Bid Protest and Award of Construction Contract for the Ekwill Street and Fowler Road Extensions Project

Agenda Item D.1

PUBLIC HEARING
Meeting Date: December 19, 2023
TO: Mayor and Councilmembers
FROM: Charles W. Ebeling, Public Works Director
CONTACT: Melissa Angeles, Assistant Engineer
SUBJECT: Bid Protest and Award of Construction Contract for the Ekwill Street and Fowler Road Extensions Project (includes the Hollister Avenue/State Route 217 Undercrossing Project) and Hollister Avenue Bridge Replacement Project
RECOMMENDATION:

A. Conduct a public hearing to take verbal and written testimony regarding a bid protest filed by Granite Construction Company;
B. After considering the testimony presented during the public hearing, adopt Resolution 23-__, entitled, “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Goleta , California, Rejecting Bid Protest , Approving the Final Plans and Specifications, and Awarding Construction Contract for the Ekwill Street and Fowler Road Extensions Project (includes the Hollister Avenue/ State Route 217 Undercrossing Project) and Hollister Avenue Bridge Replacement Project”;
C. Authorize the City Manager to execute a Construction Contract with Security Paving Company, Inc. for the Ekwill Street and Fowler Road Extensions Project (includes the Hollister Avenue/State Route 217 Undercrossing Project) and Hollister Avenue Bridge Replacement Project in the not -to-exceed amount of $ 62,746,460.70, subject to the requirements of the contract documents;
D. Authorize the Public Works Director to approve contract change orders for the Ekwill Street and Fowler Road Extensions Project (includes the Hollister Avenue/State Route 217 Undercrossing Project) and Hollister Avenue Bridge Replacement Project , if necessary, in an amount not to exceed $8,801,628.63;
E. Authorize budget appropriations in the amount of $14,905,990.60 from various funds as identified in Table 2 of the Fiscal Impacts section of the staff report accompanying this agenda item; and
1 Meeting Date: December 19, 2023

Page 2 of 11 ends

F. Direct staff to prepare a financing reimbursement resolution for conside ration and pursue tax-exempt financing as a contingency should Measure A fund ing not be available.

BACKGROUND:

The City’s Ekwill Street and Fowler Road Extensions Project (Ekwill-Fowler), Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Project No. 9002, and Hollister Avenue Bridge Project, CIP No. 9033, are two projects located in Old Town Goleta that have been in development for many years and are considered two of the highest priority transportation projects in the City. The two project locations overl ap each other along Hollister Avenue near the Hollister Avenue and State Route 217 interchange. This overlap prompted the decision to construct the two projects under a single construction contract and thereby minimize disruption and lane closures along Hollister Avenue during construction.

Public Works staff provided a full presentation on these combined projects at the February 21, 2023, City Council Meeting when the City Council awarded the agreement for Construction Management services.

The purpose and need for the two projects are described below.

The Ekwill Street and Fowler Road Extensions Project will:
 Improve access to and within Old Town Goleta.
 Improve access to Santa Barbara Airport.
 Enhance pedestrian and bicycle circulation and safety.  Allow expansion of transit opportunities within Old Town Goleta.  Relieve congestion on Hollister Avenue.
 Improve operational capacity at State Route 217/Hollister Avenue Interchange.

The Hollister Avenue Bridge Replacement Project will:
 Replace the Hollister Avenue Bridge. The existing Hollister Avenue Bridge over the San Jose Creek Channel contains reactive aggregate which is causing the structure to deteriorate. In addition, the bridge represents an obstruction to the 100-year storm capacity of the downstream channel.
 Provide 100 -year flow capacity within the upstream portion of San Jose Creek Channel.
 Continue the fish passage through the upstream portion of San Jose Creek Channel. With the construction of the fish passage low flow ch annel in the upstream section of San Jose Creek Channel, steelhead will be able to migrate from the Goleta Slough to the natural portion of San Jose Creek located just upstream of Hollister Avenue.

The summary construction scopes of the two projects are described below.

2 Meeting Date: December 19, 2023

Page 3 of 11 ends

Ekwill Street and Fowler Road Extensions Project:
 Construct an extension on existing South Street from Kellogg Avenue to Technology Drive and rename South Street to Fowler Road.  Construct Ekwill Street from Kellogg Avenue through to Fairview Avenue, with a roundabout at the Ekwill Street and Pine Avenue intersection.  Construct operational improvements at the interchange of Hollister Avenue and State Route 217 with the installation of a roundabout at the Hollister Avenue/southbound State Route 217 intersection and a roundabout at the Hollister Avenue/northbound State Route 217 intersection.
 Widen Kellogg Avenue to allow additional right turn storage capacity from northbound Kellogg Avenue to eastbound Hollister Avenue.  Install a 1,000-foot-long segment of the Old San Jose Creek Multi -Use Trail. This improvement is identified in the City of Goleta’s General Plan and is planned to extend south and west from the Goleta Community Center along Old San Jose Creek. The trail segment that wou ld be built as part of the project is located between Pine Avenue and Kellogg Way, on the north side of Ekwill Street.

Hollister Avenue Bridge Replacement Project:
 Demolish existing Hollister Avenue Bridge and construct a longer and wider bridge at approximately the same elevation. The design of the new bridge accommodates the realignment of Hollister Avenue necessary for the approach to the roundabout that will be constructed as part of the Ekwill-Fowler Project.  Demolish the remaining portion of the e xisting concrete trapezoidal channel and construct the wider rectangular channel consistent with the completed downstream section.
 Demolish the existing steel bridge over San Jose Creek Channel downstream of Hollister Avenue.
 Construct a continuation of the fish passage low flow channel through the upstream channel, under the new bridge and up to the natural San Jose Creek.  Construct a concrete basin north of the new Hollister Avenue Bridge to address the hydraulic flow transi tion from the wide natural creek upstream of Hollister Avenue into the newly constructed concrete channel.

Public Outreach

These projects were established and started prior to the City ’s incorporation in 2002 .

Since the City’s incorporation, there have been more than 50 points of interface with the public which include 3 public workshops; 23 Council items; 3 Planning Commission approvals; California Transportation Commission (CTC) approvals; a California Coastal Commission approval; Santa Barbara County Association of Governments (SBCAG) approvals; and consultant contracts, contract amendments, and project status update items brought before the Council for approval.

3 Meeting Date: December 19, 2023

Page 4 of 11 ends

DISCUSSION:

Bidding

The Public Works Department solicited competitive bids for the Ekwill Street and Fowler Road Extensions Project (includes the Hollister Avenue/ State Route 217 Undercrossing Project) and Hollister Avenue Bridge Replacement Project (Project Connect) in the Santa Barbara Independent on August 17, 2023, and August 24, 2023. Public Works staff also posted the contract documents on the City’s website and the City’s PlanetBids portal. The bid documents make up 571 plan sheets, the Contract Documents are over 1,200 pages, and there are 387 bi d items. During the Bid Period staff conducted a pre -bid meeting, issued 7 addendums, and answered 70 bid questions. The bids were opened virtually via PlanetBids and publicly read aloud at City Hall on October 9, 2023. The City received a total of two (2) bids. A summary of the bids and the engineer’s estimate are shown in Table 1 below.

Table 1: Bid Results

Engineer’s Estimate $55,021,811.70
Security Paving Company, Inc. $62,746,460.70
Granite Construction Company $77,468,035.00

The engineer’s estimate for construction costs was $55,021,811.70. Security Paving Company, Inc. (Security Paving) is the apparent lowest responsible bidder at $62,746,460.70. The bid amount was over 14% more than the engineer’s estimate, which is in line with industry-standard variances. Granite Construction Company’s (Granite) bid amount is over 41% more than the engineer’s estimate.

Bid Protest

A bid protest was filed by Granite on October 27, 2023 (Attachment 2), and supplemental information was subm itted on October 31, 2023 (Attachment 3) . Granite’s protest contends that Security Paving, the apparent low bidder, submitted a non -responsive bid by failing to meet the 21% Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) participation goal for the project and failing to perform Good Faith Efforts to meet the DBE goal. The protest also alleges that Security Paving failed to meet the project required experience for the mitigation restoration work.

City staff evaluated Security Paving’s Good Faith Efforts following Chapter 9 Civil Rights & Disadvantaged Business Enterprise of the Local Assistance Procedures Manual (LAPM) and Appendix A in Part 26 of Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR).

The efforts of the bidder were reviewed by City staff from information provided in Exhibit 15-H: Proposer/Contractor Good Faith Efforts signed and submitted by Security Paving.

Staff determined that Security Paving did demonstrate Good Faith Efforts to m eet the DBE participation goal of this project and recommends that the Council reject the bid protest for the reasons explained below.

4 Meeting Date: December 19, 2023

Page 5 of 11 ends

The City of Goleta established a DBE goal of 7% using Caltrans 9-D Form Contract Goal Methodology for this Project; however, the Caltrans Office of Civil Rights (OCR) rejected the goal and approved a goal of 21% for this contract. Security Paving committed to a goal of 10.2% DBE participation.

For reference, selected portions of Appendix A in Part 26 of Title 49 of the CFR provide in pertinent part if the bidder does not meet the DBE goal, the bidder can document adequate good faith efforts. This means that the bidder must show that it took all necessary and reasonable steps to achieve a DBE goal or other requirements of this part which, by their scope, intensity, and appropriateness to the objective, could reasonably be expected to obtain sufficient DBE participation, even if they were not fully successful.

As a recipient , the City has the responsibility to make a fair and reasonable judgement whether a bidder that did not meet the goal made adequate good faith efforts. The CFR further states that the recipient’s determination concerning the sufficiency of the bidder’s good faith efforts is a judgement call and determinations should not be made using quantitative formulas. They also strongly caution against requiring that a bidder meet a contract goal in order to be awarded a contract, even though the bidder makes a n adequate good faith effort s showing. This rule specifically prohibits recipients from ignoring bona fide good faith efforts.

Public Works staff reviewed Security Paving’s Exhibit 15-H and determined that Security Paving actively sought to meet the DBE participation goal by soliciting quotes through several publications, agencies and organizations that assist in recruiting DBE firms. 155 DBEs were originally contacted and several follow-up attempts were made to contact the non-responsive firms in the days leading up to the bid opening. Public Works s taff determined that sufficient time was a llowed, and sufficient attempts were made for the DBEs to respond in concurrence with the requirements in Chapter 9 of the LAPM.

Security Paving successfully secured quotes from ten DBEs and selected seven firms out of those ten. Three DBE quotes were rejected due to incomplete and/or excessively or unreasonably high-priced quotes. The CFR states that a bidder using good business judgment would consider a number of factors in negotiating with subcontractors, including DBE subcontractors, and would take a firm’s price and capabilities as well as contract goals into consideration. However, the fact that there may be some additional costs involved in finding and using DBEs is not in itself sufficient reason for a bidder’s failure to meet the contract DBE goal, as long as such costs are reasonable . Also, the ability or desire of a prime contractor to perform the work of a contract with its own organization does not relieve the bidder of the responsibility to make good faith efforts. Prime contractors are not, however, required to accept higher quotes from DBEs if the price difference is excessive or unreasonable. Every DBE who provided Security Paving with a reasonably competitive quote was selected for the project.

5 Meeting Date: December 19, 2023

Page 6 of 11 ends

Granite alleges that Security Paving also failed to comply with the mitigation restoration contractor qualification requirements for the project and is not qualified to self-perform this portion of the work. Public Works staff determined that while Security Paving did not list a subcontractor for the mitigation restoration work, they were only required to identify subcontractors performing work in excess of one-half of one percent (0.5%) of their total bid, or $10,000, whichever is greater , per Section 6.1 of the Bidding Instructions of the contract documents and Public Contract Code Section 4104. This can indicate that the cost of the mitigation restoration work that is not listed in the subcontractors list may be less than the reporting threshold and disclosure of the scope of work in their subcontractor list would have constituted additional information that was unnecessary due to the amount not being greater than 0.5% of their total bid. Additionally, the City has an option available to ensure that a qualified restoration contractor is used to perform the work. That option is to issue a unilateral contract change order (CCO), which will direct the contractor to use a qualified contractor. A unilateral CCO is issued by the City without the agreement of the contractor and has the same effect as a contract modification. This process can take place after the construction contract has been executed.

The apparent low bidder is Security Paving. Public Works staff reviewed the bid and all associated forms, i nvestigated the contractor, and determined Security Paving to be responsive to the bid solicitation. Therefore, Public Works staff recommend that the City Council adopt the Resolutions rejecting the bid prote st (Attachment 4) and find the bid from Security Paving to be the lowest responsive bid and award a construction contract for Project Connect to Security Paving i n a not -to-exceed amount of $62,746,460.70 (Attachment 5). Additional authority is also requested for staff to approve contract change orders, if necessary, up to $8,801,628.63 above the bid price. The authority to approve changes encompasses the change order for the Hollister Old Town Interim Striping Project. Staff will present this change order as an informational item, detailing the final costs and schedule, in January of 2024.

FISCAL IMPACTS:

The total project cost, which encompasses design, right -of-way, environmental, construction, construction management, and City staff time, amounts to $100,62 9,182.

The grants for this project are appr oximately $46.9 million, and the remaining $53.7 million will be covered by local funds to finance the entire project cost. Budget appropriations are needed to fully -fund the construction contract. Table 2 below details the requested appropriations.

6 Meeting Date: December 19, 2023

Page 7 of 11 ends

Table 2: Project Connect Budget Appropriations

Ekwill Street and Fowler Road Extensions Project (9002) Budget Appropriations Fund Type/# Account From Account To Amount
General Fund
101 Unassigned Fund
Balance 101-90-9002-57071 $5,000,000.00
General Fund
101 Unassigned Fund
Balance 101-90-9002-57071 $3,107,000.00*
General Fund 101-80-8500-46000 101-90-9002-57071 $1,600,199.00 General Fund 101-90-9053-57070 101-90-9002-57071 $1,135,793.95 Transportation
DIF
220 Unassigned Fund
Balance 220-90-9002-57071 $2,000,000.00**
Gas Tax 201-50-5800-51071 201-90-9002-57071 $40,000.00
Gas Tax 201-50-5800-51071 201-90-9002-57071 $40,000.00** Gas Tax 201-50-5800-51071 201-90-9002-57071 $40,000.00*** Gas Tax 201-90-9114-57070 201-90-9002-57071 $240,153.00 Gas Tax 201-90-9114-57071 201-90-9002-57071 $333,847.00 Measure A 205-90-9114-57071 205-90-9002-57071 $325,292.18 Measure A
Grant 206-90-9114-57071 206-90-9002-57071 $365,315.00
Total Appropriations $14,227,600.13
Hollister Avenue Bridge Project (9033) Budget Appropriations Fund Type/# Account From Account To Amount
General Fund 101-50-5800-51071 101-90-9033-57071 $45,759.91 General Fund 101-50-5800-51071 101-90-9033-57071 $766,900.00** General Fund 101-50-5800-51071 101-90-9033-57071 $766,900.00*** General Fund 101-90-9115-57071 101-90-9033-57071 $250,000.00 General Fund 101-90-9115-57071 101-90-9033-57071 $714,000.00*** General Fund 101-90-9124-57071 101-90-9033-57071 $61,831.54*** Measure A 205-50-5800-51071 205-90-9033-57071 $220,000.00** Measure A 205-50-5800-51071 205-90-9033-57071 $220,000.00*** Measure A 205-90-9124-57070 205-90-9033-57071 $230,000.00*** Total Appropriations $3,275,391.45
Project Connect Total Appropriations $17,502.991.58
*Measure B estimated PW project funds
**FY 24/25 budget
***FY 25/26 budget

Tables 3 and 4 show a breakdown of project costs.

7 Meeting Date: December 19, 2023

Page 8 of 11 ends

Table 3: Estimated Project Costs – Ekwill-Fowler

Project
Components  Estimated Costs    Funding Source  Funding Amounts Conceptual
Design
$1,133,279.00 General Fund (101) $10,842,992.95
Environmental $1,133,279.00 General Fund (102) $250,000.00 Final Design $6,895,611.00 Measure A (205) $1,325,292.18 Land Acquisition $5,763,000.00 DIF (Transportation) $16,564,9556.11 Construction $51,694,372.91 Gas (201) $694,000.00
LRDP (230) $5,986,710.00
STIP (308) (grant) $15,820,780.95
CDBG (402) (grant) $97,000.00
ARPA (423) $4,933,990.00
STIP (404) $670,186.58
RDA (601) $654,318.14

Measure A (205)
TBD – Awaiting
SBCAG Board
Approval $8,414,000.00
Measure A Grant
(206) $365,315.00
Total:  $66,619,541.91  Total:  $66,619,541.91

Table 4: Estimated Project Costs – Hollister Avenue Bridge Project

Project
Components  Estimated Costs    Funding Source  Funding Amounts Conceptual
Design
$300,000.00 Measure A (205) $1,002,534.00
Environmental $400,000.00 HBP (401) $29,000,000.00 Final Design $3,244,993.00 General Fund (101) $2,605,391.45 Land Acquisition $4,220,000.00 General Fund (102) $343.60 Construction $26,642,691.97 DIF Transportation $3,888,870.61 DIF Storm $100,000.00
RDA $9,501.76

Total:  $36,606,641.42
Total:  $36,606,641.42

Table 5 below summarizes the project budget amounts, including carryovers, requested appropriations and funding source s. With the requested appropriations there will be 8 Meeting Date: December 19, 2023

Page 9 of 11 ends

sufficient funds in FY 23/24, FY24/25, and FY 25/26 to cover the cost of the contracts associated with this item.

