Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996-08-05 City Council (37)TO: City Manager’s Summary Report HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL FROM:CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: Public Works DATE: SUBJECT: August 5, 1996 CMR:363:96 ALMA STREET BICYCLE BRIDGE AND PATH PROJECT (CIP 19411): REJECTION OF CONSTRUCTION BIDS, APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION FOR TRANSPORTATION FUND FOR CLEAN AIR GRANT, AND APPROVAL OF AMENDMENT #2 TO THE AGREEMENT WITH THE CITY OF MENLO PARK REQUEST Staff requests that Council reject the bids received and direct staff to proceed with the necessary steps to revise the design, obtain more funding, and rebid the project. RECOMMENDATIONS Staff recommends that Council take the following actions: Reject all bids received for construction. Direct staff to reduce the project scope and rebid the work. Adopt a resolution authorizing application for a $98,000 Transportation Fund for Clean Air grant from the Bay Area Air Quality Management District. Approve Amendment #2 to the Agreement with the City of Menlo Park extending the agreement to September 1997. POLICY IMPLICATIONS This project is consistent with the goals and objectives of the "Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan, 1980-1995" as it will reduce public dependence on private cars and encourage the use of bicycles. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY In order to provide a safe alternative to crossing San Francisquito Creek along the railroad tracks, Council approved a CIP to construct a new bridge and path in E1 Palo Alto Park CMR:363:96 Page 1 of 10 and on a small parcel of land at the end of Alma Street in Menlo Park. Design of the project was completed and bids were solicited in May 1996. Two bids were received with a low base bid of $344,500, which is $14t ,500 over the Engineer’s estimate of $203,000. Based on conversations with the contractors and the engineering design consultant, it was found that the bids were higher than expected due in part to the complexity of the plans. In addition, the timing of the bidding at the start of- a very busy construction season may have resulted in fewer bids. Unfortunately, there were a number of coordination and scheduling issues that made it impossible to bid the project earlier. Due to the excessive difference in the low bid and Engineer’s Estimate, as well as the resulting budget shortfall, staff recommends rejecting all bids. Staff further recommends that the project be rebid in the winter to take advantage of a potentially more competitive bidding environment. Prior to rebidding, staff will revise the project scope and make plan clarifications to reduce costs by at least $60,000 and pursue securing up to $98,000 in additional grant funding, in order to address a $158,000 budget shortfall. As part of this effort, staff recommends that Council approve the attached resolution authorizing application for a $98,000 Transportation Fund for Clean Air grant from the Bay Area Air Quality Management District. Also, staff is currently pursuing the possibility of additional funding or project assistance from the Santa Clara County Transportation Agency, Congestion Management Program and the Joint Powers Board. Staff will confer with the City of Menlo Park on possible further support and recommends that Council approve the attached Amendment to the Agreement with the City of Menlo Park. The Amendment extends the agreement termination date to September 1997, in order to provide sufficient time to complete the project. Staff considered four alternatives to rescoping the project. The first alternative involves awarding the current project, which requires a $158,000 General Fund Budget Amendment Ordinance. The second alternative involves canceling the project, which would result in the continuation of serious safety problems and the loss of the remaining $139,000 in Proposition 116 funds. The third alternative involves rebidding the project in phases, which would result in interim safety problems and would still require significant additional funding. A fourth alternative involves rebidding the project and combining it with the Embarcadero Bridge CIP. The scopes of the two projects are different enough to cause more administrative costs, and the combined project would still require significant additional funding. FISCAL IMPACT A possible additional $98,000 in funding from the General Fund will be necessary if grant funding cannot be secured.~ CMR:363:96 Page 2 of 10 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT The Environmental Assessment (95-EIA-16) was approved by Council on December 4, 1995. Changes to the scope of work resulting from Council approval of staff’s recommendation will not require revisions to the EIA. PREPARED BY: George Bagdon, Assistant Director of Public Works DEPARTMENT HEAD REVIEW: GLENN S. ROBERTS Director of Public Works CITY MANAGER APPROVAL: Manager CMR:363:96 Page 3 of 10 City of Palo Alto City Manager’s Report SUBJECT:ALMA STREET BICYCLE BRIDGE AND PATH PROJECT (CIP 19411): REJECTION OF CONSTRUCTION BIDS, APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION FOR A TRANSPORTATION FUND FOR CLEAN AIR GRANT, AND APPROVAL OF’ AMENDMENT #2 TO THE AGREEMENT WITH THE CITY OF MENLO PARK RECOMMENDATIONS Staff recommends that Council take the following actions: 1. Reject all bids received for construction. 