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