Table 5: Project Connect Project Funding

Project Connect
Fund Type Account FY 23/24
Current
Budget*
YTD Actuals/
Encumbrance
s
Total
Appropriation**
Total
Available
Budget
General 101-90-
9002-57071
$0 $0 $10,842,993 $10,842,993
Gas Tax 201-90-
9002-57071
$0 $0 $694,000 $694,000
Measure A 205-90-
9002-57071
$1,000,000 $0 $325,292 $1,325,292
Measure A
Grant
206-90-
9002-57071
$0 $0 $365,315 $365,315
Transportation
DIF
220-90-
9002-57050
$431,479 $67,251 $0 $364,228
Transportation
DIF
220-90-
9002-57070
$1,250,782 $777,009 $0 $473,773
Transportation
DIF
220-90-
9002-57071
$5,606,431 $3,050,494 $2,000,000 $4,555,937
LRDP 230-90-
9002-57071
$5,182,397 $335,601 $0 $4,846,796
STIP 308-90-
9002-57070
$0 $1,540 $0 ($1,540)
STIP 308-90-
9002-57071
$11,372,000 $0 $0 $11,372,000
ARPA 423-90-
9002-57071
$4,933,990 $0 $0 $4,933,990
General 101-90-
9033-57071
$0 $0 $2,605,391 $2,605,391
Measure A 205-90-
9033-57070
$57,125 $4,715 $0 $52,410
Measure A 205-90-
9033-57071
$0 $0 $670,000 $670,000
Transportation
DIF
220-90-
9033-57050
$2,228,741

$39,368 $0 $2,189,373
Transportation
DIF
220-90-
9033-57070
$293,283 $59,569 $0 $233,714
Transportation
DIF
220-90-
9033-57071
$466,095 $278,533 $0 $187,562
Storm Drain
DIF
234-90-
9033-57071
$0 $0 $100,000*** $100,000
HBP Federal
Grant
401-90-
9033-57050
$2,149,791 $0 $0 $2,149,791
9 Meeting Date: December 19, 2023

Page 10 of 11 ends

HBP Federal
Grant
401-90-
9033-57070
$502,859 $169,668 $0 $333,191
HBP Federal
Grant
401-90-
9033-57071
$16,392,615 $1,991,706 $0 $14,400,909
Total $51,867,588 $6,775,454 $17,602,991 $62,695,125

*Includes FY 22/23 Budget Carryover
**Includes appropriations from FY 24/25 and 25/26
***Request for appropriation submitted in separate Council report ****Q1 includes $799,646.34 appropriation from Transportation DIF

While budget appropriations are needed to fully fund the contract, the project phases and spending are projected to take place over the next few fiscal years, through FY 25/26.

Updated draft 5 -Year CIP project sheets are provided in Attachment 6, which wil l be further refined during the Mid-Cycle Budget process for FY 24/25 pending confirmation of additional information by late January 2024. If SBCAG’s board does not approve, staff recommends exploring other funding options as a contingency and will propose a reimbursement resolution for consideration. If necessary, a reimbursement resolution would allow the City to pursue other funding options for a portion of this project and reimburse specific costs incurred. This would provide the City with greater flexi bility in determining long-term financing for the project, if necessary.

ALTERNATIVES:

The City Council may reject all bids, however, doing so may result in the City having to pay back up to $9.9 million to state and federal grant agencies, require the City to give up more than $50.5 million in state and federal grant funding, defer removal of a 100 -year floodplain in eastern Old Town Goleta, determine legal and funding issues regarding property acquisitions, potentially cause the region to lose up to $1 1 million, and risk not receiving future grants from many agencies.

Reviewed By: Legal Review By: Approved By:

___________________ ___________________ _________________ Kristine Schmidt Megan Garibaldi Robert Nisbet
Assistant City Manager City Attorney City Manager

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Project Connect Award Presentation

2. Granite Construction Bid Protest dated October 27, 2023

3. Granite Construction Bid Protest Supplemental Information dated October 31, 2023
10 Meeting Date: December 19, 2023

Page 11 of 11 ends

4. Resolution 23-__, entitled, “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Goleta Rejecting Bid Protest and Awarding Construction Contract for the Ekwill Street and Fowler Road Extensions Project (includes the Hollister Avenue/ State Route 217 Undercrossing Project) and Hollister Avenue Bridge Replacement Project”

5. Public Works Construction Contract

6. Draft Budget Sheets
11 ATTACHMENT 1

Project Connect Award Presentation
12 Bid Protest and
Recommendation to Award
Construction Contract for
Project Connect
Tuesday, December 19, 2023
City Council Meeting
13 Objectives
Project Background
Open a public hearing to take verbal and written
testimony regarding bid protest filed by Granite
Construction Company
Recommendation to
Award Project Connect
December 19, 2023, City Council Meeting 2
14 Project Overview
December 19, 2023, City Council Meeting 3
15 Bid Results
December 19, 2023, City Council Meeting 4
Engineers
Estimate
Security
Paving
Granite
$55,021,811.70 $62,746,460.70 $77,468,035
Low bid is within 14% of Engineers Estimate (within industry standards) 16 Funding
December 19, 2023, City Council Meeting 5
Funding Source
Ekwill-Fowler
Extensions
Hollister Avenue
Bridge
Total Project
Connect
Total Project Cost $65,821,310 $34,807,685 $100,628,995 Local Funds $23,724,570 $4,093,030 $27,817,600
Grant Funding $21,506,990 $29,000,000 $50,506,990
Unfunded $20,589,750 $1,714,655 $22,304,405
17 Project Connect Summary
Project Connect Award - $62,746,460.70
• If Council does not award:
 City likely to pay back up to $9.9M to State and Federal grant agencies  City to give up $50.5M+ in State and Federal grant funding  Defer removal of 100-year flood plain in eastern Old Town Goleta  Impacts disadvantaged communities and potential redevelopment  Potential impacts or damage of the 25-year storm
 Determine legal and funding issues regarding property acquisitions  Risk not receiving any future grants from many agencies 6December 19, 2023, City Council Meeting
18 Bid Protest
 Open a public hearing to take verbal and written testimony regarding bid protest filed by Granite Construction Company  Staff
presentation of bid protest
Granite Construction Company bid protest presentation (5 minutes max)
Security Paving Company, Inc. rebuttal statement (5 minutes max)
City Council determination
December 19, 2023, City Council Meeting 7
19 Council Actions
 Adopt Resolution 23-__, entitled, “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Goleta, California, Rejecting Bid Protest,
Approving the Final Plans and Specifications, and Awarding Construction Contract for the Ekwill Street and Fowler Road Extensions Project (includes the Hollister Avenue/Route 217 Undercrossing Project) and Hollister Avenue Bridge Replacement Project”;  Authorize the City Manager to execute a Construction Contract with Security Paving Company, Inc. for Project Connect
in the not-to-exceed amount of $62,746,460.70, subject to the requirements of the contract documents;
 Authorize the Public Works Director to approve contract change orders for Project Connect, if necessary, in
an amount not-to-exceed $8,801,628.63;
 Authorize budget appropriations in the amount of $14,905,990.60 from various funds as identified in Table
2 of the Fiscal Impacts section of the staff report accompanying this agenda item; and  Direct staff to prepare a financing reimbursement resolution for consideration and pursue tax- exempt financingas
a contingency should Measure A funding not be available. 8December 19, 2023, City Council Meeting
20 Questions/Comments
9December 19, 2023, City Council Meeting
21 ATTACHMENT 2

Granite Construction Bid Protest dated October 27, 2023

22 23
24 25
26 27
28 ATTACHMENT 3

Granite Construction Bid Protest Supplemental Information dated October 31, 2023

29 5335 Debbie Road, Santa Barbara CA 93111

October 31, 2023

Via E-Mail

City of Goleta
130 Cremona Drive, Suite B
Goleta, CA 93117

E-Mail: [email protected]

Attn: Deborah S. Lopez, City Clerk

Re: Bid Protest submitted 10/27/23 (Supplemental Information) Ekwill Street and Fowler Road Extensions Project (Includes the Hollister Avenue/Route 217/Undercrossing Project) and Hollister Avenue Bridge Replacement Project City Project Number 9002 and 9033, and Federal Aid Project No. BRLS-5481(013) Bid Opening Date: October 9, 2023

Dear Ms. Lopez,

On October 27, 2023, Granite Construction Company (“Granite”) submitted a Bid Protest to the City of Goleta (the “City”) for the above referenced project (the “Project”). The basis of Granite’s bid protest is that Security Paving Company Inc. (“Security Paving”) failed to meet the 21% Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) participation goal for the Project and failed to perform good faith efforts to meet the DBE goal. Security Paving also failed to meet the Project required experience for the mitigation restoration work.

In response to requests by Granite, on October 30, 2023, the City provided to Granite the DBE Commitment Form and DBE Good Faith Efforts submitted by Security Paving. These additional documents support clearly our claim that Security Paving has not demonstrated they made adequate good faith efforts to meet the project DBE participation goal.

From their documentation it does not appear that any concern or action was taken to increase DBE participation prior to bid submission, even though there were several available options to do so, including Vista Steel, Hillside Drilling, Full Traffic Maintenance, Wildscape Restoration, IMRAE, Sequoia Consultants, Precon, ABSL, Bridge Rubber Bearing LLC, Austin Enterprise, Avila Traffic Safety, CMC Traffic Control, Super Seal & Stripe, Coastline Sweepers Ins, and La Firm Construction & Consulting.

30 City of Goleta
October 31, 2023

Page 2 ends

Rejected DBE Firms
Security Paving rejected two subcontractors that we listed on our DBE Commitment Form: Vista Steel Company (“Vista”) and Hillside Drilling (“Hillside”). Vista initially did not want to quote the project because the scope of work was too large. After several calls, the owner agreed to quote the work for Item Nos. 282 and 284 only (the bottomless box culvert on Ekwill). We confirmed with CMC Steel (the non-DBE firm we listed for all other resteel to be furnished and installed) that they would allow Granite to remove Bid Item Nos. 282 and 284 from their scope of work. Security also rejected Hillside Drilling because they claimed they did not bid the full scope of work. We contacted Case Pacific, our listed sub for soil nails and shotcrete and they agreed to remove the CIDH pile and Concrete Backfill work from their quote so we could utilize Hillside Drilling.

Outreach Efforts

The table below summarizes the comparative outreach efforts between Security Paving and Granite.

Advertise Date: 8/17/2023
Original Bid Date: 9/28/2023
Actual Bid Date per Addm #4 on 9/13/23: 10/9/2023

DESCRIPTION SECURITY GRANITE

GRANITE
GFE
Work Made Available (%) 72.9% 77.4% Tab C
DBE Firms Identified (Caltrans B2Gnow) NO INFO 653 Tab B & G E-Mails Sent (#) 28 653 Tab B
# e-mails Sent to each DBE (#) 2 10 Tab B
Dates e-mails sent 9/21, 9/29
8/23, 8/30, 9/6, 9/7,
9/13, 9/14, 9/20, 9/26,
9/29, 10/5 Tab B
Faxes Sent (#) 88 0 n/a
Dates Faxes sent 9/21 n/a n/a
Phone Calls Made (1x) 155 540 Tab B
Calls Made to each DBE (#) 2 2 Tab B
Dates Calls Made 9/27, 10/4 9/6-12, 10/2-3 Tab B
Time of Day Calls Made NOT provided Provided Tab B
DBE quotes received (#) 10 23 Tab D
Committed DBEs (#) 7 18 Tab D
Committed DBEs ($)
$
6,394,595
$
16,401,973 Form 15-G
Committed DBEs (%) 10.2% 21.2% Form 15-G
DBE's Contacted (# from Planholder List) NO INFO 10 Tab B Committed DBEs (# from Planholder List) 2 5 Form 15-G
Rejected DBE's because Self-Perform (#) 0 0 Tab D
Rejected DBE's, Another DBE selected (#) 0 4 Tab D
Rejected DBE's, non-DBE selected (#) 3 1 Tab D
31 City of Goleta
October 31, 2023

Page 3 ends

DESCRIPTION SECURITY GRANITE

GRANITE
GFE
Solicitation Ad on PlanetBids Project Site NO YES PlanetBids DBE Outreach Q&A Meeting NO YES (9/13/23) Tab H

Security Paving did not begin reaching out to DBEs until approximately 2.5 weeks before the extended bid date. They sent e-mails to 28 firms and called 155 firms. Of the ten (10) DBE firms from which Security Paving received quotes, only seven (7) were utilized. Security does not provide how and when the list of DBE firms was determined, the search criteria, and the search results. Clearly Security Paving did not perform the outreach necessary to make the DBE participation goal and their efforts by comparison were far inferior to those done by Granite.

Security Paving did not post an advertisement on the “Subcontractor Ads” Tab on the City’s PlantetBids project site to request quotes from DBE firms. The GFE submitted by Security Paving does not mention they contacted the DBE firms listed on the “Prospective Bidders” tab on the PlanetBids project site, which is likely the reason why they only received two (2) quotes from the DBE firms listed as planholders.

Assistance

In effort to provide additional assistance and to encourage DBE participation, Granite hosted a virtual meeting to DBE firms interested in bidding on the Project and to answer questions or concerns. The meeting was held on 9/13/23 at 2:00 pm. In attendance were Wildscape Restoration Inc., ABSL and IMRAE. All attendees decided to submit a quote for the Project to Granite and all three were utilized by Granite to exceed the DBE participation goal for the project.

For the reasons stated above and previously submitted, Granite requests again that the City of Goleta reject the bid submitted by Security Paving as non-responsive and award the Project to Granite as the lowest responsive and responsible bidder.

Respectfully submitted,

GRANITE CONSTRUCTION COMPANY

Brian Larinan
Chief Estimator
cc: Reinie Jones, Caltrans District 5 Local Assistance Engineer ( [email protected])

32 ATTACHMENT 4

Resolution 23-__, entitled, “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Goleta, California, Rejecting Bid Protest, Approving the Final Plans and Specifications, and Awarding Construction Contract for the Ekwill Street and Fowler Road Extensions Project (includes the Hollister Avenue/State Route 217 Undercrossing Project) and Hollister Avenue Bridge Replacement Project”

33 RESOLUTION NO. 23-___

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF

GOLETA REJECTING BID PROTEST , APPROVING THE FINAL PLANS

AND SPECIFICATIONS, AND AWARDING CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT

FOR EKWILL STREET AND FO WLER ROAD EXTENSIONS PROJECT
(INCLUDES THE HOLLISTER AVENUE/ROUTE 217 UNDERCROSSING

PROJECT) AND HOLLIST ER AVENUE BRIDGE REP LACEMENT

PROJECT

RECITALS

A. WHEREAS, the City of Goleta (“City”), in compliance with all applicable law, solicited bids for the following construction project (the “Project”) as set forth in the plans, specifications, and other Contract Documents associated therewith (collectively, the “Contract Documents”):

EKWILL STREET AND FOWLER ROAD EXTENSIONS PROJECT
(includes THE HOLLISTER AVENUE/ROUTE 217 UNDERCROSSING

PROJECT)
AND
HOLLISTER AVENUE BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT.

B. WHEREAS, in response thereto, the City received bids from Security Paving Company, Inc. (“SPC”) and Granite Construction Company (“Granite”) respectively set forth in Exhibit A (“SPC Bid”) and Exhibit B (“Granite Bid”) hereto, which are incorporated herein by reference.

C. WHEREAS, the SPC Bid is the apparent low bid for the Project, with a bid of $62,746,460.70.

D. WHEREAS, the Granite Bid is the apparent second low bid for the Project, with a bid of $77,468,035.00, exceeding the SPC Bid by $14,721,574.30.

E. WHEREAS, subsequent to the opening of said bids, SPC submitted to the City documentation attesting to its compliance with the disadvantaged business enterprise good faith effort solicitation requirements of the Contract Documents as set forth in Exhibit C (“SPC GFE Documentation”), which is incorporated herein by reference.

F. WHEREAS, notwithstanding the foregoing , Granite has lodged with the City the bid protests set forth in Exhibit D and Exhibit E (collectively, the “Protests”), which are incorporated herein by reference, which SPC has responded to as set forth in Exhibit F (“Protest Response”), which is incorporated herein by reference..

G. WHEREAS, as stated in Mike Moore's 24-Hour Towing v. City of San Diego (1996) 34 45 Cal.App.4th 1294, 1303 (“ Mike Moore’s Towing ”), “[a] public entity's award of a contract, and all of the acts leading up to the award, are legis lative in character. [T]he letting of contracts by a governmental entity necessarily requires an exercise of discretion guided by consideration of the public welfare[]”.

H. WHEREAS, as stated in Judson Pacific -Murphy Corp. v. Durkee (1956) 144 Cal.App.2d 377, 383 (“Judson”):

It must be remembered that competitive bidding statutes […] are for the benefit of the public and not for the benefit of bidders […]. It certainly would amount to a disservice to the public if a losing bidder were to be permitted to comb through the bid proposal […] of the low bidder after the fact, cancel the low bid on minor technicalities, with the hope of securing acceptance of his, a higher bid. Such construction would be adverse to the best interests of the public and contrary to public policy.

I. WHEREAS, the Protests characterize the SPC Bid as “non-responsive”.

J. WHEREAS, as stated in Taylor Bus Service, Inc. v. San Diego Bd. of Education (1987) 195 Cal.App.3d 1331, 134 (“Taylor”), “[a] bid is responsive if it promises to do what the bidding instructions demand[]” and “can be determined from the face of the bid.”

K. WHEREAS, the Protests do not set forth any facts to suggest that the SPC’s Bid was non-responsive on its face or otherwise.