2.Direct staff to reduce the project scope and rebid the work. Adopt a resolution authorizing application for a $98,000 Transportation Fund for Clean Air grant from the Bay Area Air Quality Management District. Approve Amendment #2 to the Agreement with the City of Menlo Park extending the agreement to September 1997. BACKGROUND Pedestrians and bicyclists have been using the railroad bridge to cross San Francisquito Creek since the bridge’s dedication in 1902. In order to provide a safe alternative to crossing along the railroad tracks, Council approved a Capital Improvement Project (CIP) to construct a bridge and path to be located in E1 Palo Alto Park and on a small parcel of land at the end 0f Alma Street in Menlo Park. Council approved the Preliminary Design and Park Improvement Ordinance for the project in December 1995 (CMR:504.95). Council approved the Lease Agreement with the Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board, Amendment #1 to the Agreement with the City of Menlo Park, and the Maintenance Agreement with the City of Menlo Park in May 1996 (CMR:259:96). Design was completed in Spring 1996, with the intent of constructing the project in Fall 1996. This would have allowed just enough time to finish the work before the expiration of the original grant deadline for the State Proposition 116 funding, in October 1996. POLICY IMPLICATIONS This project is consistent with the goals and objectives of the "Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan, 1980-1995." It is listed as a first priority project relative to CMR:363:96 Page 4 of 10 bikeways. In particular, the Alma Street Bicycle Bridge and Path Project will reduce public dependence on private cars and encourage the use of bicycles for non-recreational, as well as recreational, activities. The Comprehensive Plan supports bicycling as this alternative reduces the number of vehicles on City streets. DISCUSSION A notice inviting formal bids for construction was sent on May 7, 1996 to 13 building exchanges and 10 contractors. The bidding period was 28 days to allow sufficient time for distribution of plans. A pre-bid meeting was held on May 21, 1996 and six potential bidders attended the meeting. Bids were received from two qualified contractors on June 4, 1996, as listed on the attached bid summary (Exhibit A). The low base bid of $344,500 is $141,500 over the Engineer’s estimate of $203,000. The engineering design consultant was asked to explain the difference between the construction bids and the Engineer’s Estimate. The following primary reasons were given, based in part upon conversations with the contractors who bid on the project: The bridge loading shown on the plans required a higher strength value than needed, resulting in a more costly bridge than was assumed in the Engineer’s Estimate. []A portion of the fencing material was specified incorrectly on the drawings. The plans did not clearly indicate that most of the landscaping plants would be donated by Bay Area Action and that the cost for railroad protective liability insurance would be absorbed by the Joint Powers Board. Staff also looked into the general bidding environment, examining similar local area projects that were bid this spring. For example, a bicycle bridge project, for the City of Campbell received bids that were 45 percent above the Engineer’s Estimate while bridges at Marsh R6ad/Highway 101 and Willow Road/Highway 101 were 25 percent and 60 percent above the Engineer’s Estimate, respectively. The bids received for these projects, as well as for Palo Alto’s Alma Street and Embarcadero Road bicycle bridges, may have been high partly due to the fact that they were all bid at the start of the peak construction season, and that there is more demand for this type of construction than in past years due to the improving economy. Plan holders who did not bid on the project were asked why they declined. Reasons offered were that the project was too small for their company to work on, the project started too soon, more site work was necessary than they normally do, and it was not their area of expertise (steel vs. concrete bridge). CMR:363:96 Page 5 of 10 There were a number of coordination and scheduling issues that made it impossible to bid the project earlier in the construction season. The project involved the coordination of funding and/or approval from the cities of Menlo Park and Palo Alto, the Santa Clara Valley Water District, the State Department of Fish and Game, the Joint Powers Board, San Mateo County Bicycle Coalition and advisory groups such as Coordinated Resource Management and Planning. The State Department of Fish and Game prohibits construction in the creek area from October 15 through April 15, so as not to disturb wildlife in the riparian areas. The primary scheduling constraint, however, has been the Proposition 116 funding deadline, which required that the State monies (which constitute 63 percent of the project’s present funding) be spent by October 19, 1996. The