City of Pismo Beach Council Meeting
V. Lopez Jr. $ Sons (Lopez)
Debarment Hearing
March 7, 2023
John Darling, Esq.
Patricia J. Wolfe, Esq.
QE,Z J fit. S S
4Y0
SINCE 1979 - - LIC.#607333A
GENERAL ENG. CONTRACTORS, INC.
SANTA MARIA, CA • (805) 928-1198
AGENDA CORRESPONDENCE
MEETING DATE .7-Z% ITEM N0. t.A
DATE REC'D SUB'D BY�y1 N
Why Are We Here?
Debarment
• Reserved for egregious actions by a General
Contractor
Not appropriate simply when there is a
dispute concerning Project delays
N,lot for punishment
•Not to gain leverage
The First Debarment was Unconstitutional
• Pismo Beach Debarred Lopez on
November 17,, 2020
• 2nd Debarment - Full circle
1. USED AS LITIGATION LEVERAGE
2. TO PUNISH LOPEZ
2nd Debarment based on facts and the
law is Not warranted
The First Debarment was Unconstitutional
U.S. Constitution was violated
Debarment is not for:
— Leverage
— Punishment
"Debarment is never a manner of small moment .... [1] But despite its 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. Bomar (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.
Debarment is for: Court Ruling, June 23, 2022
— Protecting the Public
Debarment can very quickly put a contractor out of business.
Pismo Beach Has No Debarment Standards
• Unlike the Federal government and
many cities, Pismo Beach has no
debarment standards or procedures
• The relevant laws fill in Pismo
Beach's gaps
L,:n:Ti � �0
OR0E9S AT LA
Debarment:
A Big Deal; Not To Punish
• Federal Regulations: Debarment is a drastic measure
only used when absolutely necessary to protect the
public interest and not for the purpose of
punishment. 48 C.F.R. 9.402(b).
• Federal regulations state that even if potential
grounds exist, that "does not necessarily require that
the contractor be debarred; the seriousness of the
contractor's acts or omissions and any remedial
measures or mitigating factors should be
considered in making any debarment decision."
Recommendation to Sign Notice of
Completion
The Five Cities Lift Station and Li tatIon Maintenance ro ects have been oom leted In "The Five Cities Lift Station and Lift Station accordance with the lens s cations and contract acumants. Staff recommends t at 1 e City ounce accept the project as compete and authorize the Notice of Maintenance projects have been completed in Completion (Attachment 1) to be recorded at the County Clerks office. Staff also recommends withholding $69,000 in liquidated damages from the retettion. accordance with the plans, specifications, and FISCAL IMPACT:
There Is no direct fiscal Impact associated with this action, however the City Is withholding contract documents.
liquidated damages in the amount of $69,000 ($1,000 per day).
Council Agenda 10-6-2020
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Approve the Notice of Completion; but do not assess liquidated damages.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Notice of Completion
Prepared by: Meeting Date: October 6, 2020
Erin Olsen, Management Analyst
Submitted by: Benjamin A. Fine, P.E., Director of Public Works/City Engineer City Manager Approval:
Council Agenda 10.6-2020
9.E-2
The Applicable Standard:
Responsible Bidder
• Public Contract Code § 1103 definition of
Responsible Bidder:
— "A bidder who has demonstrated the
attribute of trustworthiness, as well as
quality, fitness, capacity and experience to
satisfactorily perform the public works
contract."
� www.huntortmann.com 8
ATTDRfIE95 AT LA
Debarment Improper per the Law and Facts
• Trustworthiness NO
• Quality NO
• Fitness NO
• Capacity NO
• Experience jej NO
Public Contract Code §1103 - Definition Responsible Bidder ORTmnnn
- -
California Case Law Regarding Proper Grounds for
Debarment = Improper
• - • •
So. Cal Underground
round
FEI Enterprises v.
LACCD
Ogundare v. Dep't of
Industrial Relations
Stacy & Witbeck, Inc.
v. City and County of
San Francisco
LOPEZ
Fraud/IntentPto
Defraud/Deceptive Practices
r
YES
NO
YES
NO
NO
Prevailing wage violations
NO
YES
NO
NO
NO
Criminal conduct
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
Filing False Claims
NO
NO
NO
YES
NO
Breach of material term of
N O
NO
NO
NO
NO
contract
Inadequate contract performance
YES
YES
NO
NO
NO
Corrupt practices involving the
administration or award of
YES
NO
NO
NO
NO
contract with the
municipality/agency
ORTmAnn
WFr 10
Practical Solutions
Other Than Debarment
Practical Solutions
Other Than Debarment
• From the 11/17/2020 Transcript
—The City Council was asking if there was
another way besides debarment
• There is!