L. WHEREAS, the Protests rather suggest that S PC in fact did not comply with a requirement of the Co ntract Documents, namely that SP C did not in fact make a good faith effort to solicit and obtain disadvantaged business enterprise participation and did not in fact obtain a particularly qualified subcontractor for a particular scope of work.

M. WHEREAS, such an allegation does not relate to a bid’s non-responsiveness, but a bidder’s alleged non-responsibility.

N. WHEREAS, a responsible bidder is defined in section 1103 of the Public Contract Code as “a bidder who has demonstrated the attribute of trustworthiness, as well as quality, fitness, capacity, and experience to satisfactorily perform the public works contract.”

O. WHEREAS, such a determination i s a “complex matter dependent, often, on information received outside the bidding process and requiring, in many cases, an application of subtle judgment”, (Taylor at p. 134.), and as set forth in City of Inglewood- L.A. County Civic Center Auth. v. Superi or Court (1972) 7 Cal.3d 861 , 870 -871 due process (i.e., the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of California) requires that a bidder be offered and notice and opportunity to be heard before a bid is rejected on non-responsibility grounds.
35 P. WHEREAS, 49 CFR § 26.53 and Appendix A to 49 CFR Part 2 6 (the “DBE Regulations”), which are incorporated by reference, set forth the criteria to evaluate whether a bidder has satisfied the obligation to make a good faith effort to secu re satisfactory disadvantaged business enterprise participation.

Q. WHEREAS, City staff’s initial analysis of SPC’s compliance with its good faith effort to secure satisfactory disadvantaged business enterprise participation is set forth in its Memorandum dated November 6, 2023 attached hereto as Exhibit G and incorporated by reference (“Initial Finding”).

R. WHEREAS, as set forth in Exhibit H which is incorporated by reference (“CalTrans Opinion”), the State of California Department of Transportation, ac ting through its Engineering Support Branch, has notified the City that it does not concur with the Initial Finding for the reasons set forth therein .

S. WHEREAS, as set forth in Exhibit I which is incorporated by reference (“SPC Rebuttal”), SPC contests the CalTrans Opinion for the reasons set forth therein .

T. WHEREAS, under the DBE Regulations the City, and not the California Department of Transportation, is ultimately responsible for determining whether a bidder has made a good faith effort to secure satisfactory disadvantaged business enterprise participation, and the opinion offered by the California Department of Transportation is simply advisory and non-binding.

U. WHEREAS, City staff, after reviewing the Initial Finding, the CalTrans Opinion, and the SPC Rebuttal, has affirmed the Initial Finding for the reasons set forth therein, in the SPC Rebuttal, and for the reasons set forth in the Memorandum dated December 7, 2023 attached hereto as Exhibit J and incorporated herein by reference ( the “Re-Evaluation Finding”).

V. WHEREAS, the City Council approved the Final Plans and Specifications on April 18, 2023, and the documents have subsequently been revised and updated as attached hereto as Exhibit K.

W. WHEREAS, on the basis of the foregoing, including by way of illustration and not by limitation, the Initial Finding, the CalTrans Opinion, the SPC Rebuttal, and the Re - Evaluation Finding as well as the Protest and the Protest Response, City staff has determined:

i. SPC has made a good faith effort to secure satisfactory disadvantaged business enterprise participation (“Staff Finding 1”).

ii. SPC’s explanation of its subcontractors qualifications in the Protest Response is persuasive and satisfactory (“Staff Finding 2”). 36 iii. The Protests are meritless and contrary to the public interest (“Staff Finding 3”).

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Goleta that:

1. The City Council adopts the Staff Finding 1, Staff Finding 2, and Staff Finding 3 as its own.

2. The Protests are clearly protests of the nature described in Judson, supra: “It certainly would amount to a disservice to the public if a losing bidder were to be permitted to comb through the bid proposal […] of the low bidder after the fact, cancel the low bid on minor technicalities, with the hope of securing acceptance of his, a higher bid.” Here, the following observation of S PC set forth on p. 4 of the Protest Response is well taken (emphasis added):

Based on all of the above, Granite is simply trying to achieve a $14.7M windfall at the expense of the taxpayers. Granite's protest lacks merit and Security Paving is the lowest responsive and responsible bidder.

The “purpose of requiring governmental entities to open the contracts process t o public bidding is to eliminate favoritism, fraud and corruption; avoid misuse of public funds; and stimulate advantageous market place competition”. ( Marshall v. Pasadena Unified School Dist. (2004) 119 Cal.App.4th 1241, 1256) . To utilize the amorphous DBE Regulations, which not only counsel against the action the Granite Protests propose but expressly advocate to the contrary, in the hope that the City would expend a further $14.7 on a contract awarded to Granite, would create a strong appearance of th e “‘Tammany- style’ favoritism and corruption” condemned in Great West Contractors, Inc. v. Irvine Unified School District (2010) 187 Cal.App.4th 1425, 1449. To do so given the substantial “exercise of discretion guided by consideration of the public welfa re” referred to in Mike Moore’s Towing, supra , would amount to an abandonment of consideration of whether the public welfare is promoted by an unnecessary expenditure of $14.7 million in taxpayer funds that could be used on other priorities. To do so on t he basis of “non - responsiveness”, rather than “non-responsibility”, would serve to deprive SPC of its due process right to notice and opportunity to be heard. On could say that t here are 14.7 million reasons why the Protests should be denied.

3. The contract for the Project is awarded to SPC on the terms of its bid, and the City Manager or designee is hereby authorized and directed to enter into said contract. The Protests are rejected. All irregularities are waived.

4. The Final Plans and Specifications, as revised and updated as attached hereto as Exhibit K, are hereby approved by the City Council.

ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Goleta at a regular meeting held on 37 the __th day of December, 2023, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

___________________________________
Paula Perotte, Mayor
ATTEST:

Deborah Lopez, City Clerk
38 Exhibit A
SPC Bid

39 40
41 42
43 44
45 46
29,000.00 29,000.00
Security Paving Company, Inc.
750.00 37,500.00
10,000.00
3,000.00 3,000.00
10,000.00
750,000.00 750,000.00
10,000.00 10,000.00
36,000.00 36,000.00

1.00 1.00

11.00 22.00 500.00 11,000.00 2,000.00 2,000.00
500.00 5,500.00

1.00 1.00

50.00 1.00
47 100,800.00
218,240.00
363.00 853,050.00
5,400.00
2,350.00
2,480.00
1,120.00

88.00 90.00
250,000.00 1.00
433,000.00 433,000.00 1.00
125.00 62,500.00 500.00

73.40 396,360.00
2,000.00 6,000.00

3.00 409,000.00 409,000.00 1.00
15,000.00 15,000.00 1.00
100,000.00 100,000.00 1.00
200,000.00 200,000.00 1.00
250,000.00
48 76.00
1,060.00
388.00 1,849,984.00
1,638,760.00
365,864.00
550.00
129.00 167,700.00
764,500.00
405,060.00 471.00
405.00 32,400.00
1,245.00 62,250.00
1,195.00 119,500.00
5,544.00 1,530,144.00
236,500.00
1,105.00 580,125.00
236,500.00
1,105.00 828,750.00
220.00 78,100.00
1,546.00
4,768.00

1.00 50.00
100.00
750.00
525.00
276.00
4,814.00

80.00 355.00
860.00
1,390.00
1,300.00
49 176,000.00
161,840.00 20.00
220.00 59,400.00
431,607.00
3,450.00 115.00

72.60 44.00

1.45 809,100.00

1.60 25,859.20

33.00 1,584.00
213,000.00 213,000.00
1,140.00 157,320.00
171,600.00 171,600.00
207,000.00 207,000.00
140,000.00
69,000.00
140,000.00
69,000.00
558,000.00
16,162.00
138.00

48.00 1.00

1.00 1.00

1.00 1.00
4,000.00
8,092.00

30.00 5,945.00
270.00
50 11,400.00
137,190.00
10,000.00
950.00

17.00 2,500.00
15,000.00
38,500.00

33.00 30.00
772,200.00
154,000.00
90,000.00
60,000.00

1.00 850,000.00 850,000.00
725.00 134,850.00
300.00 43,800.00

4.00 146.00
186.00
190.00
146.00
105.00

65.00 100.00
125.00
14,600.00
13,125.00
12,350.00
8,070.00
23,400.00

4.00 6.00
2,000.00

12.00 51
10,000.00 10,000.00 1.00
54,000.00 54,000.00 1.00
750.00 37,500.00 50.00
5,500.00 104,500.00 19.00
3,000.00 3,000.00 1.00
15,000.00 15,000.00 1.00
6,000.00 66,000.00

11.00 200.00 4,000.00 20.00 148,500.00 148,500.00 1.00
150,000.00 150,000.00 1.00
679,000.00 679,000.00 1.00
1,200.00 126,000.00 105.00

6.50 21,710.00

26.00 3,340.00

4.00 75.00 1,950.00
200.00 800.00
52 20.00
60,000.00 60,000.00

1.00 1.00 20,000.00 20,000.00

1.00 1.00

11.00 5,500.00
1,000.00 14,000.00 14.00

3.00 11.00 500.00
2,000.00 6,000.00
2,500.00
72,400.00 72,400.00
2,500.00
7,980.00

44.00 105.00
46,500.00
1,080.00

50.00 1.00 46,500.00
54,000.00
9,450.00 90.00
500.00 5,500.00

6.60 290.40
7,500.00

31.70 252,966.00
150,000.00
53 5.00
5,170.00

30.00 6,620.00
700.00
470.00

1.00 1.00

1.00 160.00

1.00 1.00

1.00 930.00
855.00

15.00 2,400.00
15,000.00 15,000.00
15,000.00 15,000.00
1,395.00 1.50

15.00 12,825.00
35,000.00 35,000.00
442,000.00 442,000.00

6.00 31,020.00
12,000.00 400.00

5.00 33,100.00

14.00 226,700.00
85,000.00
226,700.00
85,000.00
9,800.00

30.00 14,100.00
5,500.00 27,500.00
54 71.00
121.00
1,377,400.00
30,250.00
125.00

1.00 10,500.00

1.00 19,400.00
250.00
8,800.00

37.00 610.00
500.00

1.00 15,210.00

25.00 49,000.00
200.00
1,000.00
1,000.00
1,000.00
1,960.00

5.00 1.00
2,340.00 6.50
428,000.00 428,000.00

8.00 70,400.00
22,000.00
371,000.00

24.00 22,000.00
371,000.00
252,000.00
134.00
62,500.00
81,740.00
400.00 14,800.00
55 2,500.00
4,020.00
230.00
10,100.00
7,000.00
100.00
1,530.00
350.00

6.00 24,120.00

66.40 250.00 57,500.00
670,640.00
2,720.00 272,000.00

80.00 84.00
2,020.00
240.00

64.00 1,480.00

9.00 576.00

9.00 10.00
2,160.00
20,200.00

85.00 29,750.00

10.00 15,300.00

3.00 4,440.00
4,000.00 50.00

9.00 756.00
172.00 1,204,000.00
210.00 525,000.00
56 185.00
250.00
350.00

17.00 70.00
152.00
551,650.00
165.00 67,815.00
254,500.00 1,018.00
860.00
25,500.00
360.00

47.00 85.00 6,490.00
411.00
250.00
6,780.00 20.00

1.60 40,800.00
135,600.00
410,400.00 1,140.00
289.00 20,230.00
9,118.00
177,160.00
194.00
206.00
45,144.00
7,565.00
91,350.00
69,750.00
78,070.00 422.00
279.00
445.00
261.00
297.00
57 21.00

4.00 1.00

3.00 3.00

2.00 8.00

2.00 1.00

3.00 1.00

2.00 3.00

1.00 15.00
8,690.00 26,070.00
5,830.00 11,660.00
84,480.00 10,560.00
1,980.00 29,700.00
1,045.00 4,180.00
121,000.00 121,000.00
660.00 13,860.00
7,150.00 21,450.00
2,530.00 2,530.00
110,000.00
21,560.00
110,000.00
15,620.00 31,240.00
30,800.00 30,800.00
7,150.00
6,600.00
21,450.00
19,800.00
10,780.00
58 7.00
160.00
19,525.00

2.00 2.00

7.00 3.00
2,000.00
16,170.00 80,850.00
17,160.00

5.00 5.00

8.00 890.00

3.00 3,905.00
14,000.00

56.00 27.00
240.00
210.00
1,260.00
1,260.00
2,100.00
1,028.00
1,265.00 265,650.00
246,720.00
70,560.00
201,600.00
56,700.00
137,280.00

73.00 64,970.00
1,000.00 3,000.00
2,750.00 5,500.00
6,270.00 2,090.00
3,080.00
500.00
6,160.00
3,500.00
59 80.00
470.00
400.00
185.00

10.00 2.00

3.00 6,780.00

1.00 1.00

1.00 1,470.00

71.00 951.00 76,080.00
446,970.00 951.00
1,525.00 108,275.00
170.00 249,900.00
392,250.00 392,250.00
1,500.00 1,500.00

3.00 20,340.00
365,000.00 365,000.00
845,000.00 845,000.00

40.00 16,000.00

30.00 5,550.00
2,400.00 24,000.00
4,000.00 2,000.00
5,000.00 5,000.00
2,000.00 6,000.00
60 540.00
570.00

56.00 3.00

1.00 3.00

7.00 1.00

36.00 35.00
585.00

60.00 1.00
240.00

35.00 20,475.00
3,000.00 50.00
1,000.00 1,000.00
250.00

1.10 264.00
250.00
200.00
150.00 150.00
150.00 450.00

65.00 3,640.00

9.20 5,244.00
750.00 250.00
7,200.00
600.00 4,200.00
750.00 26,250.00

14.50 7,830.00
61 105,000.00

16.00 5,840.00

24.00 408.00

26.00 13,780.00
365.00

17.00 530.00
150.00 700.00

18.00 1,650.00 29,700.00

3.00 600.00 1,800.00
105.00 205.00
100.00 180.00
436.00

46.00 1.00

1.00 4,500.00 4,500.00
7,500.00 7,500.00
436.00 238.00 103,768.00
70,000.00 70,000.00

1.00 250.00 109,000.00
18,000.00
21,525.00
180.00 8,280.00
62 21,400.00

11.60 48,720.00
4,200.00

1.00 0.70 38,430.00 54,900.00

25.00 4,250.00

2.50 53,500.00
170.00
5,090.00 4.40 22,396.00

11.00 2,970.00 270.00 115.00 22.00 2,530.00

1.00 1.00
316,000.00 316,000.00
312,000.00
1,385,000.00
312,000.00

1.00 16,600.00
5,600.00
16,600.00
1,385,000.00
500,000.00 500,000.00
5,600.00

1.00 1.00
63 1.00

1.00 8.00

8.00 2.00

1.00 1.00

80.00 88.00

30.00 1.00

5.00 18.00

1.00 21,700.00 21,700.00
2,500.00 2,500.00
500.00 1,000.00
1,000.00 8,000.00
2,000.00 2,000.00
500.00 4,000.00
175,000.00 175,000.00
150.00 2,700.00
30,000.00

5.50 75.00 6,600.00
30,000.00
440.00
750.00 22,500.00
85,000.00
100.00
85,000.00
500.00
64 2,000.00
125,000.00
500.00
2,600.00
16,000.00

1.00 5.00

1.00 17,500.00
3,230.00

71.00 30.00

8.00 101.00
125.00 62,500.00

17.00 1,030.00

26.00 3.00

1.00 2.00
75,000.00 75,000.00
5,500.00
125,000.00
10,000.00
525,000.00
25,840.00
1,136,000.00
262,600.00
48,500.00 48,500.00
7,500.00 15,000.00

40.00 1,040.00

6.00 6,180.00
400.00 6,800.00
16,500.00
65 15,500.00
913.00
226.00
5,930.00

1.00 1.00

1.00 7,070.00

15.00 4,050.00
1,800.00

71.00 520.00

52.00 2,625.00 136,500.00
1,912.00
129,000.00
1,078.00 560,560.00
135,752.00
212,850.00 1.65
80,550.00
696,600.00
378,000.00
5,370.00
172.00
210.00

32.00 88,000.00

66.40 496,000.00
88,000.00
469,448.00
328,000.00
413,000.00
328,000.00
413,000.00
190.00 173,470.00
450.00 101,700.00

25.00 148,250.00
66 108.00
400.00 500,000.00
1,250.00
616.00
498.00

2.00 189.00

11.00 87.00

48.00 58,300.00

90.00 2,910.00
6,270.00
378.00 32,886.00
280,800.00
5,820.00 2.00

2.00 12,540.00
144.00 12,960.00
2,600.00

2.30 134,090.00
209.00 10,032.00
194.00 119,504.00
660.00

73.00 2,750.00
1,100.00 547,800.00
5,500.00
7,260.00
13,797.00
67 52.00
608.00

50.00 957.00 47,850.00

47.00 28,576.00
1,017.00 58,986.00 58.00

87.00 223.00

66.00 5,440.00

6.00 5.50
664.00

6.00 3.00
289.00

43.00 30,100.00
300.00 1,800.00
1,000.00 3,000.00

14.50 4,190.50
700.00
2,500.00
200.00

15.00 29,920.00
15,000.00
10,400.00
9,960.00
1,457.00 96,162.00
907.00 202,261.00
907.00 78,909.00
68 1,900.00
470.00

