Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report 2406-3191CITY OF PALO ALTO CITY COUNCIL Special Meeting Monday, September 09, 2024 Council Chambers & Hybrid 5:30 PM     Agenda Item     10.Approval of Construction Contract No. C25191636 with Central Pacific Engineering, LLC in the Amount of $499,530 and Authorization for the City Manager or Their Designee to Negotiate and Execute Change Orders for Related Additional but Unforeseen Work that may Develop During the Project Up to a Not-to-Exceed Amount of $49,953 for Site Work for the Cubberley Field Restroom (CB-17002) and Cubberley Repairs (CB-17001) Projects; CEQA status – Exempt Under CEQA Guidelines Section 15303 Consent Questions City Council Staff Report From: City Manager Report Type: CONSENT CALENDAR Lead Department: Public Works Meeting Date: September 9, 2024 Report #:2406-3191 TITLE Approval of Construction Contract No. C25191636 with Central Pacific Engineering, LLC in the Amount of $499,530 and Authorization for the City Manager or Their Designee to Negotiate and Execute Change Orders for Related Additional but Unforeseen Work that may Develop During the Project Up to a Not-to-Exceed Amount of $49,953 for Site Work for the Cubberley Field Restroom (CB-17002) and Cubberley Repairs (CB-17001) Projects; CEQA status – Exempt Under CEQA Guidelines Section 15303 RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that Council: 1. Approve and authorize the City Manager or their designee to execute Construction Contract No. C25191636 with Central Pacific Engineering, LLC in an amount not-to- exceed $499,530 for the Cubberley Field Restroom (CB-17002) and Cubberley Repairs (CB-17001) projects; and 2. Authorize the City Manager or their designee to negotiate and execute change orders to the contract with Central Pacific Engineering for related, additional but unforeseen work that may arise, the total value of which shall not exceed $49,953. BACKGROUND The Cubberley Community Center (Cubberley) field is the City’s largest field complex and includes soccer and softball fields, tennis courts, and a running track. There are currently only two portable restrooms available onsite. A permanent restroom is a much-needed facility to accommodate the heavy field usage. The City currently owns eight acres, and the Palo Alto Unified School District (PAUSD) owns 27 acres at Cubberley. The proposed restroom will be located on the property owned by the PAUSD between the sports fields and the running track. The restroom location has been coordinated with the PAUSD. The restroom location was determined based on its proximity to the fields and community input, and it will primarily serve the City’s sports fields users. The Cubberley Field Restroom project (CB-17002) began in 2018 and was postponed due to staffing constraints. The project originally included a two-stall restroom building. Based on the input received from the community, a four-stall restroom in the proposed location was preferred to accommodate the heavy usage of the fields. This project requires a lift station to pump sanitary sewage from the restroom to the City’s sewer on Nelson Drive. On June 19, 2023, Council approved a Purchase Order1 for the purchase of a modular restroom building at the Cubberley Community Center Fields. The building has been fabricated by the restroom vendor, Public Restroom Company, and is ready for delivery. The site work for the restroom that will be performed under this construction contract includes site preparation, demolition, utilities, pump installation, new lighting, concrete paving, asphalt paving, coordinating with the restroom vendor for delivery and installation of the new modular building, and final utility connections. The existing asphalt pathway adjacent to the new restroom is in poor condition and will be replaced as part of the project. This portion of work will use funds from the Cubberley Repairs project (CB-17001). ANALYSIS Procurement Process On June 6, 2024, an invitation for bids (IFB) for site work for the Cubberley Field Restroom Project was posted to the City’s OpenGov online procurement