1 August 5, 2025
Attn: Office of the City Clerk
City of Camarillo
[email protected]
CC:
[email protected]
[email protected]
Project: Pleasant Valley Road Bike Lanes
Project No. ST-5006
CML-5393(036)
Subject: Bid Protest by Toro Enterprises, Inv. (“Toro”) vs. Bosco Constructors, Inc. (“Bosco”)
Ladies & Gentlemen,
Pursuant to Instructions to Bidders/Section 16, please be advised that this e-mail serves as Toro’s Bid Protest vs. Bosco as outlined herein.
Introduction:
1. The referenced Bid was opened on 7.30.2025.
2. The apparent low bidder in the Base Bid is Bosco with Bid Amount of $10,793,199.67.
3. The apparent second low bidder in the Base Bid is Toro with Bid Amount of $10,859,846.50.
4. The apparent low bidder in the Base Bid + Alternate 1 is Toro with Bid Amount of $11,374,846.50.
5. The apparent second low bidder in the Base Bid + Alternate 1 is Bosco with Bid Amount of $12,084,901.41.
6. Toro contends that Bosco’s Bid is non-responsive, and therefore the City should reject it and declare Toro as the apparent low and responsive bidder and award the Contract to Toro. The analysis & reasons of Bosco’s non-responsiveness are outlined herein.
2 Reasons for Toro’s Bid Protest vs. Bosco:
Reason “A-1” - Bidder Experience:
1. Instructions to Bidders/Section 3.6 states in part the following:
“Experience: The bidder MUST HAVE a minimum of 3-years of experience in constructing work similar in character and magnitude to the work included in the bid”.
2. Bid Proposal/Section 6/b states the following:
“Bidder has recently completed the three following construction works similar in character and magnitude to the work included in the bid in accordance with Section 3.6 of the Instructions to Bidders:”
Analysis of Bosco’s Bid Regarding Reason “A-1”:
Bosco listed in its Bid Proposal/Section 6/b three MUST HAVE projects that allegedly are similar in character and magnitude to the work in the City of Camarillo’s bid, as listed herein:
• Project #1: North Kern Water Storage Dist.; Amount = $4,807,970.88; Completion Date = 5/2025 • Project #2: Caltrans; Amount = $5,981,239; Completion Date = 4/2023 • Project #3: Caltrans; amount = $1,473,384; Completion Date = 11/2020
Toro’s Comments & Conclusion to Reason “A-1”:
(1) The price of Bosco’s Base Bid Amount is $10,793,199.67, and the Base Bid + Alternate is $12,084,901.41. The magnitude (i.e., price) of all three (3) projects listed by Bosco is not similar to the MUST HAVE magnitude (i.e., price) of its bid price. In fact, they are not even remotely close.
Toro’s Conclusion to Reason “A-1”:
Bosco did not meet the MUST HAVE experience requirements listed in the Instructions to Bidders/Section 6, and therefore the City should reject Bosco’s bid and declare it non-responsive.
Reason “A-2” - Bidder Experience:
In its Bid Proposal/Section 6/a Bosco stated that the “Bidder has 45 years of experience as a contractor in construction work.”
Toro’s Comments to Reason “A-2”:
Research into Bosco’s stated 45 years of experience as a contractor in construction work yielded the following:
(1) Based on public records in the Office of the Secretary of State, the Articles of Incorporation of Bosco Constructors, Inc. (Corp #3216550) were filed on 7.2.2009 (see Exhibit A). Thus, the longevity from formation date to bid opening date is only 16 years and not the stated 45 years. (2) Based on public records of CSLB, Bosco’s Contractor License #972065 was issued on 4.13.2012 for Classification “B” only (see Exhibit B). Thus, the longevity from Contractor License “B” date to bid opening date is only 13 years and not the stated 45 years.
Note: Class “B” License doesn’t qualify the licensee to perform work that falls under Class “A” license.
3 (3) Based on public records of CSLB, Bosco added Class “A” classification for its contractor license only on 3.16.2016 (see Exhibit C). Thus, the longevity from Contractor License “A” date to bid opening date is only 9 years and not the stated 45 years. In other words, Bosco was allowed to perform construction work under License Class “A” as required in this project for only 9 years and not the stated 45 years.