1.00 22,500.00
110,000.00 110,000.00
5,600.00 5,600.00
21,700.00

30.00 1.00

1.00 1.00
750.00
21,700.00

20.00 5.00
237.00 14.30 3,389.10

11.50 21,850.00

9.10 4,277.00
298,000.00 298,000.00
11,600.00 58,000.00
26,500.00 530,000.00
437.00

17.00 600.00 10,200.00
37,145.00 85.00

2.00 24,400.00 12,200.00 69 1.00

1.00 2.00

8.00 1.00
620.00

8.00 1,160.00

1.00 94.00
445.00

6.00 1.00

1.00 7,500.00 7,500.00

6.00 6,960.00

6.00 3,720.00
500.00 1,000.00
30,000.00
85,000.00 85,000.00
30,000.00

16.50 75.00
21,700.00
2,500.00 2,500.00
1,800.00 300.00
7,342.50
7,050.00
21,700.00
2,000.00
1,000.00 8,000.00
4,000.00 500.00
2,000.00
70 1.00

1.00 8.00

1.00 1.00
410.00
1,770.00
500.00 125.00 62,500.00
5,500.00 5,500.00
450.00 3,600.00
48,500.00 48,500.00

1.00 1,640.00

10.00 2.00
215.00

1.00 75,000.00 75,000.00

15.00 6,150.00
1,000.00 1,000.00

71.00 99,000.00
125,670.00
350.00 350.00

68.00 111,520.00
900.00 1,800.00
300.00 3,000.00
170.00 36,550.00
99,000.00
71 450.00

8.00 380.00
170.00
165.00

20.00 280.00

13.00 1.00

1.00 1.00
1,700.00
970.00

80.00 1.00
50,000.00 50,000.00
94,000.00
75,000.00

66.40 109,000.00

45.00 94,000.00
75,000.00
166,840.00
112,880.00
109,000.00
3,600.00
210.00 94,500.00
172.00

40.00 800.00
10,615.00 84,920.00
144.00 54,720.00
509.00 86,530.00

35.00 9,800.00
3,000.00 39,000.00
238.00 39,270.00
72 6.00

5.00 180.00

1.00 1.00

1.00 2.00
455.00
100.00

4.00 1,670.00

46.00 907.00 90,700.00
1,457.00 4,371.00
41,722.00 907.00

3.00 3.00
345.00 40.00 13,800.00
2,500.00 7,500.00
1,800.00 3,600.00
450.00 2,700.00
3,000.00 3,000.00

61.00 27,755.00
7,200.00
115,230.00 69.00
1,800.00
12,320.00 61,600.00
205.00 36,900.00
3,910.00 3,910.00
2,970.00 2,970.00
73 3,230.00

32.00 1.00

1.00 200,000.00 200,000.00

1.00 50,000.00 50,000.00

1.00 200,000.00 200,000.00

1.00 50,000.00 50,000.00

1.00 75,000.00 75,000.00

1.00 75,000.00 75,000.00
8,500.00 850.00

10.00 13,500,000.00 13,500,000.00

16.50 528.00

5.50 17,765.00
74 62,046,460.70
62,746,460.70
75 PROP- 8

LIST OF SUBCONTRACTORS

The Bidder shall list the name, address, lic ense number, and description of work, bid item number, percentage of bid item subcontracted by cost and Department of Industrial Relations Registration number for each subcontractor to w hom the Bidder proposes to subcontract portions of the work, as required by the pr ovisions in Section 2-1.33C, Subcontractor List" of the Standard Specifications. Attention is al so directed to Section 5-1.13A, “Subcontracting”, of the special provisions. Listed subcontractors must be registered with the Department of I ndustrial Relations.

Pursuant to SB 854, this project is subject to compliance monitoring and enforcement by the Department of Industrial Re lations (DIR). Bidder shall list the DIR registration number for each subcontractor.

Bidder proposes to subcontract certain portions of the Work which are in excess of one-half of one percent (0.5%) of the total amount base bid or $10,000, whichever is greater, and to procure materials and equipment from suppliers and vendors.

These Subcontractors are identified as follows:

Work to be
Performed
Subcontractor
License
Number
Subcontractor
DIR
Registration
Number
(Note1)
Percent of
Total Bid
Subcontractor’s
Name & Address

Electrical
Minor Concrete
Clear & Grub,
Landscape,
Irrigation
Slurry Seal
772245

TAFT ELECTRIC COMPANY
Reinforcing Steel
CMC Steel Fabricators, Inc.
1000000298
778010
1000000149
A M CONCRETE, INC.
446850
1000006525
GREENCOAST LANDSCAPES INC.
1009658
1000062784
PAVEMENT COATINGS CO.
303609
1000003382

6.4 2.0

4.8 4.7

0.5 76
PROP- 9

Work to be
Performed
Subcontractor
License
Number
Subcontractor
DIR
Registration
Number
(Note1)
Percent of
Total Bid
Subcontractor’s
Name & Address

Note 1: Bidders have 24 hours after the Bid Deadline to submit this information

Architectural
Treatment
(Retaining Wall)

REYCON CONSTRUCTION INC
1000000224
393533

DYWIDAG SYSTEMS
INTERNATIONAL USA, INC.
1000006705
273710
Prestressing
CIDH Pile,
Soil Nail,
Shotcrete

CONDON-JOHNSON &
ASSOCIATES, INC.
1000004443
300068

0.7 0.3

8.9 77
78 79
80 81
82 83
84 85
86 87
88 89
90 91
92 93
94 95
96 97
98 99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
Exhibit B
Granite Bid

118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
Exhibit C
SPC GFE Documentation

221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
320
321
322
323
324
325
326
327
328
329
330
331
332
333
334
335
336
337
338
339
340
341
342
343
344
345
346
347
348
349
350
351
352
353
354
355
356
357
358
359
360
361
362
363
364
365
366
367
368
369
370
371
372
373
374
375
376
377
378
379
380
381
382
383
384
385
386
387
388
389
390
391
392
393
394
395
396
397
398
399
400
401
402
403
404
405
406
407
408
409
410
411
412
413
414
415
416
417
418
419
420
421
422
423
424
425
426
427
428
429
430
431
432
433
434
435
436
437
438
439
440
441
442
443
444
445
446
447
448
449
450
451
452
453
454
455
456
457
458
459
460
461
462
463
464
465
466
467
468
469
470
471
472
473
474
Exhibit D
Protest 1

475
476
477
478
479
480
481
Exhibit E
Protest 2

482
5335 Debbie Road, Santa Barbara CA 93111

October 31, 2023

Via E-Mail

City of Goleta
130 Cremona Drive, Suite B
Goleta, CA 93117

E-Mail: [email protected]

Attn: Deborah S. Lopez, City Clerk

Dear Ms. Lopez,

483
City of Goleta
October 31, 2023

Page 2 ends

Outreach Efforts

The table below summarizes the comparative outreach efforts between Security Paving and Granite.

Advertise Date: 8/17/2023
Original Bid Date: 9/28/2023
Actual Bid Date per Addm #4 on 9/13/23: 10/9/2023

DESCRIPTION SECURITY GRANITE

Page 3 ends

DESCRIPTION SECURITY GRANITE

GRANITE
GFE
Solicitation Ad on PlanetBids Project Site NO YES PlanetBids DBE Outreach Q&A Meeting NO YES (9/13/23) Tab H

Assistance

Respectfully submitted,

GRANITE CONSTRUCTION COMPANY

Brian Larinan
Chief Estimator
cc: Reinie Jones, Caltrans District 5 Local Assistance Engineer ( [email protected])

485
Exhibit F
Protest Response

486
487
488
489
490
Exhibit G
Initial Finding

491

SAMPLE EXHIBIT
9-E EVALUATION OF GOOD FAITH EFFORTS
Dat
e: 11/6/2023
Memorandum
To: P

ROJECT FILE
Federal-Aid Project
Number: BRLS-5481(013)
Bid Opening Date:
10/09/2023
Bidder: Security Paving Company, Inc.

Type of Work:

Ekwill Street and Fowler Road Extensions Project (Includes Hollister Avenue/Route 217 Undercrossing Project) and Hollister Avenue Bridge Replacement Project, hereby referred to as “Project Connect.” Bid Amount: $62,746,460.70
From: City of
Goleta
Subject: Evaluation of Good Faith Efforts
The
City of Goleta established a Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) goal of 7% using Caltrans 9-D Form Contract Goal Methodology for this Project; however, the Caltrans Office of Civil Rights (OCR) rejected the goal and approved a goal of 21% for this contract. The apparent lowest responsible bidder, Security Paving Company, Inc. committed to a goal of 10.2% DBE participation.

The City of Goleta's evaluation of the apparent low bidder's Good Faith Efforts is based on Chapter 9 Civil Rights & Disadvantaged Business Enterprise of the Local Assistance Procedures Manual (LAPM) and Appendix A in Part 26 of Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations. The efforts of the bidder were reviewed by the City of Goleta from the information provided in Exhibit 15- H: Proposer/Contractor Good Faith Efforts signed and submitted by Security Paving Company, Inc.

The City of Goleta determined that the Low Bidder did demonstrate Good Faith Efforts to meet the DBE participation goal of this project for the reasons cited in this evaluation.

For reference, selected portions of Appendix A in Part 26 of Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations provide in pertinent part (emphasis added):

CITY COUNCIL
Paula Perotte
Mayor
Kyle Richards
Mayor Pro Tempore
Stuart Ka
sdin
Councilmember
James Kyriaco
Councilmember
District 2
Luz R
eyes-Martín
Councilmember
District 1

CITY MANAGER
Robert Nisbet

492
Second, even if it doesn't meet the goal, the bidder can document adequate good faith efforts. This means that the bidder must show that it took all necessary and reasonable steps to achieve a DBE goal or other requirement of this part which, by their scope, intensity, and appropriateness to the objective, could reasonably be expected to obtain sufficient DBE participation, even if they were not fully successful.
[…]
As a recipient, you have the responsibility to make a fair and reasonable judgment whether a bidder that did not meet the goal made adequate good faith efforts. It is important for you to consider the quality, quantity, and intensity of the different kinds of efforts that the bidder has made, based on the regulations and the guidance in this Appendix.

The efforts employed by the bidder should be those that one could reasonably expect a bidder to take if the bidder were actively and aggressively trying to obtain DBE participation sufficient to meet the DBE contract goal. Mere pro forma efforts are not good faith efforts to meet the DBE contract requirements. We emphasize, howeve r, that your determination concerning the sufficiency of the firm's good faith efforts is a judgment call. Determinations should not be made using quantitative formulas.
[…]
The Department also strongly cautions you against requiring that a bidder meet a contract goal (i.e., obtain a specified amount of DBE participation) in order to be awarded a contract, even though the bidder makes an adequate good faith efforts showing. This rule specifically prohibits you from ignoring bona fide good faith efforts.

A bidder using good business judgment would consider a number of factors in negotiating with subcontractors, including DBE subcontractors, and would take a firm's price and capabilities as well as contract goals into consideration. However, the fact that there may be some additional costs involved in finding and using DBEs is not in itself sufficient reason for a bidder's failure to meet the contract DBE goal, as long as such costs are reasonable. Also, the ability or desire of a prime contractor to perform the work of a contract with its own organization does not relieve the bidder of the responsibility to make good faith efforts. Prime contractors are not, however, required to accept higher quotes from DBEs if the price difference is excessive or unreasonable.

Here,
the apparent low bidder’s bid is substantially below the next lowest bidder, by approximately $15,000,000. Were the apparent low bidder to have been 493
required to actually utilize further DBE contractors to actually achieve the DBE goal, it would have imposed an excessive and unreasonable price increase on the prime contractor (and thus, the City and the public). “The competitive bidding requirement is founded upon a salutary public policy declared by the legislature to protect the taxpayers from […] the waste and dissipation of public funds. ” (Miller v. McKinnon (1942) 20 Cal.2d 83, 88). Stated another way, 10 McQuillin, Municipal Corporations (3d ed.) § 29.29 explains:
[p]rovisions […] requiring competitive bidding […] are for the purpose of inviting competition, to guard against favoritism, improvidence, extravagance, fraud and corruption, and to secure the best work or supplies at the lowest price practicable and they are enacted for the benefit of property holders and taxpayers and not for the benefit or enrichment of bidders, and should be so construed and administered as to accomplish such purpose fairly and reasonably with sole reference to the public interest.

Were the City to reject the apparent low bidder’s bid in favor of the substantially more expensive second low bid, based on a finding that the latter and not the former made a good faith effort to obtain DBE subcontractors, on the basis of the highly discretionary criteria set forth in Appendix A in Part 26 of Title 49 and a rejection of the argument that the approximately $15,000,000 difference between the two bids associated with the DBE participation disparity did not reflect a price difference is excessive or unreasonable, the City would have concerns that the apparent low bidder would characterize the action as an arbitrary deviation from the requirements of competitive bidding contrary to the purposes recited by McQuillin quoted above. Where, as here, the discrepancy between the two lowest bids is so substantial , the City does not believe that the price difference between DBE and non- DBE subcontractors can be characterized as anything other than excessive and unreasonable, especially when the difference is left to the bidder’s sound business judgment in the applicable regulation.

EVALUAT
ION
A. Items of work the bidder made available to DBE firms Please see the attached Bid Item List Table.

Accor
ding to the list of items of work made available, Security Paving indicated they broke down the work to facilitate DBE participation and made approximately 72.7% of work available to DBE firms.

B. Solicitation effort documentation
The project was advertised August 17, 2023, with a bid opening date of October 9, 2023. 155 DBEs were originally contacted. 154 of those 155 DBEs were sent solicitations by email on 9/21/2023; one DBE did not make email contact information available.
119 of those 155 DBEs were also sent a solicitation by fax on 9/21/2023. 150 494
DBEs that had not responded to the original solicitation received a follow -up phone call on 9/27/2023. Of the 118 DBEs that had not responded to the original solicitation , all received follow-up emails on 9/29/2023. Of the 118 DBEs that did not respond to the original solicitation, all received follow-up phone calls on 10/4/2023.

The Cit
y of Goleta determined that sufficient time was allowed, and sufficient attempts were made for the DBEs to respond in concurrence with requirements in Chapter 9 Civil Rights & Disadvantaged Business Enterprise.

The low bidder provided documented proof of these solicitation efforts in their form 15-H.

The provided webpage below is no longer available. The City of Goleta used https://californiaucp.dbesystem.com/ to perform a review and observed that the certification process does not provide an accurate representation of the Santa Barbara County work region. The system also makes it challenging to select specific categories of work and instead combines all DBEs into one large list with no specific sorting features. The City of Goleta put forth a reasonable effort to confirm that the 155 DBEs solicited can perform the work identified in Section A including checking the DBE system to confirm that the 155 DBEs solicited were in fact DBE certified.

Use the California Unified Certification Program online database at:
https://dot.ca.gov/programs/business -and-economic-opportunity/dbe- search
C. Rejected DBE documentation
Seven DBE quotes were accepted by the apparent low bidder. Three of the DBE quotes were rejected for the following reasons:

Vist
a Steel Company: Full scope of work not quoted. A review by the City of Goleta observed that several bar reinforcing steel bid items were not included in the quote which is work that Vista Steel is certified to perform. Security Paving made attempts to remove some of the bid items from the proposal of the non-DBE firm, CMC Commercial Metals, to allow Vista Steel Company to bid on the project but were unable to reach an agreement.

Hill
side Drilling Company: Full scope of work not quoted. The City of Goleta performed a review and observed that some items of work to be quoted are items that Hillside Drilling is not certified to perform. However, it was also noted that Hillside Drilling does not have Santa Barbara County as a work region. Additionally, Security Paving made attempts to remove some of the bid items from the proposal of the non -DBE firm, Condon -Johnson, to allow Hillside Drilling Company to bid on the project but were unable to reach an agreement.
495

Geostructural Engineering: The low bidder determined that the DBE quote was too high. This is consistent with Title 49 CFR Part 26 Appendix A, which states that contractors are not required to accept higher quotes from DBEs if the price difference is excessive or unreasonable. Based on the City of Goleta’s review, Geostructural Engineering’s quote was calculated to be 183% times greater than the non-DBE contractor’s bid amount.

Based on the review of the rejected quotes it was determined that the DBE goal would not have been met.

D. Publication effort made to advertise the projects to include DBE participation

Please see attached Publication Table.

E. Agencies, organizations, or groups contacted to provide assistance in contacting, recruiting and using DBEs
The low bidder contacted the following organizations for outreach to encourage DBE participation:

Asian Business Association
Black Business Association
Chinese American Construction Professionals
Latin Business Association
National Association of Minority Contractors
National Association of Women in Construction
Southern California Minority Supplier Development Council Southern California Contractors Associations
Associated General Contractors

F. Efforts to provide information about the plans, specifications, and contract requirements
Contact information was listed in the solicitation and included a link to view the plans, specifications, and contract documents electronically. The plans, specifications, and contract documents were also available for viewing at the low bidder’s office.

G. Assistance with bonding, lines of credit, insurance, equipment, supplies, materials, and/or services

A review of the low bidder's advertisement provided in their 15- G stated that assistance for bonding, lines of credit, insurance, equipment, supplies, materials, or services would be provided.

H. Additional data to support a demonstration of Good Faith Effort 496

or did

Please see attached DBE Commitment Table

The second low bidder did meet the DBE goal and received more DBE commitments than the apparent low bidder, however several of the commitments were a significant distance from the Santa Barbara County work region and would be considered unrealistic attempt s of a Good Faith Effort. Title 49 CFR Part 26 Appendix A cautions agencies against requiring that a bidder meet a DBE goal to be awarded a contract even though the bidder made an adequate Good Faith Efforts showing. Additionally, agencies are prohibited from ignoring bona fide Good Faith Efforts and the determination concerning the sufficiency of the low bidder’s Good Faith Efforts is a judgement call. Per the City of Goleta's review, the apparent low bidder made reasonable attempts and allowed certified DBEs to respond in a timely fashion, therefore demonstrating a Good Faith Effort.