Lopez is not inclined to engage in
economic suicide
Practical Solutions
Other Than Debarment
• If Lopez changed its mind, this is not a
problem
• Assuming Lopez is the low bidder
• Pismo Beach can legally reject Lopez' bid
— By rejecting all bids
—By declaring Lopez' bid Non -Responsive
• No hearing
ORTMAnn
Practical Solutions
Other Than Debarment
• Pismo Beach can legally reject Lopez' bid
—By rejecting Lopez' bid on responsibility
grounds
—If there is a bid protest
—Some type of a hearing is required
— If litigation ensues, the contractor's
damages are capped at its bid preparation
expenses
ORTMAnn
Practical Solutions
Other Than Debarment
• Practically speaking, contractors very
rarely pursue bid protest hearings and/or
litigation because:
—It's expensive
—The damages are capped
—The risk of a responsibility finding
Who Is Lopez?
o,pf.Z JR.& SG
�iS
SINCE 1979
v
LIC.#607333A
GENERAL ENG. CONTRACTORS, INC,
SANTA MARIA, CA • (8 ) 928-1198
Lopez: A Family Story
• Public works contractor in business for over 43 years • Local to the area and based out of Santa Maria,
California
• Started by Mr. Lopez Sr. in 1979
• His two sons Vince & Butch have successfully
managed the company for many years
• Lopez is here today fighting to keep this family -run business from being put out of business by the City
of Pismo Beach
DaeZ: An Award-wi n n i na Contrantn
2021 Project of the Year
Disaster or Emergency
Construction/Repair $5415 Million
Santa Barbara County Flood
Control & Water Conservator
Randall Road Debris Basin-
HUNTINAI� 11 _ I www.huntortmann.com
ATTOROE9S AT LNW
Pismo Beach's Responsibility
The law regarding Public Works Projects
Deficiencies in the plans and
speci
fications
Pismo Beach's Responsibility
• As a matter of law, Pismo Beach, being the Owner is
legally responsible for any deficiencies in its plans
and specifications
— This means it must pay the General Contractor for any cost incurred because of deficiencies in the plans and
specifications
— Pismo Beach, as the Owner, can seek reimbursement from the design professional responsible for the deficiencies — Tetra Tech /John Madonna
Pismo Beach is Responsible for Defects in
their Plans & Specifications
• For Pubi'i'c Works Projects, by law, the
Owner bears the risk of design
deficiencies
—The Spearin Doctrine (1918)
— Implied Warranty of Correctness (1941)
—Public Contract Code §1104 & §7102
What is Missing from the Staff
Report
What is Missing from the Staff Report
• Critical objective information not included
• No assessment whatsapver of the Staffs
failures or of Water Systems Consulting
(WSC)'s failures
WSC was a designer of record for this Project and
the Construction Manager
NAISC wrote the PowerPoint slides Ben Fine just
presented to you
• Tetra Tech / John Madonna
How The Project Went
Not in the Staff Report
• Start date: February 2,, 2018
Original completion date: April 16, 2019
• 34 Change Orders = $232,p781,13
— Due to defects in the plans and specifications
• No complaints about the quality of Lopez' work
• No complaints about safety issues
• No indicia in the Project record supporting
debarment
How The Project Went
Not in the Staff Report
• Project Delays
— The
Project
was
supposed
to be completed on
April 16, 2019
— The
Project was
actually completed on May 1,
2020
® Approximately 13 months behind schedule
• Pismo Beach's Staff has already acknowledged that
Lopez was not responsible for any of the project delays from April 16, 2019, through March 17, 2020
• Pismo Beach, before trying to debar Lopez, had
already admitted 85% of the delays were not Lopez'
fault
How The Project Went
Not in the Staff Report
• The relevant delay is 6 weeks or 15% of total
delay at the very end of the Project from March
171 2020, to May 1, 2020
— This 15% of the delay is 100% Pismo Beach's
responsibility, too
• Critical Path Analysis: Pismo Beach is
responsible for all delays on the Project
— Electrical design deficiencies (WSQ
— SCADA failures (100% the Staff)
www.huntortmann.com
L ' 1. C r
Maintenance - Generator Building (Baseline)
Maintenance - Spyglass Uft Station (Baseline)
Maintenance - Manholes (Baseline)
Maintenance - Foothills (Baseline)
Maintenance - Sunset Palisades (Baseline)
Maintenance - Vista Del Mar (Baseline)
New Litt Station - Force Main (Baseline)
The Delays
SCADA & Electrical
Design Problems
s ? 3 m s o m s v 3 c c c e p Z. w 3 a $ c c c v' f3
-a J ..i —► i J .i J
J J J pp NN Np
m A W O! W T. OY O � bo Q Oo m m m W m to C. C! fS O O� 6 1. • • t , F 1 . t a .1 . . L . . 1. I . .1. , 1 . d • Nearly every major scope of the Project (between
Maintenance and New Lift Station Construction)
. experienced significant delays to completion ranging from 8 months to well over a year
. The critical path ultimately runs through testing/start-up delays in the New Lift Station construction.
