Exhibits A-F — Pismo Beach City Council, February 24, 2023

Exhibit A

V.Lopez Jr.Sons v.City of Pismo Beach
Five Cities Lift Station Lift Station Maintenance Project-Change Orders CO No. Date Purpose Amount Working Days Total Contract Amount Total Contract Added Time
1 2/9/2018 Davis Bacon Wage Determination. $0.00 0 $2,901,486.00 300 PG&E requested change in electrical service from light pole 2 4/20/2018 to underground across Highway 101. $23,098.50 0 $2,924,584.50 300 Contractor waiting for revised Spyglass Generator building 3 5/31/2018 plan sheets from design consultant. $0.00 6 $2,924,584.50 306 Replace 90 degree elbow and pipe spool to 90 degree
elbow in dry well. Current plan shows recoating of existing pipe spool. Based on Utilities Manager recommendation it ism cost effective to replace it completely.
4 6/27/2018 $8,239.04 0 $2,932,823.54 306 Change from precast concrete manhole to precast polymer concrete manhole, plus cost to ship concrete manhole back 5 7/13/2018 to Armorock. $751.72 0 $2,933,575.26 306 Additional labor, materials and equipment to locate existing sewer force main crossing Highway 1. Location of line was not shown on plans. Existing as-built for sewer line was also 6 8/10/2018 vague and inaccurate. $27,033.99 10 $2,960,609.25 316 Restocking fee for 11.25 degree bends ordered and shipped no longer being used as contractor was able to rope the 7 8/23/2018 pipe around existing utilities. $510.50 0 $2,961,119.75 316 Unforeseen circumstance of uncovering damaged storm
drain at Senior Mobile Home Park, underneath Highway 1
8 9/10/2018 and Dolliver. $9,454.30 3 $2,970,574.05 319 Addition of drop bowl at manhole in Baycliff Drive for
incoming private force main and work associated with
modification of manhole bottom for unknown line.
9 9/10/2018 $5,943.57 1 $2,976,517.62 320 Installation of Incerta-Valve for isolation of sewer line at Sunset Palisades Lift Station for bypassing and future
10 9/10/2018 maintenance by City sewer crews. $16,893.16 1 $2,993,410.78 321 1 V.Lopez Jr.Sons v.City of Pismo Beach
Five Cities Lift Station Lift Station Maintenance Project-Change Orders CO No. Date Purpose Amount Working Days Total Contract Amount Total Contract Added Time
Existing traffic loops cut and reinstalled to make connection between Senior Mobile Home Park and new sewer force
main. Location of traffic loops were different than shown on 11 10/30/2018 plans. $2,144.07 0 $2,995,554.85 321 Installation of 2 bollards to protect 2 air-vac release valves 12 1/29/2019 on Dolliver. Work Directive Change No. 5. $2,363.94 0 $2,997,918.79 321 Hot-tap on existing 12-inch sewer main for installation of air. vac release valve to aid in evacuation of line during bypass operations when tying in new line at Addie and Cypress. 13 1/29/2019 Work Directive Change No. 6. $2,098.09 1 $3,000,016.88 322 Installation of a temporary air relief point via Corp stop on force main Spyglass Lift Station to Shell Beach force main to allow evacuation of line for installation of bypass valve.

Work Directive Change No. 8.
14 4/11/2019 $19,053.27 3 $3,019,070.15 325 Installation of hydrotite waterstop at drain inside valve vault at Lift Station. Design anticipated drain structure to be cast in place with vault but mid-state concrete doesn't 15 4/11/2019 manufacture it. Work Change Directive No. 9. $542.09 0 $3,019,612.24 325 Installation of stainless steel discharge piping in lieu of ductile iron for straight section of discharge piping in wet 16 5/16/2019 well. Work Directive Change No. 10. $3,240.58 0 $3,022,852.82 325 Due to site constraints with installation of new incerta valve and condition of existing vault and lid, removal and
replacement of existing vault. Work Directive Change No. 17 6/14/2019 11. $6,219.28 1 $3,029,072.10 326 2 V.Lopez Jr.Sons v.City of Pismo Beach
Five Cities Lift Station Lift Station Maintenance Project-Change Orders CO No. Date Purpose Amount Working Days Total Contract Amount Total Contract Added Time
Adding 21 working days for: (1) Delays associated with City turning off incorrect valve for temporary bypassing of force main at Spyglass Lift Station; (2)Approval process for
change to stainless steel discharge piping at Five Cities Lift Station; (3) For additional electrical work at Vista del Mar Lift Station. Weekly Statement of Working Days Nos. 58 and 18 6/21/2019 66. $0.00 21 $3,029,072.10 347 Moving flow meter from post-mounted adjacent to valve
vault to adjacent proposed electrical cabinet at Lift Station. 19 7/1/2019 $1,039.50 0 $3,030,111.60 347 Paving of area in vicinity of Spyglass Lift Station that could not be paved during loop road work due to Spyglass Lift 20 7/2/2019 Station work in progress. $11,262.00 2 $3,041,373.60 349 Provide and installation of 400 amp, 240 volt 3-phase
termination cabinet and 400 amp fusible disconnect to
support 400 amp panel per PG&E requirements. Lopez
objected to only 20 additional days. More days were
21 7/22/2019 promised by Pismo Beach. $2,283.00 20 $3,043,656.60 369 Stub up of two 2-inch pvc coated rigid conduits from panel 22 7/22/2019 board of future MCC for future chemical building. $691.90 1 $3,044,348.50 370 Raise coated manholes adjacent to wet well due to existing 23 7/22/2019 graades. Change needed during fine grading of site. $1,245.63 0 $3,045,594.13 370 Deductive CO for coating of discharge pipe at Sunset
Palisades Lift Station per Mainline Utility Company
24 7/29/2019 subcontractor recommendation. ($1,500.00) 0 $3,044,094.13 370 3 V.Lopez Jr.Sons v.City of Pismo Beach
Five Cities Lift Station Lift Station Maintenance Project-Change Orders CO No. Date Purpose Amount Working Days Total Contract Amount Total Contract Added Time
Adding 37 working days for delays associated with City's SCADA integration. Delay by City began (10/21/2019) when contractor completed work on the electrical cabinet. Delay ended (12/12/2019)when City integrator was ready for
start-up of the new Lift Station. Note: Contractors start-up and testing submittal, which is on the critical path, had not yet been approved. See: Lopez Protest Letter and City
25 12/17/2019 response. $0.00 37 $3,044,094.13 407 Provide individual light alarms and four different faults, and rewire the floats to go to the MCC. Modifications to the existing float operations, addition of a third float, and UL 508A and 698A inspection/labeling of enclosures per City.

This CCO assumes the "if required" UL inspection labeling tasks are not necessary. If required,then V Lopez &Sons will be compensated via an additional CCO to follow upon receipt of paid invoices from UL. Work Directive Change No. 26 4/1/2020 13. Lopez signed under protest. $50,214.75 47 $3,094,094.13 454 Contractor understanding was that the 100 S. Dolliver force main was directed to the Five Cities LS wet well,when in fact it was connected directly to the Five Cities force main as shown on the Drawings. Misunderstanding was stated to be a result of prior discussions and direction by City Staff.

Lopez signed under protest.
27 4/2/2020 $8,619.04 0 $3,102,927.92 454 Repair of existing 24-inch storm drain pipe at intersection of Addie and Cypress streets. When uncovered, damage was
discovered. Work Directive Change No. 14. Lopez signed
28 4/2/2020 under protest. $1,129.97 0 $3,104,057.89 454 4 V.Lopez Jr.Sons v.City of Pismo Beach
Five Cities Lift Station Lift Station Maintenance Project-Change Orders CO No. Date Purpose Amount Working Days Total Contract Amount Total Contract Added Time
Deductive CO for the City's lost time associated with
Prousys's scheduled visit on 3/18/2020 where Prousys was unable to perform work as a result of Lopez inability to seal the pumps. See Prousys Invoice for 3/18/2020. Lopez signed 29 4/8/2020 under protest. ($2,591.00) 0 $3,101,466.89 454 Replacement and relocation of existing manhole at
intersection of Addie and Cypress streets. Unforeseen
existing utility line conflicts with alignment of new force main. Sewer Dept. decision to replace. Work Directive
30 7/13/2020 Change No. 16. Lopez signed under protest. $24,499.66 3 $3,125,966.55 457 Additional steel trench plate rental required. Based on discussion with City Sewer Dept. it was expected that
private force main from Holiday RV Park discharged via
gravity, but field conditions revealed it was tied directly into 31 7/13/2020 the force main. Lopez signed under protest. $455.38 0 $3,126,421.93 457 Replacement of inoperable valve neat tie-in at intersection of Addie and Cypress streets. Work Directive Change No. 32 7/13/2020 15. Lopez signed under protest. $6,627.27 1 $3,133,049.20 458 Installation of Wolman Creokote black water-based exterior wood preservative on exposed bridge timbers and
installation of copper green on ends of pressure treated kickplates on Cypress Bridge. Lopez signed under protest. 33 8/17/2020 $1,218.03 0 $3,134,267.23 458 TOTAL: $232,781.23 158 $3,134,267.23 458
5 Exhibit B

FILED
JUN 23 2022
SAN LU BIS�O n__ p COURT
Simms. eputY Cle c
V. Lopez Jr. & Sons General Engineering Contractors, Inc. v. City of Pismo Beach, 20CV-0652 Hearing: Petition for Writ of Administrative Mandamus Date: June 23,2022

TENTATIVE RULING
On December 7, 2020, V. Lopez Jr. & Sons General Engineering Contractors, Inc. ("VLS") filed a Petition for Writ of Administrative Mandamus against the City of Pismo Beach (the "City"). The City responded on April 22, 2021. That same day, the City filed a cross-complaint against VLS alleging breach of contract, false claims, and unfair competition. On June 14, 2021, VLS filed its own cross-complaint against the City for breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and claims arising under section 1983 of title 42 of the United States Code.

I. BACKGROUND
On December 19, 2017, after a competitive bidding process, the City awarded VLS a contract for construction of the Five Cities Lift Station, and modification of other sewer lift stations within the City (the "Project"). (AR 028-029.) Construction of the Project began in February 2018. (AR 013.) The contemplated completion date was April 15, 2019, which was subsequently extended to March 17, 2020. (]bid.) Substantial completion of the Project occurred on June 22, 2022. (Ibid.) On October 6, 2020, the City Council accepted the Project as complete, but imposed $69,000 in liquidated damages against VLS for the delays. (AR 203, 243.) The parties dispute the cause of the delays in completing the Project. VLS alleges the liquidated damages were imposed without notice.

A month later, on November 5, 2020, the City emailed a"Public Hearing Notice"to VLS informing it that a public hearing would be held before the City Council, on November 17, 2020. (AR 070, 038.) The purpose of the hearing was to consider a staff recommendation to declare VLS a"non-responsible bidder," which would disqualify it from performing future work for the City. (AR 002.) This was the first time that VLS learned that the City was considering such action. (AR 075.)
The City's November 5, 2020, email to VLS invited it to participate in the hearing, provided an email address for any written submissions, and set forth the process which would be followed at the hearing. (AR 070.) The Public Hearing Notice stated that the hearing's agenda would be posted on November 12, 2020. (AR 002.)
The parties then engaged in some discussions focusing on two items: (1) an agreement that VLS would not bid on any work with the City for a defined period of time, and (2) payment of the City's claimed financial losses. (AR 121.) In those discussions, counsel for VLS requested 1 documentation supporting the staff's recommendation and made clear that VLS did "not know the basis of the City's current position." (AR 118, 124-129.) VLS also raised due process concerns during those discussions, stating it was entitled to"advisement of the basis of the City's position and all supporting documentation .... [and] a reasonable opportunity to prepare and provide a response, and to a fair hearing." (AR 080.)
On November 12, 2020, the City Manager emailed VLS's counsel a copy of the draft staff report and the proposed City Council resolution. (AR 137.) It was at that time, that VLS first learned of the grounds on which the City sought to deem it a non-responsible bidder. (AR 013-21, 0751 198.) On November 16, 2020, the day before the hearing, VLS submitted written statements setting forth its position. (AR 033-150.) VLS raised its due process concerns in its written submission. (AR 053-054.) In particular, VLS noted the "extremely tight timeframe" it had to respond. (AR 054.) On November 17, 2020, the day of the hearing, VLS submitted a synopsis of comments it expected to provide at the hearing. (AR 151-152, 201.) During the hearing, VLS reiterated'its due process concerns at the hearing, noting that it had not been provided with any information regarding the City's basis for debarment, until five days beforehand. (AR 198.) VLS's counsel further stated:

I'm very concerned with the time frame here,too. Not only did we have scant amount of time to prepare our response here — we did — we were able to submit a fairly substantial response yesterday; however, that was the tip of the iceberg in terms of the information we could have provided. And in fact, even today, after I submitted a supplemental response, kind of a synopsis of our—our primary argument here, I was getting information from people that worked on the project that buttress our position that V. Lopez was not in fact responsible for a number of these things that the city claims .... [¶] The other thing that's wrong is that—or the other concern I have about the short time frame is that you were provided a fairly substantial submission yesterday and additional material today, which gives you even less time to consider it. And because of the importance of this, especially to my client, ... I'm very concerned that you're not going to have an adequate opportunity to have considered the information and the facts that we presented in that information that show that what the city is doing here is not only extraordinary but it's unwarranted, it's unnecessary, and it's illegitimate, and, for those reasons, it should be rejected out of hand. [¶] ... the other thing that just -- that requires much more detail and in-depth consideration and review is the factual inadequacy of the city's position supporting their recommendation. We provided rebuttal to — to the claims that have been made with respect to these issues, and we have even more rebuttal. (AR 200-202.)
In addition to the procedural issues raised by VLS's counsel, a member of the public (a licensed architect) noted that the issues presented were"very complex. And if really there has only been a one-week timeline for the contractor and his attorney to respond, I would encourage you to continue this discussion and not make any decisions today, because you need to better understand 2 it and we need to better understand it, as the public." (AR 211, 212; see also AR 219 [VLS's counsel agreeing with architect's comments].)'
Although two council members confirmed that they had read all of VLS's submissions in support of its position, one council member had only read "most of the stuff." (AR 233, 236.) After presentations by both sides,2 and some questioning by council members, the City Council voted unanimously to adopt Resolution No. R-2020-094 (the"Resolution") to disqualify VLS from performing future work for the City, for a period of five years. (AR 243.) VLS seeks to set aside the Resolution based on due process violations by the City. For the reasons set forth below, the Court grants VLS's request for a writ of mandamus.

II. LEGAL STANDARD
Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.5, subdivision (b) sets forth the standard of review in administrative mandamus proceedings, and limits review to three specified grounds: (1) whether the agency proceeded without, or in excess, of its jurisdiction; (2) whether there was a fair trial; and (3) whether there was a prejudicial abuse of discretion. It is the second ground which is at issue in this proceeding.3
Determining whether an administrative proceeding was fundamentally fair is a question of law, which is independently evaluated by the Court. (Southern Cal. Underground Contractors, Inc. v.

City of San Diego (2003) 108 Cal.AppAth 533, 542 (Southern Cal. Underground).) III. DISCUSSION
" `A debarment excludes a person from doing business with the government for a defined period ....' [Citation.]" (Golden Day Schools, Inc. v. State Dept. of Education (2000) 83 Cal.AppAth 694, 703 (Golden Day).) "Debarment is never a matter of small moment .... [¶] But despite its 1 In rebuttal, the City Manager(James Lewis) noted VLS was aware of the issues that the City had with the Project, and had been suggesting mediation for months before the hearing. (AR 215.)
2 VLS was allocated 11 minutes for its initial remarks and an additional five minutes for rebuttal. (AR 197.)
3 The third ground, i.e., abuse of discretion, occurs when"the respondent has not proceeded in the manner required by law ...." (Code Civ. Proc., § 1094.5, subd. (b).) Thus, "[i]f the agency has violated due process by denying a fair hearing, the agency has at the same time failed to proceed as `required by law.' Whether it is called one or the other, if the error was prejudicial, the writ will be held." (Abbot, et al., Cal. Administrative Mandamus (Cont.Ed.Bar 3d ed. 2022) § 6.23.)
3 severe impact on contractors, debarment is not intended as punishment. It is, instead, a necessary means to enable the contracting governmental agency to deal with irresponsible bidders and contractors, and to administer its duties with efficiency. [Citation.]" (Id. at pp. 703-704.) A person facing debarment" `has a constitutionally protected liberty interest at stake,' [Citation]" entitling him or her to due process. (Golden Day, supra, 83 Cal.AppAth at p. 706.) What qualifies as due process, and the specific procedural protections required, depends on the particular situation. (Gilbert v. Homar(1997) 520 U.S. 924, 930 [due process is a flexible concept].) Here, both sides agree that debarment requires due process, but disagree on the parameters of due process to be applied under the circumstances.

