CITY OF EL PASO DE ROBLES
"The Pass of the Oaks"
City Council Agenda Addendum
Tuesday, May 20, 2025, 5:00 PM
Tuesday, May 20, 2025, 6:00 PM
Council Chamber - Library/Conference Center
1000 Spring Street
Paso Robles, CA 93446
Residents can livestream the meeting at www.prcity.com/youtube, and call (805)865-7276 to provide public comment via phone. The phone line will open just prior to the start of the meeting and remain open throughout the meeting to ensure the opportunity to comment on each item heard by the Council, other than brief reports and announcements by staff or the Council.
Written public comments can be submitted via email to [email protected] prior to 12:00 noon on the day of the Council meeting to be posted as an addendum to the Agenda. If submitting written comments in advance of the meeting, please note the agenda item by number or name. City Council meetings will be livestreamed during the meeting and also available to play later on YouTube by accessing the following link: www.prcity.com/youtube. Any writing or document pertaining to an open session item on this agenda which is distributed to a majority of the City Council after the posting of this agenda will be available for public inspection at the time the subject writing or document is distributed. The writing or document will be available for public review in the City Clerk’s Office, 1000 Spring Street, Paso Robles, CA, during normal business hours, and may be posted on the City’s web site at www.prcity.com/meetings.
AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT Any individual, who because of a disability needs special assistance to attend or participate in this meeting, may request assistance by contacting the City Clerk’s Office (805) 237- 3960. Whenever possible, requests should be made four (4) working days in advance of the meeting.
Pages
*M. GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENTS 3 - 4
This is the time the public may address the Council on items within the Council’s purview but not scheduled on the agenda. All persons desiring to speak on an agenda item are asked to fill out Speaker Information Cards and give them to the City Clerk prior speaking. Each individual speaker will be limited to a presentation total of three (3) minutes per item. Those persons wishing to speak on any item scheduled on the agenda will be given an opportunity to do so at the time that item is being considered.
State law does not allow the Council to discuss or take action on issues not on the agenda, except that members of the Council or staff may briefly respond to statements made or questions posed by persons exercising their public testimony rights (Gov. Code sec. 54954.2).
P. CONSENT CALENDAR
*9. Approval to Reject All Bids, Authorization to Readvertise for the Construction of the South Vine Bridge Project, and Adoption of an Organizational Conflict-of-Interest Policy Covering Design-Build Projects
5 - 10
Ditas Esperanza, Capital Projects Engineer
CEQA Determination: The City finds the construction of the So Vine Street Bridge City Council Agenda May 20, 2025
has been previously analyzed under the FEIR for the Gateway Annexation Project (SCH #2013101050) and no additional environmental review is required.
Recommendation: Approve Resolution 25-XXX, rejecting all received bids, authorizing readvertisement of the project, and adopting an organizational conflictof-interest policy covering design-build projects.
City Council Agenda May 20, 2025 Page 2 of 10
Item M - Public Comment
Tom O'Malley
Item M - Public Comment
Anna Shudlic
Council Agenda Report
From: Ditas Esperanza, Capital Projects Engineer
Subject: Approval to Reject All Bids, Authorization to Readvertise for the Construction of the South Vine Bridge Project, and Adoption of an Organizational Conflict-of-Interest Policy Covering Design-Build Projects
CEQA Determination: The City finds the construction of the So Vine Street Bridge has been previously analyzed as part of the adopted Mitigated negative Declaration (“MND”) for the U.S. Highway 101/State Route 46 West Interchange Modification Project under the FEIR for the Gateway Annexation Project (SCH #2013101050200805112) and no additional environmental review is required.
Date: May 20, 2025
Facts
1. The Paso Robles Gateway Annexation project is located northwest of the intersection of Highway 101 and Highway 46 West and includes the development of two hotels with 325 rooms, three commercial centers with approximately 75,600 square feet of space, a 30,000 square-foot conference center, 17 workforce residential units, and up to 80 resort residential units or a third hotel with 100 rooms.
2. In 2020, the City Council approved a Development Agreement (DA) with the developers of the Gateway Annexation project which requires the realignment of South Vine Street with Theatre Drive, which involves not only construction of a new road, but also construction of a bridge in order to connect to Highway 46 West.
3. In accordance with the DA, the City is responsible to construct the bridge and approximately half of the cost to realign the road within 7-years of annexation, which occurred on December 20, 2021; the Developer is responsible for their portion of the road and undergrounding their utilities.
4. In September 2024, after a lengthy process, an encroachment permit was issued by Caltrans allowing the City to move forward with construction of the project. The encroachment permit allows for the connection of the bridge to Caltrans’ right-of-way.
5. Staff advertised bids for the construction of the bridge, and at the bid opening on April 17, 2025, three (3) bids were received, with an engineer’s estimate of $15,100,000.