New Lift Station - Uft Station (Baseline) 4/16 V
Maintenance - Generator Building (As -Built) 397 CD Delay Maintenance - Spyglass Lift Station (As -Built) 524 CD Delay Maintenance - Manholes (As -Built) 13 CD Delay
Maintenance - Foothills(As-Built) 242 CD Delay Maintenance Complete-1/9 * (M CD (329 WD) Delay (Maintenance Complete)
Maintenance - Sunset Palisades (As -Built) 457 CD De lay J,, Maintenance -vista Dot Mar (As -Bulk) 252 CD Delay
Now Lift Station - Force Main (As -Built) 601 CD Delay
New Lift Station - Lift Station (As -Built) New Lift Station• mplete-5/4 4-
384 CD (261 WD) Delay (Lift Complete)
t- T 3 D 3 t L D fn O Z C) T. .D. .3 .` . .4 D N O 2 D C- -n g D 3 L. C_ D rn o a 'j CG to = O Y 1• cCC =& C v 2 O• • Y • Y -� Y >= C » m m 02 m � m O° m m w m m ma to m 'm m m m a o o 01
But for the Debarment, This Was a Very
Typical Public Works Project, in Fact, Not
Special At All
• In terms of Lopez' performance,, nothing
occurred on this Project rising to the
level of debarment
• Other than the highly questionable
decision to try to put Lopez out of
business., the Staff handled WSC's design
deficiencies fairly well
wwur.huntortmann.com
Awards & Portended Awards to Lopez
Fliv .- Chad Stoehr
Sent Tucedsy, May K 2019 j223100 PM
To: Eric i7driige
Cc: Bcrgarr$r Foe
Subject: M ASCE STD Brash 2018.2019 Arrant Award Noncavtiom, Sewitivity: Norval
-+maybe five cities although it will not be 10M compltte by then...) will visit the annlicatlot%Butde.
From: EricMdridge
Sent: Friday, May 3, 2019105E AM
To: Chad Stoeh, City of Pismo ncy .1
Suib]ett! M ASCE 510 Branch 2018.2019 Annual Award Nam Inationsl SM.773.7041 ([belt) IRS 773.46%(fax)
_kad weldridaeMdrm ya_•e
Eric Eldridge, PE
4tnicr englneer
01V of a.ema ile:,rr*
Lopez had been working 16
W,s 7r346 Voyi(Nrp•}
Pth 773.46A6(tgxt
months and according to
Chad Stoehr Project is
�{(�r deedsnlsmebeadr.nrt
going so well it's worth an
V,fi, Tnr ndeeca,n nf�ns,�nd a•�nr tamnrw ron
award
From: Benjamin fine
Sent Friday, May % 201910.99AT)l
To: EricEldridge
Subject Re: ASCE SLO Branch 2019 2M9 Annual Award Nominatlansl Do we have anytI ft 10 rsnr+iate for dig go Rroun t7 5 CkicS L& Stnti[3rP Plea -forgive typos, Sent from my Mod
Benjamin A. Fine, P.E
D'eector ofPtbBc Works/
City Er * —
City offt= Beach
(905) 773-7037
On May3, 2019, at$31 AM, Frio ElidridgewMW:
': C' dr.. (,n ,hl�
Eric Eldridge, PE
Senor Engrn —
f+a,tCOCOIer nba rc 3.mmd�tec, �nrtw�a. -.0 ..-.-nr,nn u,•.• From: ASCE SED Branch (lMil1(l:beniami n.lenseneodotca rev] Seat: Thursday, Mav Z. 20192�M PM
To, Eric Eldridge gad idgRdDPlsmMaM.ore>
Sub]ertASCESLO Branch201&2019Annual Award Nominattonst
KW
O TY 032160
The Project - A Summary
Typical Project
• Other than Pismo Beach's debarment of Lopez, this
was a typical public works project
• Normal amount of Change Orders
— 34 Change Orders Issued
• WSC's design had significant flaws
• The Staff failed to timely hire a SCADA consultant
• The Project was completed 13 months behind
schedule
— Due exclusively to WSC's design flaws and the Staffs
SCADA problem
ORTmnnn
The Project - A Summary
Typical Project
• The Project was completed in May 2020
• Competing Delay Claims lingered
• Lopez was willing to give up its Delay Claims if
Pismo Beach would also drop its Claims
• This type of "walk away" is typical as Ben Fine
testified to
• But not for Lopez' Debarment! Highly
atypical !
On These Facts - Only One Logical
Explanation ... Punishment and Protection
• May 2017 - City of Grover Beach awards a
$6.3 Million Project to Lopez
• Grover Beach's plans and specifications have
a lot of gaps and missing information
• Lopez, as any other Public Works contractor
would do, alerts Grover Beach that the Project
is going to cost more and take longer because
of the problems with their plans and
specifications
ORTMAAA
Debarment Was Not Warranted and
Completely Inappropriate
• Based on the actual history of this
Project, the WSC design flaws, the
Staffs SCADA failures, the only
logical explanation for the 1st
Debarment is:
—Punishment of Lopez
—Protect the Staff and WSC from any
scrutiny, and Grover Beach
On These
Facts - Only
One
Logical
Explanation ...
Punishment
and
Protection
• The Director of Public Works at Grover Beach,
Greg Ray, is a long-time colleague of Ben Fine
as they have both been the Director of Public
Works for these two adjoining cities for the
past 10 years
• November 2, 2017 - Lopez is the apparent low
bidder for the Pismo Beach Project
0.A
ORTmAnn
On These Facts - Only One Logical
Explanation ... Punishment and Protection
• November 2 to mid -December 2017 -
Ben Fine performs background checks on
Lopez for the purpose of determining
whether Pismo Beach should award the
contract to Lopez
• As part of this background check, Ben
Fine talks to Greg Ray
ORTmAnn
On These
Facts - Only
One
Logical
Explanation
...
Punishment
and
Protection
• Ben Fine has a conversation with Greg Ray of Grover
Beach in the Fall of 2017
— Benjamin Fine Deposition Transcript, Page 64
2111 A I was told the end product you wi-.1 get w y.l be 21 ea.t szactory; the road tc getting there will be
22 miserable, if you can find a wad out of the contract, I 23 highly recommend you do S-Io.