Looking at the DBE effort as a whole, the City has 88% DBE participation for Construction Management Services, with a goal of 20%. The 88% DBE participation in Construction Management Services amounts to an additional $4.8M in DBE work.

FINDING OF THE City of Goleta
The City was incorporated in 2002 and currently has a population of 35,000.

Project Connect has been in development for over 23 years, starting prior to City incorporation. The City has expended over $22.6 Million in Federal, State, and local funds during the engineering, environmental, right of way and permitting phases of the Project. The combined project is the largest capital project ever developed by the City and when completed will eliminate or reduce flooding from large portions of Goleta Old Town a state recognized disadvantaged community.

The project will also construct new vehicular, pedestrian, bicycle and potentially new transit routes into Goleta Old Town, which in turn will provide opportunities for new housing developments, increased safety, and improved circulation.

The low bid was 14% above the Engineers Estimate. For the City to accept the low bid, the City Council has approved an additional $12 million of funds to the project construction budget by reassigning funds from other City capital projects.

This diversion of funds has had a very significant impact to the City’s Capital Improvement Program over the next five years.

There was a $14.7 million difference in cost between the low bid and the 2nd bid.

If the City is forced to reject the low bid, then due to the inability of the City to secure an additional $14.7 million, the City would likely have to cancel the project.

By canceling the project, the City is at risk for losing grant funding awarded to the City, deferring the reduction in the 100- year flood plain which will impact Goleta 497

Old Town during each flooding event, and requires additional legal and financial review of the property acquisition and utility relocations performed as part of this project.

Using the subjective DBE good faith efforts analysis described in Title 49 CFR Part 26 Appendix A and the Local Assistance Procedures Manual ( LAPM) Chapter 9 Civil Rights & Disadvantaged Business Enterprise, the City of Goleta finds that the Low Bidder did demonstrate Good Faith Efforts to meet the DBE contract goal for the reasons cited in this evaluation.

Submitted by: Approved by:

Melissa Angeles Luz “Nina” Buelna
Assistant Engineer Assist ant Public Works Director

*Must be approved by someone other than the reviewer.

498
Bid Item List Table
499
500
Granite Construction DBE Commitments $77,468,075.00
DBE Contractor Bid Amount Percent Commitment
Vista Steel Company Goleta, CA $233,854.00 0.3%
Sequoia Consultants Orange, CA $321,235.00 0.4%
Precon Products Simi Valley, CA $231,544.00 0.3%
ABSL Construction Hayward, CA $52,800.00 0.3%
ABSL Construction Hayward, CA $187,000.00
Bridge Rubber Bearing LLC Tyler, TX $35,793.00 0.05%
Hillside Drilling Richmond, CA $5,119,166.00 6.6%
Greencoast Landscapes Camarillo, CA $2,916,807.00 3.8%
Reycon Construction Santa Paula, CA $437,500.00 0.6%
Austin Enterprises Bakersfield, CA $30,240.00 0.1%
Austin Enterprises Bakersfield, CA $64,350.00
Jefferson State Highway Inc Redding, CA $816,209.00 1.1% La Firma Inc Nipoma, CA $16,025.00 0.02%
LMS Transport Rancho Cucamonga, CA $198,558.00 0.3%
Coastline Sweepers West Covina, CA $660,000.00 0.9%
Imrae Corporation Murrieta, CA $150,005.00 0.2%
Full Traffic Maintanence Inc Corona, CA $51,775.00 0.1% Wildscape Restoration Inc Ventura, CA $790,000.00 1.0%
Kellie Avial Construction DBA Avila Traffic
Safety Atascadero, CA $122,360.00 2.7%
Kellie Avial Construction DBA Avila Traffic
Safety Atascadero, CA $1,541,742.00
Kellie Avial Construction DBA Avila Traffic
Safety Atascadero, CA $384,000.00
Kellie Avial Construction DBA Avila Traffic
Safety Atascadero, CA $15,750.00
Kellie Avial Construction DBA Avila Traffic
Safety Atascadero, CA $44,600.00
Hearn Construction DBA Bob's Backhoe &
Trucking Goleta, CA $1,980,660.00 2.6%
DBE Total and Percentage $16,401,973.00 21.2%
501
Security Paving DBE Commitments $62,746,460.00
DBE Contractor Bid Amount Percent Commitment
Greencoast Landscapes Camarillo, CA $2,944,257.00 4.7%
Reycon Construction Santa Paula, CA $437,500.00 0.7%
Jefferson State Highway Inc Redding, CA $816,208.64 1.3% Roberts Oil Corp, DBA ROC Clovis, CA $358,683.00 0.6%
Endemic Environmental Services Inc. Fullerton, CA $352,426.00 0.6% Monzon & Son Enterprises, Inc DBA N/A Lynwood, CA $780,320.00 1.2% Rangel BrothersTrucking DBA Rangel Brothers Trucking Inc Sylmar, CA $705,200.00 1.1%
DBE Total and Percentage $6,394,594.64 10.2%
502
Exhibit H
CalTrans Opinion

503
State of California California State Transportation Agency

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
“Provide a safe and reliable transportation network that serves all people and respects the environment” Memorandum

To: LAI LEONG Date: November 22, 2023
ADA/DBE Coordinator
Division of Local Assistance File: 05-5481(013)
From: DON WARD
Senior Transportation Engineer
Engineering Support Branch
Office of Civil Rights

Subject: CITY OF GOLETA GOOD FAITH EFFORT EVALUATION
The City of Goleta determined that the Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) contract goal for this project is 21%. According to the documentation provided by the City of Goleta, the DBE commitment listed for the apparent lowest bidder, Security Paving Company, Inc. (Security Paving), is 10.20% or $ 6,394,594.64 of the total bid for the Ekwill Street, Fowler Road Extensions, and Hollister Avenue Bridge Replacement project.

The Engineering Support Branch (ESB) has reviewed the submitted Disadvantaged Business Enterprises (DBE) forms from Security Paving . ESB determined that Security Paving ‘s DBE commitment of 10.20% or $ 6,394,594.64 did not meet the 21% contract goal.

ESB does not concur with City of Goleta’s determination that Security Paving did demonstrate adequate Good Faith Effort (GFE) to meet the contract goal.

According to the DBE Program, when a bidder has not committed to meet the contract goal, ESB evaluates the bidder’s good faith efforts using Appendix A of 49 CFR Part 26.

EVALUATION OF GOOD FAITH EFFORT DOCUMENTATION
The Good Faith Efforts (GFE) are all necessary and reasonable steps to achieve a DBE goal or other requirement of this part which, by their scope, intensity, and appropriateness to the objective, could reasonably be expected to obtain sufficient DBE participation.

504
Contract No. 05-5481(013)
November 22, 2023

Page 2 ends

“Provide a safe and reliable transportation network that serves all people and respects the environment” A. Outreach Efforts
In Part A of the “ Proposer/Contractor Good Faith Efforts” form, the Contractor was asked to describe their outreach efforts, list the dates, location and results.

Security Paving reached out to six publications and started their advertisements 25 days before bid opening for solicitation of DBE subcontra ctors and suppliers.

This allowed the DBE firms time to respond to the solicitation as well as provided adequate information about the contract.

The following table indicates a summary of Security Paving’s advertisements.

Publications Advertisement
Date
Bid
Opening
Date
Number of
Days
Published
Supporting
Documents
Provided
Construction Bid
Source
9/14/23 10/9/23 25 Yes
Construction Up-
Date
Goodfaitheffort.com
9/21/23 10/9/23 18 Yes
Minority Bidder
Bulletin
Goodfaitheffort.com
9/18/23 10/9/23 21 Yes
Focus Journal Ad
DBEGoodFaith.com
9/14/23 10/9/23 25 Yes
Trade Journal Ad
DBEGoodFaith.com
9/14/23 10/9/23 25 Yes
Green Sheet
Dodge Construction
Network
9/18/23 10/9/23 21 Yes

DBEgoodFaith.com also posted an announcement on the LinkedIn website.

Security Paving provided a copy of the advertisements in the GFE supporting documentation.

505
Contract No. 05-5481(013)
November 22, 2023

Page 3 ends

“Provide a safe and reliable transportation network that serves all people and respects the environment” B. Documentation of Solicitation Efforts and Follow Up
In Part B of the “Proposer/Contractor Good Faith Efforts” form, Security Paving was to list the name of DBEs, the date of initial solicitation, items of work offered, and the follow up methods. Security Paving stated, “ See Attachment A, See Attachment B, See Attachment C, See Attachment D.”

Security Paving indicated that they utilized the California Unified Certification Program (CUCP) and B2GNow CUCP DBE Directory (B2Gnow). However, Security Paving did not provide the search results from their query. Therefore, ESB is unable to verify that Security Paving utilized the CUCP and B2GNow database for solicitation efforts.

ESB performed an independent search of the B2GNow database using the criteria of the surrounding , counties of San Luis Obispo, Santa Barbra, Ventura and the services needed for this contract:

Work Code Category
C1201 TRAFFIC CONTROL SYSTEM
C1200 CONSTRUCTION AREA SIGNS
C1290 TEMPORARY RAILING (TYPE K)
C1522 RESET, ADJUST ROADWAY ITEMS
C1531 PLANE ASPHALT CONCRETE
C1532 REMOVE CONCRETE
C1601 CLEARING & GRUBBING
C1701 DEVELOP WATER SUPPLY
C1901 ROADWAY EXCAVATION
C1920 STRUCTURE EXCAVATION
C2000 HIGHWAY PLANTING
C2065 IRRIGATION SYSTEM
C3901 ASPHALT CONCRETE
C5100 CONCRETE STRUCTURE
C5620 ROADSIDE SIGN
C6500 REINFORCED CONCRETE PIPE
C7301 CONCRETE CURB & SIDEWALK- MISC
C8000 FENCING
C8001 TEMPORARY FENCING
C8320 METAL BEAM GUARD RAILING
C8391 METAL BEAM BARRIER
C8405 THERMOPLASTIC TRAFFIC STRIPING & MARKING
C8406 PAINTED TRAFFIC STRIPING & MARKING
C8501 PAVEMENT MARKER
C8602 SIGNAL & LIGHTING
506
Contract No. 05-5481(013)
November 22, 2023

Page 4 ends

“Provide a safe and reliable transportation network that serves all people and respects the environment” C8604 LIGHTING SYSTEM
C8713 CONSULTANT, ENVIRONMENTAL
C8852 SWPPP PLANNING
C9609 STREET SWEEPING TRUCK
C9632 HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCE REMOVAL

ESB identified a total of 358 certified DBE firms, not including trucking.

Security Paving provided what they called a “Follow Up Schedule” that listed 155 firms they solicited. Each firm on the “Follow Up Schedule” had a Firm I.D. number.

ESB verified the ID numbers of many firms on the list. Most of the firms were listed as DBE firms in B2GNow. However, the following firms were not found in B2GNow database:

• 35956 De Anda Company • 37472 Active Builders & Remodeling • 40292 Albert Wilson &
Associates
• 42619 Old Structural Builders &
Fabricators

ESB cannot determine how Security Paving identified the 1 55 firms for their solicitation efforts. If Security Paving provided a copy of their search from the CUCP or B2GNow, which includes search criteria, geographic parameters, and work category co des, ESB could have authenticated that the “Follow Up Schedule” was a list of viable DBEs.

Security Paving sent out initial solicitations by f ax and email on September 21, 2023. Not all of the 155 DBE firms had fax numbers.

Date Solicitation Method Sent Total
9/21/23 Initial Fax 114 114
9/21/23 Initial Email 155 155

Security Paving sent out follow-up solicitations by email, on September 21, 2023, and September 29, 2023. Security paving also followed-up with phone calls on September 27, 2023, and October 4, 2023.

Date Solicitation Method Could Not
Contact/invalid
email
L/M
or
Sent
Email
Not
Bid
Will
Bid
Interested N/A Total
9/21/23 Initial Email 13 136 5 - - 1 155
9/27/23 Follow-up Phone 114 - 31 - 5 5 155
9/29/23 Follow-up Email 13 105 1 - - 36 155
10/4/23 Follow-up Phone 108 - 6 - 2 39 155
507
Contract No. 05-5481(013)
November 22, 2023

Page 5 ends

“Provide a safe and reliable transportation network that serves all people and respects the environment”

Security Paving provided proof of follow up efforts and the results. The results of the October 4, 2023, phone solicitations are summarized below:

• 0 voice messages were left to DBE firms.
• 6 DBE firms indicated they would not bid.
• 0 DBE firms would submit a bid.
• 2 DBE firms were interested in bidding.
• 108 DBE firms could not be contacted due to invalid phone numbers or no voicemail had been set up, or no response.
• 39 DBE firms were not contacted due to not bidding response in previous solicitations.

At bid time, Security Paving had confirmations for 7 DBE firms as a result of their solicitation efforts.

C. Work Made Available to DBEs
In Part C of the “Proposer/Contractor Good Faith Efforts” form, the Contractor was asked to select portions of the work to be performed by DBEs in order to increase the likelihood that the DBE goals will be achieved, including breaking out contract work items into economically feasible units to facilitate DBE participation.

Security Paving provided a list of items of work offered, services offered, or materials supplied indicating that they made approximately $ 45,730,760.60 or 73% of work available to DBE firms.

D. Rejected DBEs
In Part D of the “Proposer/Contractor Good Faith Efforts” form, the Contractor was asked to list the items of work, names of firms that were selected over the rejected DBE firm, and the quote amount. If a non-DBE firm was selected over a DBE firm, provide the price difference, reasons for selection and evidence to why additional agreements could not be reached for DBEs to perform the work .

Security Paving stated, “See Part 3, See Part 3a”.

Security Paving provided accepted and rejected DBE quotes. Security Paving also provided the reasons why a non-DBE firm was selected over a DBE firm.

508
Contract No. 05-5481(013)
November 22, 2023

Page 6 ends

“Provide a safe and reliable transportation network that serves all people and respects the environment” Work
Description
Accepted Firm
& Quote Amount
DBE or
Non-
DBE
DBE Rejected
& Quote
Amount
Reason
282, 284 CMC Steel
Fabricators, Inc.
$128,292.00
Non-
DBE
Vista Steel
Company
$233,854.00
$105,562.00
High Price
136, 141 Condon-
Johnson &
Associates, Inc.
$606,820.00
Non-
DBE
Geostructural
Engineering,
Inc.
$1,866,190.00
High price, did not
quote the full
scope
$1,207,870.00
28, 29 Condon-
Johnson &
Associates, Inc.
$4,561,358.00
Non-
DBE
Hillside Drilling
Company, Inc.
$4,210,046
Hillside Drilling
Company did not
quote the full
scope of the work
($315,312.00)

Security Paving rejected the DBE firm, Vista Steel Company, and accepted non- DBE firm, CMC Steel Fabricators, Inc., for bid items 282, and 284 due to a price difference of $105,562.00

Security Paving rejected the DBE firm, Geostructural Engineering, Inc., and accepted non-DBE firm, Condon -Johnson & Associates, Inc., for bid items 136, and 141 due to a price difference of $1,207,870.00.

Per the Appendix A to Part 26, "Prime contractors are not, however, required to accept higher quotes from DBEs if the price difference is excessive or unreasonable."

Security Paving rejected the DBE firm, Hillside Drilling Company, Inc., (Hillside) and accepted non-DBE firm, Condon-Johnson & Associates, Inc., for bid items 28 and 29 due to an incomplete bid. Hillside is listed on the DBE Commitment form for the 2nd lowest bidder, Granite Construction Company. Security Paving did not provide evidence that they negotiated in good faith with this interested DBE firm, Hillside, or provide evidence as to why additional agreements could not be reached for Hillside to perform the work. Using Hillside would have significantly increased DBE commitment.

E. Assistance Given on Plans, Specifications, and Contract Requirements In Part E of the “Proposer/Contractor Good Faith Efforts” form, Security Paving stated, “See Attachment B” A copy of their advertisements state that “plans and specifications are available to view at PlanetBids website:
https://pbsystem.planetbids. com/portal/45299/bo/bo-detai1/108795. They can 509
Contract No. 05-5481(013)
November 22, 2023

Page 7 ends

“Provide a safe and reliable transportation network that serves all people and respects the environment” also be reviewed at our office located, 3075 Townsgate Rd, Suite 200, Westla ke Village, CA 91361, by appointment only.”

There is no evidence or assertion that Security Paving assisted any DBE subcontractor and/or suppliers during the bid advertisement period.

F. Assistance or Services Offered for Bonding, Lines of Credit, Insurance, Equipment, Supplies, Materials
In Part F of the “Proposer/Contractor Good Faith Efforts” form, Security Paving stated, “ See Attachment A, See Attachment B, See Attachment C, See Attachment D.” A copy of their advertisement’s states, “Please call if you will need assistance in obtaining bonding, lines of credit, insurance, equipment, materials, or delivery schedules.”

There is no evidence or assertion that Security Paving assisted any DBE subcontractor and/or suppliers during the bid advertisement period.

G. Contacting Recruitment Agencies
In Part G of the “Proposer/Contractor Good Faith Efforts” form, Security Paving stated, “See Attachment B.”

