CCMIN101904 - Laserfiche WebLink

Mr. Brozosky referred to a project at Bernal and Vineyard, which seems to have been going on for quite some time. He asked if that project was nearly complete or would it overlap with the project under consideration? Mr. Wilson said they are separate projects. He was unsure when the other project would be complete, but he felt it would be closed before the current project commences. Mr. Brozosky asked if any of these project contracts had required completion dates. It seems that area has been under construction for a very long time. It is very inconvenient for that neighborhood, which has no other way to get into the city. Mr. Wilson said the estimated completion date for the current project is 2/25/05, but that does not include rain delays. This type of construction should not have rain delays because of the type of construction. He described the process steps. Once it is done, then the City can proceed with its asphalt overlay project. That has been dependent on completion of all the trenching in the street. The rubberized asphalt will be a benefit to the neighborhood. Mr. Brozosky asked if that would come to Council as a separate project for the overlay and determination of striping for the street. Mr. Wilson said that was correct. Ms. Ayala asked if there was a connection between the first bid that was in error and the second bid. Is this situation normal? Mr. Roush said it was not unusual, but he could not say it was normal. The difference between the staff agreement that the first Iow bidder could withdraw was the fact that staff saw the backup documentation and saw that there was a true clerical error. In the current situation, the error is not as easily documented and staff concluded the grounds could not be met to allow withdrawal. Patricia Walsh, 5 Thomas Mellon Cimle #205, San Francisco, representing K. J. Woods Construction, said the contractor is seeking relief because of a material mistake that was made and under the law justifies relief. She elaborated the points of law in various letters to Mr. Roush. K.J.Woods calculated its bid a number of times as revisions came in from the City, addendum 1, 2, 3, and a soils report. This is how mistakes happen. The drawings should have been complete when the bid first went out. Addendum 3 required increased costs for trenching and productivity. Trenching would be $40 per trench foot. Productivity was included in the bid, but the per trench foot cost was omitted from the bid. There was not a mistake in judgment. Under the law mistake of facts will let one out of a contract; mistakes of judgment will not. If there is a mistake of fact, such as the failure to include a number, which needed to be included, but by mere forgetfulness the contractor did not include, that should let one out of a contract. K. J. Woods did not intend to perform an agreement that would have shorted it $185,000. It submitted a bid in the amount of $834,000 and did not intend to perform the job for that price. It knew the price of the bid should have included the trenching and by mere failure to list that amount in the bid, it made a mistake and is entitled to relief. She believed there was enough of a gray area that this could be a judgment call by Council. Pleasanton City Council 11 10/19/04 Minutes