On These
Facts - Only
One
Logical
Explanation ...
Punishment
and
Protection
From the onset Ben Fine was predisposed to dislike
• Ben Fine is already thinking of a way to get rid of Lopez — Benjamin Fine Deposition Transcript, Page 64
I= Q Did you ask.him "If it's a miserable situati€ n,
2.9 can you give me some more facts because I would like to 20 just declare theta nonresponsive and not have to deal 21 with these yahoos"?
24 . - asked _ Jin. 1 asked him if he had
22 aiz -ti-in r t1-at -- --basically, I asked him if there was a 24 way to not award it.
On These Facts - Only One Logical
Explanation ... Punishment and Protection
• May 2017 -Grover Beach for the first time awarded a contract to Lopez
• December 17, 2017 - Pismo Beach awarded the contract to Lopez
• April 16, 2019 - The original Project completion date • July 2019 - After completing the Grover Beach Project on time, and only after Grover Beach refused to consider
mediation with Lopez, Lopez filed suit against Grover Beach for the extra costs associated with Grover Beach's defective plans and specifications
On These Facts - Only One Logical
Explanation ... Punishment and Protection
• Also, by July 20191 it had become very clear that the missing elements in WSC's plans and specifications
were going to substantially delay completing the
Project
• As described more fully below, from July 2019
through April 1, 2020, Pismo Beach issued several
change orders to pay Lopez for a portion of the extra
costs and time to complete this Project because of
WSC's incomplete design and the Staffs SCADA
failure
Hun �� �101_
ATTORIIE95 AT
On These Facts - Only One Logical
Explanation ... Punishment and Protection
• Lopez completed the Project on May 1, 2020
• Lopez had properly reserved its right to
submit a Delay Claim, but hoped not to do so
Summer
2020 -
Lopez tells
Pismo Beach we
will give
up our
delay claim
if Pismo Beach
does the same
• Pismo Beach says no
• Summer 2020 - Lopez and Grover Beach are in
active litigation
MI I I W
=. u��,w h[_,ntortm n.vo7
On These
Facts - Only
One
Logical
Explanation.
..Punishment
and
Protection
• August 2020 - Even though there were no
issues with the quality of Lopez' work and
even though there was absolutely no
legitimate basis to debar Lopez
— Ben Fine and Chad Stoehr hatched a plan to
debarLopez
They enlisted WSC to concoct a story that was
used to convince the City Council to debar Lopez
The same exact story is being used again for
the exact same reasons today
ORTMAnn
On These
Facts - Only
One
Logical
Explanation ...
Punishment
and
Protection
This email tracks the Staff
On Sir`% i A 55457 PM PDT JadmF emkf,.;-,jrwjwIla w-jM&QM-- VAW-- Report verbatim.
Please see Page 11A-3 I
+ W equrprment wW tabor io r?werty perform, bypM PUt n.Irl V loPez vad thek rwr have ad s r eg4jIc►rrrent or kTbortag safetV bypass the Sauevief Fvjkadr, es Cf t Staat1 as 11V f low f far MA p swtem kwikx:4 mufti a#e t J r .Ak;whed sewc9ar tv buM am !n the p t 3e at; to ara•� r � ry �s•araw rltdurfi:�,v t�i 3t 4t ar Wdadstt oaf:th byaw W19 9tY llesarcm Wthizt V fyfnterYenX kn *;j p st could have omerf!a met dty of arts to CWM V topaz a h5f tstatf of,•, r &f fty re vwcder,t" can 1jet ape err.. as^ to Mable to Peffonn Odlef reclur[ d k The ci+¢ fi a>laI 9V j# th the a E, n s sylct .w- arn, a-rxitic l t
r ry s6eni'r;rk-
o Irg fate NW2MV. Lopez InIt I m ed r ehatili t ar I tall rf t �v Say 5q ',blI sads Litt .fit ati itib r I rgal I i ng bVPses Purr L*I g IVItem Faowaaa im,, the bypass seta}ate experiented laaks ka the f I t tOES EkIn the plug%;, City rtaE' f d st aids tr topm wt h pay no rq t �p No MI do Srr) mAt al rg t ht s rt rma n d p• arl d n guidarnte U grt ab bypm s',rsrerr, funct i on rt The f ob e ra -it ht m tnfp;3ss Igt a m Maart t Pa,X i s t 00 several days forger to toot the wet well tirrn plArirned and the f`laty kW a pre&ertm on the site 'in order to respond io i"ui95.
i►�r n�o4ai ar was �rtc,+� aez
,Phone; (8051-457-MM xI D7
L-44W : OtW5) 2T5-UTM
On These
Facts - Only
One
Logical
Explanation
...
Punishment
and
Protection
The Staff and WSC
collaborating to punish
Lopez
From: Chad -Simhr
SEntIRY,'SeFtemheT 4, 2020 [ :,4�5:5413;M
To., )ogjA3 RCYZAM4MiChW] G vw=r rig.:
`Wkwdy: Norrml
d-
RM IPDUV to hCo iAct stiff rrJxr71 .,srtl lo &m by Mon&v
On These
Facts - Only
One
Logical
Explanation
...
