PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
Engineering Division
January 28, 2026
Mr. Steve Myler
Public Restroom Company
2587 Business Parkway
Minden, NV 89423
Email: [email protected]
[email protected]
Re: Bid Protest – Lee Bell Park Prefabricated Restroom Project CDBG
Mr. Myler:
This is in response to Public Restroom Company’s formal protest of the bid of Globe Engineering Development (GED) for the Lee Bell Park Prefabricated Restroom Project CDBG (Project) submitted on January 12, 2026.
Following review and analysis of the protest and response of GED , and consultation with legal counsel, the City has determined that your protest lacks merit for the reasons stated below.
The protest is based on PRC’s interpretation that the specifications require a single-piece, factory- manufactured modular unit with pre -attached foundation, delivered to the site as a complete assembly. PRC contends that GED’s panelized construction is non -responsive. Under California law, a bid is responsive if it promises to do all required work and conforms to the material terms of the bid specifications.
1 1 Taylor Bus Serv., Inc. v. San Diego Bd. of Educ., 195 Cal. App. 3d 1331, 1341 (Ct. App. 1987) (“A bid is responsive if it promises to do what the bidding instructions demand.).
Letter to Mr. Steve Myler
Re: Bid Protest – Lee Bell Park Prefabricated Restroom Project CDBG January 28, 2026
A bid that conforms to all material requirements is responsive even if minor deviations exist, provided the deviations do not give the bidder an unfair competitive advantage. 2 GED’s bid promises to provide a prefabricated restroom building with all specified equipment, an 8 -inch monolithic concrete foundation, relocatability, and all required materials and finishes, consistent with the City’s bidding instructions.
For the reasons detailed below, the bid protest filed by PRC is DENIED and the award to GED is AFFIRMED.
I. Response To Specific Allegations
a. Allegation 1: Prefabricated Restroom Building Requirement PRC asserts that the specifications require “furnishing and installing all items necessary to fabricate and install a prefabricated restroom building” and that only a factory -built, modular units delivered as a single piece can satisfy this requirement for a “prefabricated restroom building.”
The Contract Documents require “furnishing and installing all items necessary to fabricate and install a prefabricated restroom building” but contain no limiting language such as “modular only” or “no field assembly.” The specifications repeatedly include “or approved equal” language, which invites alternative approaches meeting functional requirements. GED;’s proposal includes wall panels, roof systems, and structural components manufactured in a factory environment, which constitutes factory fabrication.
GED’s panelized prefabrication approach satisfies the City’s specifications and its bid is responsive.
b. Allegation 2: Integral Prefabricated Foundation
PRC contends that the specifications require a prefabricated 8 -inch-think monolithic concrete mat slab “shipped integral with” the restroom building. PRC interprets “shipped integral with” to mean the slab must be pre-cast, physically attached to the building structure, and transported as a single unit with the building.
This interpretation is contradicted by the City’s Addendum No. 1, dated December 15, 2025, significantly clarifies the City’s intent regarding foundations. On page SP -19 under Special Provisions, Scope 4, the Addendum states: “Supplier to provide a template for the concrete slab to install the prefabricated restroom for finalizing the foundation design (size, thickness, utility,
2 DeSilva Gates Constr., LP v. Dep’t of Transportation, 242 Cal. App. 4th 1409, 1422 (2015).
Letter to Mr. Steve Myler
Re: Bid Protest – Lee Bell Park Prefabricated Restroom Project CDBG January 28, 2026
connection, etc.” This language clearly contemplates that suppliers provide design specifications (a template) for a foundation to be constructed on -site rather than delivered pre -cast and attached to the building. If the City intended pre-cast slabs shipped with the building, Addendum No. 1 would not request foundation templates for site construction.
This is not a responsiveness defect. GED’s bid promises a site -poured foundation designed integrally with the building system in compliance with the specifications clarified the City’s Addendum No. 1.
c. Allegation 3: Relocatable Design
PRC contends that the specifications require the slab and building to be relocatable “intact” at any future date with built-in lifting hardware. PRC contends that only a modular building with an attached pre-cast slab can be relocated “intact” and that a panelized construction cannot meet this requirement because it requires disassembly for relocation.
