Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 1963-04-164-16-63 MINUTES OF THE ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING April 16,1963 at 6:00 p.m. DISTRICT NO.7 Room 239,IiO4 West Eighth Street Santa Ana,California Pursuant to adjournment of the adjourned regular meeting on April 12,1963,.the Board of Directors of County Sanitation District No.7 of Orange County,California met i-n an adjourned regular meet ing at 6:00 p.m.,April 16,1963 in Room 239 at iio4 West Eighth Street,Santa Ana,California.-. The Chairman called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m.The roll was called and the Secretary reported a quorum present. Directors present:George W.Doney (Chairman),A.A.Hail, A.H.Meyers,Rex A.Parks and C.M. Featherly . Directors absent:Dee Cook Others present:Lee M.Nelson,Paul 0.Brown, C.Arthur Misson,Jr.,Sidney Lowry, Conrad Hohener,Robert Blalceman and Fred A.Harper,Secretary Letter from Gantry Construction Moved,seconded and duly Company (7-1E),received and carried: ordered riled;and authorizing preparatlon or Change Order That the letter from Gantry Construction Company dated April12,1963,advising the Board of an error in computing their bid on Contract No.7-1E and requesting reconsideration of the Board’s action in awarding the contract to them,be received and referred to the staff and engineers for study and report at the Board’s next regular meeting;and FURTHER MOVED: That the staff be authorized and directed to prepare a change order for Contract No.7-1E Sub-~’unks,extending the period allowed for execution of the contract to,lion or before 5:00 p.m.,May 9,1963”.(This contract was awarded to Gantry Construction Company on April 12,1963.) Legal Opinion,and memorandum Moved,seconded and duly submitted by the General .carried: Manager,received and ordered • ~~dJj-2AP That the Legal Opinion dated •April 16,1963,submitted by the General Counsel regarding the authority of the Board to determine the lowest responsible bidder;and the written memorandum from the General Manager dated April 13,1963, be received and ordered filed;and that copies of said Legal Opinion and memorandum be attached hereto and made a part of these minutes. --—1— 4—16—63 U Q U Discussion and award ~‘In considering theaward of Contract~N~.T-2AP ~Contract No.7-2AP,the Chairman Hydro Construction Co invited representatives in the audience,if any,from the apparent F low bidder,.Jack H.Mac.Donald Company,Inc.,to address the Board. . . ~.Robert Blakeman,Estimator and Superintendent for the Jack H.MacDonald Company,introduced a representative of .the company’s Surety who presented the MacDonald Company’s position in the matter. I The Chair then directed pertinent questions to the engineers relative to the matter of award. It was then moved,second&d and duly carried:That,based upon the recommendation of the General Manager,and the Legal Opinion submitted by the General Counsel,the Board of Directors adopt Resolution No.63-51-7,awarding contract for con- F ‘struction~ofthe Navy Way Sewage Pumping Statiàn,Contract H No.7-2AP,to the Hydro Construction Company in the total amount of $48,492.30,which said Contractor is hereby determined by the Board to be the lowest responsible bidder. Accepting Easement Deed Moved,seconded and duly H from Teaklnvestment Co ‘carried: That the Board ‘of Directors adopt Resolution No.63-54-7, authorizing,acceptance of an Easement Deed from the Teak Investment Company,atno cost to the District.Cert~tfied copy of this resolution is attached hereto and made a part of these minutes.. Accepting Easement Deed ~Moved,-ae’eondethand duly from the Southeast c1arried:- Mortgage company That the Board of,Directors adopt Resolution No.63-55-7,authorizing acceptance of an Easement Deed from the Sbutheast Mortgage Company,at:no cost to the District.Certified copy of this resolution is attached hereto and made a part of these minutes. Approving Agreement with Moved,seconded and duly the CIty or Orange for carried: purchase of a portion of Prospect AVenue Sewer ‘That the Board of Directors adopt Resolution No.63-53—7, approving and authorizing execution of agreement with the City of Orange for purchase of a portion of the Prospect Avenue Sub-Trunk Sewer,in the total amount of $4,639.50. (Said agreement.Is approved in form acceptable to the General Coun~el).Certified copy of this resolution is attached hereto and made a part of these minutes, Legal Opinion received ‘Moved,seconded and duly and orderedTIled ‘carried: That the Legal Opinion dated April 16,1963,submitted by Qthe’General Counsel rega~rd1ng’•attendance of Directors at staff and engineering’conferences,be received and ordered filed. -2- i~’’:~j~t~~~L~i1~t~J,~~.