Punishment
and
Protection
• It was inappropriate and a conflict of
interest for Ben Fine and Chad Stoehr to
ask WSC to put together the debarment
package
• By the Fall of 20201 when WSC was
actively preparing the debarment
package, the Staff was NOT asking WSC
some very basic questions
Hun I. ��r��
ATTORDE9S AT LA 4
On These Facts - Only One Logical
Explanation ... Punishment and Protection
• Why was the Project completed 13
months behind schedule?
• Why was WSC's electrical design
deficient?
• Why did Pismo Beach have to pay Lopez
approximately $230,000 in change
orders to overcome WSC's design.?
HUB I s 11' www.huntortmann.com 45
ATTORIIE95 R
On These
Facts - Only
One
Logical
Explanation,,,
Punishment
and
Protection
• While Ben Fine and Chad Stoehr were concocting the
debarment story with WSC, they could not find the
time to look in the mirror and ask some very basic
questions
— Why did we delay the Project by not hiring a SCADA
consultant when we should have?
— Why did we allow WSC's plans to go out for bid containing significant design deficiencies?
— Why did we pay Lopez and WSC a lot of extra money?
— What did my team do wrong?
On These Facts - Only One Logical
Explanation ... Punishment and Protection
• None of these compelling questions
were asked by Ben Fine or Chad Stoehr
• In fact., Ben Fine couldn't "recall"
whether before deciding to debar Lopez
he, as the Director of Public Works, tried
to figure out if his staff or WSC was
responsible for what they later called
Lopez' "mess-ups"
On These
Facts - Only
One
Logical
Explanation
...
Punishment
and
Protection
• Instead, Ben Fine and Chad Stoehr thought it
would be better to punish Lopez by debarring
them, because to do so protected Mr. Fine
and Mr. Stoehr from scrutiny, protected WSC
from scrutiny, and protected Grover Beach
• In fact, Mr. Ray and Mr. Fine were in
communication and apparent coordination
relating to Lopez' debarment
On These
Facts - Only
One
Logical
Explanation
...
Punishment
and
Protection
• Chad Stoehr
requests help
from WSC days
before the
Debarment
Hearing
— Deposition Exhibit 129
All are design
flaws
None of these
reasons are worthy
of debarment
From Chad Stoehr
Seut: llxasalay, November 12, 2020146,00 PM
To: Michael Qmnmc
Cc: Josh. Reynolds
Subject: Powerpohtt Presentation - Non -Responsible Bidder - V. Lopez 11. 1.72020 Sewi&kyr Normal
httatchrmuts:
XX &port Nora "ons" Bid&r'hll Am; These are the best
the CM had to offer
Mchael/losh,
in support of
debarment
Ben just notified me he wants me to start a powerpoint presentation forthe M"ting ne xtTuesday,11.17. He wants lots of plctunes of their meups to coincide with what we discuss in the attached Staff Report. 41 Can you guys provide me picture sof: "mess-ups"
not debarment
iv Spyglass Park Excavation
+. Use of City Vactor truck when they were not prepared M At the five rities'Is, lopex drilling a dreuiarhole 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, * issue with bypassing at the Sunset Palisade lift Station • Float and eleetrirsl misinterpfetati-on, etc. at Five Cities LS + Meter parcel sire at Five Cities L5
` + Elbow flange and different material piping at Five aties LS Sorry for the late notice, but i would like to Itave a draft of the powerpoint to Bien by end of day tomorrow, so if you could get those to me asap that would be awesome.
Also, I would like to dump all your photographs onto ourserrer, can you send me a link or I can stop by your office tomorrow or meet you somewhere to pick up a flash drive with all the photos on it? Tlhanksl
Chad
i
On These Facts - Only One Logical
Explanation. -Punishment and Protection
Chad Stoehr
prepared the
damages breakdown
for Ben Fine days
before the
Debarment Hearing
Totally invalid
Not worthy of
debarment
— Deposition Exhibit 131
The Change Orders are
a Done Deal - Cannot revisit
them
Ronc (_ .1;1.)chr
Scut. Tuesday, Novembcr 10, 2020 9:05M PM
o- len�aron Fine Design Flaws -
Subjeel: V. LopezNor4-Responsible- 13reakdownofDamages WSC costs not on S°militt"lty' N°""al Lopez' Dime
(See §1104)
Sen,
Here Is the breakdown forthe $322,SM
Construction Management WSC (Amendment #1): $0,9W
Construction Management WSC (Amendment #2). $psi QW
Construction Management WSC (Amrnendme nt #3): $69,W
Additional Engineering Services Durfngiconstruction WSC (Amendrnent#7to WSC's design CC0#21- $ 2,M (20 working days @$1,000per day ($20,000) ,and SZ 283 additi oral cost) -- see discussion In the section labeled "lade of understanding of PG&E standards" within the staff report, this change order was issued for the change to a 400amp panel and the City was not ultimately obligated to issue this change order, It was issued to maintain progress on the project and the decal item was on the critical path.
CCO#26- $97, 2i/4.75 (47 working days @$i+r>W per day ($47,000) and $50,214.75 additional cost) — see discussion in the section labeled "poor puFnp contrrol panel asset ions" within the staff reports this change order was anotherthat the City was notobilgated to issue but did so to maintain progress and the work was critical to getting the proiect completed.
