HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC AG PKT 2003-04-28 #L AGENDA REPORT
DATE: April 28, 2003
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
THRU: John B. Bahorski, City Manager
FROM: Douglas A. Dancs, P.E. Director of Public Works /City Engineer
SUBJECT: AWARD BID FOR MARINA DRIVE BRIDGE
REHABILITATION PROJECT NO. 49676
SUMMARY OF REQUESTS:
The proposed action will award a construction contract for the Marina Drive Bridge
Rehabilitation Project No. 49676 to the lowest responsible bidder, Griffith Company, in the
amount of $7,589,892, re -affirm the construction management contract with Jacobs Civil, Inc.
and authorize the City Manager to execute the agreement.
BACKGROUND:
The proposed project will demolish the existing Marina Drive Bridge, which crosses over the
San Gabriel River, connecting into the City of Long Beach and construct a new cast -in-
place /prestressed concrete box girder bridge. In addition, street improvements will be
implemented on Marina Drive from First Street to the Bridge. The existing bridge has been
determined to be subject to collapse if subjected to a major earthquake, and therefore is
designated for replacement under the State of California Seismic Safety Retrofit Program and the
Federal Highway Bridge Replacement and Rehabilitation Program (HBRR). The existing bridge
was originally constructed in 1938 with a 13 span timber deck structure with concrete pile bents.
The work will consist of two construction phases. Construction will first begin on the south half
of the roadway and bridge, keeping the north half open to pedestrian/bicycle and vehicle traffic.
Upon completion of the south half of the new bridge, the contractor will move to the north half
and open traffic to the south half of the bridge. It is anticipated that the construction will last 24-
32 months. Although this method of construction increases the length of time to construct the
new bridge, Long Beach and the Coastal Commission have requested to keep the bridge open to
traffic during construction.
The end product will be a new structurally sound roadway and bridge that will include a new
fishing pier, sidewalks, bicycle lanes, street lighting and a new median. The new bike lanes will
connect to the proposed regional bicycle facility on Marina Drive, which is anticipated for
construction this spring.
AGENDA ITEM .
The proposed bridge rehabilitation project has been reviewed and approved by the Federal
Highway Administration (FHWA), California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) and the
County of Los Angeles Department of Public Works Flood Control District. Caltrans
administers the Federal funding. Long Beach City staff has approved the project. In addition,
the City has secured permits from the California Coastal Commission and the Army Corp of
Engineers.
History:
City Council originally approved the plans and specifications for the project on January 28,
2002. Staff received the authorization to proceed for the project from Caltrans in May of 2002.
On July 10, 2003, bids were received exceeding the original budget for the project. Staff,
requested the additional funds from Caltrans which they are obligated to pay for. Before
Caltrans could approve the additional funds, they notified the City of several new procedural
items which needed to be submitted to Caltrans such as additional right of way and utility
certifications which would take several months to complete. On August 26, 2002, the City
Council approved the rejection of all bids and authorized Staff to re -bid the project after the City
obtained approval from Caltrans.
On March 4, 2003, the City obtained authorization to proceed from Caltrans to re -bid the project.
However, since the State was in the midst of their funding crisis no additional State Seismic
funds were available to local agency projects, thereby raising the local match from 11.47% to
20% (10% Seal Beach & 10% Long Beach) of the total project cost. Previous State
authorizations for matching money would be kept in tact to a maximum of $699,950. However,
additional matching funds beyond were not available. On March 5, 2003, Staff re -bid the project
and also requested an additional alternate bid for a full bridge closure in order to compare costs.
Four bids were received and opened by the City Clerk on Tuesday, April 8, 2003 as listed below:
Alternative A Alternative B
1. Griffith Company $7,589,892.00 $7,136,999.00
2. Shimmick Construction Co. Inc. $7,840,126.00 $7,202,119.00
3. MCM Construction, Inc. $8,320,030.00 $7,798,862.00
4. Banshee Construction Co. $10,366975.30 $7,736,975.50
The bids came in higher than expected and higher than the previous low bid in July 2002.
However, the average bid in July 2002, excluding the lowest and highest bid was $8,394,952.
Recognizing this, it seems that the previous low bid contained errors. The average bid price for
this contract excluding the high bid is $7,916,682. The high cost for the bridge can be associated
to its difficulty to construct and current market prices. Re- bidding the contract is not expected to
reduce the construction cost.