~ F II ~F ii E~ploying attorneys for services in connection with 1911 Improvement Act That the Board of Directors adopt Resolution No.63-57—7 submitted at this meeting by the attorneys,employing Jack J. Rimel and C.Arthur Nissan,Jr.to perform legal services re quired for work authorized under the Improvement Act of 1911, by Division 11 of the State Highways Code.Certified copy of this resolution is attached hereto and made a part of these minutes. __________________ Moved,seconded and duly ___________________ carried: That the Districtts Facilities Revolving Fund warrant register be approved for signature of the Chairman,and that the County Auditor be authorized to pay the following warrant: Facilities Revolving Fund Adjournment Moved,seconded and duly carried: That this meeting of the Board of Directors of County Sanitation District No.7 be adjourned to 7:30 p.m.,May 8, 1963 in Room 239 at 1l0~West Eighth Street,Santa Ana, California. Whereupon the Chairman declared the meeting so adjourned at 6:27 p.m.,April 16,1963. Secretary,Board of Di ~tOrs of County Sanitation District No.7 of Orange County,California enairman,Board or Directors 01 County Sanitation District No.7 of Orange County,California -3- 4-16-63 Moved,seconded and duly carried: Approval of warrant register City of Orange $4,639.50 ATTEST: . --4 fl/~~ LEGAL OPINION ON THE AUTHORITY OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF A COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT TO DETERMINE THE LOWEST RESPONSIBLE BIDDER Under the provisions of Health and Safety Code Section 1~755, the Directors of a County Sanitation District may award public works contracts where the total contract price is in excess of $11,500.00 to the lowest responsible bidder or may reject all bids. In making the determination of who is the lowest responsi ble bidder,the Directors may take into consideration the District’s past experience with the contractors,the entire experience record of the contractors on other or similar public works with other public agencies,the personnel and equipment of the contractors,and the overall ability of the contractors to perform the quality of work required within the time limits and conditions specified. In making its determination of the lowest responsible bidder,the Board of Directors is not required to make an entry of its reason for rejecting the bid of any contractor.The record of the Board’s action need only state the finding of which bidder is the lowest responsible bidder. Rice v.Board of Trustees 107 Cal.398. v.White 83 CA(2)22,at page 29. A finding of the Directors that a person is not the lowest responsible bidder is conclusive in the absence of fraud or collusion. Thoits V.Byxbee 311 CA 226. Dated:April 16,1963.Re8pe~tfu11y submj~ted~ /3/C.Arthur ~i~S~OD,~, C.Arthur Ni~~n,J~,General CouH8el for County Sanitation Dis1p~.cts of Qrax~Co-u~~y,Califorr~~ C: . I ) Apr11 13,1963 TO:Board of Directors County Sanitation District No.7 MEMORANDUM PROM:Mr.Lee M.Nelson,General Manager In my communication dated April 12,1963,to the Board of Dir— ectors of County Sanitation District No.7,I stated: “It is recommended that the apparent low bid of the Jack H. MacDonaldCo.in the amount of’$148,387.00 be rejected on the basis that in the prel~award conference with Mr.Blakeman, representing the Jack H.MacDonald Co.,held in my office on April 11,1963,Mr.Blakeman made the statement that their company had never built a pumping plant of this size or character.Hence,in my opinion,this company is not a res ponsible contractor for this particular kind of work. ttfl is recommended that the contract be awarded to the next low bidder,the Hydro Construction Company,in the amount of $118,1192.30.The references of the Hydro Construction Co. were checked,particularly with the Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts,where they have built pumping plants and other sim ilar work.Mr.Frank Bowerman of’the Los Angeles County Sani tation Districts recommended this company very highly and assured us in his opinion,they would be a very satisfactory contractor.” To substantiate thIs opinion,I submit the following excerpts from the pre—award conference notes on Contract No.7—2 for the construction of the Red Hill Trunk Sewer.This conference was held on April 13,1962.