Total., $32zX7.7
Chad
On These
Facts - Only
One
Logical
Explanation.
w
Punishment
and
Protection
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; a n d
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.
Resolution R-2020-094
On These Facts - Only One Logical
Explanation ... Punishment and Protection
From: Benjamin Fine
Cc: €fan i el ?He lm e l (dhe i n*l &wsc-i nc. com)
Subject: Re: Meeting with State Parks
It was last week:
On anothertopc, can you came to ourV. Lopez hearing on 11/17via zoom' Pleaseforgve typos, Sent from my Mad
Benjamin A, Fine, P.E.
Qirectorof Public Wor7:s/
City Engineer
City of Pismo Beach
(805) 773-7037
Deposition Exhibit 158
From; Greg Ray
Subject: RE: Meeting with State Parks
Ben Fine wants Greg Ray
from Grover Beach to
weigh in on Lopez'
debarment
Ok,
Our counsel representing the City on the V, Lopez claim doesn't think it is a good idea for me to attend/cornment on your V.
Lopez item.
A. nary, PJL l PuNic YMawite Oirector t City Engkww I Pk W&473.4530 & tax SM4MAHM l Cq erGw er Beach P* c Works Deparbuwd *5 Sams O S*et +gym er Beach. CA SM33 ti w * ,.beach U
On These
Facts - Only
One
Logical
Explanation
...
Punishment
and
Protection
Greg Ray has a motive to
punish Lopez and protect I
Grover Beach
Deposition Exhibit 158
V0f
Seidh Wtdnesda�, No erebet4, 2nio 113731 AM
To, I_- , , fir
S*)) i tRF kIVC*q watt State Parks
senswAtY.Nomw
'theyfiledthreedalms. Only one isevenstlghtlySuNtantiated. They growyunderestimated the wttrkrarernee sserytp com%vte the project.
Mr"wti 4. Itar FAL 1 rumo was oeeom V am elI Ph NO L47SAMMI I Ire 8M40 seW I MMMMMMEffMhMMLvu :.NdC;apusr►t�Fotu:NvhSnr�'ei�' '�StaA�r'ta'�;C.cAMrC.r LE W.26AM to: "Ray
Subject RE: MIOSng with Stata Parks
What we you guys in taunt ever?
Beajamtt A. Fift, Pr
Directar of Public Woks/C ty Engnmeer
Cityaf Pismo Seach
W5."17637 j10Irettr
Mr,.773.46%iFI.r
bfieganumakadLM
On These Facts - Only One Logical
Explanation ... Punishment and Protection
Why was Chad Stoehr so Happy?
Chad Stoehr
reveals his animus
towards Lopez
Deposition Exhibit 128
Ta., r-m elm
` 040,' l ' I"t** t1 No't r - November 17, 2020 Mdcr
Sram.ity: Norma
Wdw� let the batty begIn-
Fifl fre Erin 13IseA sI-0Pi%rM9eaKh.vres
ice Chad Stoehr Stoehr@P6maBe&ch-orp
S *ct: FW.. PUMIC Meming Not ice - Navembar 17, 2020 rye; Non--iespanmble Wdder Erin Olsen
htama rnent Analyst, Pt&lc WarkV&qlneering
01V of Pismo Beach
i�..4 lFax�
.
On These
Facts - Only
One
Logical
Explanation
...
Punishment
and
Protection
Ben Fine wanted to punish Lopez
— Benjamin Fine Deposition Transcript, Page 47
21 A My hope was to not prevent heui froir, e-sting,
22, work. It was to prevent other cities f-ram having to 3 deal with what we dealt with.
To put Lopez out of business
— Benjamin Fine Deposition Transcript, Page 102
Punishment
THE WITNESS- It protects Us from having to do
3 business with to ez in the future.
November 2020 Debarment:
Punishment
• Ben Fine said the end product was satisfactory
— Benjamin Fine Deposition Transcript, Page 41
Quality of work Lars = factor.
,� Was it �:_ his on.e?
The end product was satisfactory.
So it's not in this one.
20 A The end prod-1 ct was satisfactor. .
21 You Mean. the --if sto ion workE fi-mlie.
22 A To mix kn:owl s dge , yes.
22 Well, you would oar if it didn't wouldn't
24 you
25 A I wool d .
November 2020 Debarment:
Punishment
• Chad Stoehr believed Lopez was trustworthy
— Chad Stoehr Deposition Transcript, Page 42
1 Did you think they were untrustworthy?
12 A No,
_.�
0 November 2020 Debarment:
Punishment
Ben Fine never even met Vince or Butch Lopez
— Benjamin Fine Deposition Transcript, Page 74
22 Q Do yo , :snow Vince or But h Lopez?
A _No
T
- Have you ever met the-m
I S A I don't recall meeting them, I may haves popper.
2.6 in a meet ng and they've been thy,- E-.
Pismo Beach v. Tetra Tech Inc.
Yet another Pismo Bah
Public Works projecwith design erro
1 1 DAVIT? FLEISHNLkN (BAR NO. 156695)
CITY ATTORNEY
2 CITY OF PISMO BEACH
3 RICHARDS, WATSON & GERSHON
A Professional Corporation
4 STEVE�NwA. NGUY (BAIL1O. 307263)
5 �A�RO K NCOSER (BAR NO. 329337)
6 350 S2WGf2nd A sue, 37th Floor
Los Angeles, California 90071
7 Telephone: 213.626.8484
Facsurnle: 213.626.0078
Attorneys for Plaintiff
9 CTY OF PISMO BEACH
ELECTRON I CALL'
FILED
10 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF +CALIFORILA
11 COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
12 1 THE CITY OF PISMO BEACH. a
California Municipal Corporation,
1 Plaint
1 TETRA TECH, INC., a Delaware
Corporation; and DOES 1 through 10,
1 inclusive,
III Defendant.
