Resolution No. 6814241
RESOLUTION NO. 6814
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CYPRESS,
CONCURRING WITH AND RATIFYING THE CITY ENGINEER'S FINDINGS
AND DETERMINATIONS REGARDING BIDS AND BID PROTESTS
SUBMITTED IN RELATION TO THE PROJECT ENTITLED "CYPRESS
SPORTS PARK PROJECT 225", WAIVER OF IRREGULARITIES IN
CERTAIN BIDS SUBMITTED THEREOF; AND FINDING THAT HORIZONS
CONSTRUCTION COMPANY INTERNATIONAL, INC. IS THE LOWEST
RESPONSIBLE BIDDER AND AWARDING SUCH PROJECT TO
HORIZONS CONSTRUCTION COMPANY INTERNATIONAL, INC.
PURSUANT TO APPLICABLE LAW AND SUCH PROJECT'S BID
DOCUMENTS
WHEREAS, the City of Cypress issued formal bid documents to request bidders for
a project called the "CYPRESS SPORTS PARK PROJECT 225" ("Project 225") and such
bid documents for Project 225, including all addenda, are incorporated herein by this
reference;
WHEREAS, the City received several bids for Project 225, including bids by the three
lowest bidders: Horizons Construction Company International, Inc. ("Horizons"); Act 1
Construction, Inc. ("Act 1"); and Environmental Construction, Inc. ("ECI");
WHEREAS, in a letter dated September 9, 2020, Act 1 submitted a bid protest ("Act
1 September 9 Protest"), which is incorporated herein by this reference and, in summary,
alleges as follows:
1. Horizons incorrectly stated in its bid that it has never had a stop payment notice
filed by a contractor on any projects.
2. Horizons failed to list a subcontractor for the "Rubberway" system as desired
for the Bid Alternate #2.
3. Horizons failed to list West Coast Turf as a subcontractor.
4. Horizons did not list a subcontractor to perform the work required in Project
225's Specification Section 32 18 00 and, further, that Horizons is unable to perform the
work.
5. Horizons' subcontractor that will be performing the masonry scope of Project
225 does not have the correct contractor's license, because the subcontractor only has "B"
license and Business & Profession Code Section 7057(b) prevents this subcontractor from
subcontracting for such work.
6. Horizons failed to list the subcontractor performing the installation of the shade
sail system by USA Shade.
7. Horizons failed to list a certified installer for shade structures by Unique
Recreation Consultants.
8. Horizons failed to list a licensed surveyor and valid DIR number for Project 225
as required by Labor Code Section 1720.
9. Project 225 Specification Section 11 68 24 requires that sports field equipment
be installed by an approved and certified installer from Sportsfield Specialties (the supplier
of the equipment); however, Horizons did not list any installer for this equipment. Further,
the only certified installer of this equipment is Hanson Associates.
WHEREAS, in a letter dated September 10, 2020, ECI submitted a bid protest ("ECI
September 10 Protest"), which is incorporated herein by this reference and, in summary,
alleges as follows:
1. Horizons' bid is nonresponsive, because it failed to include a subcontractor for
Bid Item #9.
242
2. Act 1's bid is nonresponsive, because
(a) The total amount of Act 1's total amount for its Park Base Bid should be
listed as $9,286,222.54 instead of Act 1's listed amount as $8,386,222.54.
(b) The words of Act l's Off -Site Bid Item No. S3 state "One hundred ninety
thousand" when the figure listed is $195,000.
(c) For Additive Bid No. 7, the words used is "Twenty-two thousand
00/100", but wrote $22,500.
