528 Palisades Drive, Suit 504, Los Angeles, CA 90272
Phone (310) 230-6808 ● Fax (310) 230-6890 ● [email protected] Page 1 of 3
Response to City of Manhattan Beach – Letter dated December 5, 2025
Date: December 08, 2025
To:
Eduardo Pech, P.E.
Senior Civil Engineer
City of Manhattan Beach
Public Works – Engineering Division
[email protected]
From:
Zusser Company, Inc.
528 Palisades Drive, Suite 504
Los Angeles, CA 90272
Subject: Revised Clarification Regarding Contractor’s Statement – Questions #14 and #15
Dear Mr. Pech:
Zusser Company, Inc. (“Zusser”) provides this revised response incorporating the City’s comments contained in the annotated Contractor’s Statement letter. This letter supersedes and replaces our earlier submission.
RESPONSE TO QUESTION #14
(Arbitrations, claims, lawsuits, settlements within the past five years)
Zusser answered “None” to Question #14 because we understood the question to apply strictly to matters occurring within the past five years — disputes arising from conduct or violations that occurred within that timeframe.
The MWD / LADWP Lagoon Refurbishment Project classification dispute arose from events occurring between 2015 and 2017, which are more than eight years old and fall outside the five-year disclosure period. Although DIR issued its administrative decision in 2022 and the Superior Court issued its ruling in 2024, the underlying events giving rise to the dispute did not occur within the last five years.
14(a) – Names, Addresses, and Telephone Numbers of Contact Persons
California Department of Industrial Relations (DIR) – DLSE / PW Unit Director (at time of decision): Katrina S. Hagen
1515 Clay Street, Oakland, CA 94612
Phone: (510) 622-0960
California Attorney General’s Office (Counsel for DIR)
300 S. Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90013
Phone: (213) 269-6000
Zusser Company, Inc.
528 Palisades Drive, Suite 504
Los Angeles, CA 90272
528 Palisades Drive, Suit 504, Los Angeles, CA 90272
Phone (310) 230-6808 ● Fax (310) 230-6890 ● [email protected] Page 2 of 3 (310) 230-6808
14(b) – Summary of Parties’ Claims and Defenses
DIR Position:
DIR alleged that certain workers on the 2015–2017 MWD Lagoon Refurbishment Project should have been classified as Industrial Pipefitters instead of Pipelayers, based on DIR’s interpretation that lagoon drainage piping ultimately connected several miles away to a water-treatment facility.
Zusser Defense:
This was a good-faith classification disagreement. Zusser maintained:
• All workers received full prevailing wages for the Pipelayer classification. • Work involved trenching, laying pipe, and drainage structure connections—standard Pipelayer tasks. • Work occurred in open lagoon basins, not industrial facilities. • Contract documents did not indicate industrial or mechanical classifications. • The remote pipeline connection was not reasonably foreseeable to trigger Industrial Pipefitter classification.
The issue was a technical jurisdictional dispute, not wage avoidance. The Superior Court’s 2024 order did not find wrongdoing, only that DLSE’s interpretation would apply.
14(c) – Tribunal, Matter Number, and Outcome
Administrative Tribunal:
DIR Public Works Division
Case No.: 19-0134-PWH
Outcome: Civil Wage and Penalty Assessment affirmed.
Judicial Tribunal:
Los Angeles County Superior Court
Case: Zusser Company, Inc. v. Katrina S. Hagen, Director of DIR Case No.: 22STCP03452
Outcome: Petition denied (Order dated April 2, 2024).
Why Question #14 Was Answered “None”:
Zusser believed in good faith that Question #14 required disclosure of matters arising within the past five years. The underlying conduct occurred in 2015–2017, outside the required window.
RESPONSE TO QUESTION #15
(Termination of contract by owner or agency)
Zusser responded “No” because the Perris Valley Channel Sediment Removal Project was terminated for convenience, not for cause.
