Cities Index.
Staff Report_Rejection of All Bids_City Hall Window Replacement

Marysville City Council
July 14, 2026

Document
Staff Report_Rejection of All Bids_City Hall Window Replacement
Meeting
July 14, 2026
Body
Marysville City Council
Original file
244 KB
Text extracted from the city's file for reading and search. Open the original on go.boarddocs.com. That file is the official record.

Item #02

Date: July 14, 2026
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Jeramy Chapdelaine, Public Works Director/Chief Building Official Jim Schaad, City Manager
Subject: Rejection of All Bids - City Hall Window Replacement, Retrofit & Flashing Project Recommendation:

Adopt Resolution No. 2026-XX rejecting all bids received for the City Hall Window Replacement, Retrofit & Flashing Project, rejecting the pending bid protests as moot, and authorizing staff to update the project documents and rebid the project.

Rationale for Recommendation:

Rejecting all bids will allow the City to refine and clarify the project documents, address issues identified during the bidding process, and issue an updated solicitation that provides a clearer basis for competitive bidding.

Discussion & Analysis:

The City solicited bids for the City Hall Window Replacement, Retrofit & Flashing Project to replace existing windows at City Hall and the Police Annex, including associated flashing, waterproofing, sealing, and related work.

During the bidding period, six addenda were issued to respond to bidder questions, revise the plans, provide the hazardous materials report, add qualification documents, extend the bid opening date, and issue the bid schedule.

Following the bid opening, staff completed its review of the bids and the overall procurement process. Based on that review, staff determined that rejecting all bids is in the best interest of the City. This recommendation is based on the procurement process as a whole, including the clarifications issued during bidding, the bid protests received, issues identified during the evaluation of the bid submittals, and the significant variation in bid pricing.

As part of the evaluation, staff identified inconsistencies among the bid submittals regarding compliance with certain solicitation requirements. When considered together with the bid protests and the questions raised during the bidding process, staff concluded that proceeding with an award would not provide the strongest or most defensible competitive procurement.

Item #02
The bids also reflected a substantial range in pricing. While differences in bid pricing are not uncommon, the variation in pricing, together with the clarifications issued during bidding and the issues identified during the evaluation, indicates the project would benefit from additional clarification before being readvertised.

Rather than continuing to evaluate the competing bids and the issues raised during the procurement process, staff believes rejecting all bids is the most prudent course of action. This will allow the City to update the project documents, provide additional clarification where appropriate, and re-advertise the project using a single, complete, and clearly defined set of requirements.

The bid documents expressly reserve the City's right to reject any or all bids when it is determined to be in the best interest of the City. Staff recommends exercising that authority and readvertising the project following completion of the updated project documents.

Rebidding the project will provide all interested contractors the opportunity to compete using a common set of clearly defined requirements, resulting in a stronger and more defensible competitive procurement.

Because staff is recommending rejection of all bids, the pending bid protests are rendered moot and no further action on the individual protests is necessary.

Environmental Impact:

Rejecting bids is an administrative action and is not a project under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Any required environmental review associated with the construction project will be completed prior to project implementation.

Legal Review:

The City Attorney has reviewed and approved the as to form.

Alignment with City Council Goal(s):

This item aligns with City Council Goal #3: Improve Infrastructure.

Fiscal Analysis:

There is no direct fiscal impact associated with rejecting the bids. The project will be rebid following updates to the project documents. Funding remains available, and the contract award will be brought back to the City Council following completion of a new competitive bidding process.

Attachment(s):
1) Resolution No. 2026-XX Rejecting All Bids for the City Hall Window Replacement, Retrofit & Flashing Project.
2) Bid Tabulation Summary.

← All documents from this meeting