A. Reasonable Notice and an Opportunity to be Heard
"Due process is the opportunity to be heard at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner. [Citation.]" (Southern Cal. Underground, supra, 108 Cal.AppAth at p. 543.) This encompasses sufficient notice of the charges. (See id at pp. 539-540 [reciting that the trial court previously found the contractor had not been afforded adequate time to prepare a defense, despite receiving three weeks to prepare, and ordering another administrative hearing to be set no sooner than 45 days from the court's order].)
After receiving the Public Hearing Notice, VLS informed the City that the notice was the first time it had heard of the City's proposed action to deem it a non-responsible bidder. (AR 075.) The day after receiving the Public Hearing Notice, VLS requested the documentation supporting the staff s recommendation (AR 118), then made clear that it did "not know the basis of the City's current position" (AR 124), and asserted its right to a reasonable opportunity to prepare and provide a response. (AR 080.) After receipt of the draft staff report, VLS raised concerns regarding the tight timeline which it was given to respond. (AR 200-202.)
The City argues that counsel for VLS acknowledged awareness of the dispute with the City as early as February 2020. (AR 118.)4 Awareness of an ongoing dispute does not equate to adequate notice of the grounds on which the City was seeking to debar VLS. Nor does it address the issue of whether the City provided VLS sufficient time to respond. - The Court concludes that providing five days-notice, only three of which were business days, of the grounds on which the City sought debarment, was not adequate notice to allow VLS a meaningful opportunity to respond and be heard on the issues. (Cf. Southern Cal. Underground, 4 In a letter dated November 6, 2020, VLS's counsel stated: "Following your February 5, 2020, letter to my client 1 have communicated to you, on no less than three occasions, suggestions [sic] that our clients engage in some form of meaningful dispute resolution and avoid an adversarial approach to these issues. Neither the City nor you ever responded to these proposals ...." (AR 118.) This is insufficient to show VLS was aware of the grounds on which the City was seeking debarment.
4 supra, 108 Cal.AppAth at pp. 545-546 [concluding a contractor received an adequate opportunity to be heard where it received ample notice, an opportunity to conduct discovery including depositions, and an opportunity to present"unlimited documentary evidence"prior to the hearing].)
The Court grants the writ on this ground.

B. Ability to Cross-Examine Witnesses and Present Live Testimony VLS argues that cross-examination of witnesses in an administrative proceeding must be allowed, if requested. For support, VLS relies on Golden Day and Goldberg v. Kelly(1970) 397 U.S. 254 (Goldberg).

In Goldberg, the Supreme Court noted that"[i]n almost every setting where important decisions turn on questions of fact, due process requires an opportunity to confront and cross-examine adverse witnesses. [Citations.]" (Goldberg, supra, 397 U.S. at p. 269.) At issue in Goldberg was the adequacy of the procedures for notice, and a hearing in connection with the termination of public assistance benefits to welfare recipients. The Supreme Court determined that the inability to present evidence orally at a hearing, or to confront or cross-examine adverse witnesses violated the recipients' due process rights. (Id. at p. 268.)
The Supreme Court explained that"[t]he opportunity to be heard must be tailored to the capacities and circumstances of those who are to be heard. It is not enough that a welfare recipient may present his position to the decision maker in writing or second-hand through his caseworker.

Written submissions are an unrealistic option for most recipients .... Moreover, written submissions do not afford the flexibility of oral presentations." (Goldberg, supra, 397 U.S. at pp. 268-269.) The Court noted that"the crucial factor in this context—a factor not present in the case of the blacklisted government contractor, ... is that termination of aid pending resolution of a controversy over eligibility may deprive an eligible recipient of the very means by which to live while he waits." (Id. at p. 264.)
Relying on Goldberg, the contractor in Southern Cal. Underground argued that it should have been allowed to present live testimony and cross-examine.adverse witnesses at the hearing on its debarment before the city council. The court rejected the argument on the ground the contractor had the opportunity to confront adverse witnesses by taking their depositions. (Southern Cal.

Underground, supra, 108 Cal.AppAth at p. 546.) The court stated, "[a]lthough a government contractor cannot be debarred without procedural safeguards, there is no constitutional entitlement to the full panoply of judicial trial procedures such as cross-examination. [Citation.]" (Id. at pp. 542-543.)
In distinguishing Goldberg,the.court noted the contractor before it was"a sophisticated business entity and had the professional assistance of counsel," so that permitting depositions was"an effective opportunity to confront adverse witnesses .... And, unlike the welfare recipients in Goldberg, [the contractor] was able, through its counsel, to effectively present its position in 5 writing,and present arguments and evidence orally before the decision maker. [Citation.]" (Southern Cal. Underground, supra, 108 Cal.App.4th at p. 544.) Pursuant to Southern Cal.

Underground, due process in the debarment context does not require live testimony and an opportunity to cross-examine witnesses in front of the adjudicatory panel, as long as the contractor had other means available to it to develop relevant facts.

VLS next cites to Golden Day, in which the court found a violation of due process based on the fact that one of the members of the adjudicatory panel had investigated the underlying claims against the appellant, putting him "in the position of judging the correctness of his own decision." (Golden Day, supra, 83 Cal.AppAth at p. 710 [addressing debarment of childcare contractor for three years].) After making that finding, the court addressed the appellant's argument that the hearing was unfair because it had not been allowed to cross-examine adverse witnesses.. "[T]he court in Golden Day, noted that the contractor had not sought to cross-examine anyone. However, the court held that the contractor should have been allowed the opportunity to cross-examine staff persons who had participated in the determination that led to the debarment recommendation." (Southern Cal. Underground, supra, 108 Cal.App.4th at p. 546 [discussing Golden Day].) The court in Southern Cal. Underground distinguished Golden Day on the ground that the contractor had the opportunity to cross-examine city employees who participated in the investigation leading to its debarment, by taking their depositions and using that testimony in its oral and written presentations to the city council.. "Nothing in_Golden Day or other case law requires that cross-examination occur at the hearing before the City Council rather than at a deposition." (Southern Cal. Underground, supra, 108 Cal.App.4th at p. 547.) Other than a brief suggestion in its November 16, 2020, written submission that the City "must allow the subject contractor to cross examine its protagonists" (AR 053), VLS does not identify any portion of the record where it affirmatively requested an opportunity to cross-examine witnesses. VLS argues that it "had no opportunity to do so." (Reply, p. 8, 1. 25.) VLS,however, raised multiple due process concerns in its correspondence with the City, its written submissions, and at the hearing. Thus, the writ on the ground that it was unable to present live testimony, and cross-examine witnesses is denied.

C. An Impartial Tribunal
" `The concept of fundamental fairness includes the right to an impartial decision maker.' [Citations.]" (Golden Day, supra, 83 Cal.AppAth at p. 709.) "[A] party claiming,that the decision maker was biased must show actual bias, rather than the appearance of bias, to establish a fair hearing violation." (Southern Cal. Underground, supra, 108 Cal.App.4th at p. 549 [bias in the administrative hearing context cannot be implied].)
VLS argues that the City, as an overall entity,was investigating, prosecuting, and adjudicating the case, and as such the City Council could not serve as an impartial tribunal. In support, VLS quotes the rule as stated in Golden Day that "no employee involved in investigating or prosecuting a case may participate as an adjudicator." (Golden Day, supra, 83 Cal.App.4th at p. 709.) The City 6 r
responds that VLS does not set forth any facts establishing bias by a member of the City Council; and further that city staff advocated for debarment, while the City Council acted as the decision maker—which involved separate divisions of the City.
"It is well established that a party is not denied an impartial adjudicator merely because an administrative entity performs both the functions of prosecutor and judge." (Southern Cal.

Underground, supra, 108 Cal.AppAth at p. 549.) Moreover, where " `an administrative body has a duty to act, and is the only entity capable of acting, the fact that the body may have an interest in the result,does not disqualify it from acting. The rule of necessity precludes a claim of bias from the structure of the process.' [Citation.]" (Id. at p. 550.) VLS next argues that its cross-complaint against the City implicates a potential bias by the City Council. A similar issue was raised and rejected in Southern Cal. Underground, where the appellant claimed the city was a biased decision maker, because it had been named as a defendant in a multimillion-dollar lawsuit filed by the appellant. In rejecting the argument, the court reasoned that because the individual city council members were not named as defendants in the lawsuit, they lacked any personal pecuniary interest in the outcome of the case. (Southern Cal.

Underground, supra, 108 Cal.AppAth at p. 549.) Similarly, none of the council members are individually named in VLS' cross-complaint.

The Court finds VLS has failed to show any bias by the City, or its council members. The writ on this ground is denied.

D. Sufficient Evidence for Debarment
Finally, VLS argues that there is insufficient evidence supporting the findings in the Resolution. In light of the Court's conclusion that the hearing procedure failed to comply with applicable due process requirements, this argument is moot. The writ on this ground is therefore denied.

11/8/2022 10:18 AM
1 RICHARDS, WATSON & GERSHON ELECTRONICALLY FILED: 11/09/2022 A Professional Corporation San Luis Obispo Superior Court 2 T. PETER PIERCE (BAR NO. 160408) By: Miller,Victoria [email protected]
3 STEVEN A. NGUY (BAR NO. 307263)
snguy@,rwglaw.com
4 1 Sansome Street, Suite 2850
San Francisco, California 94 1 04-48 1 1
5 Telephone: 415.421.8484
Facsimile: 415.421.8486
6 Attorneys for Respondent
7 City of Pismo Beach
8 JOHN DARLING, ESQ., SBN 156109
[email protected]
9 PATRICIA J. WOLFE, ESQ., SBN 310750
wolfe huntortmann.com
10 HUNTARTMANN PALFFY
NIEVES DARLING & MAH, INC.

Z Z 11 301 North Lake Avenue, 7"' Floor
z Pasadena, California 91101-1807
a 12 Phone: (626) 440-5200 Fax: (626) 796-0107 iro
W v
z ` 13 Attorneys for Petitioner V. LOPEZ JR. &
o
N SONS GENERAL ENGINEERING
a a 14 CONTRACTORS, INC.
og 15
N SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
¢ '
z 16
0 ,0
17 COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
18 V. LOPEZ JR. & SONS GENERAL Case No. 20CV-0652 19 ENGINEERING CONTRACTORS, INC., a
California corporation , JOINT STIPULATION RE:
20 MEDIATION AND EXTENDING TIME
Petitioner, FOR CITY OF PISMO BEACH TO
21 V. HOLD ANY REMAND HEARING;
"W"AQ > .D ORDER
22 CITY OF PISMO BEACH, a California
municipal corporation , Judge: Hon. Rita C. Federman 23 Respondent . [Exempt from filing fees pursuant to Govt. Code § 6103] 24 25
26 The parties stipulate as follows:
27 1. This Court on June 23, 2022 ordered the City of Pismo Beach (the "City")to 28 rescind Resolution No. R-2020-094, and to hold a new hearing on remand that complies JOINT STIPULATION RE:MEDIATION AND EXTENDING TIME FOR CITY OF PISMO BEACH TO HOLD

ANY REMAND HEARING
1470909 7.PIW 75fiR 002 12R77-0024\7742044v1 doe

n
E
I with due process no later than 180 days from the date of the order, which is December 20, 2 2022. A true and correct copy of the Notice of Ruling is attached hereto as Exhibit A. 3 2. On August 16, 2022, the City passed Resolution No. R-2022-074, in which the 4 City set aside Resolution No. R-2020-094 and calendared a new hearing on December 20, 5 2022 in the event the parties are not able to settle the case. However, although the order 6 from the Court did not require it, the City set the new hearing date simultaneously with the 7 rescission of Resolution No. R-2020-094.
8 A true and correct copy of that Resolution No. R-2022-074 is attached hereto as Exhibit B. 9 3. The parties have conducted limited discovery, including several depositions in 10 anticipation of the December 20, 2022 hearing.

Z o 11 4. The parties, before engaging in further discovery in connection with the 04 12 December 20, 2022 hearing and the subsequent potential trial of the pending cross- Ws
z
zo` 13 complaints, have agreed, to the following schedule:

ON
W Q 14 The parties have engaged the Honorable Martin Tangeman (ret.) to conduct a full-day a
4 o s 15 mediation on December 13, 2022 in an attempt to resolve the entire case. The parties �Q
z= 16 anticipate that a second day of mediation might be necessary in late January 2023 following Uo
17 the Pismo Beach City Council's January 2023 meeting during which it is anticipated that 18 the Council will consider in session the parties positions following the mediation on 19 December 13, 2022.
20 5. In light of these developments, the City would like to remove the remand hearing 21 from the City Council agenda for December 20, 2022, and not to reschedule any hearing at 22 this time. The last date for the City to hold any remand hearing should be extended to 23 March 31, 2023 so that the parties can focus their efforts on resolving the case before 24 expending any further efforts toward preparing for and conducting a remand hearing. 25 6. In the event the parties are unable to settle the case, and if the City then 26 nevertheless conducts a remand hearing and reaches the same decision as it reached in 27 rescinded Resolution No. R-2020-094, and petitioner then seeks a writ of mandate, the 28 parties request that the Court set a briefing schedule such that the Court is able to hold a -2-
JOINT STIPULATION RE:MEDIATION AND EXTENDING TIME FOR CITY OF PISMO BEACH TO HOLD

ANY REMAND HEARING
1420909 2.P.1W 756R 002 12R72-0024\27354%v1 dor,

I 1 hearing on the writ of mandate cause of action no later than June 30, 2023. The parties 2 further request that the Court set a trial date on the non-writ causes of action in the 3 respective cross-complaints to begin not later than September 25, 2023.

I�
i
4 5 DATED: November?, 2022 HUNT ORTMANN PALFFY
NIEVES DARLING & MAH, INC.
6 7 By:

AT A J. WO
8 Attorneys for Petitioner V. Lopez Jr. & Sons
9 General Engineering Contractors, Inc.
10 DATED: November 7, 2022 RICHARDS WATSON GERSHON z Z 11
o
W a 12
j w o By: I
Z o 13 T. PETER PIERCE
as 14
Attorneys for The City of Pismo Beach
os 15
�a
_= 16
Uo
17 18
11 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
26 27
28 -3-
JOINT STIPULATION RE:MEDIATION AND EXTENDING TIME FOR CITY OF PISMO BEACH TO HOLD

ANY REMAND HEARING
142.0909 2 RTW 756R 002 12R72-00249.735456v1 dnc

I jPft@P@S1R0j ORDER
2 Based on the foregoing stipulation, it is ordered:
3 1. The last day for the City to hold any remand hearing is extended from December 4 20, 2022 to March 31, 2023.
5 2. If petitioner seeks a writ of mandate arising from any decision of the City 6 following an remand hearing,the Court will set a briefm schedule suQh4 a ;+w4 1m4 Y g g
7 hearing on the writ petition * .
8 3. If the parties are unable to resolve the non-writ causes of action in their respective 9 cross-complaints,the Court will set a trial to begin wt , 99931 10 Z Z 11 DATED: November 9 , 2022 By: 4L
_ ! Hon. Rita C Federman
N 0 12
w0 Judge of the Superior Court
a
z 13
o
OE
a 14 * at a status conference to be held on April 17, d
10g 15 2023, at 9:00 a.m.
cl
= z 16
Uk
17 ** date at the status conference.
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
26 27
28 -4-
JOINT STIPULATION RE:MEDIATION AND EXTENDING TIME FOR CITY OF PISMO BEACH TO HOLD

ANY REMAND HEARING
1420909 7.PIW 756R 002 12R77-0074\7735456v1 drx:

EXHIBIT A

I John Darling, Esq., SBN 156109
[email protected]
2 Patricia J. Wolfe, Esq., SBN 310750
[email protected]
3 HUNT ORTMANN PALFFY
NIEVES DARLING&MAH, INC.
4 301 North Lake Avenue, 7th Floor
Pasadena, California 91101-1807
5 Phone: (626)440-5200 Fax: (626) 796-0107
6 Attorneys for Petitioner V.Lopez Jr. & Sons
General Engineering Contractors, Inc.
7 8 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
9 COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
10 z 11 V. Lopez Jr. & Sons General Engineering Case No. 20CV-0652 w ~ o 0 o Contractors, Inc. , a California corporation, 12 Petitioner, NOTICE OF RULING
13 vs. Judge: Honorable Rita C. Federman
14 z w a o The City of Pismo Beach, a California Date: June 23, 2022 15 municipal corporation, Time: 9:00 a.m.

