding the scope and extent of
the work they performed. Because the project was last fall, he was unable to find
anything during our conversation. He indicated he would look and call me back to try
and identify more specifically what the scope of work was. Upon further inquiry
about exact amount of conduit work and exact amount of streetlights, Abdallah was
unable to clearly recall what work IEC had done. He also informed me that he was
the civil inspector. A separate group inspected the electrical portions of the project.
He was unable to provide a contact to discuss the specific electrical work performed.
He did recall that he enjoyed working with Jamal. I phoned Abdallah back on
Wednesday, June 215' to follow up with him on contract documents he was trying to
locate to further define IEC efforts during the project. He had not located any
documents.
Caltrans (8/99) Wahib Jeraie
Wahib was contacted on Tuesday, June 20'h, and provided somewhat favorable
comments regarding IEC's performance.
Scope of work was traffic signal relocation as part of a bigger road construction
project on Route 30. CC -Myers was the general contractor. IEC was subcontractor.
Page 5
Irvine Terrace Street Light Replacement Project
Contractor Review (C -3298
June 21, 2000
City of Anaheim Ken Riggins Traffic Signal Inspector
Contacted on June 22nd. Ken has been a contract traffic construction inspector for
the City for the past 4 years. IEC has been the low bidder recently on two signal
replacement projects. The first project is virtually complete with foundations and
conduit installed. A material delay on the poles is the only reason why the first
project is not complete. IEC just began work on a second signal replacement project
that involved removal of a median and several ornamental streetlights. Conduit
boring was involved for an interconnect (1200 feet) and approximately 200 feet of
conduit was directionally bored at each intersection. The only streetlights in these
projects were the lights on the traffic poles.
Overall Ken has had a good experience with IEC. The contractor has been
responsive to any corrections that the City has requested. Traffic control and site
cleanliness has been acceptable.
Az
0
Michael J. Sinacori, PE
• Utilities Engineer & Project Manager
mjs:sdi
F: \Users\PBVV\Shared \Contracts \FY 99 -00 \Irvine Terrace Street Lights C -3298 \IEC Reference Check Memo.doc
1
U
June 21, 2000
Don Webb's Phone Call to Steve Badum
City of Seal Beach, Public Works Department
Question: What is the scope of work being performed?
Response:
• $250,000± upgrade of traffic signals at approximately ten locations
• No significant boring operations
• Change out of controllers
• No streetlighting other than intersection safety lighting is part of the project
Question: What is your experience with IEC?
Response:
• Not well prepared
Don't pay attention to safety on job site without constant reminders
• Job site management marginal
• Made operational change without coordinating City and Police Department
• Project management staff had to spend more than normal amount of time
managing the project
• Contractor disrespectful to some inspection staff members
• The assets of the firm are marginal and not apparent at the job site
• Workers show up in personal vehicles
June 21, 2000
Don Webb's Phone Call to Tim Serlet (714) 573 -3152
Public Works Director, City of Tustin
Question: What is the scope of work being performed?
Response: Traffic signal upgrade at 1$t and Tustin
When I described our project as going through an extensive residential
neighborhood he indicated that was not work similar to what is being performed
in Tustin.
Other comments by Tim Serlet:
• No streetlight work as part of the contract
• Considers contractor O.K., but definitely a low bid contractor
• Considers this an easy, isolated conversion with little or no boring for conduit
• Site maintenance is done by the contractor when the City brings it to his
attention, but the contractor doesn't seem to do it on his own
\ \MIS_1 \SYS \Users\PB W\Shared\COU NCI L \Fy99 -00 \June -27U7 W ebbPhoneNotes &21- OO.doc
*I q— 6P�a-) I"
J-a4, to cc 6x,n P�j
U'r-i (P (5el�0o
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
MEMORANDUM
June 26, 2000
To: City Council
From: Public Works Director
Subject: Irvine Terrace Street Light Replacement Project, Contract No. 3298, Agenda
Item No. 19
The Public Works Department has recommended that the Irvine Terrace Street Light
Replacement Project bid of Inspection Engineering Construction (IEC) be rejected as
non - responsive.
The Bid Documents require that Technical Ability and Experience References be
submitted with the Bid Proposal. The instructions on the City's reference form state:
"The undersigned submits herewith a statement of the work of similar character
(emphasis added) to that proposed herein which he /she has performed and
successfully completed."
IEC submitted eight references with their bid package. Seven were for traffic signal
projects and one was for a flashing beacon. Three were for work in progress. The
Supplemental Memo in the Friday distribution to the City Council summarizes the
results of the staffs check on these references as well as two additional references
submitted by the contractor in further support of his experience. The staff has met
twice with IEC in an effort to get more information about projects that they may have
completed that are similar in character to the Irvine Terrace street light conversion
project. In one of those meetings the City's Electrician discussed with the IEC
foreman some of the unique characteristics of the old series circuit 5000 volt street
light system being converted. It was clear that the foreman had very limited
experience with series circuit systems. To date IEC has not provided the City with
any references for work they have completed similar in character to the Irvine
Terrace street light conversion project.
The references provided are for traffic signal projects. While some elements of a
traffic signal installation may be more complex than a street light conversion project,
the work is done in and around street intersections mainly on arterial highways. The
City's project is primarily in a residential area. Close to three miles of conduit have to
be installed in the parkway in front of homes. The existing 92 pole, 5000 volt series
circuit street light system is also required to be kept in service during the contract.
Because of the wide area of work, the contractor will need to be well coordinated and
very sensitive to the needs of adjoining homes. Site management and response to
complaints will be very important.
The references provided were not, in staff's opinion, for "work of similar character"
to the Irvine Terrace street light conversion project. None of the projects were in a
primarily residential area. The conduit boring operations were minor in comparison to
the close to three miles of conduit to be installed for the City's project. There were no
projects listed that converted a 5000 volt series circuit system to a 240 volt multiple
system while keeping the series circuit street lights in operation. None of the
references submitted confirmed that IEC has performed work of similar character to
the Irvine Terrace street light conversion project or that IEC has the capability to
manage a project spread out over a significant area. Based on a check of the
references submitted, none of the projects listed were for "work of similar
character" to the Irvine Terrace street light conversion project. In two meetings with
IEC after the bid opening, the contractor was not able to provide additional
information to show that he had completed projects that were similar in character.
Because of the inability of IEC to provide the references for "work of similar
character" required to be submitted with the Bid Documents, it is recommended that
the City Council find that the IEC bid is non - responsive and reject the bid.
Staff is not suggesting that the City Council determine that IEC is not a "responsible
bidder', only that the IEC's bid was non - responsive for failure to provide evidence
that they had performed "work of similar character" to the Irvine Terrace street light
conversion project.
If the City Council supports the staff recommendation to reject the IEC bid as non-
responsive the following finding should be made referencing the listed support data:
The City Council finds that the bid submitted by Inspection Engineering
Construction is non - responsive to the City's Notice Inviting Bids for Irvine
Terrace Street Light Replacement Contract No. 3298 because of the following
reasons:
1. The references provided were not for "work of similar
character" to the Irvine Terrace street light conversion project.
2. None of the projects listed were in a primarily residential area.
3. The conduit boring operations for the projects listed were minor
in comparison to the close to three miles of conduit to be installed
for the City's project.
4. There were no projects listed that converted a 5000 volt series
circuit system to a 240 volt multiple system while keeping the
series circuit street lights in operation.
5. None of the references submitted indicated a capability of the
contractor to manage a project spread out over a significant area.