Bridge closure scenarios:
Staff has reviewed the contractor's submitted bid documents and found the low bidder to be in
compliance with the contract documents. Because the permits obtained from the Coastal
Commission do not permit the full closure of the bridge, Staff is recommending alternative A. In
order to pursue Alternative B, staff would have to apply for an amended permit from the Coastal
Commission and re- negotiate with the City of Long Beach which would postpone construction
for minimum of 1 year. In addition, because of the 10% City match required, the savings would
only equate to $45,289 in construction savings and $25,000 in inspection savings to Seal Beach.
Delaying the project and public inconvenience to pursue these funds may not be cost effective in
the long run.
Additional funding requirements and timeline:
The City has placed a request for additional funds for the project to Caltrans and is currently
being reviewed by Caltrans. Caltrans and Feds are obligated to pay for the cost overruns with
adequate justification. The two sets of bid results will satisfy the requirements. Staff is
expecting to receive the notice of award for the additional funds within the next three to six
months. Staff has also notified the City of Long Beach of the additional funds required for the
project. Long Beach staff will be requesting the additional funding from their City Council and
Staff expects to receive notification within the next few months.
The timeline is very sensitive and critical on this project. No work can be done in the River
between October 15 and April 15. Also, federal and state funding sources contain several
restrictions and regulations regarding the use of funds. If the City decides to cancel the project,
all funds spent on the project must be returned to the Feds and to the State ($951,698). Delaying
the project to wait for the additional funding authorization from Caltrans and from the City of
Long Beach, would postpone the construction triggering several unfavorable and costly events.
If the construction contract is awarded and the project is delayed, the City will be responsible for
paying for the contractors extended overhead and costs for delaying the schedule. Delaying
award of construction by 90 days expires the contractor's bid and re- bidding the project for next
year will mostly bring even higher costs as evident by the increasing cost of the project. In
addition, delaying the project to next season triggers the expiration of several permits and
environmental documents requiring additional time and funding to complete. In general, as the
environmental permitting becomes more stringent yearly, so does the cost. The best of the
scenarios indicate that the City should move forward with the completion of the project as soon
as possible.
Construction Management: -
The City currently has a contract with Jacobs Civil Inc. for construction management and
inspection of all Public Works projects. In an effort to select the best firm for the construction
management and inspection of Marina Bridge, Staff issued and advertised a Request for
Proposals. The top 3 firms were interviewed, references were checked, and it determined that
Jacobs Civil Inc. was the most qualified to deliver the needed professional services. Jacobs Civil
Inc also comes highly recommended from various other public agencies and are currently
performing work for the City.
Staff is proposing to continue the use of the existing contract in order to prevent the delay of the
construction contract. Jacobs Civil Inc. will be assisting the City in obtaining reimbursements
from Caltrans and will be responsible for implementing all requirements of Caltrans Local
Assistance Manuals. Prior to starting any work on this project, the consultant will submit a
detailed task order scope, schedule, and overall project estimate as well as a not to exceed cost.
The construction management fee is not permitted to exceed 15% of the construction cost. No
work shall begin until written approval by the Director of Public Works.
FISCAL IMPACT:
The previous budget for the project was estimated to be $8,346,159 including design, agency
permitting, construction, and project and construction management. However, the new
construction cost requires additional funds for the project and with project contingencies, the
new estimated project budget is $10,570,000. A spreadsheet is attached explaining the funding
breakdown. The Federal Highway Bridge Replacement Program will fund 80% of the cost, the
state seismic money previously obligated to the project will fund $699,950, and the City of Seal
Beach and the City of Long Beach will each have to fund an estimated $707,000. For the City of
Seal Beach, $220,000 has been previously obligated from State Gas Tax, $100,000 from
Measure M — TDM grant, $25,000 from the sewer capital fund and $362,031 from the water
capital fund for the water interconnection with Long Beach. A spreadsheet is attached
explaining the funding breakdown.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the City Council award a construction contract for the Marina Drive
Bridge Rehabilitation Project No. 49676 to the lowest responsible bidder, Griffith Company, in
the amount of $7,589,892, re -affirm the construction management contract with Jacobs Civil,
. Inc. and authorize the City Manager to execute the agreement.
Prepared By: Con ''
4e
Mark . Vukojevic, P.E. Douglas A. Danes, P.E.
Deputy City Engineer Director of Public Works /City Engineer
NO - s A► D APPROVE P
1 i
John r ' : ahorski, City Manager
, � tachment A: Marina Bridge Estimated Funding Summary per Fiscal Year
. ,,.