O ¢ w Dept: 2
r o Q 16 Respondent.
z � z��
17 z 18
TO ALL PARTIES AND TO THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD HEREIN:
19 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that a hearing on Petition on Writ of Mandate came on 20 regularly for hearing on June 23, 2022. Counsel made appearances as reflected in the court's 21 record. The Court ruled as follows:
22 (1) After discussion with counsel, both parties agreed to adopt the Court's tentative 23 ruling, a true and correct copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit A. 24 (2) Counsel for Respondent requested that the Court extend the amount of time in 25 which in which Respondent is directed to hold a new hearing from 90 days to 180 days. The Court 26 granted this extension of time and it was reflected in the tentative ruling that was adopted by the 27 Court.
28 1391587.1 PJW 7568.002 1

NOTICE OF RULING

1 (3) Petitioner was ordered to give notice.
2 DATED: June 24, 2022 HUNT ORTMANN PALFFY
3 NIEVES DARLING &MAH, INC.
4 5 By:

PATRICIA J. WOLFE
6 Attorneys for Petitioner V. Lopez Jr. & Sons General 7 Engineering Contractors, Inc.
8 9
10 z 11
12 a � �N 13
how 14
� Zwag
15 16
x > � °F 17
w
Z 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
1391587.1 PJW 7568.002 2

NOTICE OF RULING

EXHIBIT A

FILED
JUN 23 2022
SAN LU 91S�0 PERIp CpURT
BY n(.
.Simms, apury Cle c
V. Lopez Jr. &Sons General Engineering Contractors,Inc. v. City of Pismo Beach,20CV-0652 Hearing: Petition for Writ of Administrative Mandamus Date: June 23,2022

TENTATIVE RULING
On December 7,2020, V. Lopez Jr. & Sons General Engineering Contractors, Inc. ("VLS") filed a Petition for Writ of Administrative Mandamus against the City of Pismo Beach (the"City"). The City responded on April 22, 2021. That same day,the City filed a cross-complaint against VLS alleging breach of contract, false claims, and unfair competition. On June 14,2021, VLS filed its own cross-complaint against the City for breach of contract,breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and claims arising under section 1983 of title 42 of the United States Code.

I. BACKGROUND
On December 19, 2017, after a competitive bidding process, the City awarded VLS a contract for construction of the Five Cities Lift Station,and modification of other sewer lift stations within the City (the"Project"). (AR 028-029.) Construction of the Project began in February 2018. (AR 013.) The contemplated completion date was April 15, 2019, which was subsequently extended to March 17, 2020. (Ibid.) Substantial completion of the Project occurred on June 22,2022. (Ibid.) On October 6,2020, the City Council accepted the Project as complete,but imposed$69,000 in liquidated damages against VLS for the delays. (AR 203, 243.) The parties dispute the cause of the delays in completing the Project. VLS alleges the liquidated damages were imposed without notice.

documentation supporting the staff's recommendation and made clear that VLS did"not know the basis of the City's current position." (AR 118, 124-129.) VLS also raised due process concerns during those discussions, stating it was entitled to"advisement of the basis of the City's position and all supporting documentation .... [and] a reasonable opportunity to prepare and provide a response, and to a fair hearing." (AR 080.)
On November 12, 2020,the City Manager emailed VLS's counsel a copy of the draft staff report and the proposed City Council resolution. (AR 137.) It was at that time,that VLS first learned of the grounds on which the City sought to deem it a non-responsible bidder. (AR 013-21,0751 198.) On November 16,2020, the day before the hearing, VLS submitted written statements setting forth its position. (AR 033-150.) VLS raised its due process concerns in its written submission. (AR 053-054.) In particular, VLS noted the "extremely tight timeframe"it had to respond. (AR 054.) On November 17, 2020,the day of the hearing, VLS submitted a synopsis of comments it expected to provide at the hearing. (AR 151-152, 20I.) During the hearing, VLS reiterated'its due process concerns at the hearing, noting that it had not been provided with any information regarding the City's basis for debarment, until five days beforehand. (AR 198.) VLS's counsel further stated:

I'm very concerned with the time frame here,too. Not only did we have scant amount of time to prepare our response here — we did — we were able to submit a fairly substantial response yesterday; however, that was the tip of the iceberg in terms of the information we could have provided. And in fact,even today,after I submitted a supplemental response,kind of a synopsis of our—our primary argument here, I was getting information from people that worked on the project that buttress our position that V. Lopez was not in fact responsible for a number of these things that the city claims .... [9 The other thing that's wrong is that—or the other concern I have about the short time frame is that you were provided a fairly substantial submission yesterday and additional material today, which gives you even less time to consider it. And because of the importance of this, especially to my client, ..: I'm very concerned that you're not going to have an adequate opportunity to have considered the information and the facts that we presented in that information that show that what the city is doing here is not only extraordinary but it's unwarranted, it's unnecessary, and it's illegitimate, and, for those reasons, it should be rejected out of hand. [¶] ... the other thing that just -- that requires much more detail and in-depth consideration and review is the factual inadequacy of the city's position supporting their recommendation. We provided rebuttal to—to the claims that have been made with respect to these issues,and we have even more rebuttal. (AR 200-202.)
In addition to the procedural issues raised by VLS's counsel, a member of the public (a licensed architect) noted that the issues presented were"very complex. And if really there has only been a one-week timeline for the contractor and his attorney to respond, I would encourage you to continue this discussion and not make any decisions today, because you need to better understand 2 it and we need to better understand it, as the public." (AR 211, 212; see also AR 219 [VLS's counsel agreeing with architect's comments].),
AIthough two council members confirmed that they had read all of VLS's submissions in support of its position, one council member had only read"most of the stuff." (AR 233, 236.) After presentations by both sides,2 and some questioning by council members, the City Council voted unanimously to adopt Resolution No. R-2020-094(the"Resolution")to disqualify VLS from performing future work for the City, for a period of five years. (AR 243.) VLS seeks to set aside the Resolution based on due process violations by the City. For the reasons set forth below,the Court grants VLS's request for a writ of mandamus:

II. LEGAL STANDARD
Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.5, subdivision(b) sets forth the standard of review in administrative mandamus proceedings, and limits review to three specified grounds: (1) whether the agency proceeded without,or in excess, of its jurisdiction; (2) whether there was a fair trial; and (3) whether there was a prejudicial abuse of discretion. It is the second ground which is at issue in this proceeding.3
Determining whether an administrative proceeding was fundamentally fair is a question of law, which is independently evaluated by the Court. (Southern Cal. Underground Contractors, Inc. v.

City of San Diego (2003) 108 Cal.AppAth 533, 542 (Southern Cal. Underground).) III. DISCUSSION
" `A debarment excludes a person from doing business with the government for a defined period ....' [Citation.]" (Golden Day Schools, Inc. v. State Dept. of Education (2000) 83 Cal.AppAth 694, 703 (Golden Day).) "Debarment is never a matter of small moment .... [¶] But despite its , In rebuttal, the City Manager(James Lewis) noted VLS was aware of the issues that the City had with the Project, and had been suggesting mediation for months before the hearing. (AR 215.)
2 VLS was allocated 11 minutes for its initial remarks and an additional five minutes for rebuttal. (AR 197.)
3 The third ground, i.e., abuse of discretion, occurs when"the respondent has not proceeded in the manner required by law ...." (Code Civ. Proc., § 1094.5, subd. (b).)Thus, "[i]f the agency has violated due process by denying a fair hearing, the agency has at the same time failed to proceed as `required by law.' Whether it is called one or the other, if the error was prejudicial, the writ will be held."(Abbot,et al., Cal. Administrative Mandamus(Cont.Ed.Bar 3d ed. 2022) § 6.23.)
3 severe impact on contractors, debarment is not intended as punishment. It is, instead,a necessary means to enable the contracting governmental agency to deal with irresponsible bidders and contractors, and to administer its duties with efficiency. [Citation.]" (Id. at pp. 703-704.) A person facing debarment" `has a constitutionally protected liberty interest at stake,' [Citation]" entitling him or her to due process. (Golden Day, supra, 83 Cal.AppAth at p. 706.) What qualifies as due process, and the specific procedural protections required, depends on the particular situation. (Gilbert v. Homar(1997) 520 U.S. 924, 930 [due process is a flexible concept].) Here, both sides agree that debarment requires due process, but disagree on the parameters of due process to be applied under the circumstances.

A. Reasonable Notice and an Opportunity to be Heard
"Due process is the opportunity to be heard at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner.

Citation. Southern Cal. Underground, supra, 108 Cal.App.4th at p. 543. This encompasses sufficient notice of the charges. (See id at pp. 539-540 [reciting that the trial court previously found the contractor had not been afforded adequate time to prepare a defense, despite receiving three weeks to prepare, and ordering another administrative hearing to be set no sooner than 45 days from the court's order].)
After receiving the Public Hearing Notice, VLS informed the City that the notice was the first time it had heard of the City's proposed action to deem it a non-responsible bidder. (AR 075.) The day after receiving the Public Hearing Notice, VLS requested the documentation supporting the staff's recommendation (AR 118), then made clear that it did"not know the basis of the City's current position"(AR 124),and asserted its right to a reasonable opportunity to prepare and provide a response. (AR 080.) After receipt of the draft staff report, VLS raised concerns regarding the tight timeline which it was given to respond. (AR 200-202.)
The City argues that counsel for VLS acknowledged awareness of the dispute with the City as early as February 2020. (AR 118.)4 Awareness of an ongoing dispute does not equate to adequate notice of the grounds on which the City was seeking to debar VLS. Nor does it address the issue of whether the City provided VLS sufficient time to respond. - The Court concludes that providing five days-notice, only three of which were business days,of the grounds on which the City sought debarment, was not adequate notice to allow VLS a meaningful opportunity to respond and be heard on the issues. (Cf.Southern Cal. Underground, 4 In a letter dated November 6,2020, VLS's counsel stated: "Following your February 5,2020, letter to my client I have communicated to you,on no less than three occasions, suggestions [sic] that our clients engage in some form of meaningful dispute resolution and avoid an adversarial approach to these issues. Neither the City nor you ever_responded to these proposals ...." (AR 118.) This is insufficient to show VLS was aware of the grounds on which the City was seeking debarment.
4 supra, 108 Cal.AppAth at pp. 545-546 [concluding a contractor received an adequate opportunity to be heard where it received ample notice, an opportunity to conduct discovery including depositions, and an opportunity to present"unlimited documentary evidence"prior to the hearing].)
The Court grants the writ on this ground.

B. Ability to Cross-Examine Witnesses and Present Live Testimony i
VLS argues that cross-examination of witnesses in an administrative proceeding must be allowed, if requested. For support, VLS relies on Golden Day and Goldberg v. Kelly(1970) 397 U.S. 254 (Goldberg).

In Goldberg, the Supreme Court noted that"[i]n almost every setting where important decisions turn on questions of fact,due process requires an opportunity to confront and cross-examine adverse witnesses. [Citations.]" (Goldberg, supra, 397 U.S. at p. 269.) At issue in Goldberg was the adequacy of the procedures for notice,and a hearing in connection with the termination of public assistance benefits to welfare recipients. The Supreme Court determined that the inability to present evidence orally at a hearing, or to confront or cross-examine adverse witnesses violated the recipients' due process rights. (Id. at p. 268.)
The Supreme Court explained that"[t]he opportunity to be heard must be tailored to the capacities ' and circumstances of those who are to be heard. It is not enough that a welfare recipient may present his position to the decision maker in writing or second-hand through his caseworker.

Written submissions are an unrealistic option for most recipients .... Moreover,written submissions do not afford the flexibility of oral presentations." (Goldberg, supra, 397 U.S. at pp. 268-269.) The Court noted that"the crucial factor in this context—a factor not present in the case of the blacklisted government contractor, ... is that termination of aid pending resolution of a controversy over eligibility may deprive an eligible recipient of the very means by which to live while he waits." (1d, at p. 264.)
Relying on Goldberg,the contractor in Southern Cal. Underground argued that it should have been allowed to present live testimony and cross-examine adverse witnesses at the hearing on its debarment before the city council. The court rejected the argument on the ground the contractor had the opportunity to confront adverse witnesses by taking their depositions. (Southern Cal.

Underground, supra, 108 Cal.AppAth at p. 546.) The court stated,"[ajlthough a government contractor cannot be debarred without procedural safeguards,there is no constitutional entitlement to the full panoply of judicial trial procedures such as cross-examination. [Citation.]" (Id. at pp. 542-543.)
In distinguishing Goldberg,the,court noted the contractor before it was"a sophisticated business entity and had the professional assistance of counsel," so that permitting depositions was"an effective opportunity to confront adverse witnesses .... And, unlike the welfare recipients in Goldberg, [the contractor] was able,through its counsel, to effectively present its position in 5 l
I
writing, d present arguments and evidence orally before thedecision maker. [Ci tation.]"
"
(Southern Cal. Underground, supra, 108 Cal.App.4th at p. 544.) Pursuant to Southern Cal.

VLS next cites to Golden Day, in which the court found a violation of due process based on the fact that one of the members of the adjudicatory panel had investigated the underlying claims against the appellant,putting him"in the position of judging the correctness of his own decision." (Golden Day, supra, 83 Cal.App.4th at p. 710 [addressing debarment of childcare contractor for three years].) After making that finding, the court addressed the appellant's argument that the hearing was unfair because it had not been allowed to cross-examine adverse witnesses.. "[T]he court in Golden Day, noted that the contractor had not sought to cross-examine anyone. However, the court held that the contractor should have been allowed the opportunity to cross-examine staff persons who had participated in the determination that led to the debarment recommendation." (Southern Cal. Underground, supra, 108 Cal.AppAth at p. 546 [discussing Golden Day].) The court in Southern Cal. Underground distinguished Golden Day on the ground that the contractor had the opportunity to cross-examine city employees who participated in the investigation Ieading to its debarment,by taking their depositions and using that testimony in its oral and written presentations to the city council.. "Nothing in_Golden Day or other case law requires that cross-examination occur at the hearing before the City Council rather than at a deposition." (Southern Cal. Underground, supra, 108 Cal.App.4th at p. 547.) Other than a brief suggestion in its November 16, 2020,written submission that the City"must allow the subject contractor to cross examine its protagonists"(AR 053), VLS does not identify any portion of the record where it affirmatively requested an opportunity to cross-examine witnesses. VLS argues that it"had no opportunity to do so." (Reply,p. 8,1. 25.)VLS,however, raised multiple due process concerns in its correspondence with the City, its written submissions, and at the hearing. Thus, the writ on the ground that it was unable to present live testimony,and cross-examine witnesses is denied.

C. -An Impartial Tribunal
" `The concept of fundamental fairness includes the right to an impartial decision maker.' [Citations.]" (Golden Day, supra, 83 Cal.App.4th at p. 709.)."[A] party claiming,that the decision maker was biased must show actual bias, rather than the appearance of bias,to establish a fair hearing violation." (Southern Cal. Underground, supra, 108 Cal.AppAth at p. 549 [bias in the administrative hearing context cannot be implied].)
VLS argues that the City,as an overall entity,was investigating, prosecuting,and adjudicating the case,and as such the City Council could not serve as an impartial tribunal. In support, VLS quotes the rule as stated in Golden Day that"no employee involved in investigating or prosecuting a case may participate as an adjudicator." (Golden Day, supra, 83 Cal.App.4th at p. 709.) The City i
6 r
responds that VLS does not set forth any facts establishing bias by a member of the City Council; and further that city staff advocated for debarment, while the City Council acted as the decision maker—which involved separate divisions of the City.
"It is well established that a party is not denied an impartial adjudicator merely because an administrative entity performs both the functions of prosecutor and judge." (Southern Cal.

Underground, supra, 108 Cal.AppAth at p. 549.) Moreover, where" 'an administrative body has a duty to act,and is the only entity capable of acting, the fact that the body may have an interest in the result,does not disqualify it from acting. The rule of necessity precludes a claim of bias from the structure of the process.' f Citation.]" (1d. at p. 550.) VLS next argues that its cross-complaint against the City implicates a potential bias by the City Council. A similar issue was raised and rejected in Southern Cal. Underground, where the appellant claimed the city was a biased decision maker, because it had been named as a defendant in a multimillion-dollar lawsuit filed by the appellant. In rejecting the argument,the court reasoned that because the individual city council members were not named as defendants in the lawsuit,they lacked any personal pecuniary interest in the outcome of the case. (Southern Cal.

Underground, supra, 108 Cal.AppAth at p. 549.) Similarly, none of the council members are individually named in VLS' cross-complaint.

The Court finds VLS has failed to show any bias by the City, or its council members. The writ on this ground is denied.

