Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2012-24 - FY 2011-12 Street Light Improvement Project as Non-ResponsibleRESOLUTION NO. 2012 -24 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH REJECTING THE LOW BIDDER, PRO TECH ENGINEERING CORPORATION, FOR THE FY 2011 -2012 STREET LIGHT IMPROVEMENT PROJECT AS NON - RESPONSIBLE WHEREAS, the City of Newport Beach ( "City ") solicited bids for a FY 2011 -2012 Street Light Improvement Project as part of its on -going effort to rehabilitate the City's aging streetlight system by increasing reliability and decreasing energy and maintenance costs ( "Project "); and WHEREAS, Pro Tech Engineering Corporation ( "Contractor ") submitted the low bid for the Project; and WHEREAS, a project is generally awarded to the low bidder unless the City finds the bidder is non - responsible; and WHEREAS, California Public Contracts Code Section 1103 defines a "responsible bidder" as "a bidder who has demonstrated the attribute of trustworthiness, as well as quality, fitness, capacity, and experience to satisfactorily perform the public works contract;" and WHEREAS, California courts have held that a bidder may be rejected as non - responsible when the bidder is "not qualified to do the particular work under consideration" (City of Inglewood -Los Angeles County Civic Center Authority et al. v. The Superior Court of Los Angeles (1972) 7 Cal.3d 861, 867); and WHEREAS, based upon the City's previous experience with Contractor and the findings provided below, staff recommends the City Council reject Contractor's bid and find that Contractor is non - responsible. NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Newport Beach hereby resolves as follows: Section 1: The City Council rejects Pro Tech Engineering Corporation's bid as non - responsible and finds that it is not qualified to perform the Project based upon the following: A) The Contractor was previously awarded the Balboa Peninsula Streetlight Modifications project (C -3416) in June 2001. The City experienced numerous problems with the Contractor including but not limited to inferior work quality, uncompleted work, incorrectly installed facilities, and performance safety problems including missing ground wires, improper splices, and exposed fuses and wires. Extensive corrective work was required extending the final project completion date and resulting in costly change orders. Furthermore, past failures of that streetlight system have been traced back and attributed to the Contractor's inferior installation and direct violations of the Electrical Code. B) On May 28, 2008, the Contractor's low bid was rejected by the City Council for Contract No. 3975, Traffic Signal Modernization - Phase 1 Construction, due to the lack of cooperation to provide the required contractual documents and information. For example, the City requested certification for employees to perform work as electricians pursuant to California Labor Code Section 3099, however, the Contractor made no attempt to contact the City to resolve the contractual documents and missing information issues, nor did it ever produce the required documents on the Phase 1 Traffic Signal Modernization project. C) A recent check of the Contractor's references indicated that it continues to have similar issues completing projects in other municipalities such as the cities of Downey, Orange, and Diamond Bar. Those cities cited the Contractor's inadequate supervision and oversight of projects, on -going problems with traffic control, an inability to follow directions, and not completing work in a timely manner. D) In accordance with due process requirements, and at the request of the Contractor, an informal hearing was held on February 23, 2012 with Mike Niknafs, President of Pro Tech Engineering Corporation, Public Works staff, and Rob Houston with the City Manager's Office who served as a third -party review body and facilitator of the hearing. Information regarding staff concerns, reference checks, history of past performance by the Contractor, and other related problems were provided by the Public Works Department. Mr. Niknafs had an opportunity to present both oral and written information to address the City's concerns and respond to staffs finding of non - responsibility. To afford Mr. Niknafs the opportunity to provide additional references or information Mr. Niknafs was given a deadline of February 29, 2012 to provide any additional information, work references, and employee references to show that the Contractor was responsible. In response, the Contractor provided two additional references, cities of Downey and Garden Grove, who called on behalf of Mr. Niknafs and stated that they are at best satisfied with the quality of the Contractor's work. However, the City of Downey stated that there were continuous traffic control issues on the project which needed to be continually addressed. The reference check from the City of Garden Grove stated that the work was adequate, but the Project Manager was not good and working with the Contractor was not a favorable experience. No employee references were provided by Contractor. Following the informal hearing and the additional information supplied by the Contractor, City staff finds that the Contractor is not qualified to perform the work required by the Project and recommends it be found non - responsible. Section 2: The City Council finds this Project and the finding of non - responsible categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act ( "CEQA ") pursuant to Section 15302(c) (replacement of existing facilities involving negligible expansion of capacity) of the CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Chapter 3, because it has no potential to have a significant effect on the environment. Section 3: This resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption by the City Council, and the City Clerk shall certify the vote adopting the resolution. ADOPTED this 13th day of March, 2012. Mayor ATTEST: _aTw ' City Clerk ` STATE OF CALIFORNIA } COUNTY OF ORANGE } ss. CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH } I, Leilani I. Brown, City Clerk of the City of Newport Beach, California, do hereby certify that the whole number of members of the City Council is seven; that the foregoing resolution, being Resolution No. 2012 -24 was duly and regularly introduced before and adopted by the City Council of said City at a regular meeting of said Council, duly and regularly held on the 13m day of March, 2012, and that the same was so passed and adopted by the following vote, to wit: Ayes: Hill, Rosansky, Curry, Selich, Henn, Daigle, Mayor Gardner Noes: None Absent: None IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto subscribed my name and affixed the official seal of said City this 14m day of March, 2012. City Clerk Newport Beach, California (Seal)