Papich Construction $14,750,000
Granite Construction $15,599,949
Clark Bros. Inc. $16,275,000
6. On April 18, 2025, Granite submitted a bid protest against Papich Construction’s bid stating that their bid was non-responsive and must be rejected.
7. Papich Construction provided a response with documentation that their bid was indeed responsive.
Options
1. Take no action;
2. Approve Resolution 25-XXX, rejecting all received bids, authorizing readvertisement of the project, and adopting an organizational conflict-of-interest policy covering design-build projects; or
3. Provide alternative direction to staff.
Analysis and Conclusions
Following the opening of bids, on April 17, 2025 Granite Construction submitted a bid protest on April 18, 2025 alleging that the bid submitted by Papich Construction was nonresponsive because the bridge fabricator it listed in its bid was not prequalified as required by the contract documents. After careful review and consultation with the City Attorney’s office, staff recommends that the Council reject all bids received, authorize staff to rebid the project, and adopt an organizational conflict-of-interest policy covering design-build projects. In light of this recommendation, Granite Construction’s bid protest would be deemed moot.
The City is contemplating rebidding the project using the progressive design-build project delivery method, as allowed by Public Contract Code section 22185 et seq. To use progressive design-build, the City must adopt an organizational conflict-of-interest policy pursuant to Public Contract section 22185.2.
In summary, the organizational conflict-of-interest policy does not allow a potential proposer on a designbuild project to participate as design-build entity or to join a design build team if the potential proposer is, among other things, under contract by the City to manage or administer the design-build project or would violate any other applicable federal or state conflict-of-interest rules and regulations such as Government Code section 1090. This organizational conflict-of-interest policy would also apply to traditional design-build projects procured under Public Contract Code section 22160 et seq.
Fiscal Impact
There is no immediate fiscal impact to request that the City Council reject all bids received, readvertise for the project, and adopt an organizational conflict-of-interest policy covering design-build projects. This momentary delay in awarding construction will allow the City Council to review and approve the funding of the project.
CEQA
The City finds the construction of the So Vine Street Bridge has been previously analyzed as part of the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the U.S. highway 101/State Route 46 West Interchange Modification Project under the FEIR for the Gateway Annexation Project (SCH #2013101050200805112), and, pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21166 and CEQA Guideline section 15162, there are no modifications or changes to the project or circumstances as a result of this action that would require additional environmental review. As such the Council finds that this action is in furtherance of previously analyzed Gateway Interchange Modification Project in the certified FEIRadopted MND and no additional environmental review is required.
Recommendation (Option 2)
Approve Resolution 25-XXX, rejecting all received bids, authorizing readvertisement of the project, and adopting an organizational conflict-of-interest policy covering design-build projects.
Attachments
1. Resolution 25-XXX – South Vine Bridge Project - Rejecting All Bids
2. Organizational Conflict-of-Interest Policy Covering Design-Build Projects
Attachment 1
RESOLUTION 25-XXX
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EL PASO DE ROBLES
REJECTING ALL BIDS, AUTHORIZING READVERTISEMENT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE
SOUTH VINE BRIDGE PROJECT, AND ADOPTING AN ORGANIZATIONAL CONFLICT-OF-INTEREST
POLICY COVERING DESIGN-BUILD PROJECTS
WHEREAS, the Paso Robles Gateway Annexation project is located northwest of the intersection of Highway 101 and Highway 46 West and includes the development of two hotels with 325 rooms, three commercial centers with approximately 75,600 square feet of space, a 30,000 square-foot conference center, 17 workforce residential units, and up to 80 resort residential units or a third hotel with 100 rooms. In 2020, the City Council approved a Development Agreement (DA) with the developers of the Gateway Annexation project which requires the realignment of South Vine Street with Theatre Drive, which involves not only construction of a new road, but also construction of a bridge in order to connect to Highway 46 West; and
WHEREAS, in accordance with the DA, the City is responsible to construct the bridge and approximately half of the cost to realign the road within 7-years of annexation, which occurred on December 20, 2021; the Developer is responsible for their portion of the road and undergrounding their utilities; and WHEREAS, in September 2024, after a lengthy process, an encroachment permit was issued by Caltrans allowing the City to move forward with construction of the project. The encroachment permit allows for the connection of the bridge to Caltrans’ right-of-way; and WHEREAS, at the bid opening on April 17, 2025, three bids were received ranging from $14,750,000 to $16,275,000. The engineer’s estimate for the project was $15,100,000; and WHEREAS, on April 18, 2025, Granite submitted a bid protest against Papich Construction’s bid stating that their bid was non-responsive and must be rejected. Papich Construction provided a response with documentation that their bid was indeed responsive; and WHEREAS, The City is contemplating rebidding the project using the progressive design-build project delivery method, as allowed by Public Contract Code section 22185 et seq. which requires the adoption of an organizational conflict-of-interest policy pursuant to Public Contract section 22185.2.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EL PASO DE ROBLES DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. All of the above recitals are true and correct and incorporated herein by reference.