On June 10, 2025, the Riverside County Flood Control District executed a Termination for Convenience agreement with Zusser. The termination resulted from seasonal constraints, vegetative regrowth, changed conditions, and the District's decision to re-advertise the revised project. The District permitted Zusser to rebid, confirming no adverse responsibility finding.
Why Question #15 Was Answered “No”:
Industry practice and the Questionnaire’s structure indicate Question #15 refers to terminations for cause. Because this termination was for convenience only, Zusser believed “No” was the correct answer.
528 Palisades Drive, Suit 504, Los Angeles, CA 90272
Phone (310) 230-6808 ● Fax (310) 230-6890 ● [email protected] Page 3 of 3
FINAL STATEMENT
Zusser appreciates the City’s review and reaffirms:
• All answers were provided in good faith based on the five-year disclosure period. • Legal proceedings extending into 2024 do not change the fact that the MWD matter arose from events in 2015– 2017.
• The Perris Valley termination was purely for convenience. • Zusser maintains a strong record of compliance and responsible performance.
Sincerely,
ZUSSER COMPANY, INC.
By: _______________________________
Name: Mikhail Fyodorov
Title: CFO/Secretary
Martha Alvarez, MMC
From: Martha Alvarez, MMC
Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2025 7:48 PM
To: City Clerk
Subject: FW: [EXTERNAL] City of MB 2025 12 02 City Council Mtg agenda - Stefan Kampe feedback
MARTHA ALVAREZ, MMC
ASSISTANT CITY CLERK
(310) 802-5059
[email protected]
CITY OF MANHATTAN BEACH 1400 Highland Avenue Manhattan Beach, CA 90266 Office Hours: M-Th 8:00 AM-5:00 PM | Fridays 8:00 AM-4:00 PM | Not Applicable to Public Safety Reach Manhattan Beach
Use our click and fix it app 24/7 for non-emergency requests Download the mobile app now
From: Stefan Kampe <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, December 1, 2025 10:47 PM
To: David Lesser <[email protected]>; Joe Franklin <[email protected]>; Amy Thomas Howorth <[email protected]>; Nina Tarnay <[email protected]>; Steve S. Charelian <[email protected]>
Cc: Talyn Mirzakhanian <[email protected]> Subject: [EXTERNAL] City of MB 2025 12 02 City Council Mtg agenda - Stefan Kampe feedback
EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you trust the sender and know the content is safe.
City of MB Council Members –
I hope everyone had enough Ɵme off to enjoy Thanksgiving with family and friends. We do have so much to be thankful for.
AŌer returning from our Thanksgiving on the east coast, I was able to review the amended 2025 12 03 City Council Regular MeeƟng agenda and parƟcularly item 9, which is essenƟally staff’s request for approval on their recommended contractor selecƟons for the 28th Street Stormwater InfiltraƟon Project. This project has a large cost and deserves a thorough veƫng of contractors to ensure the contractor providing the best value is selected. Based on the informaƟon provided in the agenda packet I do not support approving the proposed contractors unƟl further informaƟon is provided. Here are my specific concerns:
1. What is the specific request being made? - The agenda item outlines the request. The PowerPoint simply jumps into the material. It would be good to be clear in the presentaƟon.
2. Primary Contractor RecommendaƟon: The PowerPoint implies that the contractor being recommended is based on lowest price. Although cost is a primary criteria it is not the only criteria. It is important that staff share all of the key selecƟon criteria and how the different contractors scored against these criteria - - even beƩer, it would be best if the City Council could hear the recommended criteria from staff and then define the relaƟve importance of each of those criteria. For example, the criteria might include:
a. Cost: This needs to be the total cost for the project inclusive of bid adds to ensure that each bid received is based on the same scope of work.
b. Warranty of services: to what extent does the contractor warrant their services and how is this warranty guaranteed.