The specifications do not require that the restroom must be relocatable as a single piece without disassembly. GED’s panelized design includes bolted panel connections permitting systematic disassembly, lefting points integrated into structure components, component identification marking for reassembly, assembly drawings showing disassembly sequence, and connection details designed for multiple assembly cycles. The City’s goal of preserving flexibility for future park planning is achieved with GED’s design.
GED’s design satisfies the relocability requirement.
d. Allegation 4: Placement of Manufactured Structure
PRC contends that the phrase “erection or placement of a prefabricated building” is terminology used exclusively for modular units delivered to the site, not for site -constructed or site - assembled facilities. PRC contends this language mandates modular-only construction.
The specification phrase uses the disjunctive phrase “or” between “erection” and “placement,” suggesting the City intended broad coverage of installation methods rather than restriction to a single approach.
The phrase “erection or placement” applies to panelized construction, and PRC’s contention is unsupported.
e. Allegation 5: Manufacturer-Specific Product
PRC contends that the restroom is specified as “Public Restroom Company or approved equal,” establishing a product-based procurement requiring a manufactured modular unit equivalent to PRC’s product. PRC contends that this specification excludes alternative construction.
Letter to Mr. Steve Myler
Re: Bid Protest – Lee Bell Park Prefabricated Restroom Project CDBG January 28, 2026
PPC Section 3400(b) states that “[n]o . . . municipal corporation . . .shall draft . . . specifications for bids . . . calling for a designated material, product, thing, or service by specific brand or trade name unless the specification is followed by the words “or equal” so that bidders may furnish any equal material, product, thing, or service.” GED’s proposal is functionally equivalent to the specifications and meets all functional criteria, including building dimensions, materials, equipment, ADA compl iance, vandal -resistant features, and durability standards. PRC’s interpretation would render the “or approved equal” language meaningless and create an unlawful sole-source procurement.
GED’s proposal qualifies as an “approved equal” under California law because it meets all functional, performance, and quality requirements specified in the Contract Documents.
f. Allegations 6 and 7: Addendum No. 2 Requirements
In its supplemental protest, PRC argues that Addendum No. 2, dated December 23, 2025, requires a “factory-integrated restroom system” with all mechanical and electrical components fully installed before shipment. PRC contends that any field installation of plumbing, electrical, controls, or chase components violates the specifications and that proposals involving panelized systems assembled on site factory shells with field-installed systems, or buildings requiring local trade build-out are non-responsive.
The City’s Addendum No. 2 establishes equipment standards and installation methods but does not mandate that all systems be fully installed before shipment. • Section 2.10 PLUMBING, Part B, page 1 of Addendum No. 2 specifies: “WATER PIPING:
Shall be Copper. All water piping shall be designed and constructed with high and low point drain fittings. All piping shall be mounted on Uni-strut wall brackets with neoprene isolators, to code.”
• Section 2.11 ELECTRICAL, Parts B and C, pages 1 and 2 of Addendum No. 2 specify ficture models, performance requirements, and locations but do not state that fixtures shall be wired and operational before shipment or prohibit installation during site assembly.
The City makes a distinction between “factory -integrated” systems and “factory -completed” systems. GED’s approach provides factory integration meeting Addendum No. 2 requirements.
II. Decision
Therefore, for all the reasons stated above, the bid protest filed by PRC is DENIED, and the award to GED is AFFIRMED.
Letter to Mr. Steve Myler
Re: Bid Protest – Lee Bell Park Prefabricated Restroom Project CDBG January 28, 2026
The City will recommend that the City Council reject Public Restroom Company’s bid protest and award the Project to GED as the lowest responsible, responsive, bidder.
Sincerely,
SANJAY MISHRA
Public Works Director
SM/mc
cc: Globe Engineering Development
Ryan Pangagniban, Assistant Public Works Director