Section 2. The City hereby rejects all bids for the South Vine Bridge construction and authorizes staff to readvertise for bids. In light of this action, Granite Construction’s bid protest is moot and no additional action is required.
Section 3. The Council hereby adoptsthe organizational conflict-of-interest policy covering design-build projects.
Section 4. The City finds the construction of the So Vine Street Bridge has beenwas previously analyzed under as part of the FEIR for the Gateway Annexation Projectadopted Mitigated Negative Declaration (“MND”) for the U.S. Highway 101/State Route 46 West Interchange Modification Project
Attachment 1
(SCH #2013101050200805112), and, pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines section 15162, there are no modifications or changes to the project or circumstances as a result of this action that would require additional environmental review. As such the Council finds that this action is in furtherance of previously analyzed Gateway Interchange Modification Project in the certified FEIRadopted MND and no additional environmental review is required. APPROVED this 20th day of May, 2025, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
John R. Hamon, Jr., Mayor
ATTEST:
Melissa Boyer, City Clerk
Attachment 2
CITY OF EL PASO DE ROBLES
ORGANIZATIONAL CONFLICT-OF-INTEREST POLICY COVERING
DESIGN-BUILD PROJECTS
Purpose
The purpose of this policy is to establish guidelines, as required under California Public Contract Code sections 22162(c) and 22185.2, for a standard organizational conflict-of-interest policy, consistent with applicable law, regarding the ability of consultants or contractors (collectively, “Proposer”) to perform work for the City of El Paso de Robles’s (“City”) relating to potential progressive design-build or design-build projects (together, a “Design-Build Project”).
Policy
A potential Proposer will not be allowed to participate as a design-build entity or to join a designbuild team if, without limitation, any of the following is true:
Proposer is under contract with the City to manage or administer the Design-Build Project. Proposer is under contract with any other entity or stakeholder to perform oversight of the design-build team for the City on the Design-Build Project. Proposer has performed work on a previous contract with the City that expressly excludes them from participating as a design-build entity or joining a design-build team on the Design-Build Project.
Proposer would violate Government Code section 1090, including, but not limited to, Government Code section 1097.6.
Proposer would violate any other applicable federal or state conflict-of-interest rules and regulations.
Proposer’s Obligations
Proposers shall make a full written disclosure to the City of the facts and circumstances regarding an organizational conflict-of-interest or a potential organizational conflict-of-interest and shall have a continuing obligation to do so until they are no longer Proposers.
Proposers shall disclose in the response documents to a request for qualifications or request for proposals for a Design-Build Project, all of the work previously performed in relation to the Design-Build Project.
Proposers shall conform to applicable federal and state conflict-of-interest rules and regulations including, without limitation, the California Political Reform Act, California Government Code Section 1090, the federal Copeland “Anti-Kickback” Act and federal conflict-of-interest rules set forth in the federal funding agency’s administrative grant and cooperative agreement
Attachment 2
regulations. Federal conflict-of-interest rules and regulations shall only apply where the DesignBuild Project receives federal funding.
Conflict-of-Interest Issues
Resolution of a conflict-of-interest issue is ultimately at the sole discretion of City. If a Proposer determines that a conflict-of-interest or potential conflict-of-interest exists, it must disclose the conflict or potential conflict-of-interest to the City. The disclosure may or may not disqualify a Proposer from being awarded a contract. The Proposer shall propose measures to avoid, neutralize, or mitigate all conflicts or potential conflicts. City, in its sole discretion, shall determine whether the proposed measures are sufficient to overcome the conflict or potential conflict and whether the Proposer may continue with the procurement process. City has the right to terminate or amend a resulting design-build project contract if the successful Proposer failed to disclose a conflict or potential conflict that it knew or should have known about, or if the Proposer provided information in its disclosure that is false or misleading.
The successful Proposer to whom a contract is awarded has an ongoing obligation to monitor and disclose its conflicts or potential conflicts-of-interest. City has a right to ongoing enforcement of this policy. If an organizational conflict-of-interest is discovered after award, the Proposer will make an immediate and full written disclosure to the City that includes a description of the action that the Proposer has taken or proposes to take to avoid or mitigate such conflicts. If an organizational conflict-of-interest is determined to exist and the Proposer was aware of an organizational conflict-of-interest prior to award of the contract and did not disclose the conflictof-interest, City may terminate the contract with the Proposer for material breach. If the Proposer is terminated, City assumes no obligations, responsibilities and liabilities to reimburse all or part of the costs incurred or alleged to have been incurred by the Proposer.
This policy shall be incorporated by reference into and included as part of all City design build project requests for qualifications, requests for proposals, and all City design-build contracts.
This policy shall not constitute a limitation on the obligations of the Proposer in relation to any organizational conflict-of-interest.