c. Experience/experƟse in performing this scope of work:
d. References
e. City of MB Staff confidence in contractor’s ability to work with City of MB Staff Other criteria to consider: 1) strength of company – it is important to go with a contractor the City has confidence to perform and the contractor has not legal issues of concern, , 2) proposed staffing – has City of MB staff met the people who lead the project, are these people commiƩed to lead the project, and does staff have confidence in their abiliƟes, 3)
AƩached is an opƟon on how this type of contractor selecƟon can be done. This shows the list of criteria, their relaƟve importance (suggest staff makes a recommendaƟon on relaƟve importance for the city to approve), how the contractor scores against the criteria with an explanaƟon. The total at the boƩom then summarizes the informaƟon. This type of selecƟon approach takes out the emoƟonal side of the selecƟon process and can include all of the criƟcal selecƟon criteria (not just cost).
3. Proposed contract with Zusser:
a. SecƟon 2.0, Scope of Services, refers to a document “28th Street Stormwater Project” which describes the scope of services. This document was not included in the agenda packet. This is the most crucial document to understand what is being contracted.
b. Schedule – did not see any schedules Ɵed to the contract c. General comment: the contract shared covers only some basic items. I hope there is someone in the City independent from the negoƟaƟng team reviewing the contact to ensure it is complete and correct. Suggest this quesƟon be asked.
4. ConstrucƟon Management and InspecƟon Contractor recommendaƟon – same comments as above for primary contractor. In addiƟon:
a. No comparison of any sort of the 4 bids received. Only the comment “Transtech Engineers Best Met City’s Needs.” Who defined these needs and what are they? b. If Transtech Engineers is or has been preferred contractor for these services how will this look to the outside world if the evaluaƟon against the other contractors proposing is not transparent? If a key criteria is “Proven Track Record working with the City of MB” that could support the recommendaƟon.
5. City Staffing: There is no discussion on what level of staffing is required from the City of MB. Even with a ConstrucƟon Management and InspecƟon Contractor overseeing the project there is a clear need for City day- to-day involvement.
a. What is the expected City of MB involvement? Who is planned for these roles. For example, 1) City of MB contract administraƟon, 2) Field Supervision, 3) community relaƟons (this is an important and criƟcal role), 4) accounƟng, and what/who else?
b. Does the city of the capacity to provide these roles? c. Is this cost aƩributable to the overall project cost?
6. Progress ReporƟng to City Council: A project of this size and complexity will require periodic status reporƟng to the City Council. What are the expectaƟons for this reporƟng? Who is responsible for preparing/presenƟng this? Will there be a steering commiƩee created to oversee the project and will that commiƩee include one or more member of the City Council?
7. Design Support Amendment
a. Page 9 states “Includes an addiƟonal $167,491 to complete the design phase.” What has not been completed and how does that affect the scope of work the primary contractors and project management contractors bid on?
b. The proposed addendum 2 has an addiƟonal task O(14) for Geotechnical support to “assess soil condiƟons and the feasibility/performance of the drywell.” This appears to be a task that needs to be completed prior to starƟng any significant work.
c. I did not have Ɵme to go through all of the other items.
8. ConƟngency
a. Page 11 shows that a 10% conƟngency has been included in the total cost. Is this a reasonable % to have at this Ɵme? What has the city experienced in past projects for cost overruns, scope expansion, etc.?
b. Page 11 includes conƟngency for the Primary Contractor only. ConƟngency needs to be applied to all of the cost components (primary contractor, construcƟon management, and design). If city staff Ɵme is included in the budget then conƟngency needs to be included for staff Ɵme.
9. Project Budget:
a. Does page 11 include all costs aƩributable to the project? i.e., is City of MB staff Ɵme overseeing the project included, are design costs to date included?
b. The total projected cost with the proposed contractors comes under the Total Available Funds. That would be great if the project is executed to the projected cost. What happens if the cost does go over the Total Available Funds?
I look forward to the discussion Tuesday evening.
Stefan
The information contained in this e-mail message, together with any attachments thereto, legally protected confidential information and is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the addressee(s) named above. The message and any attachments to this message are privileged and protected communications. If you are not the intended recipient of this message, or authorized to receive it for the intended recipient, you have received this message in error. You are not to review, use, disseminate, distribute or copy this message, any attachments to this message, or their contents. If you have received this message in error, please immediately notify us by return e-mail message, and delete the original message.