award of the construction contract by Council was also timed so as to allow funding to occur in the new fiscal year beginning July 1, 1996. Unfortunately, the aforementioned review, coordination and funding requirements for the project pushed the construction bidding date into the peak construction season, which may have resulted in higher bids. Due to the excessive difference in the low bid and the Engineer’s Estimate, as well as the resulting budget shortfall, staff recommends rejecting all bids. Staff further recommends that the project be rebid in the winter to take advantage of a potentially more competitive bidding environment. Prior to rebidding, staff will revise the proj+ct scope and make plan clarifications to reduce costs by at least $60,000 and pursue securing up to $98,000 in additional grant funding, in order to address a $158,000 budget shortfall. The total shortfall consists of the $141,500 difference in the low bid and Engineer’s Estimate, as well as $16,500 required for related construction stage testing and contract administration. Following is a more detailed discussion: Scope change/clarifications As a result of clarifying/modifying the project’s plans and specifications, $60,000 of scope reductions could be realized as follows: a.$35,000 by specifying the correct bridge loading b.$10,000 by specifying the correct fence materials c.$11,000 in landscaping costs by clarifying that the plants will be donated by Bay Area Action and that the compost will be provided by the City of Palo Alto do $4,000 by clarifying that the cost of the insurance requirements will be absorbed by the Joint Powers Board In addition, staff is Considering the following reductions to the scope of work: CMR:363:96 Page 6 of 10 Eliminate the add alternate for the truss element on the bridge due to the lack of funding. This will result in simpler plans and specifications for contractors to bid. Eliminate or include as an add alternate that portion of the irrigation controller which allows for computer monitoring capabilities. This will reduce project costs from $9,000 to $15,000 if this work is not awarded. Remove from the base bid one new coast live oak, five new redwood trees and their resulting irrigation needs and include as add alternates. This will reduce project costs by approximately $4,000 if this work is not awarded. The scope changes will still result in a project which is sensitive to its surroundings and will comply with all environmental, site and design conditions and funding requirements. Additional funding At staff’s request, the State has recently approved extending the existing State Proposition 116 grant expenditure deadline to June 30, 1997. To supplement these funds, staff recommends that Council approve the attached resolution authorizing application for a $98,000 Transportation Fund for Clean Air (AB414) grant from the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (Exhibit C). A surcharge on motor vehicle registrations provides funding for the Transportation Fund for Clean Air. Grants are distributed by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District, to "implement strategies to reduce air pollution from motor vehicles in accordance with the.requirements of State law and the Air District’s 1994 Clean Air Plan." One type of improvement that is eligible for these funds is a bicycle facility project. Most of the application consists of providing data to be used by the Air District to estimate the reduction in emissions that the project may achieve. Criteria used to judge the projects are cost effectiveness, project funding participation, total emissions, trip and vehicle miles traveled reductions, and disadvantaged community status. Preliminary analysis of the data pertinent to this project indicates that it should score well in all categories except the disadvantaged community status. The Air District’s final decision on which projects will receive funding will be made on November 6, 1996. Also, staff is currently pursuing the possibility of additional funding or project assistance from the Santa Clara County Transportation Agency, Congestion Management Program and the Joint Powers Board. Staff will confer with the City of Menlo Park on possible further support and recommends that Council approve the attached Amendment to the Agreement with the City of Menlo Park. The CMR:363:96 Page 7 of 10 Amendment extends the agreement termination date to September 1997, in order to provide sufficient time to complete the project (Exhibit D). In the event staff is unable to secure sufficient funding from the sources mentioned above, the City would need to fund up to $98,000 from the General Fund in order for the project to proceed. There can be no further revisions to the scope of work without severely compromising the project. The re-bidding would take place in February !997 in order to complete construction within the constraints listed below: The State Department of Fish and Game and Santa Clara Valley Water District mandate that the bridge pier, abutment, and erection not take place between October and April. Proposition 116 funding constraints require that the portion of the construction specified in the grant (bridge, bridge