|
Contract Award For
<br />Santa Clara Avenue Sewer and
<br />Water Main Improvements
<br />March 21, 2011
<br />Page 2
<br />NAME OF RESPONSIVE BIDDER
<br />CITY
<br />BID AMOUNT
<br />1.
<br />Garcia Juarez Construction, Inc.
<br />Brea
<br />$1,196,325.00
<br />2.
<br />Mike Bubalo Construction Company
<br />Baldwin Park
<br />$1,241,900.00
<br />3.
<br />Nikola Corporation
<br />Irvine
<br />$1,311,370.00
<br />4.
<br />Dominguez General Engineering, Inc.
<br />Rosemead
<br />$1,311,645.00
<br />5.
<br />Kana Pipeline, Inc.
<br />Placentia
<br />$1,370,000.00
<br />6.
<br />J. De Sigio Construction, Inc.
<br />Baldwin Park
<br />$1,374,575.00
<br />7.
<br />T.E. Roberts, Inc.
<br />Tustin
<br />$1,404,072.50
<br />8.
<br />Vido Artukovich & Son, Inc.
<br />S. El Monte
<br />$1,422,800.00
<br />9.
<br />T. B. U., Inc.
<br />Beaumont
<br />$1,532,985.00
<br />10.
<br />MNR Construction, Inc.
<br />San Dimas
<br />$1,537,400.00
<br />11.
<br />J. A. Salazar Construction & Supply
<br />La Habra
<br />$1,594,605.00
<br />12.
<br />Savala Construction
<br />Irvine
<br />$1,740,692.15
<br />13.
<br />Blois Construction, Inc.
<br />Oxnard
<br />$1,861,130.00
<br />While the City made outreach efforts to Santa Ana contractors regarding the Notice Inviting Bids,
<br />no contractors from Santa Ana submitted bids. The eight Santa Ana contractors did not submit a
<br />bid either because they are not capable of performing this type of work, unable to obtain insurance
<br />because the project is too large, or they work as a subcontractor only for certain prime contractors.
<br />A total of 13 bids were received and all were responsive. The lowest bid was submitted by Garcia
<br />Juarez Constriction, Inc., for $1,196,325 which is below the Engineer's estimate of $1,497,500.
<br />BID PROTEST
<br />The Public Works Agency issued a Notice Inviting Bids for the above project. After bids were
<br />opened on January 6, 2011, the City received a bid protest from Mike Bubalo Construction Co.,
<br />Inc., alleging that the low bidder submitted a late bid, and should have been disqualified. The
<br />contractor asserted that the late filing cannot be waived because it is a material irregularity which
<br />affects the amount of the bid and /or gives the late bidder an advantage over other bidders.
<br />The protesting party has the burden of proof to demonstrate that the staff's determination of
<br />proposed low bidder is arbitrary and capricious, or unsupported by substantial evidence in the
<br />record.
<br />The parties agree to the following facts:
<br />The Notice Inviting Bids provides that the City will receive sealed bids "on or before the hour of
<br />2:00 p.m." Additionally, the Instructions to Bidders warns that it is the bidder's responsibility to
<br />ensure delivery of the proposal to "...the Public Works Agency, Fourth Floor Receptionist, prior
<br />to the bid opening hour stipulated in the Notice Inviting Bids. Late proposals will not be
<br />considered."
<br />W
<br />
|