CCMIN041283 - Laserfiche WebLink

figures process involved in subcontract bids. He stated that with the number of bid items involved on this particular bid form that it was impossible to ascertain exact figures for each bid item, therefore estimates were used in some cases. He stated that he had written out as many of these subcontractor categories as possible in Richmond, and as evidenced by the change in ink, other figures were written out or substituted by Mr. Sato in Pleasanton. He presented the bid sheet as evidence, showing the different use of pens on the bid form. Mr. Gerald Magaro, Attorney representing Duran Jones Construction Company, cross- examined Mr. Rodriquez relative to the substitution of subcontractors for Schedule H. He summarized by stating that what is significant is the fact that all of the items under Schedule H listed by Bay Cities were the figures taken from Duran Jones and there is no evidence that anything was changed, indicating that Duran Jones would be the subcontractor used for Schedule H. He did not feel that a clerical error or mistake had been made on the bid form, and it is the position of Duran Jones that they were clearly listed, therefore the substitution of Rosendin Electric on the bid should be denied. Mr. David Sato, of Bay Cities Paving and Grading Company, after being sworn in by a court reporter, stated he had received the final bid figures from Mr. Rodriquez in the last minutes before the bid closing time; and since there was not sufficient space on the bid form he had written the name of Rosendin Electric at the bottom of the page as the subcontractor for Schedule H but had failed to mark out the name of Duran Jones Construction Company that was listed on the correct line for Schedule H. Mr. Curotto concluded by stating that there is no evidence that Bay Cities Paving did any bid swapping, and they would agree to hold harmless and indemnify and defend the City of Pleasanton should any litigation result from the approval of this proposed substitution of subcontractors. Mr. Eric Dzubur, Attorney representing Les McDonald Construction Company, Inc., stated they are not accusing anyone of fraud, but felt it was inappropriate to make a substitution of subcontractor at a later time and that the time constraints were not fair. He stated that based on irregularities the award of bid to Bay Cities should be rejected and awarded to Les McDonald Construction Company, Inc. Mr. Les McDonald, President of Les McDonald Construction Company, stated he felt Bay Cities Pavin~ and Grading Company's Written Notice and Affidavit by Prime Con- tractor was loosely put together, omitting some subcontractors and improperly listing others, and he felt the law does not provide for those types of mistakes. Mr. Irving Loube, Attorney representing Fromm Business Park, stated as the real party in interest, Fromm wanted to keep a good low bid; and after hearing the facts as presented and reviewing all of the pertinent documents, it was his opinion that Bay Cities Paving and Grading Company had acted properly and should be awarded the bid for improvements to the Fromm Business Park. He advised that Fromm Business Park owners are willing to agree to hold harmless and indemnify and defend the City of Pleasanton should any litigation result from the approval of this proposed substitu- tion of subcontractors with respect to any allegation that this bid of Bay Cities is a defective bid, and he would consider amending the assessment district to include a provision for legal costs if necessary. , Mr. Robert Brunsell, Bond Counsel, stated that Council will not be make a contract with the subcontractors, only with Bay Cities Paving and Grading; which he felt had presented a valid low bid. He advised that should any decision made involve litigation later on that these costs could be included in the assessment district. 8. 4/12/83