Loading...
RA1991/04/23Anaheim Civic Center, ANAHEIM REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY April 23, 1991, 5:00 P.M. PRESENT: AGENCY MEMBERS: Simpson, Daly, Pickler, Ehrle and Hunter ABSENT: AGENCY MEMBERS: None PRESENT: CITY MANAGER: James Ruth CITY ATTORNEY: Jack White SECRETARY: Leonora N. Sohl EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: Lisa Stipkovich A complete copy of the agenda for the meeting of the Anaheim Redevelopment Agency was posted at 3:05 p.m. on April 19, 1991 at the Civic Center kiosk, containing all items as shown herein. Chairman Hunter called the regular meeting of the Anaheim Redevelopment Agency to order at 5:45 p.m. MINUTES: Approval of the minutes was deferred to the next regular meeting. FINANCIAL DEMANDS AGAINST THE ANAHEIM REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY in the amount of $107,090.24, in accordance with the 1990 -91 Budget, were approved. 1. 175: AWARD OF CONTRACT FOR FIRE PROTECTION - CITY BUILDING AND CITY PARKING STRUCTURE - KOLL ANAHEIM CENTER, PHASE I: Recommendation was submitted at the meeting of April 16, 1991 to award the contract to the lowest and best responsible bidder, G & G Fire Sprinklers, Inc., in the amount of $496,419 for fire protection, in connection with the City Building and City Building Parking Structure which is part of Koll Anaheim Center, Phase I; and in the event said low bidder fails to comply with the terms of the award, awarding the contract to the second low bidder. This matter was continued from the meeting of April 16, 1991 to this date (see minutes that date). Also submitted was report dated April 23, 1991 from the Public Works /Engineering Department again recommending that the award be made to G & G Fire Sprinkler, Inc. The secretary announced that Mr. Ron Edwards and other people had requested to speak to this item. City Attorney White. He first explained the item was continued due to a protest in the award of the bid to G & G, the monetary low bidder. Received and in the record are items of correspondence from both the protestant, represented by Mr. Edwards, and from G & G Fire Sprinklers. He recommended to the Agency, if desired, a time limit can be placed on receiving testimony both from the protestant and the proposed contractor. The record does contain information already which is not necessary to repeat. Based upon the evidence received tonight, the Agency can then make a determination on the award of the contract. 91 -30 Anaheim Civic Center, ANAHEIM REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY Ayril 23, 1991, 5:00 P.M. .o.. Ron Edwards, representing the United Association of Fire Sprinkler Fitters, Local 709. He is present to voice a public protest with regard to the award of the subcontract on the Utility Building and Parking Structure of the fire protection work to G & G Fire Sprinkler Inc., they are recommending that G & G not be awarded the contract for the following reasons: (He prefaced his remarks by stating that it is permissible to reject the low bidder for non - responsibility). (1) G & G has a past history of health and safety violations. (2) The company has an extensive history of violations of state labor laws governing public works compliance and in particular in the area of apprenticeship. (3) They have evidence of poor quality of workmanship in the past and the company has been removed from projects on that basis. (4) G & G is not in compliance with affirmative action at this particular time. They do not hire any minorities, women or apprentices. He is providing copies of U.S. Department of Labor - Occupational Safety and Health Administration - Citation and Notification of Penalties against G & G to be added to documents previously provided citing past violations of apprenticeship law and a list of current projects in which the contractor is currently in non - compliance. He is also submitting a copy of letter from Bernard Brother's Construction, a prime contractor on UC Irvine Public Science Unit #2 project, wherein G & G failed to bring their work to an acceptable condition after repeated notices and was then replaced by an another contractor. They feel that the contractor is not a responsible contractor. They have provided evidence and are now providing additional evidence to show they are not responsible and ask that the Agency find the contractor non - responsible and subsequently award the contract to the ...... next lowest contractor. In closing he asked that the Council delay award on the basis of the evidence submitted so that the Agency will have an opportunity to review and make their findings at the next regular meeting. (Documents were submitted later in the meeting). Mr. Paul Ablon, Attorney representing G & G, 2049 Century Park East, Suite 3030, Los Angeles 90067. Relative to Mr. Edwards' presentation, there is absolutely no basis in the record they have seen. There are certain documents that were submitted to the Council about a week ago to which they have responded. Other statements made tonight were the first time they have heard those statements for which they have not seen any documentation or support. G & G is the fourth largest sprinkler company in the State and the largest non -union company which they believe may have some bearing on the allegations just made. There is no legal or other basis for not finding that G & G is both the lowest and responsible bidder in connection with this case. G & G has been involved in hundreds of projects both public and private. Relative to the apprenticeship claim, which is the only issue he will direct himself to, apprenticeship law has two basic requirements. A contractor must submit a request to the union to have certain persons apprenticed on a project and if not approved, must make a payment to the State Fund. G & G has been in total compliance with all payments to the State Fund. In all cases but one they have filed the application to the union for participation in the apprenticeship program and they have been denied in every case because they are a non -union contractor. When a company is not allowed to participate, the obligation to pay into state funds arises. Documentation has been submitted showing payments in all those cases as well as evidence that applications have been made in a timely manner. The notices of non - compliance are nothing more than preliminary notices and in all but one case meetings occurred with the consultant from the 91 -31 Anaheim Civic Center, ANAHEIM REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY April 23, 1991, 5:00 P.M. Department of Apprenticeship Standards. There was some miscommunication but there was never a problem or any finding of willful violation in any case. Mr. Etai BenArtzi, G & G Fire Sprinklers, Inc. His company holds the utmost and highest standards in the industry. They deal with hundreds of projects successfully and they are one of the best companies to do fire sprinklers and fire protection in Southern California. Their intent is to repeat the same successful project for the City of Anaheim as well. Lisa Stipkovich. Executive Director of Community Development. Staff has no comments but are willing to respond to any questions. Chairman Hunter. He recommends that the matter be continued once again for the specific purpose that G & G and the union sit down and talk about how the matter can be resolved. MOTION: Council Member Hunter moved to continue the award of contract on fire protection in connection with the City building and City parking structure to Tuesday, May 7, 1991. Council Member Daly seconded the motion. Before a vote was taken, City Attorney White stated it is his understanding that the current bid on the project expires on May 4, 1991. If Mr. Ablon on behalf of his client could stipulate G & G would keep its bid open and contact their bonding company to get an extension on the bid bond until May 15, 1991, that will give the opportunity to continue the item for the two week period. Otherwise, the bid and bond will expire before the Agency's next meeting. Mr. Ablon. G & G will extend the bid to May 15, 1991 and seek a commensurate extension of the bond. Lisa Stipkovich, answering Agency Member Ehrle, in speaking with a representative from Koll Company, the delay may hold the project up slightly but they feel a decision can be made on May 7, 1991 without a problem. A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion to continue the award of bid to Tuesday, May 7, 1991. MOTION CARRIED. ITEMS OF PUBLIC INTEREST: No items of public interest were addressed. Agency Member Pickler temporarily left the Council Chamber. (6:01 p.m.) ADJOURNMENT: Agency Member Hunter moved to adjourn. Agency Member Ehrle seconded the motion. Agency Member Pickler was temporarily absent. MOTION CARRIED. (6:02 p.m.) LEONORA N. SOHL, SECRETARY 91 -32