ORDER (TENTATIVE)
The writ of mandate is granted. Resolution No. R-2020-094 of the Pismo Beach City Council is ordered set aside. Withi ays of the date of this order,the City is directed to hold a new hearing that complies with the due process requirements outlined in this order. VLS shall serve notice of the order.
7 1 PROOF OF SERVICE
2 V.Lopez Jr. & Sons General Engineering Contractors, Inc.v. The City of Pismo Beach Case No. 20CV-0652
3 STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
4 At the time of service, I was over 18 years of age and not a party to this action. I am 5 employed in the County of Los Angeles, State of California. My business address is 301 North Lake Avenue, 7th Floor, Pasadena, CA 91101-1807.
6 On June 24, 2022, 1 served the following document(s) described as NOTICE OF 7 RULING on the interested parties in this action by placing thereof enclosed in sealed envelopes addressed as follows:
8 SEE ATTACHED SERVICE LIST
I 9
BY E-MAIL: I caused a copy of the document(s)to be sent from e-mail address 10 [email protected] to the persons at the e-mail addresses listed in the Service List. I did not receive, within a reasonable time after the transmission, any electronic message or other z
11 indication that the transmission was unsuccessful. x 12 1 declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the ¢ ¢ o foregoing is true and correct.
13 d` Executed on June 24, 2022, at Pasadena, California.

Q z �'ow 14
`d'0 15d _
Qz 16 Alex Blanco
x w 17
z 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
1391587.1 PJW 7568.002 3

NOTICE OF RULING

I SERVICE LIST
V.Lopez Jr. & Sons General Engineering Contractors, Inc. v. The City of Pismo Beach 2 Case No. 20CV-0652
3 T. Peter Pierce, Esq. Attorneys for City of Pismo Beach Richards, Watson & Gershon
4 One Sansome Street, Suite 2850
San Francisco, Californi94104
5 Tel: (415)421-8484
6 Email: vviercearwalaw.com
I
7 8
9 10
z 11
w C' 12
woo
a 13
z
� � w ; 14
zwao
15 QQQ � w�
z z�� 16
x > �� 17
w_
Z 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
1391587.1 PJW 7568.002 4

NOTICE OF RULING

EXHIBIT B

RESOLUTION NO. R-2022-074

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PIS MO BEACH, CALIFORNIA RESCINDING RESOLUTION R-2020-094 AND SETTING A HEARING ON DECEMBER 20, 2022 TO CONSIDER DECLARING V. LOPEZ JR. & SONS GENERAL ENGINEERING CONTRACTORS, INC. A NON-RESPONSIBLE BIDDER

IN THE EVENT THE PARTIES ARE UNABLE TO RESOLVE THE MATTER BEFORE

THAT DATE
WHEREAS, on December 19, 2017 V. Lopez Jr. & Sons General Engineering Contractors, Inc. (V. Lopez) was awarded a contract in the amount of$2,901,486 for the Five Cities Lift Station and Lift Station Maintenance Projects; and WHEREAS, several significant issues were encountered with V. Lopez's project understanding and public works competence over the course of the project; and WHEREAS, on November 17, 2020, the City Council conducted a hearing at which time staff and V. Lopez presented testimony and evidence regarding the project; and WHEREAS, following the November 17, 2020 hearing, the City Council adopted Resolution R-2020-094 finding V. Lopez to be a non-responsible bidder and imposing a five-year bar against V. Lopez bidding on City of Pismo Beach public works projects; and WHEREAS, V. Lopez filed suit to overturn Resolution R-2020-094 alleging, among other issues, that it had insufficient time to prepare for the November 17, 2020 meeting; and WHEREAS, on June 24, 2022, the Superior Court of San Luis Obispo County ordered R- 2020-094 to be set aside, and further ordered that the City conduct a new hearing to consider declaring V. Lopez to be a non-responsible bidder.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Pismo Beach hereby rescinds Resolution R-2020-094 effective June 24, 2022, and sets a hearing on December 20, 2022 to consider declaring V. Lopez to be a non-responsible bidder, in the event the parties are unable to resolve the matter prior to that date.

UPON MOTION OF Mayor Waage, seconded by Council Member Blake, the foregoing resolution was adopted by the City Council of the City of Pismo Beach this 16 th day of August 2022, by the following vote:

AYES: 5 Waage, Blake, Guthrie, Newton Reiss
NOES: 0
ABSENT: 0
ABSTAIN: 0
RECUSED: 0
PAGE 1 OF 2
R-2022-074

Approved: Attest.

Ed Wa6be, Maii6 .,_...._.._...� ric ,l e " d, pity clerk n
4 I
PAGE 2OF2
2022- 7

1 PROOF OF SERVICE
2 V. Lopez Jr. & Sons General Engineering Contractors v. City of Pismo Beach Case No.: 20CV-0652
3 4 I, Robin Hale, declare:
5 I am a resident of the State of California and over the age of eighteen years and not a party 6 to the within action. My business address is One Sansome Street, Suite 2850, San Francisco, CA, 94104. On November 8, 2021, I served the within document(s) described as:
7 JOINT STIPULATION RE: MEDIATION AND EXTENDING TIME FOR CITY OF 8 PISMO BEACH TO HOLD ANY REMAND HEARING; PROPOSED ORDER 9 on the interested parties in this action as stated below:
10 John D. Darling, Esq. Attorney for Plaintiff
11 Patricia J. Wolfe, Esq. V. Lopez Jr. &Sons General Engineering 00 Hunt, Ortmann, Palffy,Nieves, Darling Contractors, Inc. na 12 &Mah
W o 301 North Lake Avenue, 7th Floor
Z o 13 Pasadena, CA 91101
o Tel: 626.440.5200
14 darlingghuntortmann.com
3 a wolfeghuntortmann.com
og 15
= Z 16
Qx❑ (BY MAIL) By placing a true copy of the foregoing document(s) in a sealed envelope 17 addressed as set forth above. I placed each such envelope for collection and mailing \ following ordinary business practices. I am readily familiar with this Firm's practice for 18 collection and processing of correspondence for mailing. Under that practice,the correspondence would be deposited with the United States Postal Service on that same day, 19 with postage thereon fully prepaid at San Francisco, California, in the ordinary course of business. I am aware that on motion of the party served, service is presumed invalid if 20 postal cancellation date or postage meter date is more than one day after date of deposit for mailing in affidavit.
21 ❑ BY E-MAIL OR ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION) I caused a copy of the document(s)to 22 be sent from e-mail address rhalegrwglaw.com to the persons at the e-mail addresses on the Service List. I did not receive, within a reasonable time after the transmission, any 23 electronic message or other indication that the transmission was unsuccessful. 24 Executed on November 8, 2021, at San Francisco, California. 25 26 '
Robin Hale
27 28

PROOF OF SERVICE

Exhibit D

L�SY©�

PISMO BEACH COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
° Agenda Item #11.8
SUBJECT/TITLE:

DECLARATION OF NON-RESPONSIBLE BIDDER: V. LOPEZ JR. & SONS, INC.

RECOMMENDATION:

Adopt a Resolution declaring V. Lopez Jr. &Sons, Inc. a non-responsible bidder thereby disqualifying them from performing future work for the City of Pismo Beach for a period of five years.

BACKGROUND:

The Five Cities Lift Station and Lift Station Maintenance Project consisted of replacing the Five Cities Lift Station, performing maintenance on six lift stations, and various other repairs to the wastewater collection system. A full project description can be found in the December 19, 2017 staff report for the award of the project and is included as Attachment 2. The basis of award was the total price of the base bid for both the Five Cities Lift Station and Lift Station Maintenance portions of the project, plus Bid Alternates 1 through 6 for the Lift Station Maintenance portion of the project. The Project was put out to bid on August 24, 2017, and bids were opened on November 2, 2017. The City received five bids ranging from $3,046,203 to $4,793,117. The apparent low bidder was V. Lopez Jr. & Sons (V. Lopez) in the amount of$3,046,203. The contract was awarded for the base bid for both portions of the project, and Bid Alternates 1, 3, 4, and 6 for the Lift Station Maintenance portion of the project in the amount of$2,901,486.

Construction for the project commenced on February 2, 2018 and based on the 300-day contract time had a completion date of April 15, 2019. The extended date of completion for the project, including additional days because of change orders and other unforeseen circumstances, was March 17, 2020. Substantial completion for the project was reached on June 22, 2020, 69 days after the contract end date, and in accordance with the executed construction agreement, the City withheld liquidated damages in the amount of $69,000 ($1,000 per day).

Facts Supporting Declaration of a Non-responsible Bidder Issues encountered with V. Lopez over the course of the project included the following:

Issue Number 1: V. Lopez consistently initiated work items without proper planning prior to beginning the work. The lack of planning meant V. Lopez often started work items without the necessary materials, equipment, or tools required to complete the work. This lack of planning often required City intervention to help complete the work or to protect public health and safety. Other times, the City lost use of facilities while waiting for materials to complete the work. These incidents also extended the schedule unnecessarily and meant V. Lopez could not complete the project on schedule, preventing the City from taking beneficial use of the facilities and resulted in increased costs to the City in project management and inspection fees which are EXHIBIT �
Council Agenda 11-17-2020 Regular Cj 11.13-1 " 11

outlined in the fiscal impact section of this report. Some instances where V. Lopez demonstrated this lack of planning include:

Spyglass Park Excavation. V. Lopez excavated a large hole at Spyglass Park adjacent to the lift station, without the parts required to complete the work. This prevented the City from using portions of the park for at least 14 weeks. This park rents out for $25 per hour and average rental income is approximately $300 per month. Work at this site was not completed for 6 months. o On September 25, 2018 V. Lopez opened an excavation at Spyglass Park measuring approximately 20 feet by 40 feet to perform planned piping modifications. V. Lopez did not have the fittings on hand that were required to perform the piping modifications, and later City staff learned that some of the required fittings had not even been ordered at the time excavation was begun. The fittings were not unusual, and V. Lopez knew ahead of time what fittings were required to perform the work. To protect public health and safety, the City directed V. Lopez to provide temporary fencing around the excavation. It was anticipated that this area of the park would be closed for a short period of time, however the area was closed off for approximately 14 weeks, affecting park rentals and site safety. On January 2, 2019, the excavation was temporarily backfilled since the fittings had not arrived in a reasonable time. The site was re-excavated in late March 2019 to complete the piping modifications, 6 months after the work was begun.
• Use of City Vactor Truck. V. Lopez initiated bypass pumping but did not have adequate back-up pumping to prevent a sanitary sewer system overflow. The City used City equipment and personnel to provide additional backup pumping to prevent a sewer overflow.
o On multiple occasions throughout the course of the project for both the Five Cities and Lift Station Maintenance portions of the project, the City wastewater division had to provide staff assistance and deploy the City's vactor truck to assist V. Lopez to mitigate the threat of a potential spill, which resulted in staff overtime and prevented the wastewater operators from completing their normally assigned daily duties. Use of the vactor truck carries an hourly rate of $180, requires a minimum of two staff members with specific training to operate at an average hourly rate of $48, and is a piece of equipment included on regular rotational maintenance for all of the City's lift stations. V. Lopez did not enact the approved backup plan to prevent a spill during construction operations.

V. Lopez was back-charged for one of these events, but not all of them.

Staff estimates deployment of the City vactor truck at least five times throughout the course of the project, with an estimated total cost of $1,500 to $2,000.

Council Agenda 11-17-2020 Regular 11.13-2

• Drilled a circular hole for a square grate and sump. During construction of the Five Cites Lift Station, V. Lopez drilled a circular hole in the bottom of the precast concrete valve vault to fit a square concrete sump and grate without prior consideration for how the installation would be completed or waterproofed.

Improper installation of the sump would lead to the valve vault being flooded with groundwater, increasing sewage pumping costs, and reducing pump station reliability and downstream sewer infrastructure capacity. The City was able to prepare a detail showing how to install and waterproof the sump considering that V. Lopez had already drilled a circular hole for the sump. o Plan details call for an 18-in square sump to be installed in the bottom of the concrete valve vault to direct incidental water (i.e. minor leaks in the roof, or from water used to clean the site) into the lift station for pumping back to the wastewater treatment plant. The sump is connected to the wet well through a 4-in diameter drain line. As is typical, the plans do not specify the means or methods to be used to create the sump or install the grate but do require the installed grate and sump to function properly. When such a detail is unclear to a contractor, the normal process is to submit a Request for Clarification (RFC) prior to initiating the work. Instead on March 19, 2019, V. Lopez drilled a hole in the bottom of the sump, then asked for a detail to allow for a functional waterproof installation. The City was able to prepare a design detail for installation of the square sump in the round hole, however this resulted in additional time and costs to the City. Proper planning would have identified the need for this sump and incorporated it into the precast vault or sought clarification for the intended installation prior to ordering materials or drilling a hole in the concrete vault.
• Lack of equipment and labor to properly perform bypass pumping. V. Lopez and its subcontractor did not have adequate equipment or labor to safely bypass the Sunset Palisades Lift Station. The flow-through plug system leaked multiple times, allowed sewage to build up in the lift station, and required City personnel to monitor the lift station and assist with bypass using City resources, again resulting in overtime and preventing wastewater operators from completing their normally-assigned daily duties. Without City intervention, the lift station could have overflowed. City efforts to assist V. Lopez at this lift station resulted in City wastewater operators not being unable to perform their required daily tasks. The difficulty with the bypass system also extended the project schedule, resulting in additional costs to the City in project management and inspection fees.
o In late May 2019, V. Lopez initiated rehabilitation of the Sunset Palisades Lift Station by installing the bypass pumping system.

However, the bypass system experienced leaks in the fittings and in the plugs. City staff assisted V. Lopez with pumping the wet well down, monitoring the system, and providing guidance to get the bypass system functioning. The problems with the bypass system meant that it took Council Agenda 11-17-2020 Regular 11.13-3

several days longer to coat the wet well than planned and required the City to keep a presence on the site in order to respond to issues, again resulting in a lack of productivity for City wastewater operators. These events took place in late May 2019 and required up to two sewer staff onsite off and on for up to a half day over the several days. with an estimated total cost of$1,500 to $2,000
Issue Number 2: V. Lopez demonstrated a general lack of understanding of municipal sewage pump station practice and materials. The lack of understanding meant that V.

Lopez often interpreted the plans or specifications unconventionally. V. Lopez's interpretations resulted in additional cost to the City as the City strove to keep the project moving. V. Lopez's interpretations also extended the project duration significantly resulting in additional costs to the City in project management and inspection fees. Some instances where V. Lopez demonstrated this lack of understanding include:

Misinterpretation of duplex pump station meaning. A cross section of one of the existing duplex lift stations (meaning a lift station with two pumps) which required replacement of valves, and other work, only showed one pump and one set of valves (which is typical of a cross section), and relied on the mandatory site visit, description of the lift station, and municipal pump station conventions to convey the count of the valves to be replaced. V. Lopez insisted that since only one pump and valve configuration was depicted, a contract change order was required to install two sets of valves. o V. Lopez interpreted the project plans for the improvements in the dry well at the Spyglass Lift Station to include replacement of only one set of the existing plug valves with the reasoning that "the picture" suggested that there was only one set of plug valves (one pump) in the drywell. The notes on the plans clearly show that there are two pumps in the drywell for a total of four plug valves to be replaced. It is rare for a municipal lift station to include only one pump, since there will not be a backup available in the event one pump fails. In an effort to keep the project moving forward, V. Lopez was compensated for the cost of replacing the other two additional plug valves through a contract change order. This occurred in September 2018.

Poor pump control panel assumptions. The contract, consistent with public contracting protocol and general construction practice, includes a method for the Contractor to seek clarification on issues or perceived conflicts in the Contract Documents. The Contractor can submit Requests for Information or Requests for Clarifications (RFI or RFC) to ask questions about aspects of the design that are not clear. Instead of submitting an RFC for the pump station control panel, V. Lopez fabricated the control panel and installed it using faulty assumptions about pump control. The assumptions used by V. Lopez were not Council Agenda 11-17-2020 Regular 11,113-4

consistent with general lift station practice, or with the other work being performed as part of this contract.
o Section 33 32 19 2.4.E of the technical specifications for the Five Cities Lift Station project addresses general pump station controls operations.

Within 2.4.E, there are two paragraphs that appear to be in conflict regarding how the floats are to operate if the PLC (programmable logic controller) is down. The PLC is intended to operate the pumps based on input from the submersible level sensing transducer with backup operation from the mechanical float switches. Rather than submitting an RFI or RFC, V. Lopez, its subcontractors, and suppliers moved forward with fabrication and installation of the control panel based on a loose interpretation of one section of the specifications, without consideration of other paragraphs in the same section. Furthermore, the interpretation—that there would be no independent float back up—is an unconventional way of controlling the pumps for a critical asset like a sewage lift station. V. Lopez's abnormal assumption and failure to submit an RFC meant the project experienced additional delays and inefficiencies, again resulting in additional project management and inspection costs to the City. The City executed a change order with V.