system. The bidding period was 22 calendar days. The City received five responsive bids from qualified contractors on June 28, 2024, as listed on the attached bid summary (Attachment A). Base bids ranged from $499,530 to $756,790 and from 12% below to 33% above the engineer’s estimate of $567,165. The project does not include any bid alternates. Table 1: Summary of invitation for Bids Project Bid Name/Number Cubberley Field Restroom Site Work CB- 17002/IFB# 191636 Proposed Length of Project 90 calendar days Number of Bid Packages Downloaded by Contractors 27 Number of Bid Packages Downloaded by Builder’s Exchanges 2 Total Days to Respond to Bid 22 calendar days Pre-Bid Meeting Yes (non-mandatory) 1 City Council, June 19, 2023; Agenda Item #3, SR# 2304-1330, https://recordsportal.paloalto.gov/Weblink/DocView.aspx?id=82396 Table 1: Summary of invitation for Bids Number of Bids Received 5 Base Bid Price Range $499,530 - $756,790 Base Bid Engineers Estimate $567,165 Public Link to Solicitation https://procurement.opengov.com/portal/palo- alto-ca/projects/99071 Staff has reviewed all bids and recommends that the Base Bid of $499,530 submitted by Central Pacific Engineering be accepted and that Central Pacific Engineering, LLC be declared the lowest responsible bidder. Staff recommends approval of Construction Contract No. C251916362 with Central Pacific Engineering, LLC. The construction contingency amount of $49,953, which equals 10% of the contract value, is requested for related, additional, but unforeseen work which may arise during the project, implemented via City-approved change orders. Staff checked references provided by Central Pacific Engineering for other similar projects completed by the bidder and received satisfactory feedback about their work performance. Staff also checked with the Contractor’s State License Board and confirmed that the contractor has an active license on file. FISCAL/RESOURCE IMPACT Funding for this contract is available in the Fiscal Year 2025 Adopted Capital Improvement Program Fund Cubberley Repairs (CB-17001) and Cubberley Field Restroom (CB-17002) projects. Table 2: Funding Allocation Funding Source Contract Contingency Total Funding CB-17002 $454,080 $45,408 $499,488 CB-17001 $45,450 $4,545 $49,995 Total $499,530 $49,953 $549,483 STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT On August 17, 2022, staff held a community meeting to review the proposed restroom location and building style. Due to limited attendance, staff conducted an online survey to obtain community input. The survey results can be viewed on the City’s Park Restrooms webpage.3 2 Central Pacific Engineering Construction Contract for the Cubberley Field Restroom Site Work Project C25191636; https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/v/1/public-works/engineering-services/cip- contracts/c25191636-central-pacific-engineering_cc_staff-report_09.09.2024.pdf 3 Park Restrooms Webpage; www.cityofpaloalto.org/parkrestrooms Staff presented the community survey results, restroom location options, and a 4-stall restroom option to the Parks and Recreation Commission (PRC) on January 24, 2023.4 The PRC and the community supported the 4-stall restroom in the proposed location. In May 2023, a minor Architectural Review Board approval was provided for the restroom. In May 2024, a building permit was issued for the restroom. Additionally, staff has coordinated with the City’s Safe Routes to School team and PAUSD staff regarding project timeline, required detours, and construction staging. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW ATTACHMENTS APPROVED BY: 4 Parks and Recreation Commission, January 24, 2023; https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/v/1/agendas-minutes-reports/agendas-minutes/parks-and- recreation-commission/agendas-minutes/2023-agendas-and-minutes/1-jan/staff-report-w-attachments- cubberley-field-restroom.pdf ATTACHMENT A CUBBERLEY FIELD RESTROOM SITE WORK BID SUMMARY Unit Cost Total Cost Unit Cost Total Cost Unit Cost Total Cost Unit Cost Total Cost Unit Cost Total Cost Unit Cost Total Cost 1 Mobilization/Demobilization 1 Lump Sum 20,000.00$ 20,000.00$ 15,000.00$ 15,000.00$ 20,785.00$ 20,785.00$ 40,000.00$ 40,000.00$ 68,912.00$ 68,912.00$ 94,950.00$ 94,950.00$ 2 Public Notification 1 Lump Sum 1,500.00$ 1,500.00$ 1,500.00$ 1,500.00$ 2,968.00$ 2,968.00$ 7,500.00$ 7,500.00$ 824.00$ 824.00$ 1,250.00$ 1,250.00$ 3 Traffic Control 1 Lump Sum 45,000.00$ 45,000.00$ 5,000.00$ 5,000.00$ 17,824.00$ 17,824.00$ 9,750.00$ 9,750.00$ 25,052.00$ 25,052.00$ 22,520.00$ 22,520.00$ 4 Demolition and Removal 1 Lump Sum 25,000.00$ 25,000.00$ 18,000.00$ 18,000.00$ 22,807.00$ 22,807.00$ 24,800.00$ 24,800.00$ 178,829.00$ 178,829.00$ 37,010.00$ 37,010.00$ 5 Cut back fence for pathway detour 40 Linear Foot 30.00$ 1,200.00$ 150.00$ 6,000.00$ 45.00$ 1,800.00$ 50.00$ 2,000.00$ 112.00$ 4,480.00$ 12.60$ 504.00$ 6 Tree Protection Fence 1 Each 1,500.00$ 1,500.00$ 250.00$ 250.00$ 3,564.00$ 3,564.00$ 2,500.00$ 2,500.00$ 981.00$ 981.00$ 4,705.00$ 4,705.00$ 7 Field Surveying 1 Lump Sum 5,000.00$ 5,000.00$ 5,000.00$ 5,000.00$ 6,937.00$ 6,937.00$ 18,000.00$ 18,000.00$ 12,915.00$ 12,915.00$ 12,100.00$ 12,100.00$ 8 Construction Fencing 3 Month 2,000.00$ 6,000.00$ 2,500.00$ 7,500.00$ 570.00$ 1,710.00$ 1,500.00$ 4,500.00$ 2,150.00$ 6,450.00$ 1,560.00$ 4,680.00$ 9 Temporary Portable Restroom 3 Month 450.00$ 1,350.00$ 1,000.00$ 3,000.00$ 475.00$ 1,425.00$ 400.00$ 1,200.00$ 1,000.00$ 3,000.00$ 500.00$ 1,500.00$ 10 Prepare Building Pad/Subgrade 1 Lump Sum 12,500.00$ 12,500.00$ 24,000.00$ 24,000.00$ 6,247.00$ 6,247.00$ 21,500.00$ 21,500.00$ 9,512.00$ 9,512.00$ 44,920.00$ 44,920.00$ 11 Stockpile Coarse Mason Sand 8 Cubic Yard 1,000.00$ 8,000.00$ 650.00$ 5,200.00$ 240.00$ 1,920.00$ 275.00$ 2,200.00$ 426.00$ 3,408.00$ 283.00$ 2,264.00$ 12 Sheeting, Shoring, and Bracing (pump installation) 1 Lump Sum 8,000.00$ 8,000.00$ 15,000.00$ 15,000.00$ 10,860.00$ 10,860.00$ 7,500.00$ 7,500.00$ 5,000.00$ 5,000.00$ 7,200.00$ 7,200.00$ 13 Dewatering (pump installation) 1 Lump Sum 15,000.00$ 15,000.00$ 10,000.00$ 10,000.00$ 3,560.00$ 3,560.00$ 12,850.00$ 12,850.00$ 5,000.00$ 5,000.00$ 5,280.00$ 5,280.00$ 14 Earthwork- Fine Grade for restroom pad 1000 Square Foot 0.75$ 750.00$ 8.00$ 8,000.00$ 15.00$ 15,000.00$ 5.50$ 5,500.00$ 2.05$ 2,050.00$ 5.14$ 5,140.00$ 15 Earthwork- Fine Grade for asphalt pathway 9520 Square Foot 0.75$ 7,140.00$ 4.00$ 38,080.00$ 13.75$ 130,900.00$ 4.00$ 38,080.00$ 2.05$ 19,516.00$ 7.05$ 67,116.00$ 16 Asphalt paving replacement around building 1000 Square Foot 5.00$ 5,000.00$ 12.00$ 12,000.00$ 9.00$ 9,000.00$ 5.75$ 5,750.00$ 10.79$ 10,790.00$ 17.49$ 17,490.00$ 17 Asphalt Pathway Replacement 8600 Square Foot 5.00$ 43,000.00$ 8.00$ 68,800.00$ 3.00$ 25,800.00$ 5.25$ 45,150.00$ 10.79$ 92,794.00$ 9.71$ 83,506.00$ 18 Fencing 50 Linear Foot 65.00$ 3,250.00$ 250.00$ 12,500.00$ 208.00$ 10,400.00$ 110.00$ 5,500.00$ 209.00$ 10,450.00$ 75.00$ 3,750.00$ 19 Fencing with Gate 30 Linear Foot 80.00$ 2,400.00$ 300.00$ 9,000.00$ 465.00$ 13,950.00$ 145.00$ 4,350.00$ 209.00$ 6,270.00$ 150.00$ 4,500.00$ 20 Restore fencing along pathway detour 40 Linear Foot 65.00$ 2,600.00$ 250.00$ 10,000.00$ 44.00$ 1,760.00$ 125.00$ 5,000.00$ 148.00$ 5,920.00$ 50.00$ 2,000.00$ 21 3/4" Angular Rock 10 Cubic Yard 500.00$ 5,000.00$ 350.00$ 3,500.00$ 240.00$ 2,400.00$ 425.00$ 4,250.00$ 2,430.00$ 24,300.00$ 532.20$ 5,322.00$ 22 4" Thick Concrete Paving 400 Square Foot 15.00$ 6,000.00$ 40.00$ 16,000.00$ 23.00$ 9,200.00$ 36.00$ 14,400.00$ 63.00$ 25,200.00$ 52.75$ 21,100.00$ 23 Furnish and Install 2-inch SCH 80 PVC Sewer Force Main and Cleanouts 400 Linear Foot 200.00$ 80,000.00$ 45.00$ 18,000.00$ 70.00$ 28,000.00$ 125.00$ 50,000.00$ 83.50$ 33,400.00$ 118.67$ 47,468.00$ 24 Furnish and Install 4-inch SCH 80 PVC Gravity 23 Linear Foot 225.00$ 5,175.00$ 300.00$ 6,900.00$ 71.00$ 1,633.00$ 225.00$ 5,175.00$ 170.00$ 3,910.00$ 336.00$ 7,728.00$ 25 Furnish and Install 36" Duplex Grinder Pump Package 1 Each 80,000.00$ 80,000.00$ 44,000.00$ 44,000.00$ 18,810.00$ 18,810.00$ 64,885.00$ 64,885.00$ 18,900.00$ 18,900.00$ 68,382.00$ 68,382.00$ 26 2-inch Water Line Installation 420 Linear Foot 165.00$ 69,300.00$ 65.00$ 27,300.00$ 60.85$ 25,560.00$ 150.00$ 