(It is interesting to note that this is exactly one year ago.) It will be noted by reading these excerpts that the Engineers and Staff,namely,Mr.Nelson,Mr.Dunn,Mr.Lowry and Mr.Billings, had considerable doubt as to the experience of the MacDonald Company in this line of work.Note that several times Mr.Blaketnan has stated “they had no experience in trunk sewer construction”and also that the emphasis was placed on the need of experienced ditch—side superintendent~. It will also be noted from these excerpts that the reason the Engineers and Staff had doubts as to the experience of the MacDonald Company for Contract No.7—2 related to the fact that Mr.Blakeman proposed to rent much of the equipment,quoted frequently that he proposed to rent this from his competitors (mentioned Artukovich among others);also that he proposed to get his Job superintendents —1— I F from the same sources.I believe that the Directors are well aware that this did not come to pass and probably accounts,to a large measure,for the difficulties with the wet construction near the Air Base. Some excerpts from the Contract No.7—2 Pre—Award Conference follow: ,fl (Nelzon).....”warit to have assurance that this job can get completed on time and that it will progress satisfactorily without bogging down ——have this Question ——the ditchside man should be one who has been exper~encr’d in sewer construc tion......“ Later (Nelson)“.,....could you get a mart that is experienced in this type o~construction?........” Later (Nelson)“.....Would like to see a real experienced wet construction sewer superintendent on the job,....this Is the only weakness you have as far as I can see....,” ~.(Blakeman)“.....I think we need to have a man who is familiar with wet conditions......” Later (Nelson)“.........this contract really needs only one man who knows his job and who will stand out there on the ditch and take charge......” Later (Nelson)“.....If you have a competent man,the competent man will know who Is doing a good job and who isn’t.....’ Later (Lowry)....”You have to be there to get things ironed out”. A.(Blakeman)“.....equlpment from John Artukovlch.....and personnel to run the equipment”. Later (Billings)“Do you know who will be from John Artukovich?” A.(Blakeman)“I do not know but he said he has men and equipment available and we would need them both.” Later (Dunn)............”would like to find something in your experience record which is comparable with this job....appar-. ently there is none....” Later (Billings)“On a general basis and which bothers us and which we think Is critical.———the water situation due to the winter rains -—jt:might be considered advisable to possibly make you concentrate on the north end and arrange to take advantage of the receding water.....” The above indicates that a year ago Mr.Blakeman was making statements that created doubts in the minda of the Staff and Engineers as regards to his experience and responsibility. Present at the pre—award conference on Thursday,April 11,1963 on the Navy Way Pumping Station,Contract No.7—2AP,were:Mr.Lee -2- S S a Nelson,General Manager of the County Sanitation Districts;Nr. Blakeman of the Jack H.MacDonald Company,Inc.;Mr.Fred Harper, Secretary of the Districts;arid Mr.Robert Grant,Project Engineer from Boyle Engineering. The following excerpts from this year’s pre—award conference on the Navy Way Pump Station are somewhat similar in nature to the ones on Contract No.7—2;namely,he has not built a pumping station of’this nature before;i~dicatés he would borrow money to finance the job,etc. (Blakeman)”....the notices to withhold have cost the District time and effort ——have made arrangements for this bid to borrow money ——think the selection of sub—contractors on the last Job was unfortunate.......feel the first job was poorly handled by myself in this respect.....if you prefer that I do not be on the job,we have another general superintendent arid wi-il get a third superintendent if necessary.Have made provisions for a good general superintendent to take care of the job.......” Later (Blakexnan).,.,.....”call In any girl from the office out there and let her decide the issues........” Later (Nelson———referring to Contract 7—2)“the time schedule of the completion of the contract was important.....” Later (Blakeman)....~,“the office was concerned about it and sent down another man in order to do the job satisfactorily and safely ——I had nightmares thinking I had buried someone —— had four or five cave—ins a day ——water conditions changed —— the best men in town would have had the same problems as we had but may have elected to do the work in a different manner. Mr.Doney Is aware of the conditions ———Mr.Nelson,have you changed your mind at all (regarding rejection of our bid)?” (Nelson)“No,the more you have talked,the more you have convinced me that there is a lack of experienced men handling your work. For more details of pr’e—award conferences on Contract No.7—2 and Contract No.7—2AP,see original notes of these conferences. —1— S S