WHEREAS, Horizons responded to the Act 1 September 9 Protest and ECI
September 10 Protest and provided further clarifications in the following correspondence:
1. Letter dated September 11, 2020.
2. Letter dated September 14, 2020.
3. Email dated October 5, 2020.
4. Email dated October 7, 2020.
The above correspondence from Horizons is incorporated herein by this reference
and collectively referred to as the "Horizons Response and Clarifications";
WHEREAS, in the Horizons Response and Clarifications, Horizons further contends
that Act 1's total bid contains mathematical errors;
WHEREAS, in an email dated September 14, 2020, and incorporated herein by this
reference, Horizons protests ECI's bid ("Horizons September 14 Protest") alleging that ECI
did not list percentages for any listed subcontractors; did not include acknowledgments for
Addenda 4 and 5; did not variously list figures and words for amounts as required; and ECI's
total amounts for Alternate Bid Items are not written in words as required;
WHEREAS, in a letter received on September 11, 2020, Act 1 responded to the
allegations in the ECI September 10 Protest, incorporated herein by this reference, ("Act 1
Response") and, further, provided the following protest against ECI's bid:
1. ECI failed to list a subcontractor for the "Rubberway" system under Bid
Alternate #2.
2. ECI failed to list West Coast Turf as a subcontractor.
3. ECI does not meet the requirement under Project 225 Specification Section 32
18 00 relating to the minimum three years' experience required for the work described
thereunder.
4. ECI failed to list a licensed surveyor pursuant to Labor Code Section 1720.
5. Project 225 Specification Section 11 68 24 requires that sportsfield equipment
be installed by an approved and certified installer from Sportsfield Specialties (the supplier)
and ECI did not list an installer for this equipment.
6. ECI did not list any percentages for their subcontractors.
WHEREAS, based upon the foregoing and the written and oral information presented
to the City Council at its meeting of October 26, 2020, (including such information presented
by City staff and members of the public), and as more particularly described below, the City
Council desires to concur with and ratify the City Engineer's findings and determinations in
relation to the above-mentioned bids and bid protests and to award Project 225 to Horizons,
as provided further in this Resolution.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CYPRESS,
CALIFORNIA, DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
243
SECTION 1. The recitals set forth above are true and correct and incorporated herein
by this reference.
SECTION 2. Based upon the foregoing and the written and oral information
presented to the City Council at its. meeting of October 26, 2020, (including such information
presented by City staff and members of the public), the City Council hereby concurs with
and ratifies the City Engineer's findings and determinations as follows:
A. The allegations relating to Horizons' response relating to stop payment notices
being issued by its subcontractors as provided in the Act 1 September 9 Protest that
Horizons' bid, is without merit. The intent of this question (Question 4 on Page 12 of the
"Information Required of Bidders" document in Project 225's bid documents) is to determine
whether any lawsuits were filed in connection with previous work done by bidders.
B. The allegations relating to Horizons' failure to list a subcontractor for the
"Rubberway" system as desired for Bid Alternate #2, as provided in the Act 1 September 9
Protest, is without merit. Horizons intends to purchase the materials and utilize a
subcontractor to perform the related work. The subcontractor's work is valued to be less
than 0.5% of Horizons' total bid. +
C. The allegations relating to Horizons' failure to list West Coast Turf, as provided
in the Act 1 September 9 Protest, is without merit. The use of West Coast Turf as a
subcontractor is not required and Horizons has listed Marina Landscape as a subcontractor,
which will perform the related work in accordance with Project 225's plans and specifications
and may further subcontract if necessary. Moreover, this subcontractor's value of work is
less than 0.5% of Horizons' total bid.
D. The allegations relating to Horizons not listing a subcontractor to perform the
work required in Project 225's Specification Section 32 18 00 and, further, that Horizons is
unable to perform the work, as provided in the Act 1 September 9 Protest, is without merit.
The related work will be performed by Horizons' subcontractor whose value of work is less
than 0.5% of Horizons' total bid.
E. The allegations stating that Horizons' subcontractor cannot perform the
masonry work for Project 225 because the subcontractor only has a "B" license (i.e., not
having the correct license) and Business & Profession Code Section 7057(b) prevents this
subcontractor from subcontracting for such work, as provided in the as provided in the Act
1 September 9 Protest, is without merit. In relevant part, Business & Professions Code
Section 7057(b) provides that "A general building contractor shall not take a subcontract
involving trades other than framing or carpentry, unless the subcontract requires at least two
unrelated trades or crafts other than framing or carpentry, or unless the general building
contractor holds the appropriate license classification." Horizons' subcontractor performing
this masonry work will also be performing multiple trades of work for Project 225.