63,000.00$ 83.50$ 35,070.00$ 133.00$ 55,860.00$ 27 1.5-inch RPPA Backflow 1 Each 3,000.00$ 3,000.00$ 7,500.00$ 7,500.00$ 18,815.00$ 18,815.00$ 6,500.00$ 6,500.00$ 23,750.00$ 23,750.00$ 2,895.00$ 2,895.00$ 28 2-inch Electrical Line Installation (directional boring) 300 Linear Foot 185.00$ 55,500.00$ 120.00$ 36,000.00$ 265.00$ 79,500.00$ 172.00$ 51,600.00$ 169.00$ 50,700.00$ 137.50$ 41,250.00$ 29 Electric Meter 1 Each 15,000.00$ 15,000.00$ 22,500.00$ 22,500.00$ 29,700.00$ 29,700.00$ 27,000.00$ 27,000.00$ 5,000.00$ 5,000.00$ 40,750.00$ 40,750.00$ 30 Install New Street Light and Pull Box 1 Each 14,000.00$ 14,000.00$ 24,000.00$ 24,000.00$ 11,900.00$ 11,900.00$ 29,400.00$ 29,400.00$ 13,202.00$ 13,202.00$ 23,650.00$ 23,650.00$ 31 Allowance for Unforeseen Underground Work 1 Lump Sum 20,000.00$ 20,000.00$ 20,000.00$ 20,000.00$ 20,000.00$ 20,000.00$ 20,000.00$ 20,000.00$ 20,000.00$ 20,000.00$ 20,000.00$ 20,000.00$ 567,165.00$ 499,530.00$ 548,735.00$ 599,840.00$ 725,585.00$ 756,790.00$ 28% 33%PERCENT OVER ENGINEER'S ESTIMATE -12% -3% 6% Engineer's Estimate BASE BID TOTAL (Items 1 through 31) Galeb Paving IncE.E. Gilbert Construction WestCal Design and Build IncCentral Pacific Engineering Guerra Construction GroupApprox. Qty.UnitDescriptionBid Item Dear Mayor and Council Members, On behalf of City Manager Ed Shikada, please see staff responses below for questions from Council Member Tanaka on the Monday, September 9 Council Meeting. Item 3: Approval Request for Increased Carbon Permit Budget in Response to Rising Compliance Costs 1. Considering the recurring nature of our compliance costs, can you explain why the staff report does not propose a multi-year emission reduction strategy to mitigate the need for future budget increases? Specifically, what steps have been taken to ensure we won’t be in a similar position next year, facing another request for additional funds? Staff response: The Sustainability and Climate Action Plan (S/CAP) is the multi-year emissions reduction strategy intended to achieve the community’s climate goals, and it has the side effect of mitigating compliance costs for the carbon allowances the State requires us to purchase on behalf of our gas customers. In each year’s budget, staff updates its projections of compliance costs to reflect changing cap and trade program market conditions. 2. The staff report emphasizes immediate financial compliance, but why does it lack a detailed analysis of alternative strategies, such as investments in energy efficiency or renewable projects, that could reduce our carbon footprint and long-term costs? Can you clarify why these alternatives were not fully explored or integrated into the proposal, given their potential to lower our reliance on carbon permits? Staff response: These strategies are being pursued in parallel via the S/CAP. The ability to avoid the cost of purchasing carbon allowances is included in financial analyses of S/CAP programs. 3. Given Palo Alto’s reputation as a leader in sustainability, why doesn’t the staff report address the potential reputational risks of relying heavily on permit purchases without a corresponding increase in direct emission reduction initiatives? How does the proposal align with our city’s long-term environmental goals and the expectations of our community and partners, who look to us for leadership in climate action? Staff response: As long as the community still uses natural gas, and as long as the enabling legislation is in place, the California Air Resources Board will require the City’s gas utility to purchase these allowances. This is unavoidable. The City will continue to aggressively seek to reduce emissions via its S/CAP programs. Future reports on the topic of carbon allowance purchases can note this. Item 5: Approval for Purchase of Emergency Portable Generators for Water Utility Backup in High-Risk Zones 1. The staff report indicates that the city plans to invest nearly $480,000 in diesel-powered generators, yet there is no clear analysis of their alignment with Palo Alto’s aggressive climate action goals or potential financial risks due to future emissions