,,, . - -
_c cn C) a a o) == , ., , c- 1 o a cp ,- v-
-se
co o 4c. o- Lo cc - co , . o a c::= co ca ti co
cp 8 co o) . • o '', o a a a a , cp_
Z CO 0) wiz '. 1.-7 d d U5 CV N: 0
c° 5 op 0 to co in Ws' 0 ti cs, o c." co co _ N-
rti E - C - 0 •o- co ,- , _ r-- - `& cNi s- (') I.- , (
D IT) _ :— Q 0 05 a
0. 0 Is'
....• CL
0 0,
0 c z ta a 4#1— ie , Eft ta
o u-
CU
p 0) 0) oo - co , . co o c)
--,- NI- °' ..a. , co 04 0 C"NI IC)
W W 0 CV en ea : co. 1.0 (N1 el A Q..
a 0 CO vi ci: o(ri' ' C• 05 in 'OA 0
>- to 0 co P,, co - - , CV 0 rs-
_
._ u.. , :r CJ to -.- . N ,:ii, •— N ' 0
C s cNi c.,1 ' ,oL:= c _
cv) ,,,,_ .‹.,
> c
- FU -- ,, = CO
0 „, , .. 0 a) ,;"• ()
W • r, te fi, Ea 'C m -"‘.1 .5
iz
CO 0 Nt, i. ", •. , co a)
I
,...- a a 0 '• :, 0 .
to N— 0 0 0) 0 , 0 a
0) 041 0 ,,
- 1:7 .. p 0 0 , ' Lo ' 4 , 0 CNI 111 0 -
c cn a , zz' v ++ 4 : N - 0 1 . 0 C('.1 '41..." 0
T-
•:r cl) ° ci - N- : er - :',i cci cd (NI c6 Tr 1 : 0
o
>` >- a c- ea ea ,.? ' 0) 0 %— CV ca -, „
Z -0 u. 0 Co co_c erc - ,, s- s CI - .
. t(f;..
ti ' .112 4: .4. --,:i , , , ,.. .
0 m ---,
z
. . 5 '
cs. ee va. 40 tfk,',.. r.; 49. .• (:13
x . : •
taTs Li.1 —
CI 0 0 C. in M". .cr in a
- 0 0 0 to co .,,,‘ N .... LO r■ N ' CD
- 13 = co CNC t ' 0
L tl) (, a in to N co. .. ..,. _c
as < Ca (c; 0 ci 1.4) cci ,, " is": --. ,- Lo is. Li , - 0 0
_c a) E ,_ 0 co CD / " CD ; CD CD C ‘ 2 L F.) co
a) .. .
-.E. _ .-- 0 , ,. .-
.175 r,
a) E — w
o) _c CIO
- ., . c
C.) *- • o
_I
- co
.::t. 67 ea eaeilti cat ta ea
>
cu
e... 0
CU ' ' ' " 4, `r-•
a Z 8 2 0 11 . 10 LO 2 V ' 8
C
..,_ CD 000 C C CO CO
(7)
C C cc N-:: r: ; 4' t;" ,-: ,.:. P' Iti
2 ) CO co CO , (0
, 63 - 0 1 co r3 ( Xs 0 ) ,'''' C° ---' 0
Z E L '
7 E
ED- = 1 • - 11 i..,•".: -
4
- 2 (i)
0) - cro ar kL_) x 43 -8 43
ce -
311,11, --,k.,
‘ .1
, c 5 ! 11 2-c : "a' - i 1
0 1 - Ce t
U - 3 03 u LI a))0 0 E E ' , il.'.x.1
0 1 . F.) co co isa„ - ' a) a) ca ' el.
- a co I-, co 0 0),:w 0) 8 8 To
a) - 0 a) 1 r g 9, •T: 11 a_ o. (?) -4- t
1‘ • A
•ra , ....., ,,,
, \
7. 4 ‘,43 2 3 '23_ • 1 :''
L
F. *
cu le. . °- I— . •',;•••
CD ,Z. •-li fi *
• o■ . \
CO . : , ' ''• +1: CO
it 1
a 1■11 141 ' lrl' •)•••,••• •
.
A :•,'. 4,4
, ,.
CO .: -: - ',4 4 '
'''r•a Fil‘'i-r‘
CO 10, .'"
, •
I 1 '
C ..,.. ..—
i
• ■ A - .1 ' =4 '.
s_ ", . *
CU : - ; 1 :: i '
2 ;......-,
.refiti#