Security Paving provided supporting documentation indicating that they contacted the following minority or women’s community organizations, minority or women’s contractors’ groups, local, state, and f ederal minority or women’s business assistance offices, and other organizations:

• Asian Business Association
• Black Business Association
• Chinese American Construction Professionals
• Latin Business Association
• National Association of Minority Contractors
• National Association of Women in Construction
• Southern CA Minority Supplier Development Council
• Southern California Contractors Association
• Associated General Contractors Association

There is no evidence or assertion that Security Paving received any response from the above agencies.

510
Contract No. 05-5481(013)
November 22, 2023

Page 8 ends

“Provide a safe and reliable transportation network that serves all people and respects the environment” H. Additional Good Faith Efforts
In Part H of the “Proposer/Contractor Good Faith Efforts” form, Security Paving stated, “Reference to plans & specs are shown on all advertisements. Includes a link for access to the PlanetBids website. Plans were also made available in print at Security Paving's Westlake Village office. For this project no requests for plan review assistance were made. Assistance with bonding, insurance, equipment rentals, & supplies were advertised in all outreach advertisements. For this project no requests for assistance were made. SPCI used the Caltrans DBE Firm search site (https://ucp.dot.ca.gov/licenseForm.htm) to cultivate a list of DBE's to email, fax, & call to find DBE firms. See Attachment A for additional details.”

There is no evidence or assertion of additional good faith efforts performed for this contract by Security Paving.

I. Bidder Comparison of DBE Commitment
The lowest bidder, Security Paving’s, apparent DBE participation is 10.2% of the total bid. Security Paving did not meet the contract goal of 21%.

The second lowest bidder, Granite Construction Company apparent DBE participation is 21.2% of the total bid. Granite Construction Company appears to meet the 21% DBE goal.

No information was provided on a third bidder.

Per the 49 CFR Part 26, Appendix A to Part 26 (V), “In determining whether a bidder has made good faith efforts, you may take into account the performance of other bidders in meeting the contract. For example, when the apparent successful bidder fails to meet the contract goal, but others meet it, you may reasonably raise the question of whether, with additional reasonable efforts, the apparent successful bidder could have met the goal.”

The bids were as follows:

Bid
Rank Bidder Bid Amount Claimed DBE
Commitment
Confirmed DBE
Commitment
1 Security Paving $62,746,460.70 $6,394,594.64 or

10.2%
$6,394,594.64
or 10.2%
2 Granite
Construction
Company
$76,768,035.00 $16,401,973.00
or 21.2% -
511
State of California California State Transportation Agency

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
“Provide a safe and reliable transportation network that serves all people and respects the environment”

CONCLUSION
ESB has determined that Security Paving did not meet the contract goal and did not demonstrate adequate good faith efforts through soliciting by indirect and direct methods. ESB considers the quantity, quality, and intensity of the different kinds of efforts that Security Paving has made. Based on the following facts:

• Security Paving indicated that they utilized the CUCP and B2GNow.

However, Security Paving did not provide the search results from their query.

Therefore, ESB is unable to verify that Security Paving utilized the CUCP or B2GNow database for solicitation efforts.
• ESB performed an independent search of the B2GNow database using the criteria of the surrounding, counties of San Luis Obispo, Santa Barbra, Ventura and relevant work codes and identified a total of 358 certified DBE firms.
• ESB cannot determine how Security Paving identified the 1 55 firms for their solicitation efforts. However, some few randomly checked firms were not found in the B2Gnow data base. Had Security Paving utilized the CUCP or B2Gnow databases, they could have identified many more DBE firms to solicit. This could have increased DBE participation.
• Security Paving’s solicitation of 155 firms on their “Follow Up Schedule” did not identify one DBE firm that said they would bid this project. Nor did they leave one voice mail message with a DBE firm.
• Furthermore, no DBEs were listed on Security Paving’s commitment form for Traffic Control. Most contractors use a DBE firm for traffic control work.

Doing so could have increased DBE partcipation.
• Security Paving rejected DBE firm, Hillside Drilling Company, Inc., (Hillside) and accepted non-DBE firm, Condon-Johnson & Associates, Inc., for bid items 28 and 29 due to an incomplete bid. Hillside is listed on the DBE Commitment form for the 2nd lowest bidder, Granite Construction Company. Security Paving did not provide evidence that they negotiated in good faith with this interested DBE firm, Hillside, or provide evidence as to why additional agreements could not be reached for Hillside to perform the work. Using Hillside would have significantly increased DBE commitment. Furthermore, Hillside had a competitive quote that was lower than Condon-Johnson & Associates.
• Granite Construction Company met the DBE goal. Per 49 CFR Part 26, Appendix A to Part 26 (V), “In determining whether a bidder has made good faith efforts, you may take into account the performance of other bidders in meeting the contract. For example, when the apparent successful bidder fails to meet the contract goal, but others meet it, you may reasonably raise the question of whether, with additional reasonable efforts, the apparent successful bidder could have met the goal.” 512
Contract No. 05-5481(013)
November 22, 2023

Page 10 ends

“Provide a safe and reliable transportation network that serves all people and respects the environment” • Security Paving did not demonstrate that they took all necessary and reasonable steps and available means to obtain sufficient DBE participation for this contract.

513

SAMPLE EXHIBIT
9-E EVALUATION OF GOOD FAITH EFFORTS
Dat
e: 11/6/2023
Memorandum
To: P

ROJECT FILE
Federal-Aid Project
Number: BRLS-5481(013)
Bid Opening Date:
10/09/2023
Bidder: Security Paving Company, Inc.

Type of Work:

The City of Goleta determined that the Low Bidder did demonstrate Good Faith Efforts to meet the DBE participation goal of this project for the reasons cited in this evaluation.

For reference, selected portions of Appendix A in Part 26 of Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations provide in pertinent part (emphasis added):

CITY COUNCIL
Paula Perotte
Mayor
Kyle Richards
Mayor Pro Tempore
Stuart Ka
sdin
Councilmember
James Kyriaco
Councilmember
District 2
Luz R
eyes-Martín
Councilmember
District 1

CITY MANAGER
Robert Nisbet

514
Second, even if it doesn't meet the goal, the bidder can document adequate good faith efforts. This means that the bidder must show that it took all necessary and reasonable steps to achieve a DBE goal or other requirement of this part which, by their scope, intensity, and appropriateness to the objective, could reasonably be expected to obtain sufficient DBE participation, even if they were not fully successful.
[…]
As a recipient, you have the responsibility to make a fair and reasonable judgment whether a bidder that did not meet the goal made adequate good faith efforts. It is important for you to consider the quality, quantity, and intensity of the different kinds of efforts that the bidder has made, based on the regulations and the guidance in this Appendix.

Here,
the apparent low bidder’s bid is substantially below the next lowest bidder, by approximately $15,000,000. Were the apparent low bidder to have been 515
required to actually utilize further DBE contractors to actually achieve the DBE goal, it would have imposed an excessive and unreasonable price increase on the prime contractor (and thus, the City and the public). “The competitive bidding requirement is founded upon a salutary public policy declared by the legislature to protect the taxpayers from […] the waste and dissipation of public funds. ” (Miller v. McKinnon (1942) 20 Cal.2d 83, 88). Stated another way, 10 McQuillin, Municipal Corporations (3d ed.) § 29.29 explains:
[p]rovisions […] requiring competitive bidding […] are for the purpose of inviting competition, to guard against favoritism, improvidence, extravagance, fraud and corruption, and to secure the best work or supplies at the lowest price practicable and they are enacted for the benefit of property holders and taxpayers and not for the benefit or enrichment of bidders, and should be so construed and administered as to accomplish such purpose fairly and reasonably with sole reference to the public interest.

EVALUAT
ION
A. Items of work the bidder made available to DBE firms Please see the attached Bid Item List Table.

Accor
ding to the list of items of work made available, Security Paving indicated they broke down the work to facilitate DBE participation and made approximately 72.7% of work available to DBE firms.

B. Solicitation effort documentation
The project was advertised August 17, 2023, with a bid opening date of October 9, 2023. 155 DBEs were originally contacted. 154 of those 155 DBEs were sent solicitations by email on 9/21/2023; one DBE did not make email contact information available.
119 of those 155 DBEs were also sent a solicitation by fax on 9/21/2023. 150 516
DBEs that had not responded to the original solicitation received a follow -up phone call on 9/27/2023. Of the 118 DBEs that had not responded to the original solicitation , all received follow-up emails on 9/29/2023. Of the 118 DBEs that did not respond to the original solicitation, all received follow-up phone calls on 10/4/2023.

The low bidder provided documented proof of these solicitation efforts in their form 15-H.

Based on the review of the rejected quotes it was determined that the DBE goal would not have been met.

D. Publication effort made to advertise the projects to include DBE participation

Please see attached Publication Table.

G. Assistance with bonding, lines of credit, insurance, equipment, supplies, materials, and/or services

A review of the low bidder's advertisement provided in their 15- G stated that assistance for bonding, lines of credit, insurance, equipment, supplies, materials, or services would be provided.

H. Additional data to support a demonstration of Good Faith Effort 518

or did

Please see attached DBE Commitment Table

FINDING OF THE City of Goleta
The City was incorporated in 2002 and currently has a population of 35,000.

This diversion of funds has had a very significant impact to the City’s Capital Improvement Program over the next five years.

There was a $14.7 million difference in cost between the low bid and the 2nd bid.

If the City is forced to reject the low bid, then due to the inability of the City to secure an additional $14.7 million, the City would likely have to cancel the project.

By canceling the project, the City is at risk for losing grant funding awarded to the City, deferring the reduction in the 100- year flood plain which will impact Goleta 519

Old Town during each flooding event, and requires additional legal and financial review of the property acquisition and utility relocations performed as part of this project.

Submitted by: Approved by:

Melissa Angeles Luz “Nina” Buelna
Assistant Engineer Assist ant Public Works Director

*Must be approved by someone other than the reviewer.

520
Bid Item List Table
521
522
Granite Construction DBE Commitments $77,468,075.00
DBE Contractor Bid Amount Percent Commitment
Vista Steel Company Goleta, CA $233,854.00 0.3%
Sequoia Consultants Orange, CA $321,235.00 0.4%
Precon Products Simi Valley, CA $231,544.00 0.3%
ABSL Construction Hayward, CA $52,800.00 0.3%
ABSL Construction Hayward, CA $187,000.00
Bridge Rubber Bearing LLC Tyler, TX $35,793.00 0.05%
Hillside Drilling Richmond, CA $5,119,166.00 6.6%
Greencoast Landscapes Camarillo, CA $2,916,807.00 3.8%
Reycon Construction Santa Paula, CA $437,500.00 0.6%
Austin Enterprises Bakersfield, CA $30,240.00 0.1%
Austin Enterprises Bakersfield, CA $64,350.00
Jefferson State Highway Inc Redding, CA $816,209.00 1.1% La Firma Inc Nipoma, CA $16,025.00 0.02%
LMS Transport Rancho Cucamonga, CA $198,558.00 0.3%
Coastline Sweepers West Covina, CA $660,000.00 0.9%
Imrae Corporation Murrieta, CA $150,005.00 0.2%
Full Traffic Maintanence Inc Corona, CA $51,775.00 0.1% Wildscape Restoration Inc Ventura, CA $790,000.00 1.0%
Kellie Avial Construction DBA Avila Traffic
Safety Atascadero, CA $122,360.00 2.7%
Kellie Avial Construction DBA Avila Traffic
Safety Atascadero, CA $1,541,742.00
Kellie Avial Construction DBA Avila Traffic
Safety Atascadero, CA $384,000.00
Kellie Avial Construction DBA Avila Traffic
Safety Atascadero, CA $15,750.00
Kellie Avial Construction DBA Avila Traffic
Safety Atascadero, CA $44,600.00
Hearn Construction DBA Bob's Backhoe &
Trucking Goleta, CA $1,980,660.00 2.6%
DBE Total and Percentage $16,401,973.00 21.2%
523
Security Paving DBE Commitments $62,746,460.00
DBE Contractor Bid Amount Percent Commitment
Greencoast Landscapes Camarillo, CA $2,944,257.00 4.7%
Reycon Construction Santa Paula, CA $437,500.00 0.7%
Jefferson State Highway Inc Redding, CA $816,208.64 1.3% Roberts Oil Corp, DBA ROC Clovis, CA $358,683.00 0.6%
Endemic Environmental Services Inc. Fullerton, CA $352,426.00 0.6% Monzon & Son Enterprises, Inc DBA N/A Lynwood, CA $780,320.00 1.2% Rangel BrothersTrucking DBA Rangel Brothers Trucking Inc Sylmar, CA $705,200.00 1.1%
DBE Total and Percentage $6,394,594.64 10.2%
524
525
526
527
528
529
530
531
532
533
534
535
536
537
538
539
540
541
542
543
544
545
546
547
548
549
550
551
552
553
554
555
556
557
558
Exhibit I
SPC Rebuttal

559
560
561
562
563
564
565
566
567
568
569
570
571
572
573
574
575
576
577
578
579
580
581
582
583
584
585
586
Exhibit J
Re-Evaluation Finding

587

CITY PROJECT NUMBER: 9002 & 9033

Page 1 of 7 ends

Memorandum To File

Date: December 7, 2023
From: Melissa Angles, Assistant Engineer
Subject: Project Connect Reval uation of Good Faith Efforts

Project Connect was advertised to call for bids on August 17, 2023, with a bid opening date of October 9, 2023.

Project Connect received two (2) bids The engineer’s estimate and bids are as follows :

Table 1 Bid Results
Engineer’s Estimate $55,021,811.70
Security Paving $62,746,460.70
Granite Construction $77,468,035.00

The engineer’s estimate for construction costs was $55,021,811.70. Security Paving was the apparent lowest responsible bidder at $62,746,460.70. The bid amount was 14% over the engineer's estimate (within industry standard variances). The Granite Construction bid amount was approximately 41% over the engineer's estimate.

The City of Goleta submitted the Exhibit 9-E Evaluation Of Good Faith Efforts to Caltrans office of Civil Rights dated November 6, 2023. Using the subjective DBE good faith efforts analysis described in Title 49 CFR Part 26 Appendix A and the Local Assistance Procedures Manual (LAPM) Chapter 9 Civil Rights & Disadvantaged Business Enterprise, the City of Goleta finds that the Low Bidder did demonstrate Good Faith Efforts to meet the DBE contract goal for the reasons cited in the evaluation performed.

On November 27
th 2023, the City of Goleta (City) received the CA Department of Transportation’s (Caltrans) Memorandum dated November 22, 2023 Subject: City of Goleta Good Faith Effort Evaluation with an evaluation from the Engineering Support Branch (ESB)(ESB Letter). The ESB letter stated “ESB reviewed the City of Goleta’s Exhibit 9-E Evaluation of Good Faith Efforts dated November 22, 2023 and does not concur with the City’s determination that Security Paving did demonstrate adequate Good Faith Effort (GFE) to meet the contract goal”.

This memorandum documents the City’s reevaluation of Security Paving’s GFE in reference to the information provided in the ESB Caltrans Memo. 588

CITY PROJECT NUMBER: 9002 & 9033

Page 2 of 7 ends

The above referenced City of Goleta Exhibit 9-E Evaluation Of Good Faith Efforts to Caltrans is incorporated by reference as if fully set forth herein and affirmed. In addition, the following analysis is added.

The City’s evaluation of the apparent low bidder’s GFE is based on Chapter 9 Civil Rights & Disadvantaged Business Enterprise of the Local Assistance Procedures Manual (LAPM and Appendix A in Part 26 of Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations. The efforts of the bidder were reviewed by the City from the information provided in Exhibit 15-H: Proposer/Contractor Good Faith Efforts signed and submitted by Security Paving Company, Inc. as part of their bid and in their Response to Caltrans’ November 22, 2023 Good Faith Effort Evaluation dated December 4, 2023 also signed and submitted by Security Paving Company.

The City has concluded Security Paving took all necessary and reasonable measures to achieve the DBE contract goal based on the additional responses in the following section.

REEVALUATION
A. Outreach Efforts
The City does not have additional comments beyond those provided in the 9-E form submitted or the response from ESB.

B. Documentation of Solicitation Efforts and Follow Up
The LAPM does not provide direction on which database to use for producing a list of DBEs to solicit. Per the LAPM “determining the adequacy of a bidder’s GFEs to achieve DBE contract goals is a judgement call”.

Security Paving’s 15-H form provided the names and dates of written notices sent to certified DBEs soliciting bids for this project and dates and methods used for following up initial solicitations to determine with certainty whether the DBEs were interested.

Security Paving stated on their 15-H form they used the Caltrans DBE Firm search site (https://ucp.dot.ca.gov/licenseForm.htm). The City used this link to follow up and the content is no longer available. As of November 1, 2023, Caltrans no longer supports this database and is redirecting to the California Unified Certification Program (CUPC) Database which is powered by B2Gnow Software (CUPC/B2Gnow Database). The City was not able to recreate the search using the Caltrans DBE Firm search site due to it being removed.

ESB stated they performed an independent search of the B2Gnow database using the cri
teria of the surrounding Counties of San Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara, Ventura and the services they identified for this contract. ESB identified a total of 358 certified DBE firms, not including trucking.
589

CITY PROJECT NUMBER: 9002 & 9033

Page 3 of 7 ends

The project is located within District 5 which encompasses the counties of Monterey, San Benito, San Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara, and Santa Cruz. ESB used Ventura in their search which is outside of District 5 and would not be included in a search for DBEs in District 5.

