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