20 Case No. 22CV-0520
CONSTRUCTION DEFECTS -
+C'OIIPIAINT FOR D IMAGES
(1) BREACH OF ANWT 'EN
CONTRACT & EXPRESS 1VAFJLk TTY
(2) PROFESSIONAL NEGLIG:ENCE -
DESIGN ERRORS AND OIUSSIONTS
(3) BREACH OF LIIPLIED WARRANTY
(4) INJURY TO REAL PROPERTY
( -um4t frame ding fees =smr—* to Gw,. Coee § 61031
Pismo Beach v. Tetra Tech Inc.
11 Project- Defendants, and &-ich of them, haNT breached their obligations under their 12 respective written agreements with PlaintifL among other things, for the :followmi g reasons:
13 a.. Failing to perform their obligations thereunder in a good. professional and 14 worlunanlike- manner_ or at all:
15 b. FailiAg to meet the standards of the profess' n embodied therein including failure to identify and remedy the numerous design enrors and omissions in the Why is Pismo Beach going
after the construction plans and :specifications:
manager here instead of
the general contractor? C. Failing to adequate r siTervise the work -performed by their employees, agents 19 an+d�"Or subcontractors;
20 d. Failing to fiunish an& or enswe the fiunishing of Labor. sen ices, goods, 21 materials and equipment of the quality required by the Agreement, and the 22 standards of the industry;
23 e. Failing to sati* their respective obligations under the te= of the express 4'4 wananties and obligations contai.ne+d in the �.gre� it.
The 2nd Debarment - March 7, 2023
• Deb
• Deb
arment to punish Lopez = Wrong
t used to gain litigation
leverage over Lopez = Wrong
• No public protection needed
• Lopez fully performed the Contract
Pismo Beach got the benefit of its
bargain
armen
ATTORIlE95 AT LA
The 2nd Debarment= March 7, 2023
-. No contemporaneous evidence supporting the
Staffs complaints that were concocted after the
fact
- Not to be found in the extensive meeting minutes or
any correspondence
• Throughout the Project, the Staff could never
point to any delay to the Critical Path that was
caused by Lopez
ORTMAnn
The 2nd Debarment= March 7, 2023
• In fact, the Staff waited until 4 months
after the Project was completed to claim
that Lopez had caused delay damages
—This belated contention was purposeful
—By September 2020, the Staff was finally
ready to do what Ben Fine wanted to do
before the Project was awarded to Lopez
ORTmnnn
The 2nd Debarment= March 7, 2023
• No contemporaneous meeting minutes or
correspondence exists regarding defective
work or problems with Lopez' performance
• If debarment was truly warranted, the
Project records would include:
— Notice of potential terminations letters
—Notice to cure letters
— A demand on Lopez' performance bond surety
The 2nd Debarment= March 7, 2023
• None of that exists because Lopez fully performed
the contract and most importantly, debarment was
never proper, and it is certainly not proper now
• Absent this debarment, what remains of this Project
is a garden variety public works lawsuit, where
Pismo Beach has a right to convince a jury that
Lopez is responsible for the last 6 weeks of delay on
the project
• Using debarment to gain leverage in that lawsuit is
completely improper
Not any
violation
of the
contract
Debarment Issue:
Spyglass Park Staffs Position
issue #1: ' . Lopez beginning work
without proper planning
• Excavated — Sept. 25, 2018
• Parts for repair not ordered
• Area closed for 14 weeks
• Filled —,fan. 2, 2019
• Re -excavated March 2019
• Park rents $25/hour
• Average income $300/month
• Approximate lost rental $1,800
w ! _
I Not a valid basis
for debarment
t.lp i+,
llita,.,..
fW
156
Debarment Issue: Spyglass Park
• The Truth = No debarment warranted
• Pismo Beach could have stopped this
Means & Methods • No contemporaneous complaints
No contract issue
1 1i1.;i.15.
STATUS ;J; PLUG VALVE -SAND EXCAVATION Ar SPYGLASS �AR,i Robert Cames {IWSC'
DrI601 .
Discussed the fact that the' lug Valves -lee the ftcass are ncn on site and that Lhe site has been excavated in excess of oothd mg on the existing PCV F`%,' and the 90 at the 0"elL 'Ulnae to get hank to the City with delivery date for valves. if City finds the Vince Lopez IVL )
tangoing
date to be to long of a lead City may direct Lwez to back#fll ID 018
ex_ apt_
2ZI IV11201,9
LOPEZ HAS SACKFILLED EXCAVATION IN THE PARK.