regulations. Can the city manager clarify why renewable options, such as solar or hybrid generators, weren’t seriously considered, especially given the evolving regulatory landscape around diesel emissions? How does this decision prepare us for future environmental obligations and potential carbon taxes? Staff response: The project aligns with Climate Goal S7 of the City of Palo Alto 2022 Sustainability and Climate Action Plan (Collaborate on Reducing Wildfire Hazards) and the project aligns with the City of Palo Alto Utilities Wildfire Mitigation Plan. Emission and fuel regulations and requirements have been identified and portable trailer generators were selected instead of permanent generators based on compliance requirements. The project includes emission permitting and equipment maintenance for a 3-year period. The purchase price for the generators is less than the cost to rent the generators for the same 3-year period. Staff considered alternative solutions, however, the alternatives are either not feasible at the site (such as solar) or not cost effective (such as batteries). Generators are for emergency standby and as part of emergency handling it is important that equipment is aligned citywide for response efficiency (for example, the City owns a diesel tanker that can be used for emergency refueling if needed). 2. The staff report does not mention any public consultations or outreach to environmental groups, particularly given the size of this investment and its long-term implications for the community. Can you explain why there wasn’t a formal public engagement process, especially with residents living in areas that would be directly affected by the generator deployment? What mechanisms does the city have to ensure community input is factored into large-scale decisions like this, especially in a city as committed to environmental leadership as Palo Alto? Staff response: This project was included in the City of Palo Alto Utilities Wildfire Mitigation Plans and follows industry best practices. The two sites are abutting park land, residents will experience no additional impact when the equipment is used. There are no residents within ¼-mile of site #1; a standby generator is already leased and on standby at Site #2,. The impact to residents for not doing the project is water loss during an extended public safety power shutoff (PSPS) and reduced wildfire protection. Alternative Long-term implication would be no back-up power supply and loss of water in an emergency to two pressure zones 3. The staff report mentions West Coast Energy Systems as the contractor of choice, yet it omits a detailed analysis of their qualifications for handling public utility infrastructure projects of this magnitude. Given their limited reviews, prior licensing issues, and unclear experience with projects critical to public safety, what guarantees does the city have that they are equipped to manage this effectively? Additionally, what specific performance metrics, penalties, or contingencies are built into the contract to ensure accountability and protect the city from delays, cost overruns, or performance failures? Staff response: West Coast Energy Systems exceeds qualifications for this work. In 2011, Water Utility Engineering Staff obtained letters of recommendation for a similar generator projects from other utilities and have since successfully completed multiple generator projects at Palo Alto water utility facilities, over the past 13 years. Performance metrics for power supply and voltage drop and overall performance are specified by manufacturer. Performance failures are covered by manufacturers warranties and guarantees. Failure to furnish generators to site, test, and permit generators will result in no payment to West Coast Energy Systems. Item 7: Approval of Southern Palo Alto Bicycle and Pedestrian Railroad Crossing Project Contract 1. Considering the limited exploration of alternative solutions in the staff report, can you specify what other approaches, such as enhanced at-grade crossings or different location options, were evaluated for improving safety and connectivity in Southern Palo Alto? How did the city ensure that the chosen solution is the most strategically sound and cost- effective, particularly considering long-term urban planning and infrastructure needs? Staff response: The work of this alternatives analysis is the exploration of alternatives, including an evaluation of enhanced at-grade crossings and different location options. The City has not chosen a solution, and this project will engage with the public to identify possible solutions for community and Council consideration. 