Agenda Item: eComments for 9. 25-0425 Consideration of Resolutions Awarding a Construction Agreement to Zusser Company, Inc. in the Amount of $27,839,691, including Contingency; Approving the Professional Services Agreement with Transtech Engineers, Inc. in the Amount of $1,095,755 for Construction Management and Inspection Services; and Approving Amendment No.2 to the Professional Services Agreement with CWE in the Amount of $521,380 for Additional Design Services for the 28th Street Stormwater Infiltration Project (Budgeted) (Interim Public Works Director Semaan). (Estimated Time: 1 Hr.)
ADOPT RESOLUTION NOS. 25-0135, 25-0136, AND 25-0137
Overall Sentiment
Kelly Sultemeier
Location:
Submitted At: 11:05am 12-02-25
Please vote NO on the 28th St storm water filtration project.
Martha Alvarez, MMC
From: Cindystokes33 <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, December 2, 2025 11:58 AM
To: List - City Council
Subject: [EXTERNAL] 28th St Storm drain
EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open aƩachments unless you trust the sender and know the content is safe.
Please vet all contractors.
Cindy
Martha Alvarez, MMC
From: Lucia La Rosa <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, December 2, 2025 11:56 AM
To: List - City Council
Subject: [EXTERNAL] 28th street storm water filtration project EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you trust the sender and know the content is safe.
Dear City Council,
I respectfully request that the City conduct a thorough vetting of the contractor selected for the above-referenced project. It appears that the current lowest bidder, Zusser Company, has been found guilty by the Department of Industrial Relations of committing fraud against its own workers. In light of this, I urge the Council to reconsider the merits of the present bidding process and ensure that only responsible and compliant contractors are awarded public work.
Thank you very much for your attention to this important matter.
Kind regards,
Lucia La Rosa Ames
Martha Alvarez, MMC
From: Courtney Rice <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, December 2, 2025 11:27 AM
To: List - City Council
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Agenda item #9 - please vote NO on the 28th street stormwater filtration project
EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you trust the sender and know the content is safe.
Hello,
As a resident of Manhattan Beach, I am asking the city council not to select Zussler Company and fully vet the second lowest vendor before final approval. The city cannot risk awarding this project to a contractor who has defrauded their very own workers. It creates huge liability and is financially risky for our city.
Sincerely,
Courtney Rice
Martha Alvarez, MMC
From: Tiffany Barbara <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, December 2, 2025 11:23 AM
To: List - City Council
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Resolution Regarding Zusser: Oppose EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you trust the sender and know the content is safe.
I am concerned that Zusser may have lied on their application about not having any litigation. Case No. 19-0134-PWH(Civil Wage and Penalty Assessment – LADWP Lagoon Refurbishment Project).
DIR’s Division of Labor Standards Enforcement audited Zusser’s work on a public-works job (the LADWP lagoon refurbishment for Metropolitan Water District), found underpayment/misclassification, and issued a Civil Wage and Penalty Assessment. After review, the DIR Director: 1) Found unpaid wages of $171,476.08 and unpaid training contributions of $1,725.32 2) Imposed various statutory penalties and liquidated damages 3) For a total of $653,177.48 owed, plus interest. The case was opened March 11, 2019 (assessment issued) and decided August 18, 2022, prior to their application being submitted to MB.
Sincerely,
Tiffany Barbara
213-500-1433
Martha Alvarez, MMC
From: Kelly Sultemeier <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, December 2, 2025 11:17 AM
To: List - City Council
Subject: [EXTERNAL] agenda item #9
EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you trust the sender and know the content is safe.
City Council,
Please vote NO on the 28th street storm water filtration project.
Is this project necessary? If so, is Zussler the right company for the job just because they are the cheapest?