The City spot checked the CUPC/B2Gnow Database (noting this is a different database then what Security Paving used) and found the following DBEs were listed and certified:
• Barcelo Construction Inc. (does not have the work codes noted in OCR review) • Central Valley Reinforcing (does not have the work codes noted in OCR review) • Legend Fence Corporation
• OBS Engineering, Inc
• Alexander Santamaria DBA: Santamaria Concrete Inc
• Sunset Electric & Lighting, Inc. (San Benito, San Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Santa Cruz)
Based on these results, the City understands the work codes selected by Security Pavi
ng are not the same work codes being used in the ESB search. The work codes ESB is using for their search doesn’t reflect the 72.7% of work selected for DBEs or specific items of work. Different work codes will result in a different search result.

The City performed a search in CUPC/B2Gnow Database for District 5 counties compared to the search locations from ESB including San Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara, and Ventura to review the differences between the search results. Both searches were using the work codes shown in the ESB response letter. Both searches resulted in a different number of responses and the District 5 counties resulted in 49 DBE’s not listed in the ESB City locations. In addition, after spot checking a few firms listed on Security Paving’s list, those firms did not show up in either search performed since their work codes were not part of the list.

Security Paving provided the Work Codes they used to search the Caltrans database and they do not all match those ESB used in their search. Table 1 provides the list of Work Codes provided by Security Paving. The work codes provided by Security Paving reflect the work they offered for DBEs.

Table 2 Work Codes Queried by Security Paving
Security Paving Work Codes
Included
in ESB
Work
Codes
CA WCC C1200: CONSTRUCTION AREA
SIGNS
CA WCC C1201: TRAFFIC CONTROL

SYSTEM X
CA WCC C1575: REMOVE BRIDGE ITEM
590

CITY PROJECT NUMBER: 9002 & 9033

Page 4 of 7 ends

CA WCC C1601: CLEARING & GRUBBING X
CA WCC C1701: DEVELOP WATER SUPPLY X
CA WCC C1901: ROADWAY EXCAVATION X
CA WCC C1920: STRUCTURE EXCAVATION X
CA WCC C1930: STRUCTURE BACKFILL
CA WCC C2030: EROSION CONTROL
CA WCC C2065: IRRIGATION SYSTEM X
CA WCC C2066: TEMPORARY EROSION

CONTROL
CA WCC C2602: AGGREGATE BASE (AB)
CA WCC C4906: CAST-IN-DRILLED-HOLE

CONCRETE PILING
CA WCC C5000: PRESTRESSING

CONCRETE CAST-IN-PLACE
CA WCC C5100: CONCRETE STRUCTURE X
CA WCC C5190: JOINT SEAL – WATER STOP
CA WCC C5201: REINFORCING STEEL
CA WCC C5620: ROADSIDE SIGN X
CA WCC C6500: REINFORCED CONCRETE
PIPE X
CA WCC C7000: PLASTIC PIPE
CA WCC C7200: ROCK SLOPE PROTECTION
CA WCC C7301: CONCRETE CURB &

SIDEWALK- MISC X
CA WCC C8000: FENCING X
CA WCC C8320: METAL BEAM GUARD

RAILING X
CA WCC C8331: CONCRETE BARRIER
CA WCC C8405: THERMOPLASTIC TRAFFIC

STRIPING & MARKING X
CA WCC C8406: PAINTED TRAFFIC

STRIPING & MARKING X
CA WCC C8407: REMOVE PAVEMENT

MARKING & TRAFFIC STRIPES
CA WCC C8501: PAVEMENT MARKER X
CA WCC C8601: MAINTAINING EXISTING

TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT SYSTEM

ELEMENTS DURING CONSTRUCTION
CA WCC C8602: SIGNAL & LIGHTING X
CA WCC C8852: SWPPP PLANNING X
CA WCC C9604: Super 10 dump truck
CA WCC C9607: END DUMP TRUCK
CA WCC C9609: STREET SWEEPING TRUCK X
591

CITY PROJECT NUMBER: 9002 & 9033

Page 5 of 7 ends

The ESB letter incorrectly mentioned Old Structural Builders & Fabricators, it is actually DLD Structural Builders & Fabricators, along with Active Builders & Remodeling, De Anda Company, and Albert Wilson & Associates. ESB stated that these firms were not found in B2GNow. The City was unable to find these firms using the Office of Civil Rights database since it was deactivated on November 1
st, 2023. The City performed a
more exhaustive review of these firms and discovered through the US Dept of Transportation’s website, that DLD Structural Builders & Fabricators along with Active Builders & Remodeling had been decertified. Again, without access to the deactivated database the City was unable to confirm if these firms had been deleted from the database and not collected unbeknownst to the bidder of their decertification DBE status. The database is managed and updated by Caltrans and is beyond the scope of this discussion.

C. Work Made Available to DBEs
The City does not have additional comments beyond those provided in the 9-E form submitted or the response from ESB.

D. Rejected DBEs
The ESB letter noted “Using Hillside would have significantly increased DBE commitment.

Condon Johnson provided a bid on October 9, 2023 and included items 28 and 29 with a note “stating the above pricing is not separable without prior authorization by CJA.” Security Paving sent an email to Hillside Drilling Company, Inc. on September 21, 2023 requesting DBE RFQ. Security Paving sent a second request on September 29, 2023.

Hillside Drilling Company, Inc. provided a bid on October 9, 2023 for items 25, 28, and 29 only.

Geostructural Engineering Inc. provided a bid on October 8, 2023 stating their required scope included Bid items 63, 136, and 141.

Table 2 shows a breakdown of item 28 and 29 between the three contractors.

Table 3 Bid Items 28 and 29 Contractors Bid
Item of Work Condon
Johnson
Bid (Non
DBE)
Hillside
Drilling Bid
(DBE)
GeoStructural
Engineering
Bid (DBE)
Difference
28 – 36” Drilled
Hole
$2,512,908 $1,699,342 $269,584
29 – 60” CIDH
Pile
$2,048,450 $2,510,704 Did not bid
592

CITY PROJECT NUMBER: 9002 & 9033

Page 6 of 7 ends

Sub Total $4,561,358 $4,210,046 N/A $351,312 (7%)
63 – Soil Nail
Mob
$51,500 Did not bid $80,000
136 – Soil Nail $434,830 Did not bid $850,190
141 – Structural
Shotcrete
$171,990 Did not bid $936,000
Sub Total $658,320 N/A $1,866,190 $1,207,870
(283%)

Security Paving rejected GeoStructural Engineering Inc. due to the bid being significantly higher than Condon Johnson. Security Paving rejected Hillside Drilling Company, Inc. based on incomplete scope.

The scope of work items included in Table 2 could not be compared in total since neither DBE provided a full scope of work. As a result, Condon Johnson was selected by Security Paving to complete all of the scope items discussed in Table 2.

Per the LAPM “Negotiating in good faith with interested DBEs. It is the bidder’s responsibility to make a portion of the work available to DBE subcontractors and suppliers, and to select those portions of the work or material needs consistent with the available DBE subcontractors and suppliers, so as to facilitate DBE participation.

Evidence of such negotiation includes: names, addresses, and telephone numbers of DBEs that were considered; a description of the information provided regarding the plans and specifications for the work selected for subcontracting; and evidence as to why agreements could not be reached with the DBEs who were not selected to perform the work”.

Security Paving made a portion of the work available to DBE subcontractors and suppliers. Hillside Drilling Company is capable of performing the soil nail and structural shotcrete based on their website: “Hillside Drilling Inc. has served Northern California for 50 years, providing high quality, cost-effective, innovative drilling solutions. We specialize in drilling, shoring, tiebacks, soil nails, retaining walls, micro-piles, caissons, and deep foundation drilling.”
E. Assistance Given on Plans, Specifications, and Contract Requirements The City does not have additional comments beyond those provided in the 9-E form submitted or the response from ESB.

F. Assistance or Services Offered for Bonding, Lines of Credit, Insurance, Equipment, Supplies, Materials
The City does not have additional comments beyond those provided in the 9-E form submitted or the response from ESB.

G. Contacting Recruitment Agencies
593

CITY PROJECT NUMBER: 9002 & 9033

Page 7 of 7 ends

The City does not have additional comments beyond those provided in the 9-E form submitted or the response from ESB.

H. Additional Good Faith Efforts
The City does not have additional comments beyond those provided in the 9-E form submitted or the response from ESB.

I. Bidder Comparison of DBE Commitment
The City only received two bids. Security Paving’s bid is substantially below Granite’s bid by approximately $15,000,000. Security Paving did reject a DBE due to their bid being substantially higher than a non-DBE contractor. The City did take into consideration the performance of Granite’s DBE commitment and concluded that while Granite did meet the DBE participation goal, this does not reflect on Security Paving’s GFE and ultimately an additional $15,000,000 in construction bid is not a competitive bid.

The City has concluded Security Paving took all necessary and reasonable measures to achieve the DBE contract goal based on the additional responses in the following section.

594
Exhibit K
Final Plans and Specifications

The full set of Plans and Specifications are available for viewing at the Office of the City Clerk

595
ATTACHMENT 5

Public Works Construction Contract

596
1 SECTION IV AGREEMENT

PUBLIC WORKS CONTRACT

BETWEEN THE CITY OF GOLETA
AND
SECURITY PAVING COMPANY, INC.

This Public Works Contract (herein referr ed to as “CONTRACT”) is made and entered into by and between the CITY OF GOLETA, a municipal corporation (herein referred to as "CITY"), and SECURITY PAVING COMPANY, I NC., a California Corporation (hereinafter referred to as “CONTRACTOR”).

SECTION A. RECITALS

1. Pursuant to the Notice To Contractors Inviting Sealed Bids for the Ekwill Street and Fowler Road Extensions Project (includes the Hollister Avenue/Route 217 Undercrossing Project) and Hollister Avenue Bridge Replacement Project, bids were received, publicly opened, and declared on the date specified
in the notice.

2. On December 19, 2023, Goleta’s City Council declared CONTRACTOR to be the lowest responsible bidder and ac cepted
the bid of CONTRACTOR and the City
Council/City Manager/Department Director and Purchasing Officer, approved this CONTRACT and authorized the City Manager to execute the CONTRACT with CONTRACTOR for furnishing labor, equipment and material for the Ekwill Street and Fowler Road Extensions Project
(includes the Hollister Avenue/Route 217
Undercrossing Project) and Hollister Avenue Bridge Replacement Project in the City of Goleta.

NOW, THEREFORE , in consideration of the fo regoing and the mutual covenants herein contained, it is agreed:

SECTION B. TERMS

1. GENERAL SCOPE OF WORK: CITY agrees to engage CONTRACTOR and CONTRACTOR agrees to furnish all necessary labor , tools, materials, appliances, and equipment for and do the work for the Ekwill Street and Fowler Road Extensions Project (includes the Hollister Avenue/Route 217 Undercrossing Project) and Hollister Avenue Bridge Replacement Project in the City of Goleta. The work shal l be performed in accordance with the Plans and Specifications (and as generally described in the “Notice to Contractors,” attached as Exhibit A) and in accordance with bid prices set forth in CONTRACTOR’S Bid Proposal (attached as Exhibit B) and in accordance with the instructions of the City Engineer, or City’s Manager’s designee.

2. INCORPORATED DOCUMENTS TO BE CONSIDERED COMPLEMENTARY: The contract documents for the aforesaid project, a complete set of which is on file with the Goleta City Clerk’s Office, shall consist of the Notice to Contractors, Instructions to Bidders, Bid Proposal, City of Goleta Construction Specifications, Standard Specifications, Special Provisions, and all re ferenced specifications, details, standard ,608/325Ā-5914671Ā.,)Ā%- (%$%(Ȁ*, $Ȁ#'#"Ȁ'!&(Ȁ# &"&&*!,+#* 597
2 drawings, appendices, and plans; together with this CONTRACT and all required bonds, insurance certificates, permits, notices and affidavits; and also, including any and all addenda or supplemental agreem ents clarifying, amending, or extending the work contemplated as may be required to insure its completion in an acceptable manner. All of the provisions of said contract documents are made a part hereof as though fully set forth herein. This contract is
intended to require a complete and finished piece of work and anything necessary to complete the work pr operly and in accordance with the law and lawful governmental regulations shall be performed by CONTRACTOR whether set out specifically in the contract or not. Should it be ascertained that any inconsistency exists between the aforesaid documents and this written CONTRACT, the provisions of this CONTRACT, and the Standard Specifications, in that order, shall control. Collectively, these contract documents constitute the complete CONTRACT between CITY and CONTRACTOR and supersede any previous agreements or understandings.

3. COMPENSATION: CONTRACTOR agrees to receive and accept the prices set forth in its Bid Proposal as full compensation for furnishing all materials, performing all work, and fulfilling all obligati ons hereunder. Said compensation shall cover all expenses, losses, damages, and consequences arising out of the nature of the work during its progress or prior to its acceptance including those for well and faithfully completing the work and the whole thereof in the manner and time specified in the aforesaid contract documents; and also including those arising fr om actions of the elements, unforeseen difficulties or obstructions encountered in the prosecution of the work, su spension or discontinuance of the work, and all other unknowns or risks of any description connected with the work.

4. LIQUIDATED DAMAGES: In the event CONTRACTOR does not complete the work within the time specified, CONTRACTOR agrees that CITY will suffer damages.

Inasmuch as the actual damages which would result from such breach by CONTRACTOR under this Agreement are uncertain, and would be impractical or extremely difficult to fix, CONTRACTOR agrees that it shall pay, or CITY shall deduct from CONTRACTOR’s fee, the amount of $19,200.00 per day as liquidated damages, in the event of such delay.

5. TIME OF PERFORMANCE: CONTRACTOR agrees to complete the work within the timeframe specified in the Contract Documents from the date of the notice to proceed. By signing this CONTRACT, CONTRACTOR represent s to CITY that the contract time is reasonable for completion of the work and that CONTRACTOR will complete such work within the contract time. In accordance with Government Code Section 53069.85, CONTRACTOR agrees to forfeit and pay CITY as liquidated damages, not as a penalty, the sum as outlined in section 8-10 Liquidated Damages per day for each and every day of unauthorized delay beyond the completion date, which amount shall be deducted from any payments due or to become due the CONTRACTOR.

6. PREVAILING WAGES:

Pursuant to Labor Code Sections §§1720 et seq., including but not limited to sections 1771, 1774 and 1775, and as specified in Title 8, California Code of Regulations, Section 16000 et seq., CONTRACTOR must pay its workers prevailing wages. It is ,608/325Ā-5914671Ā.,)Ā%- (%$%(Ȁ*, $Ȁ#'#"Ȁ'!&(Ȁ# &"&&*!,+#* 598
3 CONTRACTOR’s responsibility to interp ret and implement any prevailing wage requirements
and CONTRACTOR agrees to pay any penalty or civil damages resulting from a violation of the prevailing wage laws.

The CONTRACTOR must post a copy of the prevailing rate of per diem wages at the job site. Pursuant to California Labor Code Section 1773, the City has ascertained the General Prevailing Rate of Wages in the County in which the work is to be done to be as determined by the Director of Industrial Relations of the State of California. The CONTRACTOR is hereby made aw are that information regarding prevailing wage rates may be obtained from the State Department of Industrial Relations and/or the following website address: https://www.dir.ca.gov/OPRL/2022-2/PWD/Southern.html The CONTRACTOR is required to post a copy of the applicable wage rates at the job site.

CITY directs CONTRACTOR’s attention to Labor Code Sections 1777.5, 1777.6 and 3098 concerning the employment of apprentices by CONTRACTOR or any subcontractor.

Labor Code Section 1777.5 requires CONTRA CTOR or subcontractor employing tradesmen in any apprenticeship occupation to apply to the jo int apprenticeship committee nearest the site of the public works project and which administers the apprenticeship program in that trade for a certificate of approval. The certificate must also fix the ratio of apprentices to journeymen t hat will be used in the performance of the contract. The ratio of apprentices to journe ymen in such cases will not be less than one to five except:

When employment in the area of cover age by the joint apprenticeship committee has exceeded an average of 15 percent in the 90 days before the request for certificate, or
When the number of apprent ices in training in the area exceeds a ratio of one to five, or
When the trade can show that it is replacing at least 1/30 of its membership through apprenticeship training on an annual basis statewide or locally, or When assignment of an apprentic e to any work performed under a public works contract would create a condition that would j eopardize his or her life or the life, safety, or property of fellow employees or the public at large, or the specific task to which the ,608/325Ā-5914671Ā.,)Ā%- (%$%(Ȁ*, $Ȁ#'#"Ȁ'!&(Ȁ# &"&&*!,+#* 599
4 apprentice is to be assigned is of a nature that training cannot be provided by a journeyman.

Pursuant to Labor Code § 1776, CONTRACTOR shall comply with all Department of Industrial Relations registration requirements.

CONTRACTOR is required to make cont ributions to funds established for the administration of apprentices hip programs if CONTRACTOR employs registered apprentices or journeymen in any apprentice abl e trade on such contracts and if other contractors on the public works site are making such contributions.

CONTRACTOR and any subcontractor must comply with Labor Code Sections 1777.5 and 1777.6 in the employ
ment of apprentices.

Information relative to apprenticeshi p standards, wage schedules and other requirements may be obtained from the Director of Industrial Re lations (DIR), ex officio the Administrator of Apprentic eship, San Francisco, Californ ia, or from the Division of Apprenticeship Standards and its branch offices.

CONTRACTOR and its subcontractors must keep an accurate certified payroll records showing the name, occ upation, and the actual per diem wages paid to each worker employed in connection with this CONTRACT. The record will be kept open at all reasonable hours to the inspection of the body awarding the contract and to the Division of Labor Law Enforcement. If requested by CITY, CONTRACTOR must provide copies of the records at its cost.