lighting, path, and median work) must be completed by June 30, 1997. ALTERNATIVES Four alternatives are presented for Council consideration as follows: Alternative 1: Award the current project The first alternative is to award the contract to the low bidder. The Council would need to approve funding from the General Fund via a Budget Amendment Ordinance for the $158,000 budget shortfall. Bridge construction would begin as soon as possible in order for work in the creek area to be completed by the State Department of Fish and Game’s constraint of October 15. At staff’s request, the State has already extended the Proposition 116 funding deadline to .June 30, 1997, which eliminates the risk of losing State monies if the remainder of the project is not completed this year. Under this alternative, staff would need to return to the Council on August 12, 1996 with a Budget Amendment Ordinance approval and a contract award to the low bidder, Power Engineering. The contractor has agreed to extend his bid until this date. Alternative 2: Cancel the project A second alternative is to cancel the project completely. State Proposition 116 monies that have already been expended for the bridge design would not need to be repaid to the State. However, approval of this alternative would result in the failure to address serious safety problems, the loss of the remaining $139,000 in Proposition 116 funds and increased difficulty (for approximately the next five years) in obtaining State funds for future projects. CMR:363:96 Page 8 of 10 Alternative 3: Rebid the project in phases A third alternative is to reject and rebid the project, breaking into two separate packages. The most likely phasing would be to combine the bridge and path into one package utilizing the available State grant funding. The second package would include the lighting, irrigation and landscaping and would be bid when additional funding was identified. Unfortunately, this would result in a dangerous interim solution for park users as the existing lighting would have been removed in the first phase to accommodate the bike path construction. In addition, the total cost for two separate construction packages would be greater than for one project as the contractor would need to mobilize twice. Park users would also be disrupted by construction on two different occasions. This alternative would still require significant additional funding. Alternative 4: Rebid the project and combine with the Embarcadero Bridge CIP This alternative is to reject all bids and rebid the project, combining it with the Embarcadero Bicycle Bridge and Path CIP. While the scopes of the projects may seem similar, they do have significant differences. The grant funding and subsequent reporting requirements for each project are significantly different and would add more administrative costs to the projects than might be realized by savings in construction costs. In addition, the Alma, Street Bicycle Bridge and Path Project is smaller in scope, than the Embarcadero Project, and could conceivably attract smaller contractors than those who would be able to bid on a combined Embarcadero/Alma bid package. Under this alternative, the total cost of the combined project would still require significant additional funding. FISCAL IMPACT Attached is a summary of the present project funding (Exhibit B). As discussed above, a possible additional $98,000 in funding from the General Fund will" be necessary if grant funding cannot be secured. A resolution authorizing the City to apply for and accept an AB414 Transportation Fund for Clean Air grant from the Bay Area Air Quality Management District is attached for Council approval. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT The Environmental Assessment (95-EIA-16) was approved by Council on December 4, 1995. Changes to the scope of work resulting from Council approval of staff’s recommendation will not require revisions to the EIA. STEPS FOLLOWING APPROVAL The following steps will be taken if Council approves staff’s recommendations: Pursue additional funding/support from the BAAQMD Congestion Management Program, JPB and Menlo Park (ongoing). CMR!363:96 Page 9 of 10 Revise the design and identify add alternates for desired, but non-essential items that may be built if sufficient funding is available (August - September 1996). Obtain the revised design approvals (October 1996). Bid the revised project (February 1997). Obtain Council approval of a construction contract and a Budget Amendment Ordinance for additional funding (March 1997). Start the construction (March or April 1997). Complete.the construction (June or July 1997). ATTACHMENTS Exhibit A - Bid Summary Exhibit B - Table of Present Funding Exhibit C - Funding Resolution for Transportation Funds for Clean Air funds Exhibit D - Amendment No. 2 to Cost-sharing Agreement with the City of Menlo Park Joint Powers B0ard/Thomas Davids City of Menlo Park/Don Dey DASSE Design, Inc./Doug Hohbach Palo Alto Bicycle Advisory Committee (13 copies) Stanford University Campus Archeologist/Laura Jones, Ph.D. Coordinated Resource Management and Planning/Debbie Mytels Bay Area Action/Peter Drekmeier Native Plant Society/Sara Timby Coyote Creek