Lopez on April 20, 2020 for costs($50,214.75)and 47 additional working days to modify the incorrect installation that V. Lopez had already completed, and complete the configuration in accordance with the project specifications and the wastewater division's standard practices. • Lack of Understanding of PG&E Standards. PG&E standards for new services have a series of details for residential or commercial services based on the size of the service (for instance, this project was directed to use a detail for a commercial service rated at 201-400 amps). The main breaker for this project is sized at 225 amps. V. Lopez ordered parts and materials to install a 225-amp residential service and attempted to negotiate acceptance of that service through correspondence with the PG&E representative. The City eventually issued V. Lopez a change order to install the correct panel. It took significant effort by the City to negotiate the correct requirements with V. Lopez and clarify the project needs with PG&E.
o V. Lopez interpreted the electrical portion of the project plans and specifications to call for a new 225-amp residential electrical panel to replace the existing 200-amp electrical panel at the Five Cities Lift Station, when the handout package issued directly from PG&E for the service relocation called for a 201-400 amp commercial service. In addition, the plans and specifications placed all responsibility of the electrical service relocation on the Contractor as well as communicating/confirming PG&E requirements for the service relocation. The City executed a change order on July 22, 2019 for costs Council Agenda 11-17-2020 Regular 11.113-5

($2,283) and 20 additional working days to maintain progress on the project since the electrical work was on the critical path and V. Lopez was refusing to work. This extension resulted in additional project management and inspection fees to the City.
• Demonstrated unfamiliarity with pump elbow flange installation. V. Lopez failed to understand that the provided pump elbow flange was designed to mate different pipe materials and stated that mating the pump elbow flange to the stainless-steel riser pipe flange would lead to cracking and failure. The pump vendor and the engineer stated that it should be installed as designed. V. Lopez discussed not meeting warranty for that work, requiring the pump manufacturer to issue a statement (in addition to the statement in the O&M manual) that the installation was acceptable. When comparing this concern with prior decisions which resulted in delays and extra costs for the project, the Contractor's lack of understanding of municipal pump stations became more apparent. o V. Lopez issued RFI #18 on March 12, 2019 for the Five Cities Lift Station project, noting that the pump discharge elbow was a raised face class 150 ANSI flange that would not mate to a class 125 ductile iron flange. The pump elbow flange is not a raised face class 150 ANSI pattern but is compatible with ductile iron flange patterns and faces as well as the provided stainless steel flange. The O&M manual and installation instructions from the pump manufacturer are clear on this fact. While V. Lopez is right to be concerned about flange mating, it continued to express doubt as to the suitability of the configuration, which is not consistent with the lack of pursuing additional information (RFI or RFC) on other aspects of the project as discussed above and below. This demonstrated V. Lopez's limited knowledge of building pump stations with control panels as a pipeline contractor. If the engineer and pump manufacturer hadn't been able to address this concern, V. Lopez may have installed a different type of flange on the elbow, which could have caused cracking, leaking or corrosion.

Issue Number 3: V. Lopez demonstrated a lack of understanding of public works process. This lack of understanding is reflected in the numerous instances where V.

Lopez did not issue proactive RFIs or RFCs (see Issues 1 and 2 for examples) and it also shows in V. Lopez's approach to managing potential change orders and the project schedule. This lack of understanding has increased the projects schedule, added cost to the project, and has resulted in assessment of liquidated damages.

Some examples of this issue are shown below:
• Failure to request compensatory days when submitting change order requests.

V. Lopez consistently submitted change order requests without a request for additional days, and the City consistently returned the change order request with the inclusion of days based on discussions with V. Lopez. The City has Council Agenda 11-17-2020 Regular 11.113-6

been generous with V. Lopez when it comes to adding contract days when they are requested and reasonable. The City has sought to help V. Lopez succeed on this project. By not including an identified amount of working days in its request, V. Lopez has caused the City to have to spend additional time reviewing each change order request and discussing addition of days with V.

Lopez. The City could have allowed the days requested to remain at 0, which would have increased the liquidated damages that V. Lopez is exposed to. o On multiple occasions throughout the project, V. Lopez has provided change order proposals with a proposed cost increase but no request for additional working days. V. Lopez was informed multiple times by City staff that its change order proposal should include a proposed cost and additional working days to complete the additional work. During the beginning of the project, City staff, although not obligated to do so, totaled the labor hours included on the change order proposal and provided an equivalent amount of additional working days in an effort to maintain progress on the project. The change order form includes the following disclaimer:
aThe amount and time provided in this contract change order are a full and final accord and satisfaction of all costs and time directly and indirectly related and all other claims related hereto are hereby waived. The Contractor has reviewed the plans and specifications related to this change order and all changes thereto are accounted for..."
• Submitted a claim for extra working days after rinalizing change orders. V.

Lopez submitted a request for 120 working days in January 2020 citing that it did not receive adequate compensation for submitted change orders. V. Lopez submitted this claim despite the disclaimer on each change order stating that, "The amount and time provided in this contract change order are a full and final accord and satisfaction of all costs and time..." The tactic of going back and seeking additional compensation for fully executed change orders is also inconsistent with the Contract Documents and California Public Contracting Code. This claim required City effort to refute, and distracted the Contractor from pursuing strategies to accelerate the schedule.
o V. Lopez submitted a letter on January 7, 2020 seeking 120 working days based on needing additional days for each executed change order.

V. Lopez also made claims that limiting sections of the Contract Documents did not apply because its delay claim "declares void any arguably exculpatory contract clauses..." The City Attorney responded to this claim, although V. Lopez has insisted on this and since submitting this letter, V. Lopez has refused to sign working day statements or contract change orders with the stated contract days.

Council Agenda 11-17-2020 Regular 11.B-7

• Failed to accelerate work effort to recover the project schedule. V. Lopez made limited efforts to accelerate the project schedule even when notified that its scheduled completion date would expose it to liquidated damages. The Contract Documents include provisions for assessing liquidated damages of $1,000 per day. V. Lopez was asked to provide a recovery schedule at routine progress meetings. V. Lopez did not supply a recovery schedule until October 31, 2019 despite being noticed in June 2019 that its current schedule would result in the City assessing liquidated damages. The "recovery schedule" showed no acceleration of work effort and just updated the dates of the work.

V. Lopez was encouraged to add an additional crew, or work on multiple fronts, or otherwise accelerate the pace of work regularly. By not accelerating work or otherwise attempting to recover time lost from poor planning, lack of equipment, or insufficient materials, V. Lopez extended the project schedule costing the City additional money to manage the contract, project management and inspection fees, keep the old lift stations in operation using our own parts, equipment and personnel, and observe the work being performed.

The project experienced significant delays and resulted in the City extending the Contract time 159 days past the 300-day contract time, to a total of 459 days. The extra days were awarded to V. Lopez for a variety of reasons including change order requests, weather delays, issues with SCADA integration, etc. V. Lopez provided 2-week look-ahead schedules at each progress meeting, but was inconsistent with updating the overall project schedule, and went several months between updates. V. Lopez also built the schedule linearly creating a single-track critical path. When it became apparent V. Lopez was not going to complete the project on-time,V. Lopez made no effort to perform multiple tasks or otherwise recover the project schedule. This resulted in the City assessing V.

Lopez 69 days of liquidated damages for a total of$69,000.

Conclusion and Recommendation
Given the number and severity of the issues outlined in this report staff recommends that the City Council adopt a Resolution (Attachment 1) declaring V. Lopez and Sons as a non-responsible bidder thereby disqualifying them from performing future work for the City of Pismo Beach for a period of five years.

FISCAL IMPACT:

There is no direct fiscal impact from this action, however this action will result in the City being able to disqualify V. Lopez from future projects. The total approximate financial loss to the City as a direct result of V. Lopez is $323,437.75 comprised of the following:

Construction Management Amendment#1 $69,900.00 Construction Management Amendment#2 $49,000.00
Construction Management Amendment#3 $69,645.00
Additional Engineering Services During Construction Amendment#7 $15,395.00 CCO #21' - 20 working days plus $2,283 additional costs $22,283.00 CCO #262 - 47 working days plus $50,214.75 additional costs $97,214.75 Total loss $323,437.75
Council Agenda 11-17-2020 Regular 11.B-8

The total loss outlined above does not include City staff time or equipment costs. The City is also withholding $69,000 in liquidated damages from the contractor's retention. 'CCO#21 - $22,283 (20 working days @$1,000 per day ($20,000) and $2,283 additional cost): See discussion in the section labeled "Lack of Understanding of PG&E Standards" within the staff report. This change order was issued for the change to a 400-amp panel and the City was not ultimately obligated to issue this change order, but it was issued to maintain progress on the project and the electrical item was on the critical path. 2CCO #26 - $97,214.75 (47 working days @$1,000 per day ($47,000) and $50,214.75 additional cost): See discussion in the section labeled "Poor Pump Control Panel Assumptions" within the staff report. This change order was another that the City was not obligated to issue but did so, to maintain progress and the work was critical to getting the project completed.

ALTERNATIVES:

1. Do not declare V. Lopez and Sons as a non-responsible bidder.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Resolution

2. December 19, 2017 staff report
Prepared by: Meeting Date: November 17, 2020
Chad Stoehr, P.E., Engineer
Submitted by: Benjamin A. Fine, P.E., Director of Public Works/City Engineer City Manager Approval:

Council Agenda 11-17-2020 Regular 11.113-9

Attachment 1
RESOLUTION NO. R-2020-XXX

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PISMO BEACH, CALIFORNIA DECLARING V. LOPEZ JR. & SONS, INC. A NON-RESPONSIBLE

BIDDER THEREBY DISQUALIFYING THEM FROM PERFORMING FUTURE WORK

FOR THE CITY OF PISMO BEACH FOR A PERIOD OF FIVE YEARS
WHEREAS, on December 19, 2017 V. Lopez Jr. & Sons (V. Lopez) was awarded a contract in the amount of $2,901,486 for the Five Cities Lift Station and Lift Station Maintenance Projects; and
WHEREAS, several significant issues were encountered with V. Lopez's project understanding and public works competence over the course of the project; and WHEREAS, the project experienced significant delays and resulted in the City extending the contract time 159 days past the 300-day contract time to a total of 459 days; and WHEREAS, V. Lopez completed the work 69 days past the contract time, for which the City withheld 69 days of liquidated damages for a total of$69,000; and WHEREAS, the total approximate financial loss to the City as a direct result of V. Lopez is $322,500.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Pismo Beach hereby declares V. Lopez Jr. and Sons as a non-responsible bidder, thereby disqualifying them from performing future work for the City of Pismo Beach for a period of five years from the date of this action.

UPON MOTION OF Council Member , seconded by Council Member , the foregoing resolution was adopted by the City Council of the City of Pismo Beach this 17t' day of November 2020, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

RECUSED:

Approved: Attest:

Ed Waage, Mayor Erica Inderlied, City Clerk
Council Agenda 11-17-2020 Regular 11.13-10

Attachment 2
December 19, 2017 Staff Report
L�SY Ofi

PISMO BEACH COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Agenda Item#8.G
SUBJECTITITLE:

AWARD OF CONTRACT FOR FIVE CITIES DRIVE LIFT STATION AND LIFT STATION

MAINTENANCE PROJECTS
RECOMMENDATION:

1. Adopt a Resolution awarding a contract to V. Lopez Jr. & Sons in the amount of $2,901,486 for the Five Cities Drive Lift Station and Lift Station Maintenance projects and appropriating various funds and related transfers between funds to support the projects.

2. Adopt a Resolution authorizing the expenditure of funds from the Wastewater Enterprise Funds and the reimbursement of those funds from the State Water Resources Control Board project funds for the Five Cities Lift Station Replacement Project.

BACKGROUND:

Five Cities Lift Station
The existing Five Cities Lift Station was constructed in 1962 and upgraded in 1973. During recent evaluations and preliminary engineering studies performed with assistance from outside consultants, it was determined that the existing Five Cities Lift Station is nearing the end of its useful life and is unable to deliver future buildout flows. The new Five Cities Lift Station and forcemain will be more reliable, energy efficient and capable of handling future flow increases. Improvements to the lift station include:
• Construction of a new eight-foot diameter, 19-foot-deep concrete wet well lift station
• Installation of two new Wemco Hidrostal pumps
• Construction of 2,300 lineal feet of eight-inch forcemain pipe,a new Cypress Street Bridge crossing, and reconnect/reconfigure several private forcemain pipes Lift Station Maintenance
The City operates twelve lift stations as part of the sewer collection system that direct all sewage to the Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) which serves the needs of citizens and visitors of Pismo Beach. Recent evaluations performed with assistance from an outside consultant identified six lift stations in need of maintenance and improvements to maintain their operating efficiency and prevent failure.A group of manholes on the sewer trunk main off of Corralitos Road behind City Hall were also identified as needing replacement(Bid Alternate 6). Improvements to the lift stations would increase longevity, maintain operating efficiency and include:

Council Agenda 12-19-2017 8.G-1
Council Agenda 11-17-2020 Regular 11.B-11

Attachment 2
December 19, 2017 Staff Report
• Bid Alternate 4—Vista del Mar(electrical improvements and recoating) • Base Bid — Spyglass (electrical improvements, recoating and new generator and building)
■ Bid Alternate 3—Sunset Palisades(electrical improvements,recoating and bypass modifications)
- Bid Alternate 1 —Freeway Foothills(electrical improvements, recoating, new piping and valves)
+ Bid Alternate 5 — PG&E (electrical improvements, recoating, install bypass connection)
Bid Alternate 2—Addie Street(replace sluice gates and piping) The Lift Station Maintenance project was put out to bid in July 2016 however no bids were received. Staff re-bid the project in conjunction with the Five Cities Lift Station Project on August 24,2017. Five bids were received for both projects on November 2, 2017 ranging in amount from $3,046,203 to $4,793,117. The apparent low bidder was V. Lopez Jr. & Sons with a bid of$3,046,203 (bid results provided for reference as Attachment 3). Staff has verified their references and qualifications, and recommends the Council adopt a Resolution (Attachment 1) awarding a contract to V. Lopez Jr. & Sons in the amount of $2,901,486 to complete the project, which includes the Base Bid for the Five Cities Lift Station Project, the Base Bid and Bid Alternates 1, 3, 4 and 6 for the Lift Station Maintenance Project and authorizing necessary funding. !dote that the total bid amount was $3,046,203 and City staff recommends not awarding Bid Alternates 2 and 5 for the Lift Station Maintenance Project based on available resources and other matters.

FISCAL IMPACT:

Five Cities Lift Station Project
Background
In Fiscal Year 2015, the City Council appropriated$1,500,000 in bond proceed revenues and corresponding capital project expenditures to support the Five Cities Lift Station project. The City Council also sought authority to borrow up to $1,960,800 in State Revolving Fund (SRF) loan proceeds in the event that costs increase over time. The Clean Water State Revolving Fund (CWSRF) with the California State Water Resources Control Board (CSWRCB) agreed to provide the City with the requested $1,960,800 to be paid back over 30 years with a low 1.7% interest rate per year debt service payment.

As part of this agreement, the City has obtained $700,000 in principal forgiveness for the Five Cities Lift Station Project through the State administered Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) funded Green Project Reserve program based on energy savings, contingent on available funds from the EPA. This means that the City's Wastewater Enterprise Fund would receive up to$1,960,800 of principal for the project, but only have to pay debt service for the next 30 years based on $1,260,800 ($1,960,800-$700,000 = $1,260,800). The debt service (principal and interest) payments over the 30 years is approximately$55 thousand per year.

Council Agenda 12-19-2017 8.G-2
Council Agenda 11-17-2020 Regular 113-12

Attachment 2
December 19, 2017 Staff Report
Project Cost
As a result of the most recent bid for this project,the total estimated cost of the project is $2,921,327.57.

Budget vs. Actuals
Based on the currently approved City Wastewater Enterprise Fund budget of $1,474,971.33 and the updated project cost of $2,921,327.57, the resulting budget shortfall is$1,446,356.24.

Available Budget
Five Cities Lift Station _ $1,474,971.33
Total Budgeted Funds $1,474,971.33
Project Costs
Construction Cost(V.Lopez Jr. &Sons, Inc.) $2,203,554.00 Construction Management(CM) Services (WSC) $155,803.00 ESDC (WSC, Inc. and Carollo Engineers) $53,023.00 Value Engineering/Peer Review(MKN Associates) $8,750.00 PG&E Service Fees $17,721.57
Contingency (20% of Construction. CM, ESDC) $482,476.00 Total Costs $2,921,327.57
Budget Shortfall (A) $(1,446,356.24)
Closing the Budget Shortfall
In order to close the budget shortfall, staff proposes two methods. First, as the original Five Cities Lift Station project budget was $1,500,000 and the SRF award was $1,960,800, the City still could budget another $460,800 ($1,960,800 SRF award - $1,500,000 budget=$460,800)with full SRF support.