F. The allegation that Horizons failed to list the subcontractor performing the
installation of the shade sail system by USA Shade, as provided in the Act 1 September 9
Protest, is without merit. The City is contracting directly with USA Shade for the materials
and work; therefore, USA Shade is not considered a subcontractor to Horizons.
G. The allegation that Horizons failed to list a certified installer for shade
structures by Unique Recreation Consultants, as provided in the Act 1 September 9 Protest,
is without merit and irregularities relating to this issue are waived. Though Horizons only
listed Tot Lot Pros as the subcontractor that will install the playground equipment, Horizons
further clarified that Tot Lot Pros will also perform the installation of the shade structures.
Tot Lot Pros is certified to install the shade structures. Waiver of this irregularity would not
provide Horizons with an unfair competitive advantage, because it does not affect its
obligation to perform or costs.
H. The allegation that Horizons failed to list a licensed surveyor and valid DIR
number for Project 225 as required by Labor Code Section 1720 as provided in the Act 1
September 9 Protest is without merit. Even if this surveyor work is required to be listed, this
work will be performed by Horizons' subcontractor whose value of work is less than 0.5% of
Horizons' total bid.
244
The allegation in the Act 1 September 9 Protest relating to Project 225
Specification Section 11 68 24 requirements is without merit. There is no requirement that
installation be done by a certified installer in Project 225's bid documents and, even if such
a requirement were present, the Horizons Response and Clarifications state that the value
of such work will be less than 0.5% of Horizons' total bid.
J. The allegation that Horizons' bid is nonresponsive because it failed to include
a subcontractor for Bid Item #9, as provided in the ECI September 10 Protest, is without
merit. Horizons has indicated that it will purchase the relevant public restroom building from
The Public Restroom Company, but will utilize a subcontractor to perform the installation
work whose value of work is less than 0.5% of Horizons' total bid.
K. The irregularities relating to the minor mathematical errors in Act 1's bid, as
provided in the EC September 10 Protest and stated in the Horizons Response and
Clarifications, are hereby waived because waiver thereof would not provide Act 1 with an
unfair competitive advantage.
L. ECI's bid is nonresponsive, because ECI failed to list percentages for the work
performed by their subcontractors. This is a material requirement of Project 225's bid
documents, because this information is used to determine ECI's self -performance
percentage and waiver thereof would provide ECI an unfair competitive advantage.
M. Horizons is the lowest responsible bidder for Project 225.
SECTION 3. Based upon the foregoing and the written and oral information
presented to the City Council at its meeting of October 26, 2020, the City Council finds that
Horizons is the lowest responsive and responsible bidder pursuant to applicable law and
Project 225's bid documents.
SECTION 4. Based upon the foregoing and the written and oral information
presented to the City Council at its meeting of October 26, 2020, the City Council hereby
concurs with and ratify the City Engineer's findings and determinations in relation to the
above-mentioned bids and bid protests and awards Project 225 to Horizons as the lowest
responsible bidder pursuant to applicable law and Project 225's bid documents.
SECTION 5. The City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this
Resolution and enter it into the book of original Resolutions.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Cypress at
a regular meeting held on the 26th day of October 2020.
MAYOR OF T.`1 CITY OF CYPRESS
ATTEST:
CIT K OF THE CITY OF CYPRESS
Y LER
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE) SS
I, Alisha Farnell, City Clerk of the City of Cypress, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the
foregoing Resolution was duly adopted at a regular meeting of the said City Council held on
the 26th day of October 2020, by the following roll call vote:
AYES: 4 COUNCIL MEMBERS: Morales, Peat, Yarc and Johnson
NOES: 1 COUNCIL MEMBERS: Berry
ABSENT: 0 COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
atT4y
CLERK OF
THE CITY OF CYPRESS