2. The staff report doesn't provide a detailed projection of long-term maintenance costs for the proposed grade-separated crossings. Can you provide specific figures or estimates on these future costs and explain how they align with the city’s broader fiscal strategy? How does the city plan to mitigate the risk of these ongoing expenses potentially diverting funds from other critical infrastructure needs or services? Staff response: Long-term maintenance costs and other expenses will be evaluated in Task 4.2 (Evaluation Framework and Criteria) and further detailed in Task 5.4 (Implementation Plan), once design concepts for the grade-separated crossings are developed. 3. Given that the staff report emphasizes the project’s benefits for Southern Palo Alto without addressing broader citywide impacts, how has the city assessed the potential risk of public perception issues, particularly in areas that may feel underserved by this decision? What strategic measures are in place to ensure this project does not inadvertently create or exacerbate perceived inequities across different neighborhoods in Palo Alto? Staff response: The analysis builds on citywide planning studies showing that crossing opportunities are more abundant in northern areas, particularly downtown. This project aims to address the geographic imbalance disadvantaging Southern Palo Alto. Item 10: Approval of Construction Contract for Cubberley Field Restroom and Repairs 1. The staff report mentions initial community engagement, yet it does not account for the strategic importance of re-engaging the public now that the project details are clearer. How do we ensure that moving forward without additional consultation won’t lead to strategic misalignment with community expectations, potentially resulting in delays or increased project costs due to subsequent revisions or public dissatisfaction? Staff response: Staff conducts community engagement to receive community input that helps to determine the scope of a project. Once the scope of the project is approved by Council, staff’s further engagement is focused on communicating the impacts and progress of the work. 2. In light of the significant cost variability, the lack of a comprehensive risk assessment on the contractor's capability to handle this project, and the missed opportunity for strategic community re-engagement, how can we proceed with this approval without exposing the city to unnecessary financial and reputational risks? What strategic measures have been put in place to address these potential vulnerabilities, and how do we justify moving forward under these conditions? Staff response: While the bids do exhibit variability, soliciting multiple bids is intended to save the City money, as is the case in this instance. Staff does not see potential vulnerabilities as stated in the question. 3. Given the substantial discrepancies in cost estimates for key components such as mobilization and demolition, which deviate significantly from industry standards and other bids, how confident are we that the lowest bid accurately captures the true scope of work? Specifically, what safeguards are in place to prevent these potential underestimations from resulting in costly change orders or budget overruns later in the project? Staff response: It is very common for individual components of bids to deviate substantially from the Engineer’s bid estimates. Staff does not believe that this bid requires any additional safeguards as the contractor is required to complete the scope of work within the bid amount.