Additional SRF Funding Capacity (not yet budgeted) (B) $460,800.00 Staff has submitted a Final Budget Approval Form to the C;SWRC:13 with updated costs based on the actual bid received for construction from V. Lopez Jr. & Sons, construction management services and engineering services during construction (ESDC), PG&E fees, contingency of 20%, and peer review services performed for the project. The CSWRCB is in the process of reviewing and likely approving the Final Budget Approval Form. The additional loan amount that the City is requesting from the CSWRCB is $986,504 of additional project funding to support the project. Staff submitted this form to CSWRCB on November 30, 2017 and CSWRCB staff expressed that it is highly likely that the full amount will be approved. However, CSWRCB staff say it will likely take 6 weeks (or more due to the holidays)to approve the additional requested amount.

As the Five Cities Lift Station is nearing the end of its useful life and in desperate need for immediate repair,the current lowest qualified bidder V.Lopez Jr.&Sons, Inc. provided a bid that is good for 60 days as of November 2, 2017, the current bidding market is Council Agenda 12-19-2017 8.G-3
Council Agenda 11-17-2020 Regular 11.113-13

Attachment 2
December 19, 2017 Staff Report
volatile and the City may be worse off financially if the City does not move forward with the current bids(the vendor could decide to seek another opportunity), and City staff have identified other Wastewater Expansion Fund monies that could support the project in the unlikely event that the additional $986,504 SRF funding is not awarded, City staff recommends that Council award the contract.The following item of additional debt service capacity refers to the Wastewater Enterprise Fund's ability or capacity to pay the estimated debt service of$98 thousand per year.

Additional Debt Service Capacity (not budgeted and funds are not yet awarded by CWSRF) (C) $986,504.00
Remaining Funding (A + B+ C) $947.76
Budget Appropriations
Staff recommends that Council approve budgeting the following revenue and expenditures for the Five Cities Lift Station project, including any related transfers between funds:

Additional SRF Funding capacity $460,800
Additional Debt Service Capacity $986,504
Total additional bond proceeds and project budget $1,447,304 In the event that the additional$986,504 is not approved by the CSWRCB,staff will come back to the Council to replace the $986,504 of bond proceed revenues with other Wastewater Expansion Fund monies.

Reimbursement from the CSWRCB
On November 18, 2014, the City Council adopted Resolution No. R-2014-125, which authorizes the Wastewater Enterprise Funds and the reimbursement of those funds from the State Water Resources Control Board project funds for the Five Cities Lift Station project. At that time, the project was anticipated to be around $1.5 million and staff included in that resolution a "reasonably expected maximum principal amount' of the project to be reimbursed at$2.5 million, concluding that the project would be well under that threshold. However, as the total project is now estimated to cost $2.9 million based on actual bids, staff has prepared a resolution (Attachment 2) with an updated amount of$3.5 million.

Lift Station Maintenance Project
The Lift Station Maintenance project has $585,143.18 available and the project cost is estimated to be $864,235.90. Staff has identified two projects to deappropriate in the amount of$224,669.55 to support the difference between the available budget and the estimated project cost. In addition, staff recommends appropriating $54,424 of Wastewater Enterprise Fund networking capital (fund balance)to support the balance of the project. The following table illustrates the available budget (with the project deappropriations and fund balance appropriation) and project costs.

Council Agenda 12-19-2017 8.G-4
Council Agenda 11-17-2020 Regular 11.13-14

Attachment 2
December 19, 2017 Staff Report
Available Budget
Wastewater Lift Stations $585,143.18
Interceptor Manhole Rehabilitation $124,568.55
Hot Spot Repairs $100,101.00
Wastewater Enterprise Funds Net Working Capital (Fund Balance) $54,424.00 Total Available Funds $864,236.73
The costs for this project are as follows:

Construction Cost—Base Bid and Bid Alternates $697,932.00 1, 3, 4 and 6 (V. Lopez Jr. &Sons)
CM Services (WSC Inc.) $78,387.00
ESDC (MKN Associates) $9,350.00
Contingency(10% of Construction, CM, ESDC) $78,566.90
Total Costs $864,235.90
Budget Surplusi(Shortfall) $0
ALTERNATIVES:

1. Do not authorize staff to award a contract to V. Lopez Junior&Sons in the amount of$2,901,486 for the Five Cities Lift Station and Lift Station Maintenance Projects, and provide staff with direction on how to proceed.

2. Authorize staff to award a contract to V. Lopez Junior & Sons in the amount of $2,203,554 for the Five Cities Lift Station Project only and provide staff with direction on how to proceed with the Lift Station Maintenance Project.

3. Authorize staff to award a contract to V. Lopez Junior & Sons in the amount of $697,932 for the Lift Station Maintenance Project Base Bid and Alternates 1,3,4 and 6 only and provide staff with direction on how to proceed with the Five Cities Lift Station Project.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Resolution Awarding Contract

2. Reimbursement Resolution

3. Bid Results
Prepared by: Chad Stoehr, P.E., Engineer Meeting Date: December 19, 2017 Submitted by: Benjamin A. Fine, P.E., Director of Public Works/City Engineer City Manager Approval:

Council Agenda 12-19-2017 8.G-5
Council Agenda 11-17-2020 Regular 11.13-15

Attachment 2
December 19, 2017 Staff Report
Attachment 1
RESOLUTION NO. R-2017-XXX

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PISMO BEACH AWARDING A CONTRACT TO V. LOPEZ JR. &SONS IN THE AMOUNT OF $2,901,486 FOR THE FIVE CITIES LIFT STATION AND LIFT STATION

MAINTENANCE PROJECTS AND APPROPRIATING VARIOUS FUNDS AND

RELATED TRANSFERS BETWEEN FUNDS TO SUPPORT THE PROJECTS WHEREAS, the Five Cities Lift Station is nearing the end of its useful life and is unable to deliver future buildout flows; and
WHEREAS, the new Five Cities Lift Station and forcemain will be more reliable, energy efficient and capable of handling future flow increases; and WHEREAS, the City operates twelve lift stations as part of the sewer collection system that direct all sewage to the Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) which serves the needs of citizens and visitors of Pismo Beach; and
WHEREAS, recent evaluations performed with assistance from an outside consultant identified six lift stations in need of maintenance and improvements to maintain their operating efficiency and prevent failure; and
WHEREAS, staff advertised for construction bids for the Five Cities Lift Station Project and the Lift Station Maintenance Project as one project on August 24, 2017 and five bids were received on November 2, 2017, of which V. Lopez Junior& Sons was the apparent low bidder with a bid of$3,046,203 for the base bid and all bid alternates for both projects.

NOW,THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Pismo Beach hereby awards a contract to V. Lopez Jr. &Sons in the amount of$2,901,486 for the Five Cities Lift Station base bid and the Lift Station Maintenance Project base bid and bid alternates 1, 3, 4 and 6.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Pismo Beach hereby:
appropriates $1,447,304 in State Revolving Fund loan proceeds and corresponding project expenditures in the Wastewater Construction Fund Five Cities Lift Station project.

BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Pismo Beach hereby:
deappropriates $124,568.55 from the Wastewater Construction Fund Interceptor Manhole Rehabilitation project account; deappropriates $100,101.00 from the Wastewater Construction Fund Hot Spot Repairs project account; and appropriates $279,093.55 in the Wastewater Construction Fund Wastewater Lift Stations project account; and appropriates any related transfers between funds.

Council Agenda 12-19-2017 8.G-6
Council Agenda 11-17-2020 Regular 11.B-16

Attachment 2
December 19, 2017 Staff Report
Attachment 1
UPON MOTION OF Council Member , seconded by Council Member , the foregoing resolution was adopted by the City Council of the City of Pismo Beach this 19'h day of December 2017, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

RECUSED:

Approved: Attest:

Ed Waage, Mayor Erica Inderlied, City Clerk
Council Agenda 12-19-2017 8.G-7
Council Agenda 11-17-2020 Regular 11.13-17

Attachment 2
December 19, 2017 Staff Report
Attachment 2
RESOLUTION NO. R-2017-XXX

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PISMO BEACH

AUTHORIZING THE EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS FROM THE WASTEWATER

ENTERPRISE FUNDS AND THE REIMBURSEMENT OF THOSE FUNDS FROM THE

STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD PROJECT FUNDS FOR THE FIVE

CITIES LIFT STATION REPLACEMENT PROJECT
WHEREAS,the City Council of the City of Pismo Beach(the"Agency")desires to finance the costs of City of Pismo Beach constructing and/or reconstructing certain public facilities and improvements relating to its water and wastewater system, including certain treatment facilities, pipelines and other infrastructure, specifically the Clean Water State Revolving Fund (CWSRF) Project No. C-06-8016-110 Five Cities Lift Station Replacement Project(the"Project"); and
WHEREAS, the Agency intends to finance the construction and/or reconstruction of the Project or portions of the Project with moneys ("Project Funds") provided by the State of California, acting by and through the State Water Resources Control Board (State Water Board); and
WHEREAS, the State Water Board may fund the Project Funds with proceeds from the sale of obligations the interest upon which is excluded from gross income for federal income tax purposes(the"Obligations"), and
WHEREAS, prior to either the issuance of the Obligations or the approval by the State Water Board of the Project Funds the Agency desires to incur certain capital expenditures (the"Expenditures")with respect to the Project from available moneys of the Agency; and WHEREAS, the Agency has determined that those moneys to be advanced on and after the date hereof to pay the Expenditures are available only for a temporary period and it is necessary to reimburse the Agency for the Expenditures from the proceeds of the Obligations.

NOW, THEREFORE, THE AGENCY DOES HEREBY RESOLVE, ORDER, AND DETERMINE AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1.The Agency hereby states its intention and reasonably expects to reimburse Expenditures paid prior to the issuance of the Obligations or the approval by the State Water Board of the Project Funds.

SECTION 2. The reasonably expected maximum principal amount of the Project Funds is$3,500,000.

Council Agenda 12-19-2017 8.G-8
Council Agenda 11-17-2020 Regular 11.13-18

Attachment 2
December 19, 2017 Staff Report
Attachment 2
SECTION 3.This resolution is being adopted no later than 60 days after the date on which the Agency will expend moneys for the construction portion of the Project costs to be reimbursed with Project Funds.

SECTION 4. Each Agency expenditure will be of a type properly chargeable to a capital account under general federal income tax principles.

SECTION 5. To the best of the Agency's knowledge, this Agency is not aware of the previous adoption of official intents by the Agency that have been made as a matter of course for the purpose of reimbursing expenditures and for which tax-exempt obligations have not been issued.

SECTION 6.This resolution is adopted as official intent of the Agency in order to comply with Treasury Regulation §1.150-2 and any other regulations of the Internal Revenue Service relating to the qualification for reimbursement of Project costs.

SECTION 7. All the recitals in this Resolution are true and correct and this Agency so finds, determines and represents.

UPON MOTION OF Council Member , seconded by Council Member , the foregoing resolution was adopted by the City Council of the City of Pismo Beach this 19t" day of December 2017, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

RECUSED:

Approved: Attest:

Ed Waage, Mayor Erica Inderlied, City Clerk
Council Agenda 12-19-2017 8.G-9
Council Agenda 11-17-2020 Regular 11.B-19

Attachment
December19 2017 Staff Report
Attachment 3
/!
�� / �| ■! |� !
§ k § k k ƒ
§ ; E
! ■ � 2
# ! ! E §
\ ) k k ) §E
# # ! , ■ E .
-
$ f .
; ; § § B
§ 2 ! ■ § � i
2 � \
. E
g
� -
j
k -
In7J$Z
■s
§ �. k■ ■ � , f
A e
§
� $ 2 ■
Q § 7
| ; B § ;
I
2 § » : ■ ■ � s > .

Council Agenda 12 19 2 17 8 G-0
Council Agenda 11-7-020 Regular 11.8-0

Exhibit E

Benjamin A. P. E.

Director Public i i
Enginr
November.
item r
m
a
L-C
t

Five Cities Lift Station-
and Lift Station
Maintenance Project
• Replacement of the Five Cities Lift Station across from Pismo North Beach Campground
• 2,000 feet of sewer forcemain from the lift station to Addie Street
• Maintenance on six (6) other City sewer lift stations • various other repairs to the City sewer collection system 154 a

? � Issue #1 : V. Lopez beginningwork
without planninproper g
• V. Lopez often started work without the necessary
• Materials
• Equipment
o Tools required to complete the work
• This lack of planning often required City intervention • Help complete the work
• Protect public health and safety
• The City lost use of facilities while waiting for work to be completed • Extended the schedule unnecessarily
• V. Lopez could not complete the project on schedule
• Prevented the City from taking beneficial use of the facilities * Resulted in increased costs to the City (project management and inspection fees)
155 �

kl Y
Issue #1 : V. Lopez beginning work
without proper
• Excavated — Sept. 25, 2018
• Parts for repair not ordered '
• Area closed for 14 weeks
• Filled — Jan. 2, 2019 -
r
• Re-excavated March 2019
r
• Park rents $25/hour
• Average income $300/month
• Approximate lost rental $1,,800
956 9

- Issue #1 : V. Lopez beginning work
y
without proper
• Plan details 18-in square sump in the bottom of the PM---, concrete vault
• The plans do not specify the means or methods
• Normal process is to submit a Request for 3+ Clarification (RFC) prior to initiating the work if there is confusion ,
• On March 19, 2019, V. Lopez drilled a round hole in the bottom of the sump
r'
• Then asked for a detail to allow for a functional
waterproof installation.
• Additional time and costs to the City
• Proper planning would have identified the need for
this sump and incorporated it into the precast vault T 157 tz

t Issue #1 : groper planning
• Late May 2019, V. Lopez installed bypass pump system at Sunset Palisades Lift Station
• Bypass system leaked
• V. Lopez had no contingency plan
• City staff had to; -
• Assist V. Lopez with pumping the wet well down
• Monitor the system
• Provide guidance to get the bypass system functioning • Impacts to project
• It took several days longer to coat the wet well than planned • Required the City to keep a presence on the site in order to respond to issues
• Impacts to staff
• Regular duties
• Impact to other projects
• Backlog
158 14

� Issue #1 : V. Lopez
Work
Without proper
WORK ORDER H15= ®SAYE
Hama Awommu UrA3 Ame tore!
HalkeH6rQf 1S0 Horns 53.73 1A0 em
QT

1.50 Hours 92A9 1.00 M74 ■
Tbtd:9219.34
Equipment
name Ammmt UNts tkJtCesr lots'
W9Y091 tYamr1 1-50 Hom 100AM Z70A0 d
Tatak$270.00
Total Cost
159 15

5, ssue #2 : Lack o un er a�n- mun [cipa �! sewage pump station practice and materials
• Sept. 2018 V. Lopez interpreted plans to replace only one set of the existing plug valves
• "the picture" suggested that there was only one set of plug valves
• Notes on the plans clearly show two for a total of four plug valves.
• Municipal lift stations almost always include two pumps • Provide redundancy in case of failure
• To keep the project moving, V. Lopez was compensated for the cost of replacing the other two plug valves
160 '6

Issue #2 : Lack of understanding of ✓�. unici al g p
sewage pump station practice and materials
F
I $ f
r !�
A;C%1
Lopez misinterpreted there to be one pump in lift station despite mandatory site visit, description of the lift station and municipal pump station conventions - Spyglass Lift Station 161 17

= Issue #2 : Lack of understan din of municipal .t
g p
sewage pump station practice and materials
• The technical specifications for the Five Cities Lift Station project addresses general pump station controls operations. - • Two paragraphs appeared to be in conflict regarding how the floats are too operate if the PLC '
p (programmable logic controller}
goes down
• The PLC is intended to operate the pumps based on input - - from the submersible level sensing transducer
• Backup operation is provided by mechanical float switches. ' • Rather than submitting an RFI or RFC, V. Lopez, its
subcontractors, and suppliers moved forward with fabrication and installation of the control panel based on a loose
interpretation of one section of the specifications, without consideration of other paragraphs in the same section. 162 $

Issue #2 .: Lack of understandin of munici al g p
sewage pump station practice and materials
• Their interpretation—that there would be no independent float back up—is an unconventional way of controlling the pumps for a critical asset like a sewage lift station. '
• V. Lopez's abnormal assumption and failure to submit an RFC resulted in:
• Additional delays and inefficiencies
• Additional project management and inspection costs _ • April 20, 2020 — change order for $50,214.75 and 47 working days to: -
• Modify the incorrect installation that was completed • Complete the configuration in accordance with the project specifications and industry standard practices.
163 19

, ssue #2 : Lack of understa , ding of municipal sewage station practice and materials
• V. Lopez interpreted the electrical portion of the project plans and specifications to call for a new 225-amp residential electrical panel to replace the existing 200-amp electrical panel at the Five Cities Lift Station • PG&E handout package for the service relocation called for a 201-400 amp commercial service
• Plans and specifications placed all responsibility on the Contractor for:
• The electrical service relocation
• Communicating/confirming PG&E requirements for the service relocation • July 22, 2019 — change order for costs ($2,283) and 20 working days • Maintain progress on the project since the electrical work was on the critical path and V. Lopez was refusing to work
• Resulted in additional project management and inspection fees to the City 1" .2O

# _€ Issue #3 : V. Lopez demonstrated a lack of understa - g
:gin of Public Works
process
• Failure to request compensatory days when submitting change order requests
• Submitted a claim for extra working days after change orders had been finalized
• Failed to accelerate work effort to recover the project schedule
165 24

- 4"
d�ro
Issue #3 : V. Lopez demonstrated a hack
of understanding of Public Works
process
• Multiple times throughout the project, V. Lopez provided change order proposals
• with a proposed cost increase
• no request for additional working days
• Staff informed V. Lopez multiple times that its change order proposal should include
• proposed cost and additional working days to complete the additional work
166 'S

--------------
_.