7. LEGAL HOURS OF WORK: CONTRACTOR agrees to comply with the provisions of California Labor Code Section 1813 concerni ng penalties for workers who work excess hours. Except as provided by Labor Code Section 1815, the CONTRACTOR shall, as a penalty to the CITY, forfeit twenty five dollars ($25) for each worker employed in the execution of the Contract by the CONTRACTOR or by any Subcontractor for each calendar day during which such worker is required or permitted to work more than 8 hours in any one calendar day and 40 hours in any one calendar week in violation of the provisions of Division 2, Part 7, Chapter 1, Article 3 (commencing at Section 1810) of the California Labor Code.

8. TRAVEL AND SUBSISTENCE PAY: CONTRACTOR agrees to pay travel and subsistence pay to each worker needed to execute the work required by this CONTRACT as such travel and subsistence payments are defined in the applicable collective bargaining agreements filed in accordance with Labor Code Section 1773.8.

9. CONTRACTOR'S LIABILITY: The CITY and its officers , agents and employees (“Indemnitees”) shall not be answerable or acc ountable in any manner for any loss or damage that may happen to the work or any part thereof, or fo r any of the materials or ,608/325Ā-5914671Ā.,)Ā%- (%$%(Ȁ*, $Ȁ#'#"Ȁ'!&(Ȁ# &"&&*!,+#* 600
5 other things used or employed in performing t he work; or for injury or damage to any person or persons, either workers or employees of CONTRACTOR, of its subcontractors
or the public, or for damage to adjoining or other property from any cause whatsoever arising out of or in connection with the performance of the work. CONTRACTOR shall be responsible for any damage or injury to any per son or property resulting from defects or obstructions or from any cause whatsoever.

CONTRACTOR will indemnify Indemniti es against and will hold and save Indemnitees harmless from any and all actions, claims, damages to persons or property, penalties, obligations or liabili ties that may be asserted or claimed by any person, firm, entity, corporation, political subdivision, or other organiza tion arising out of or in connection with the work, operation, or ac tivities of CONTRACTOR, its agents, employees, subcontractors or invitees provided for herein, whether or not there is concurrent passive negligence on the part of CITY. In connection therewith:
a. CONTRACTOR will defend any action or actions filed in connection with any such claims, damages, penalties, obligations or liabilities and will pay all costs and expenses, including attorneys' fees, expert fees and costs incurred in connection therewith.
b. CONTRACTOR will promptly pay any judgment rendered against CONTRACTOR or Indemnitees coveri ng such claims, damages, penalties, obligations and liabilities arising out of or in connection with such work, operations or activities of CONTRACTOR hereunder, and CONTRACTOR agrees to save and hold the Indemnitees harmless therefrom. c. In the event Indemnitees are made a party to any action or proceeding filed or prosecuted against CONTRACTOR for damages or other claims arising out of or in connection with the work, oper ation or activities hereunder, CONTRACTOR agrees to pay to Indemnitees and any all costs and expenses incurred by Indemnitees in such action or proceeding together with reasonable attorneys' fees.

CONTRACTOR'S obligations under this section apply regardless of whether or not such claim, charge, damage, demand, acti on, proceeding, loss, stop notice, cost, expense, judgment, civil fine or penalty, or liability was caused in part or contributed to by an Indemnitee. However, without affecting the rights of CITY under any provision of this CONTRACT, Contractor shall not be required to indemnify and hold harmless CITY for liability attributable to the active negligence of CITY, provided such active negligence is determined by agreement between the parties or by the findings of a court of competent jurisdiction. In instances where CITY is shown to have been actively negligent and where CITY active negligence accounts for only a percentage of the liability involved, the obligation of Contract or will be for that entire portion or percentage of liability not attributable to the active negligence of City.
,608/325Ā-5914671Ā.,)Ā%- (%$%(Ȁ*, $Ȁ#'#"Ȁ'!&(Ȁ# &"&&*!,+#* 601
6 So much of the money due to CONTRACTOR under and by virtue of the contract as shall be considered necessary by CITY may be retained by CITY until disposition has been made
of such actions or claims for damages as aforesaid.

It is expressly understood and agreed that the foregoing pr ovisions are intended to be as broad and inclusive as is permitted by the law of the State of California. This indemnity provision shall survive the termination of the CONTRACT and is in addition to any other rights or remedies which Indemnitees may have under the law.

This indemnity is effective without reference to the existence or applicability of any insurance coverage which may have been r equired under this CONTRACT or any additional insured endorsements which may extend to Indemnitees.

CONTRACTOR, on behalf of itself and all parties claiming under or through it, hereby waives all rights of subrogation and contribution against the Indemnitees, while acting within the scope of their duties, from all claims, losses and liabilities arising out of or incident to activities or operations per formed by or on behalf of the CONTRACTOR regardless of any prior, concurrent, or subsequent passive negligence by the Indemnitees.

10. THIRD PARTY CLAIMS: In accordance with Public Contracts Code Section 9201, CITY will promptly inform CONTRACTOR regarding third-party claims against CONTRACTOR, but in no event later than ten (10) business da ys after CITY receives such claims. Such notification will be in writing and forwarded in accordance with the “Notice” section of this CONTRACT. As more specifically detailed in the contract documents, CONTRACTOR agrees to indemnify and defend the City against any third-party claim.

11. WORKERS COMPENSATION: In accordance with California Labor Code Sections 1860 and 3700, CONTRACTOR and each of its subcontractors will be required to secure the payment of compensation to its employees. In accor dance with the provisions of California Labor Code Section 1861, CONTRACT OR, by signing this contract, certifies as follows: “I am aware of the provisions of Section 3700 of the Labor Code which require every employer to be insured against liability for worker's compensation or to undertake self-insurance in accordance with the provisions of that code, and I will comply with such provisions before commencing the performance of the work of this contract.”

12. INSURANCE: With respect to performance of work under this CONTRACT, CONTRACTOR shall maintain and shall require all of its subcontra ctors to maintain insurance as required in the Standard Specifications.

13. ASSIGNMENT: This CONTRACT is not assignable nor the performance of either party's duties delegable without the prior written consent of the other party. Any attempted or purported assignment or delegation of any of the rights of obligations of either party without the prior written consent of the other shall be void and of no force and effect.

14. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR: CONTRACTOR is and shall at all times remain as to the CITY, a wholly independent c ontractor. Neither the CITY nor any of its agents shall ,608/325Ā-5914671Ā.,)Ā%- (%$%(Ȁ*, $Ȁ#'#"Ȁ'!&(Ȁ# &"&&*!,+#* 602
7 have control of the conduct of CONTRACTOR or any of CONTRACTOR'S employees, except as herein set forth. C O
NTRACTOR shall not at any time or in any manner
represent that it or any of its agents or employees are in any manner agents or employees of CITY.

15. TAXES: CONTRACTOR is responsible for paying all retail sales and use, transportation, export, import, special or other taxes and du ties applicable to, and assessable against any work, materials, equipment, services, processes and operations incidental to or involved in this contract. CONTRACTOR is responsible for ascertaining and arranging to pay them. The prices established in the contract shall include compensation for any taxes CONTRACTOR is required to pay by laws and regulations in effect at the bid opening date.

16. LICENSES: CONTRACTOR represents and warrants to CITY that it has all licenses, permits, qualifications, insurance, and approvals of whatsoever nature which are legally required of CONTRACTOR to practice it s profession. CONTRA CTOR represents and warrants to CITY that CONTRACTOR shall, at its sole cost and expense, keep in effect or obtain at all times during the term of this CONTRACT any licenses, permits, insurance, and approvals which are legally required of CO NTRACTOR to practice its profession.

CONTRACTOR shall maintain a City of Goleta business license, if required under CITY ordinance.

17. RECORDS: CONTRACTOR shall maintain accounts and records, including personnel, property, and financial records, adequate to identify and account for all costs pertaining to this CONTRACT and such other records as may be deemed necessary by CITY or any authorized representative, and will be retained fo r three years after the expiration of this CONTRACT. All such records shall be made available for inspection or audit by CITY at any time during regular business hours.

18. SEVERABILITY: If any portion of thes e contract documents are declared by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid or unenf orceable, then such portion will be deemed modified to the extent necessary in the opi nion of the court to render such portion enforceable and, as so modified, such porti on and the balance of this CONTRACT will continue in full force and effect provided that it does not frustrate the mutual intent of the parties herein.

19. WHOLE AGREEMENT: This CONTRACT supersedes any and all other agreements either oral or written, between the parties and contains all of the covenants and agreements between the parties pertaining to the work of improvements described herein.

Each party to this contract acknowledges that no representations, inducements, promises or agreements, orally or ot herwise, have been made by any party, or anyone acting on behalf of any party, which ar e not embodied herein, and th at any other agreement, statements or promise not contained in this contract sha ll not be valid or binding. Any modifications of this contract will be effective only if signed by the party to be charged. ,608/325Ā-5914671Ā.,)Ā%- (%$%(Ȁ*, $Ȁ#'#"Ȁ'!&(Ȁ# &"&&*!,+#* 603
8 20. AUTHORITY: CONTRACTOR affirms that the si gnatures, titles, and seals set forth hereinafter in execution of th is CONTRACT represent all individuals, firm members, partners, joint ventures, and/or corporate officers having a principal interest herein. Each party warrants that the individuals who ha ve signed this CONTRACT have the legal power, right, and authority to make this CONT RACT and to bind each respective party.

This CONTRACT may be modified by wri tten amendment. CITY’s City Manager may execute any such amendment on CITY’s behalf.

21. NOTICES: All notices permitted or required under this CONTRA CT shall be in writing, and shall be deemed made when del ivered to the applicable party’s representative as provided in this CONTRACT. Additionally, such notices may be given to the respective parties at the following addresses, or at such other addresses as the parties may provide in writing for this purpose.

Such notices shall be deemed made when per sonally delivered or when mailed forty- eight (48) hours after deposit in the U.S. mail, first-class postage prepaid, and addressed to the party at its applicable address. Courtesy copies of notices may be sent via electronic mail, provided that the original notice is deposited in the U.S. mail or personally delivered as specified in this Section.

CITY OF GOLETA
130 Cremona Drive, Suite B
Goleta, CA 93117
Attn: City Manager
SECURITY PAVING COMPANY, INC.
3075 Townsgate Road, Suite 200
Westlake Village, CA 91361
Attn: Joseph Ferndino, Vice President
Non-Waiver. CITY’s failure to respond to a claim from CONTRACTOR within the time periods described in this Section or to otherwise meet the time requirements of this Section shall result in the claim being deemed rejected in its entirety. CITY’s failure to respond shall not waive CITY’s rights to any subsequent procedures for the resolution of disputed claims.

22. NON-DISCRIMINATION: No discrimination shall be made in the employment of persons in the work contemplated by this CONTRACT because of race, religion, color, medical condition, sex, sexual orientat ion, national origin, political affiliation or opinion, or pregnancy or pregnancy-related condition. A violation of this section exposes CONTRACTOR to the penalties provided for in Labor Code Section 1735.

23. NO THIRD PARTY BENEFICIARY: Except as otherwise se t forth in the Contract Documents, this CONTRACT and every provis ion herein is for the exclusive benefit of CONTRACTOR and CITY and not for the benefit of any other party. Except as otherwise set forth in the Contract Docu ments, there will be no incidental or other beneficiaries of any of the CONTRACTOR’s or the CITY’s obligations under this Contract. ,608/325Ā-5914671Ā.,)Ā%- (%$%(Ȁ*, $Ȁ#'#"Ȁ'!&(Ȁ# &"&&*!,+#* 604
9 24. TIME IS OF ESSENCE: Time is of the essence for each and every provision of the Contract Documents.

25. ACCEPTANCE OF FACSIMILE OR ELECTRONIC SIGNATURES: The Parties agree that this CONTRACT, agreements ancillary to this CONTRACT, and related documents to be entered into in connection with this CONTRACT will be considered signed when the signature of a party is delivered by facsim ile transmission or scanned and delivered via electronic mail. Such facsimile or electronic mail copies will be treated in all respects as having the same effect as an original signature.

26. GOVERNING LAW: This CONTRACT shall be governed by the laws of the State of California, and exclusive venue for any action involving this CONTRACT will be in Santa Barbara County.

27. FEDERAL REQUIREMENTS
Federal Highway Administration FHWA financia l assistance will be used to fund all or a portion of this contract.

The Contractor shall comply with all federal requirements. including, but not limited to, the following:

1. 2 C.F.R. Part 200 – Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards, which is expressly incorporated herein by reference.

Subcontracts, if any, shall contain a prov ision making them subject to all of the provisions stipulated in the contract, includi ng but not limited to, 2 C.F.R. Part 200 and the Federal Contract Provisions.

With respect to any conflict between such federal requirements and the terms of this contract and/or the provis ions of state law and except as otherwise required under federal law or regulation, the more stringent requirement shall control.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this CONTRACT with all the formalities required by law on the respective dates set forth opposite their signatures.

This CONTRACT is executed on this 19 th day of December 2023, at Goleta, California, and effective as of _____________, 2023.
,608/325Ā-5914671Ā.,)Ā%- (%$%(Ȁ*, $Ȁ#'#"Ȁ'!&(Ȁ# &"&&*!,+#* 605
10 CITY OF GOLETA:
___________________________________
Robert Nisbet, City Manager
ATTEST:
___________________________________
Deborah Lopez, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:

MEGAN GARIBALDI, CITY ATTORNEY
___________________________________
6FRWW6KDSVHV, 'HSXW\ City Attorney
CONTRACTOR:
_____________________________________
Joseph Ferndino, Vice President
State of California License No.
_116307_______________________________
Department of Industrial Relations Registration No.
_1000009057__________________________
Business Phone No.
_(818) 362-9200________________________
CONTRACTOR’S Emergen cy Phone No. at which
contractor can be reached at any time
_____________________________________
_____________________________________
_____________________________________
Joseph Ferndino, Vice President
,608/325Ā-5914671Ā.,)Ā%- (%$%(Ȁ*, $Ȁ#'#"Ȁ'!&(Ȁ# &"&&*!,+#*
606
ATTACHMENT 6

Draft Budget Sheets
607
Prior Year
Actuals FY 2023/24 FY 2024/25 FY 2025/26 FY 2026/27 FY 2027/28 FY 2028/29 TOTAL 57050 Land Acquisition/ROW 4,548,322$      431,479$         4,979,801$ 57070 Preliminary Eng/Environ 8,476,160$      1,250,782$      9,726,942$ 57071 Construction/CM 378,273$         41,040,526$   6,247,000$   4,247,000$   51,912,799$ 13,402,756$   42,722,786$   6,247,000$   4,247,000$   ‐$            ‐ $            ‐ $            66,619,542$ 101 General ‐$                 10,842,993$   10,842,993$ 102 General Fund Reserves 250,000$         250,000$
201 Gas Tax 614,000$         40,000$         40,000$         694,000$ 205 Measure A ‐$                 1,325,292$      1,325,292$ 206 Measure A Grant 365,315$         365,315$
220 Transportation Facilities DIF 6,476,618$      8,088,338$      2,000,000$   16,564,956$ 230 Long Range Development Plan 804,313$         5,182,397$      5,986,710$ 308 STIP – State Grant 4,450,320$      11,370,461$   15,820,781$ 402
Community Development Block
Grant 97,000$           97,000$
404 STIP 670,187$         670,187$
423 ARPA ‐$                 4,933,990$      4,933,990$ 601 Redevelopment Project Fund 654,318$         654,318$ 205 Measure A ‐ Named Project TBD 4,207,000 $   4,207,000 $   8,414,000$ 995
To Be Determined (TBD) Other
Grants/Sources ‐$
999 Unfunded ‐$                 ‐$
13,402,756$   42,722,786$   6,247,000$   4,247,000$   ‐$            ‐ $            ‐ $            66,619,542$ Public Works Ekwill/Fowler and Hollister Street Improvements 9002 TOTAL BY PHASE
Sources of Funds
TOTAL BY FUND
Proposed
Project Phases
608
Prior Year
Actuals FY 2023/24 FY 2024/25 FY 2025/26 FY 2026/27 FY 2027/28 FY 2028/29 TOTAL 57050 Land Acquisition/ROW 2,272,437$      4,378,532$      6,650,969$ 57070 Preliminary Eng/Environ 3,879,161$      853,267$         4,732,428$ 57071 Construction/CM 102,443$         17,447,004$   5,681,065$   1,992,732$   25,223,244$ 6,254,041$     22,678,803$   5,681,065 $   1,992,732$   ‐$            ‐ $            ‐ $            36,606,641$ 101 General ‐$                 295,760$         766,900$       1,542,732$   2,605,391$ 102 General Fund Reserves 344$                344$
205 Measure A 82,875$           249,659$         220,000$       450,000$       1,002,534$ 220 Transportation Facilities DIF 900,751$         2,988,119$      3,888,871$ 234 Storm DIF 100,000$         100,000$
401 HBP Federal Grant 5,260,570$      19,045,265$   4,694,165$   29,000,000$ 601 Redevelopment Project Fund 9,502$             9,502$ 995
To Be Determined (TBD) Other
Grants/Sources ‐$
999 Unfunded ‐$                 ‐$
6,254,041$     22,678,803$   5,681,065 $   1,992,732$   ‐$            ‐ $            ‐ $            36,606,641$  TOTAL BY FUND Public Works Hollister Avenue Bridge 9033
Proposed
Project Phases
Sources of Funds
TOTAL BY PHASE
609

Goleta City CouncilDecember 19, 2023

Goleta City Council
December 19, 2023