Riparian StationiKaren Cotter Friends of San Francisquito Creek/Jim Johnson CMR:363:96 Page 10 of 10 ID SUMMARY EXHIBIT A PROJECT: ALMA STREET BICYCLE BRIDGE AND PATH CIP NUMBER: 19411 BID NUMBER: 87066 BID OPENING: 6/4/96 BIDDER BASE BID TOTAL Engineer’s Est.203,000 Power Eng. Con 344,500 Lowery Eng.372,100 EXHIBIT B TABLE OF PRESENT FUNDING Funding Source State Type of funding Amount % of total Santa Clara County City of Palo Alto Prop. 116 funds TDA ’92-95 TDA ’96-99 Gas Tax $196,650 63 % $12,000 4% $11,000 4% $21,350 7% San Mateo County City of Menlo Park Joint Powers Board TOTAL Parks Capital Improvement Project Measure A TDA ’96-99 in-kind grant contribution for fence $15,000 5% $11,000 4% $19,000 6 % $0 0% $16,000 5 % $11,000 4% $313,000 100% RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AUTHORIZING THE SUBMITTAL OF AN APPLICATION TO THE BAY AREA AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT FOR FUNDS PURSUANT TO HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE SECTIONS 44225 AND 44241 FOR THE PURPOSE OF THE ALMA STREET BICYCLE BRIDGE AND PATH PROJECT AND AUTHORIZING THE IMPLEMENTATION OF SAME IF THE APPLICATION IS APPROVED BY THE BAY AREA AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT BOARD OF DIRECTORS WHEREAS, the City of Palo Alto is a supporter of clean air and wishes to take action to enhance air quality within the San Francisco Bay Area; and WHEREAS, the City of Palo Alto intends to submit a funding application to the Bay Area Air Quality Management District for funds pursuant to Health and Safety Code Sections 44225 and 44241 for the Alma Street Bicycle Bridge and Path Project. NOW, THEREFORE, the Council of the City of Palo Alto does hereby RESOLVE as follows: SECTION I. That the City Manager is authorized to submit such application for the City Council. SECTION 2. That the City Manager is authorized to execute a funding agreement with the Bay Area Air Quality Management District for the purpose of the Alma Street Bicycle Bridge and Path Project if said application is approved for partial funding by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District Board of Directors. SECTION 3. .The City Council finds that the action taken herein does not constitute a project under the California Environmental Quality Act, and no environmental assessment is necessary. INTRODUCED AND PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT ABSTENTIONS: ATTEST:APPROVED: City Clerk Mayor 960710 syn 0071014 1 APPROVED AS TO FORM: Senior Asst. City Attorney APPROVED: City Manager Director of Public Works Deputy City Manager, Administrative Services 960710 syn 0071014 AMENDMENT NO. TWO TO AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AND CITY OF MENLO PARK This Amendment No. Two to Agreement ("Amendment") is entered into , by and between the CITY OF PALO ALTO, a chartered city and a municipal corporationof the State of California ("Palo Alto"), and the CITY OF MENLO PARK, a general law city and a municipal corporation of the State of California ("Menlo Park"). RECITALS: WHEREAS, on December 20, 1994, an agreement ("Agreement") was entered into between the parties for the sharing of costs of designing and constructing a pedestrian and bicycle path bridge across San Francisquito Creek between Palo Alto and Menlo Park and the preparation of related documents ("Project"); and WHEREAS, on May 20, 1996, the .parties entered into Amendment No. One to the Agreement ("Amendment No. One"); and WHEREAS, the parties wish to amend the Agreement, as previously amended by Amendment No. One, by modifying the termination date; NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the covenants, terms, conditions, and provisions of this Amendment, the parties agree: SECTION i. Section ii of the Agreement, as previously amended by Amendment NOo one, is hereby amended to read as follows: "ii. Termination. This Agreement shall terminate on September 30, 1997 if Palo Alto has not awarded a contract for construction of the Project prior to June 30, 1997, unless the termination date is extended by mutual agreement. In the event of such termination, Palo Alto shall refund to Menlo Park any and all sums advanced by Menlo Park, less all costs and expenditures theretofore made by Palo Alto for items described herein as part of Menlo Park’s Work. This Agreement may be terminated by either party at any time prior to ten days before the award of contract for the Project construction by serving written notice upon the other party, subject to the aforementioned conditions." SECTION 2. Except as herein modified, all other provisions of the Agreement, as amended by Amendment No. One, including any exhibits and subsequent amendments thereto, shall remain in full force and effect. 960730 syn 0071019 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have by their duly authorized representatives executed this Amendment on the date first above written. APPROVED AS TO FORM:CITY OF MENLO PARK City Attorney City Manager ATTEST: City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM:CITY OF PALO ALTO Senior Asst. City Attorney APPROVED: City Manager Director of Public Works Deputy City Manager, Administrative Services -’2 960730 syn 0071019