Kelly Sultemeier
Martha Alvarez, MMC
From: Erica Exberger <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, December 2, 2025 11:08 AM
To: List - City Council
Subject: [EXTERNAL] AGENDA ITEM #9- PLEASE VOTE NO ON THE 28TH STREET STORMWATER
FILTRATION PROJECT
EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you trust the sender and know the content is safe.
Dear City Council,
I ask you to please vote no on the 28th Street Stormwater Filtration Project.
The City can’t risk using this contractor who has defrauded their VERY OWN WORKERS! Haven’t we seen enough waste and corruption in California? This creates a HUGE liability and is a financial waste for our community.
Please don’t select Zussler and fully vet the second lowest bidder before final approval.
Sincerely,
Erica Exberger
Martha Alvarez, MMC
From: Julie Muer <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, December 2, 2025 10:44 AM
To: List - City Council
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Fwd: Agenda Item #9 - Please Vote NO on the 28th Street Stormwater Filtration Project
EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you trust the sender and know the content is safe.
Begin forwarded message:
From: Julie Muer <[email protected]>
Date: December 2, 2025 at 10:42:11 AM PST
To: List - City Council <[email protected]> Subject: Agenda Item #9 - Please Vote NO on the 28th Street Stormwater Filtration Project
Manhattan Beach City Council,
Please vote NO on the 28th Street Stormwater Filtration Project! The Zusser Company should not be selected due to the prior defrauding of their own workers! They were fined $653,177. This vendor does not have the quality or character for our City Project.
Please choose the next lowest bidder. We should engage with a reputable company without a history of fraud as the Zusser company has.
Make the right choice. Vote NO on Agenda #9!
Thank you…
Julie Muer
MB Homeowner for 28 years
Martha Alvarez, MMC
From: Julie Muer <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, December 2, 2025 10:42 AM
To: List - City Council
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Agenda Item #9 - Please Vote NO on the 28th Street Stormwater Filtration Project
EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open aƩachments unless you trust the sender and know the content is safe.
ManhaƩan Beach City Council,
Please vote NO on the 28th Street Stormwater FiltraƟon Project! The Zusser Company should not be selected due to the prior defrauding of their own workers! They were fined $653,177. This vendor does not have the quality or character for our City Project.
Please choose the next lowest bidder. We should engage with a reputable company without a history of fraud as the Zusser company has.
Make the right choice. Vote NO on Agenda #9!
Thank you…
Julie Muer
MB Homeowner for 28 years
Martha Alvarez, MMC
From: Joy Friend <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, December 2, 2025 10:19 AM
To: List - City Council
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Agenda item #9 - 30M 28th Street Stormwater Filtration Project EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you trust the sender and know the content is safe.
Dear MB Mayor David Lesser & Manhattan Beach City Council,
We oppose the approval of the $30,000,000 taxpayer funded 28th Street Stormwater Filtration Project.
Respectfully,
Joy & Scott Roberts, 30 year MB residents
Martha Alvarez, MMC
From: AUDREY RITTERMAN <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, December 2, 2025 8:55 AM
To: List - City Council
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Zusser should not get the contract and why do we have to do this storm drain at all?
EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you trust the sender and know the content is safe.
Good morning, honorable mayor and city Council members
Zusser was found by California Department of Industrial Relations (DIR) / Division of Labor Standards Enforcement (DLSE) to owe unpaid prevailing wages, fringe benefits, and wage-law penalties for work on a public-works project. whether the city should award them a large new contract, I’d treat the wage-theft history as a major !!!!!
Dous our procurement rules allow or require disqualification of contractors with wage-law violations?
I know we can put this money to better use like the proposal to make our city has safetyregulations in place regarding the Chevron refinery Thank you for your attention on this matter
Sincerely
Audrey Ritterman-Estes
Sent from my iPhone
Martha Alvarez, MMC
From: CJHver <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, December 1, 2025 6:19 PM
To: List - City Council
Subject: [EXTERNAL] ITEM #9- PLEASE VOTE NO ON THE 28TH ST STORMWATER FILTRATION
PROJECT
EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open aƩachments unless you trust the sender and know the content is safe.