Issue #3 : V. Lopez demonstrated a hack
of understanding of Public Works
process
• The change order form includes the following disclaimer:
• "The amount and time provided in this contract change order are a full and final accord and satisfaction of all costs and time directly and indirectly related and all other claims related hereto are hereby waived. The Contractor has reviewed the plans and specifications related to this change order and all changes thereto are accounted for..."

Claim Letter
L
• January 7, 2020 — V. Lopez submitted a letter seeking 120 working days
• Based on needing additional days for each executed change order
• Made claims that limiting sections of the Contract Documents did not apply because its delay claim "declares void any arguably exculpatory contract clauses. . ."
• The City Attorney responded to this claim, although V. Lopez has insisted on this and since submitting the letter, V. Lopez refused to sign working day statements or contract change orders with the stated contract days.
168 �

�- — _.�...-..- __
issue #3 : V. Lopez demonstrated
a " ack
f understandn of Public Works
�
process
May/.tune 2019 Staff had concerns of timeline
• June 29, 2019 staff memorialized these concerns in a letter to V. Lopez Dag, 6/29/2019
To., Butch Lopez
V.Lopez Jr.&Sons
via email
Prepared by: Adam Mande,PE
Projoat: Five Cities Lift Station Replacement/1.1ft Station Maintenance SUBJECT: PROGRESS AND SCHEDULE ASSESSMENT
Butch,
This memo is to Inform you of your progress status compared to the remaining contract time per the Weekly Statement of Working pays,The status assessment is based on current progress and schedule updates provided by V Lopez&Sams(V Loped at the lest bl-weekly meeting puly ZSJ and compared to the current Extended Date Z$of Completlon of August 23,2019.Scheduled work sequence and Items of concem are summarized helot. 169

. - - ScheduleChallenges
• The project experienced significant delays resulting in:
• The City extending the Contract time 159 days past the 300-day contract time
• 459 days total
• 153% of the original contract time
• V. Lopez provided 2-week look-ahead schedules at each progress meeting
• But was inconsistent with updating the overall project schedule • Went several months between updates
170 31

_ ScS hedule Challenges
• V. Lopez built the schedule linearly
• Creating a single-track critical path
• When it became apparent V. Lopez was not going to complete the project on-time
• No effort was made to perform multiple tasks
• Or otherwise recover the project schedule
• This resulted in the City assessing V. Lopez 69 days of liquidated damages for a total of $69.,000
171 33

Fiscal Loss
The total approximate financial loss to the City as a direct result of V. Lopez is $323,437.75 comprised of the following:

Construction Management Amendment #1 $69,900.00 Construction Management Amendment #2 $49,000.00 Construction Management Amendment #3 $69,645.00 Additional Engineering Services Amendment #7 $15,395.00 CCO #21 - additional costs $2,283.00
CCO #26 - additional costs 50 214.75
Subtotal (Direct Costs) $256,437.75
CCO #21 - 20 working days @ $1,000/day $20,000.00 CCO #26 - 47 working days @ S1,000/day47 000.00
Total loss $323,437.75
172 34

$V
Fiscal LOSS
a.

Awarded Contract $2,?901,486.00
Total Fiscal Loss 323 437.75
Project Total $3,224.,923.75
Second Lowest Bid 3 187 808.00
Amount over second low bid $37J15.75
173 35

INC .✓ Conclusion and Recommendation
• Financial loss of $323,437.75
• (does not include City Staff time or equipment costs) • City Staff time spent:
• Negatively impacted other City projects
• Prevented staff from completing normal duties
• Increased backlog
174 315

3 Conclusion and Recommendation
• Staff recommends adopting Resolution declaring V. Lopez Jr. & Sons, Inc. as a non-responsible bidder, thereby disqualifying them from performing future work for the City of Pismo Beach for a period of five years
175 37

A&A
�714711'
Dec]aratian of on-Rtspons3bl,� Bidder - V I-apes jr. & Sans, Jrtc.- Dtcm 11,B

Exhibit F

Lopez vs. Pismo Beach - Delay and Impact Analysis
Five Cities Lift Station and Maintenance
Pismo Beach, •
4�
GENERAL ENG. CONTRACTORS, INC.

MBI
I
+
4 5 I
h
Ja Ai�l��•'�.
•F �I
r � W
•.n�:rl��.�rh111iT .' •.5

Lopez vs. Pismo DelayStation
f— -n 3 y 3 C_ C_ D W O Z p �t 3 y 9 � D vi O Z O R. -n M y 9 ` n O m m p u c = = M w o ro v M W c = c ro w o ro m ez s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s

N N N N N N N N N N
m m m ao m m
Maintenance-Generator Building(Baseline) Nearly every major scope of the Project (between Maintenance-Spyglass Lift Station(Baseline) Maintenance and New Lift Station Construction) Maintenance-Manholes(Baseline) experienced significant delays to completion Maintenance-Foothills(Baseline) ranging from 8 months to well over a year Maintenance-Sunset Palisades(Baseline) • The critical path ultimately runs through Maintenance-Vista Del Mar(Baseline) testing/start-up delays in the New Lift Station New Lift Station-Force Main(Baseline) construction.

New Lift Station-Lift Station(Baseline) [ 4/1 6 Maintenance-Generator Building(As-Built) 397 CD Delay Maintenance-Spyglass Lift Station(As-Built) 5524 CD Delay Maintenance-Manholes(As-Built) 13 CD Delay
489 CD (329 WD) Delay
Maintenance-Foothills(As-Built) 242 CD Delayl Maintenance Complete — 1/9 (Maintenance Complete)
Maintenance-Sunset Palisades(As-Built) 457 CD Delay, Maintenance-Vista Del Mar(As-Built) 252 CD Delay
New Lift Station-Force Main(As-Built) 11601 CD Delay New Lift Station-Lift Station(As-Built) New Lift Station Complete — 5/4 O 384 CD (261 WD) Delay (Lift Complete)
bg > ut Z
o iA D � .i Z o D cn
O N O ro
G s _ � V
CO co co CO 'm m ao m m m n �n m y O y cs m m o 0 0 o No 0 o Na o 0

Lopez vs. Pismo Beach - Testing/Start-Up Delay Windows - Plan v. Oct 119 v. Actual C ng a 3 n re O Z v „ 3 n 9 D C o 0 1 O m 7 'a n+•� •1 = C = o AA O N a) C0 aI M N = C = CD Erry .7 �y 7 f(2 e�} t A 3 Cr I - `C f0 J J J J J i J N N N N N N N N N N i0 iO t6 IG f0 tD tD l0 tD m t0 O O O O O O O O O O • Critical path delay on the Project can be understood Testing/Start-Up(Plan -2123118 DID) 2/26 3/6 Delay to TeSUSU(163 WD) through 2 major windows:

1. Delays to beginning of Testing/Start-Up through
October 2019 (prior to CO's 25&26)

2. Delays to beginning and completion of Testing/Start- Up from October 2019 through May 2020 (Due to CO's
Through Completion (Plan -2123I18 DD} 3/7 4/16 25/26, Owner Approvals, Other Issues) Testing/Start-Up(Pre COs 25/26-Oct 19) 237 CD Delay to Start (163 WD) 10/21 10/29 Dela 124 Wpy to �SU Through Completion (Pre COs 25126-Oct 19) 10/30 12/14 242 CD Delay to Complete (166 WD) Testing/Start-Up(Actual) 421 CD (+184) Delay to Start (287 WD / +124) 4/22 5/6 Through Completion (Actual) 384 CD (-37) Delay to Complete (261 WD / -26) 5/4 O T 9 > 3 > _ co p _ Z O -n 9 > i: D rn O N N N N N
to t0 tD tD t0 tD tD to l0 to tD O O o O O p o 0

Lopez vs. PismoStation
3 L_ Y to p z v � -n y 3 c- D CA p z v c T y L_ C_ D LA O ti 7 C m A O IO L N Ci C C C N O f� L �D i II U C C C M M -G 7 co-
co II < o 7 or 7 p II -� -� N N N N N N N N N N c0 c0 c0 W W cc c0 tO is !c W W W W !O (O (O (D (D O O O p O O O O O C'Force Main-Site Prep(Baseline) . . . . . , Force Main-Potholes(Baseline) Per Lopez's CO#25 Protest(1/10/20)- If not for CO's 25 (and 26) Force Main-Force Main(Baseline) ® Testing/Start-Up was ready to begin by October 21, 2019.

Force Main-Bridge Bypass(Baseline) ® Given that the original plan contemplated a February 26, 2019 Force Main-Bridge Piping(Baseline) start date, this indicates 237 CD (163 WD)through the potential Force Main-Pressure Test(Baseline) October 21, 2019 start date must be accounted for.

Force Main-Tie-In&Connections(Baseline) The Force Main and Wet Well both completed prior to October New Lift Station-Dewatering(Baseline) 2019 with 86 CD (59 WD) and 140 CD (98 WD), respectively.

New Lift Station-Demo/Site Grading(Baseline) Several Scopes (Tie-In &Connections, Demo/Site Grading, and New Lift Station-Electrical(Baseline) Electrical Work) appear delayed up to and well beyond the New Lift Station-Wet Well(Baseline) October 2019 ready date for Testing/Start-Up.

New Lift Station-Testing/Start-up(Baseline)
New Lift Station-Closeout(Baseline)
Force Main-Site Prep(As-Built)
Force Main-Potholes(As-Built)
Force Main-Force Main(As-Built) 86 CD (59 WD) Delay to Complete Force Main Force Main-Bridge Bypass(As-Built)
Force Main-Bridge Piping(As-Built)
Force Main-Pressure Test(As-Built) '
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- - Force Main-Tie-In&Connections(As-Built) --12 Months Late by Oct-19 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------' -New Lift Station-Dewatering(As-Built) Scopes with Ongoing Delays Past Oct-19 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- New Lift Station-DemolSite Grading(As-Built) -10 Months Late by Oct-19 i
New Lift Station-Electrical(As-Built) -8 Months Late by Oct-19

L----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- New Lift Station-Wet Well(As-Built) = 140 CD (98 WD) Delay to Complete Wet Well New Lift Station-TestinglStart-up(As-Built) 237 CD (163 WD) Delay to Start Testing/Start-Up (If not for CO's 25/26) 5/4-New Lift Complete New Lift Station-Closeout(As-Built)
`. .`.3 - n - 9 D N - -O - Z v -n K D 3- q � O C C C 'D -� O L N i 0- o m u m II L = C C Co 13
s r lD s N N N N N N O N N m p'o po W m po [D tD to cn tD tp lG �p ip o 0 0 o p o O O O

Lopez vs. Pismo Beach - Testing/Start-Up Delay Windows - Plan v. Oct 119 v. Actual g a 3 n re O Z v � „ 3 n 9 D CDo m a m ro = = a A O m m a m vZ Cr = c =

N N N N N N N
i0 iO {6 IG fD D 4D fD O O O C O O O O O O O • Prior to the additional impacts of CO's 25/26,Testing/Start-Up was Testing/Start-Up(Plan -2123118 DID) 2/26 3/6 Delay to Test/SU(163 WD) delayed 163 WDs through October 21,2019. • CO's 1 through 24(issued prior to October 2019)account for 70 WD's of delay.
• Lopez's correspondence and internal documentation indicate an additional 19 WDs(estimate)may be attributable to these CO's Through Completion Plan -2123I18 DD
g p ( ) 3/7 4/16 (avenues for recovery of this time?) • Accounting for the explicitly granted 70 WD's there are between 74 to 93 WDs that need to be accounted for through 10/21/19.

Testing/Start-Up(Pre COs 25/26-Oct 19) 237 CD Delay to Start (163 WD) 10/21 10/29 Dela 124 Wpy to /SU Through Completion (Pre COs 25126-Oct 19) 10/30 h 12/14 242 CD Delay to Complete (166 WD)
Testing/Start-Up(Actual) 421 CD (+184) Delay to Start (287 WD / +124) 4/22 5/6 Through Completion (Actual) 384 CD (-37) Delay to Complete (261 WD / -26) 5/4 C_ T y C_ L > O Z _ O ` -n 9 n _ _ ` L D y O N3 O

Period Issue Area The 3-Week Lookahead Schedules note March-April 2018 Generator/RFI 09/Bldg.Design) Spyglass Site dozens of issues (minor and major) from April-May 2018 Manhole Bypass(MH#3 Mods/Delivery,RFI 07) Corralitos Trunk Main March 2018 (beginning of Project) June-August 2018 Forcemain Potholing/Install(Layout Revisions/Delivery Fittings) 5 Cities Lift Station(Hwy 1) through October 2019 (the ready date for July-October 2018 Spyglass Piping/Wet Well Improvements&Replacements(Plug Valve Delivery/Other Material Spyglass Park Testing/Start-Up if not for CO's 25/26).

Delays) The City has further accounted for 70 July-October 2018 Generator(Delivery Delay/Material Delay for Exterior Bldg./RFI 19.2/Electrical Submittal No Spyglass Park 262727.1/Doo r Locks) working days worth of delay through CO August-September 2018 Lift Station Plug Valves(Bypass Approval/Traffic Plans/I nstall Floats Per RFI 24) Foothill Lift Station 24 which further demonstrate entitlement October 2018 Revisions/Total Incerta Valve Sunset Palisades Lift Station for compensable time extensions through October 2018 Addie Street Inserts-Valve(Proposal/Acceptance) 5 Cities Lift Station(Hwy 1) October 2019.

November 2018 Install By-Pass(By-Pass Approval Pending) Vista Del Mar Site November 2018 Install Dewatering Equipment(Pending Wet Well Delivery/Rain 4 Rent) 5 Cities Lift Station(Hwy 1) November-December 2018 Door Lock/Electrical/Exhaust Fabrication for Warning Light/Horn/Rain Spyglass Lift Station February 2019 Install SSMH 3 @ Wet Well(Delivery) 5 Cities Lift Station(Hwy 1) February 2019 Generator Delivery 5 Cities Lift Station(Hwy 1) February 2019 Varify&Complete Float Install(Potential RFI) Vista Del Mar Site March-April 2019 RFI 18/19/21/CCO 13.2(Pre-Cast Vault/Wet Well Pumps/Discharge Pipes/Vault Seals) 5 Cities Lift Station(Hwy 1) June 2019 Response for Spyglass Wet Well Conduit Spyglass Lift Station June-July 2019 Install Conduits(Response on Electrical Panels/Delivery) 5 Cities Lift Station(Hwy 1) September 2019 Delivery of Float for Wet Well 5 Cities Lift Station(Hwy 1) September-October 2019 Obtain PG&E Approval/Schedule Electric Feed/Schedule to Energize New Station 5 Cities Lift Station(Hwy 1)

Lopez vs. Pismo Beach - Testing/Start-Up Delay Windows - Plan v. Oct 119 v. Actual t_ n g a 3 n re O Z v „ 3 n 9 D CDo m a m o ro = c o a m m a go M c to I ErIV N N N N N N IV N N 40 tD to 0 to ;0 ID t0 to t0 tD O O O O O C. O O O O • Remaining delay is accounted for by:

Testing/Start-Up(Plan-2123/18 DD) 2/26 3/6 Delay to Test/SU(163 WD) Delays stemming from CO's 25 and 26(even beyond Owner acknowledged delay—protested by Lopez)
• Pump Guide Shoe/Rubber Seal
City Approval Delays to Start-Up/Test
Through Completion (Plan -2123118 DD) 3/7 4/16 Additional ProUSys Issues during Testing • CO's 30/32(4 WD's)
TestinglStart-Up(Pre COs 25/26-Oct 19) 237 CD Delay to Start (163 WD) 10/21 10/291 Dela to es/SU D >
Through Completion (Pre COs 25126-Oct 19) 10/30 12/14 242 CD Delay to Complete (166 WD) Testing/Start-Up(Actual) 421 CD (+184) Delay to Start (296 WD / +133) 4/22 5/6 Through Completion (Actual) 384 CD (-37) Delay to Complete (261 WD / -26) 5/4 O T 9 > 3 > _ co p _ Z O > i: D to O p _ C v M 0 n 3 a ru E c m 0.