Toro’s Conclusion to Reason “A-2”:
It appears that Bosco grossly exaggerated the longevity of its experience. As shown in Toro’s comment #3 above, Bosco was authorized to perform construction work under License Class “A” only since
3.16.2026. Hence, there is no surprise that Bosco failed to meet the MUST HAVE experience requirements per Instructions to Bidders/Section 3.6, and therefore the City should reject Bosco’s bid and declare it non-responsive.
Reason “B” – Disclosure of Lobbying Activities”
Bid Proposal/The Disclosure of Lobbying Activities/Exhibit 12-H has a signature block at the bottom right side. Bosco failed to sign and fill the identity information in the form (See Exhibit “D”).
Toro’s Conclusion to Reason “B”:
The City should reject Bosco’s bid and declare it non-responsive due to Bosco’s failure to fill and sign the signature block in The Disclosure of Lobbying Activities.
Reason “C” – Certification for Contracts, Grants, and Cooperative Agreements:
Bid Proposal/Certification for Contracts, Grants, and Cooperative Agreements requires identification block. Bosco failed to fill the identity information in the form (See Exhibit “E”).
Toro’s Conclusion to Reason “C”:
The City should reject Bosco’s bid and declare it non-responsive due to Bosco’s failure to fill the identification block in the Certification for Contracts, Grants, and Cooperative Agreements form.
Reason “D” – Non-Compliance with the Subletting and Subcontracting Fair Practices Act Bid proposal/Section 7/Designation of Subcontractors states the following:
“In compliance with the Subletting and Subcontracting Fair Practices Act, Public Contracts Code section 4100 and following, listed on page 5 is each subcontractor who will perform work or labor or render service to the bidder in or about the construction of the work or will specifically fabricate and install a portion of the work in an amount in excess of one half of one percent (0.5%) of the total bid sum or in the case of bids or offers for the construction of streets or highways, including bridges, in excess of one-half of one percent (0.5%) of the total bid or $10,000, whichever is greater. (List only one subcontractor for each portion of the work as is defined by the bidder in this bid.) No other subcontractors may be used other than those specified without written approval of the City Engineer; such approval will be made upon showing by the contractor of good and sufficient cause. 4 Failure to specify a subcontractor or specifying more than one subcontractor for the same portion of work to be performed under the contract in excess of one-half of one percent (0.5%) of the total bid constitutes an agreement that the contractor is fully qualified and will perform that portion of the work. Any contractor who subcontracts for any portion of work not set forth herein, except as otherwise provided by Public Contract Code sections 4107 or 4109, will be subject to the penalties set forth in Public Contract Code sections 4110 and 4111. ” Toro’s Comments to Reason “E”:
In clear non-compliance with Section 7, Bosco’s Proposal/List of Subcontractors listed two subcontractors for work under Bid Item #13 as shown in the attached Exhibit “F” (i.e., Pavement Repair). One Subcontractor is ABSL Construction and the second is Hardey & Harper. Pursuant to Section 7 cited above, Bosco specified more than one subcontractor for the same portion of work to be performed under the contract in excess of one-half of one percent (0.5%) of the total bid, thus, it constitutes an agreement that the contractor (i.e., Bosco) is fully qualified and will perform that portion of the work (i.e., the entire work under Bid Item #13).
Toro’s Conclusion to Reason “E”:
The City should reject Bosco’s bid and declare it non-responsive due to its non-compliance with Section 7 by listing two subcontractors to the work under Bid Item #13.
In Closing:
Based on the analysis & reasons outlined above, Toro respectfully requests that the City finds Bosco’s bid non-responsive and awards the contract for the work in this Project to Toro, the responsive, lowest bidder, who stands ready, willing, and able to perform the work set forth in its bid.
Respectfully,
Tyson Rising
Bid Coordinator
805-437-9659
[email protected]
ToroEnterprises.com
5 License No. 710580 A, C31
NSDC / SCMSDC MBE-SC49186 / City of LA. MBE -
10176
Enclosure:
• Exhibits “A” through “F”
• Bosco’s Bid Package