Martha Alvarez, MMC
From: Michaela Coats <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, December 1, 2025 1:27 PM
To: City Clerk
Cc: Mary Simun
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Comment: 28th St Infiltration Project Attachments: Letter of Support - 28th St Stormwater Infiltration Project.pdf EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you trust the sender and know the content is safe.
Hello,
On behalf of Surfrider Foundation's South Bay Chapter, I am writing to formally submit a comment letter in support of awarding a construction agreement to Zusser Company Inc. for the 28th Street Stormwater Infiltration Project (agenda item #9). The online comment field is limited to 1000 characters, so the letter can be found attached to this email.
Thank you!
--
To help
protect your
privacy,
Micro so ft
Office
prevented
auto matic
download of
this picture
from the
Internet.
Company
Logo
Michaela Coats
Southern California Regional Manager
Direct: 949.516.6838 Office: 949.492.8170
[email protected]
The Ocean Needs More Friends
City of Manhattan Beach 1400 Highland Avenue Manhattan Beach, CA 90266 Subject: Letter of Support for the 28th Street Stormwater Infiltration Project Dear Honorable Mayor and Council Members, On behalf of the Surfrider Foundation South Bay Chapter, we are writing to express our strong and continued
support
for
the
City
of
Manhattan
Beach’s
28th
Street
Stormwater
Infiltration
Project.
As a grassroots nonprofit dedicated to the protection and enjoyment of the world’s oceans, waves, and
beaches,
Surfrider
South
Bay
actively
advocates
for
solutions
that
improve
local
water
quality,
enhance
coastal
resilience,
and
protect
community
health.
The
proposed
stormwater
infiltration
system
aligns
directly
with
these
goals
by
capturing
and
treating
60%
of
the
city’s
urban
runoff
before
it
reaches
the
beach
and
ocean
—
reducing
pollution
and
supporting
compliance
with
regional
water
quality
standards.
Our chapter’s volunteer-led, middle and high school student-run Teach & Test Blue Water Task Force program
regularly
monitors
Enterococcus
bacteria
levels
at
South
Bay
beaches.
Data
from
our
sampling sites, including Manhattan Beach at 27th Street, show that high bacteria levels are associated with stormwater runoff, conditions that can put children, families, and other beachgoers at
increased
risk
of
illness
(Figure
1).
Our
chapter’s
beach
cleanup
program
similarly
collects
hundreds
of
pounds
of
trash
off
South
Bay
beaches
each
year,
underscoring
the
need
for
systemic
pollution
prevention
efforts.
In addition to its intrinsic community and ecological benefits, the project will help the City meet Total Maximum
Daily
Load
(TMDL)
waste
load
allocations
for
trash,
debris,
and
bacteria
as
required
by
the
Los
Angeles
Regional
Water
Quality
Control
Board.
Meeting
these
targets
is
critical
for
improving
coastal
water
quality
and
protecting
public
health—key
outcomes
that
align
with
Surfrider’s
vision
of
ensuring
all
coastal
waters
are
safe
for
recreation
without
risk
of
illness
or
infection.
We commend the City for its leadership in prioritizing stormwater infrastructure projects that safeguard
our
coast.
The
28th
Street
Stormwater
Infiltration
Project
represents
a
necessary
investment
in
cleaner
water
and
healthier
beaches
in
Manhattan
Beach.
Sincerely,
Mary Simun, Vice Chair and Teach & Test Director, South Bay Chapter
Figure 1. Concentration of Enterococcus bacteria (MPN/100mL) found in water samples collected in Manhattan Beach, 27th Street. The yellow
dotted
line
indicates
medium
bacteria
levels
(36-104
MPN/100mL)
and
the
red
dotted
line
indicates
high
bacteria
levels
(>
104
MPN/100mL)
as
set
by
the
California
State
Water
Resources
Control
Board.