N N N N N
tD tD tD tD tD tD tD tD tD tD lD tD t7 O O o O O p o 0

Lopez vs. Pismo • n (Window 2 Delays andImpacts) cn 0 Z 0 L T g n 3 C- C- D to 0
t n IN a ° E Q -ea P*
Ready Date for Testing/Start-Up 10/21
CO's 26 a 26 Delays 10/21 3/16 98 WD's Delay(79 WD's in CO's 25/26) • Working Day sum of impact duration driving start
Pump Guide Shoe/Rubber Seal(Delivery/Install/Test) and completion of Testing/Start-Up equal-128 3/17 3/31 10 WD's Delay Working Days.
• Window 2 Delay to Completion(Assumed Pre-CO ........... 25/26 Completion Date of 12/14/19 through Actual
City Approvals(Estimated Dates) 5/4/20 Date)equals 95 Working Days. 3117 4/21 24 WD's Delay • These issues,at minimum, appear to account for
all Window 2 Delay through Completion (128 WDs
of Impact vs. 95 WDs of Delay)
Additional ProUSys Delays During Testing(Estimate) Entitlement and support for issues must be 4/22 516 —1-3 WD's Delay developed.

Actual Testing/Start-Up Dates 124 WD's Delay to Start 4/22 1 5/6
New Lift Station Completion 5/4♦ 95 WD's Delay to Complete v R < a Cr '0 e 0 a
O N N N
(� Q d 10 0

Lopez vs. Pismo • n (Window 2 Delays andImpacts) ;yo,0 JR.a. Project:City of Pismo Beach!5 Cities Lift Station Project&5 Cities Lift Station Maintenance Project Tentative 3 Week Schedule DATE: DAY: M T W T F S Su Dates: Dates Dates Date:March 4,2020
- - - _ 3220-316M 3r9.20-V3;20 31&26-2 D Name:Butch Lopez FOREMAN:
a�
Week 1 Week 2 Week 3 7 CONTRACT No.

Work Description M T JT F S S M T T F S S M T T F Notes l Resources WEATHER CON Acquire Electrical Materials Per Changes X X X X X I I I I AM PM 7•3,-
Install Electrical Modifications per RFI-029.1 I X X I I Pending Float Receipt C>- Install By-Pass and Backfill Excavations I X XIXI I I I FRS LAST DUE TO BAD WEATHER Tie-In Pdvate Force Mains X X txx
X X#XX
Perform Starhin R 7 flav Test Period X
Project:City of Pismo Beach 15 Cities Lift Station Project&5 Cities Lift Station Maintenance Project Tentative 3 Week Schedule - N
Dates, Dates_ Dates: Date:March 7,2020 Completion Date C6120*1020 VKOA117120 4I200-0124m Name:Butch Lopez Days Ahead of Schedule
Week 1 Week 2 Week 3
ACpDENTS/INCIDEN
Days Behind Schedule
SAFETY ISSUES:

Work Description M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T F Notes!Resources Hydrostal Shipping New Pump Guide Shoe and Rubber Seal (Received 3130120) Install New Pump Guide Shoe and Rubber Seal (Installed and Tested 3131120) Perform Startup&7 Day Test Period-Cut in existing mains at MH's 2 and 4 01(d by City X X X X x X X �ep4E JR.B SQ
Project:City of Pismo Beach 15 Cities Lift Station Project&5 Cities Lift Station Maintenance Project Tentative 3 Week Schedule 5 a 4 as Dates: Dates: Dates Date:March 21,20201$ ,� ' y 4120120424120 40120.51120 54120.5020 Name;Butch Lopez cm�u xc co�iucrauTxt.
��. Week t Week 2 Week 3 ,�N.
—
QiFIF
Work Description M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T F Notes I Resources SIGNATURE NAME
Perform Startup&7 Day Test Period-Cut in existing mains at MH's 2 and 4 OK'd by CO tx X X X X X X X Pending Approval from City

Lopez vs. Pismo 1 • 1Station
z o C_ ,n Z a C_ C_ a to °e 10i r e m b
i i i N N N N N N N o
Perform Startup&Testing(10131119 DD) ■
Install Bridge Bypass(10131/19 DD) ,
Connect Existing Private Force Mains(10131119 DD) ■ Install Bridge Piping(10131119 DD)
Demo Existing Plant (10131119 DD) .

Pave Forcemain Trenchline (10131/19 DD)
Base R Pave Lift Station(10/31119 DD) '
Install Fencing (10131119 DD)
Perform Final Clean Up (10/31119 DD) .

Project Complete I De-Mobilize (10131119 DD) I .:_........... _.

RFI 29.1 Delay(As-Built)
Startup&Testing Approval Delay(As-Built)
Perform Startup&Testing(As-Built) - ........................

Install Bridge Bypass(As-Built)
Connect Existing Private Force Mains(As-Built)
Install Bridge Piping(As-Built) AM
Demo Existing Plant (As-Built)
Pave Forcemain Trenchline (As-Built)
Base&Pave Lift Station(As-Built)
Install Fencing (As-Built)
Perform Final Clean Up (As-Built)
Project Complete 1 De-Mobilize (As-Built)
L T L L
p ID S, m 'O 3 C C C m .0 7 tL1 U
N N N N N N 01 N N

As Planned
J-18 J-18 M-18 A-18 M-18 M-18 J-18 J-18 A-18 S-18 0-18 N-18 D-18 J-19 F-19 M-19 A-19 M-19 J-19 J-19 A-19 S-19 0-19 N-19 D-19 J-20 F-20 M-20 A-20 M-20 J-20 Lift Station Maint.-Generator Building
No work occurred between 10/18/2019 & 2/18/2020
Lift Station Maint.-Spyglass Lift Station m (1 23C D) Lift Station Maint.-Manholes m Two major delays:
• SCADA testing delays, contractor ready as early as Lift Station Maint.-Foothills m 10/11/2019 no apparent indication of completion Lift Station Maint.-Sunset Palisades
® RFI-29.1 Submittal Revisions, Rejections, Procurement, and added scope
Lift Station Maint.-Vista Del Mar m First submittal noted on 12/23/20, work could not New Lift Station-Force Main start until 2/18/2020 & completed on 3/6/2020 (74CD) New Lift Station-Lift Station
Hybrid As-Built
1-18 J-18 M-18 A-18 M-18 M-18 1-18 1-18 A-18 S-18 0-18 N-18 D-18 J-19 F-19 M-19 A-19 M-19 1-19 J-19 A-19 S-19 0-19 N-19 D-19 1-20 F-20 M-20 A-20 M-20 1-20 Lift Station Maint.-Generator Building
Lift Station Maint.-Spyglass Lift Station
Lift Station Maint.-Manholes
Lift Station Maint.-Foothills
Lift Station Maint.-Sunset Palisades
Lift Station Maint.-Vista Del Mar
New Lift Station-Force Main
New Lift Station-Lift Station
New Lift Station-Electrical RFI/Delay 74

As Planned
J-18 J-18 M-18 A-18 M-18 M-18 J-18 J-18 A-18 S-18 0-18 N-18 D-18 J-19 F-19 M-19 A-19 M-19 J-19 J-19 A-19 S-19 0-19 N-19 D-19 J-20 F-20 M-20 A-20 M-20 J-20 Lift Station Maint.-Generator Building
Lift Station Maint.-Spyglass Lift Station m
Lift Station Maint.-Manholes m
Lift Station Maint.-Foothills m
Lift Station Maint.-Sunset Palisades
Lift Station Maint.-Vista Del Mar m
New Lift Station-Force Main
New Lift Station-Lift Station
Hybrid As-Built
1-18 J-18 M-18 A-18 M-18 M-18 1-18 1-18 A-18 S-18 0-18 N-18 D-18 J-19 F-19 M-19 A-19 M-19 1-19 J-19 A-19 S-19 0-19 N-19 D-19 1-20 F-20 M-20 A-20 M-20 1-20 Lift Station Maint.-Generator Building
Lift Station Maint.-Spyglass Lift Station
Visual of the key large
Lift Station Maint.-Manholes gaps in actual work Lift Station Maint.-Foothills
Lift Station Maint.-Sunset Palisades - Lift Station Maint.-Vista Del Mar
New Lift Station-Force Main - New Lift Station-Lift Station
New Lift Station-Electrical RFI/Delay

New Lift Station -As Planned
J-18 1-18 M-18 A-18 M-18 M-18 J-18 J-18 A-18 S-18 0-18 N-18 D-18 J-19 F-19 M-19 A-19 M-19 J-19 J-19 A-19 S-19 0-19 N-19 D-19 J-20 F-20 M-20 A-20 M-20 1-20 ForceMain-Site Prep ■ Bridge piping finished 608 CD late ForceMain-Potholes ■ Appears to be directly tied to the completion of the Force Main-Force Main activity: "Connect Existing Private Force Mains" which Force Main-Bridge Bypass _____________________________�__---- completed on 5/7/20 due to RF I#29.1's delays to the Force Main--Bridge Piping � Start-up/Testing.

Force Main-Pressure Test l RFI#29.1 directly prevented the electrical and ForceMain-Tie-In&Connections I instrumentation finishes from starting between Lift Station-Dewatering 12/23/2019 and 2/19/2020.

LiftStation-Demo/Site Grading Additionally, RFI#29.1 added 17 CD of work to these LiftStation-WetWell • scopes, as they did not finish until 3/6/2020 (50 WD Lift Station-Electrical Impact)
LiftStation-Testing/Start-up l CO#26 granted 47 WD for RFI#29.1 Lift Station-Closeout •
New Lift Station -As Built
1-18 1-18 M-18 A-18 M-18 M-18 1-18 J-18 A-18 S-18 0-18 N-18 D-18 J-19 F-19 M-19 A-19 M-19 J-19 1-19 A-19 S-19 0-19 N-19 D-19 J-20 F-20 M-20 A-20 M-20 J-20 Force Main-Site Prep IN
Force Main-Potholes
Force Main-Force Main
Force Main-Bridge Bypass
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Force
� ----—_________-Bridge Piping ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- —� L
Force Main-Pressure Test 1
Force Main-Tie-In&Connections
Lift Station-Dewatering
Lift Station-Demo/Site Grading
Lift Station-Wet Well
Lift Station-Electrical
Lift Station-Testing/Start-up
Lift Station-Closeout
Electrical RFI/Delay

New Lift Station -As Planned
J-18 1-18 M-18 A-18 M-18 M-18 J-18 J-18 A-18 S-18 0-18 N-18 D-18 J-19 F-19 M-19 A-19 M-19 J-19 J-19 A-19 S-19 0-19 N-19 D-19 J-20 F-20 M-20 A-20 M-20 1-20 ForceMain-Site Prep ■ CO#25 (SCADA implementation that completely halts ForceMain-Potholes ■ the project) granted delay until 12/19/2020 Force Main-Force Main This pending activity first shows up in the 3WKLNs on Force Main-Bridge Bypass �_____ 10/1/2019, and all work stops on 10/18/2019.

Force Main-Bridge Piping------------------------------------I CO#25 extended completion by 32 workdays while ForceMain-Pressure Test l spanning 43 workdays Force Main-Tie-In&Connections I Bridge Piping in the baseline schedule does not appear Lift Station-Dewatering to be dependent on the finish the tie in scopes that were Lift Station-Demo/Site Grading driven out by the electrical scopes, however; later Lift Station-Wet Well schedules do appear to show this logic. Most notably Lift Station-Electrical
that the bridge piping was dependent on the final tie-ins Lift Station-Testing/Start-up I
which required the start-up and testing to be complete.

Lift Station-Closeout
New Lift Station -As Built
1-18 1-18 M-18 A-18 M-18 M-18 1-18 J-18 A-18 S-18 0-18 N-18 D-18 J-19 F-19 M-19 A-19 M-19 J-19 1-19 A-19 S-19 0-19 N-19 D-19 J-20 F-20 M-20 A-20 M-20 J-20 Force Main-Site Prep IN
Force Main-Potholes
Force Main-Force Main
Force Main-Bridge Bypass 1
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Force
� ----—_________-Bridge Piping ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- —� L
Force Main-Pressure Test 1
Force Main-Tie-In&Connections
Lift Station-Dewatering
Lift Station-Demo/Site Grading
Lift Station-Wet Well
Lift Station-Electrical
Lift Station-Testing/Start-up
Lift Station-Closeout
Electrical RFI/Delay

New Lift Station (Project Schedule Update 10/31/2019)
0-19 N-19 D-19 J-20 F-20 M-20 A-20 M-20 J-20 Perform Startup&Testing Start-up and testing could not begin until RF129.1's Install Bridge Bypass added work had completed but was then further delayed Connect Existing Private Force Mains by a lack of city approval. • Start-up/Testing Approval Delay 33 WD (46 CD)
Install Bridge Piping • If the city has agreed to a 311712020 schedule Pave Forcemain Trenchline completion date, only 69 WD are needed. RF129.1's Demo Existing Plant delays were undercounted 47 WD granted (50 of Base&Pave Lift Station impact). CO#25 was undercounted at 32 WD (At least 43 of impact).

Install Fencing • 15 WD unaccounted for; 8 WD between 1211212019 Perform Final Clean Up (End of CO#25) & 1212312019 (Start of RF129.1) Project Complete/De-Mobilize Not sure how to grab the other 7 work-days without a more accurate as-built record & issue log.

New Lift Station (As-Built)
0-19 N-19 D-19 J-20 F-20 M-20 A-20 M-20 J-20 RFI 29.1 Delay 74
Startup&Testing Approval Delay 46
Perform Startup&Testing
Install Bridge Bypass
Connect Existing Private Force Mains ■ Install Bridge Piping -
Pave Forcemain Trenchline
Demo Existing Plant ■
Base&Pave Lift Station
Install Fencing
Perform Final Clean Up
Project Complete/De-Mobilize f

Lopez vs. Pismo Beach - Delay Analysis (Plan vs. As-Built) W o Z O C_ T q 9 C_ D of o Z O L. M 3 y 9 ` D w o Z O C_ mg i C C G ^ O T u -a L C C G m R O LJ N a t n s <� � :3 toa s� n � � Z � a < 0 :3 Cr O O O O N N N N N N N N N N N N W W W . .I....3 i .. i. l ..1 I.. I....I ...I. ..I.. ....I....I....I....I....I ..I....I....I....I....I ..I ..i....I... I....I ..I. ..1.... 4th Street-Stage 1A -Shoring (211/20 DD TIA) L 4th Street-Stage 1A -Shoring/Tie-Back(1011122 DD) 99 CD Delay to Complete Shoring 1A 4th Street-Stage 1A -Abut 1 &2(Demo-Bearing Pad) (211120 DD TIA) 4th Street-Stage 1A -Abut 1 &2(Demo-Bearing Pad)(10/1122 DD) 196 CD Delay (+97) to Complete Abuts 1/2 4th Street-Stage 1A -SS (Girders-Barrier Rail) (2I1120 DD TIA) 4th Street-Stage 1A -SS (Girders-Approach Slab)(100122 DD) 266 CD Delay (+70) Superstructure Road -Seg 3 Stage 1A EB -4th UC Tie-In (Demo-Striping)(211120 DD TIA) Road -Seg 3 Stage 1A EB -4th UC Tie-In (Grade-Striping) (1011122 DD) Delay along the as- built 4t"street critical
4th Street-Stage 1B -(MOT-Shoring) (211120 DD TIA) path totals 329 CDs, 4th Street-Stage 1B -(MOT-Shoring) (10/1122 DD) which exceeds the 304 CD Delay (+38) Shoring 1 B 205 CDs of additional
4th Street-Stage 1 B -Abut 1 (Demo) (211/20 DD TIA) delay through Substantial
4th Street-Stage 1B -Abut 1 (Demo-Backfill) (1011/22 DD) Completion. 4th Street-Stage 1B -Abut 2(Demo-Bearing Pad) (211120 DD TIA) Notably, SW#1275 4th Street-Stage 1B -Abut 2(Demo-Backfill)(1011/22 DD) was not originally a driver of 4t"street
4th Street-Stage 1B -SS (Girders-Barrier Rail) (21112G DD TIA) bridge or roadwork (®- 4th Street-Stage 1B -SS (Girders-Barrier Rail) (1011I22 DD) indicating re- sequencing. MIN
Road -Seg 3 Stage 1 B WB -4th UC Tie-In (Demo-Striping) (211120 DD TIA) I, Road -Seg 3 Stage 1B WB -4th UC Tie-In (Demo-Striping) (1011/22 DD) 329 CD Delay (+25) Striping Ih Soundwall -#1275(211120 DD TIA)
Soundwall -#1275(1011/22 DD) 663 CD Delay SW#1275* w O m v N u a G C C C N a O M v L a L C C C fi n. O M v 19 v a C n 3 5 C LC 5 n to a G n 3 Q O O O O N N j ' y N i N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N "� ' ' N N N N W W W

Pismo Beach City CouncilFebruary 24, 2023

Pismo Beach City Council
February 24, 2023