Robert Carnes 1,WSC;
Ongoing
A- Limit use of Site to allow: No contract issue
1. Work by City-
2. Acce-,z to RV stcaa-ge -, d by RV �tma- Yardmamer and earployees 1_7 WORK SEQUENCE tNo'conlract issue
A. Construct Work in order to kx-,ep the : g'lift station cperaiticnal until the new lift sta.fim and 4 arremain is completed. Coordinateconstuction schedule and operation-, adtYn Ci>t-v
Debarment Issue: Staff's Position
Exactly - Not a
breach of contract
Not a valid basis
for debarment
Issue #1: V. Lopez beginning w
ro �.► planning
False Statement
Plan details 18-in square sump in the bottom of the �� -owl concrete vault
• The plans do not specify the means or methods
• Normal process is to submit a Request for
Clarification (RFC) prior to initiating the work if there is confusion
• On March 19, 2019, V. Lopez drilled a round hale in
Details the bottom of the sump
always . needed Then asked for a detail to allow for a functional waterproof installation.
• Additional time and casts to the City
• Proper planning would have identified the need for
this sump and incorporated it into the precast vault
Lopez did
t
1ST
Debarment Issue No. 1
The Truth
• Means and Methods = Not a contract issue
• A precast concrete vault
• Watertight sump = No design
• RFI 21 = Proper planning
• PCC §1104
• End Product: Fully functional valve
• No contemporaneous complaints
• No debarment warranted
Debarment Issue No. 1
The Truth
V. Lopez Jr. & Sobs, Inc.
200 E. Feeler Sb*9t, #101
Santa Maria, CA_ 93464
REQUEST FOR INFORMATION
To. Water Systems Consulting, Inc.
805 Awowsta Place, Suite 201
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Attn.: Joshua Reynolds, P.E.
RFI No. 21
Date: 31t812019
Respond By: ASAP
Project No.:
Ptoject: Coy of Pismo ®tacit Lift Wpm Prolotl (Hwy It
VM nyards to the S CK" L!R Station (Hwy1)1 t'xi, Vautt Pl*aae pwide a dot ll forth* method fora W~ "M sal between the vat" vault and drain box. (Pkese See Attached Pbotas) Reason being ihs gnound water table is sornetimas only 4 fog down,
Cost Impact Unkhown $ _ Signature. &_
Sd:edule impact. Unknown Ur*now n Days PagesAttacl*a;
TradetCordractor. Schedule Tasktlo.nte m:
The wod shall Se carried ale m a«wrounee mitt the loflpwinyt supplmtnsetk4 kutruCsnsn aeued in seoodance weth the c:onwcr 6oannertta wlhout change In the Contact Stan or Catered Tnu& Proceed5wV w11n me Vft* w scwrda nce Win anew otnKsom indlcon your aCknoWedgmenl that flare wAll be no orange to the Contact Son c, Conlratt Thna.
If Ina Cantradwconak1we dnatthis uVOrnsttal t'abvdtm requir" a dutsga In the C*nlm t Sum or Contract time, Coe Ccnl actor areal not proceed wah this Work and stoat pra :tpey aubmn at iMehaed pmpoW to to WOW Sw doing this wwk. I! yea proposal sr iand ro � sal(SSRr3,, '! antd GY Artie', xda a . Prlemsxasl (rl6bla:apn rAll tie s,e.+rf'aCdc� by a C,9REht1_GdeA-_';Firti, - pk _ .
Refertea To: Referred DOW: Ream Hate:
SUPPLEMENTAL INSTRUCTIONS,
Contact oft Signature: E e ineer's $gnwure.
Date' Date:
Copy, C]omw O hspectc, ; Te.Eg Lab Gistn,c wv ri ch Diet. �m er tsagasAttechea; § 1104 / No
contract issue
Debarment Issue No. 1
The Truth
Not a valid basis
for debarment it
Fully functional
valve vault / No
delay / Full
performance
e � a
Debarment Issue: Staff's Position
False Statement
There was NO
leak
Pismo Beach
always had staff
present on the
Project
Issue #1: improper planninj
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
Not a valid basis
for debarment
The
Debarment Issue: The Truth
• Installation of sewage bypass pump system at Sunset Palisades Lift Station
• Until the project is completed the old lift station must stay 100% operational
• Standard procedure is to have a vacuum truck onsite and ready to be used in case there is a sewage spill during the bypass work — Lopez was ready to provide a vacuum truck
• Pismo Beach offered to provide one of its vacuum trucks instead — Lopez agreed and agreed to reimburse Pismo Beach for the cost of the vacuum truck
Debarment Issue: The Truth
• On these types of eenra e Projects (i.e., working on an existing sewer facility) City Staff always has to be on site during construction
— It was nothing out of the ordinary for them to be on site, especially during a bypass
• Staff falsely claimed there was a sewage leak
— There was no sewage leak. If there was, Staff had a legal obligation to report that to the regulatory authority
• No contemporaneous correspondence from Staff about
this "issue"
IM
� www.huntortmann.c
- - ORfVE9S AT LA
The Staff Report March 7, 2023
"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 able 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."
priorconsideration 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 backto the wastewater treatment plant. The sump isconnected 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, howeverthis resulted in additional time and costs to the City. Proper planning would have identified the need forthis sump and incorporated it into the precast vault or sought clarification for the intended installation prior to ordering 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 monftorthe lift station and assist with bypass using City resources, again resulting in overtime and preventing wastewater operators from completing their normalty-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 able 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.
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 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 Council Agenda 3-7-2023
11.A-3
Debarment Issue: The Truth
• According
to Russell Fleming, there was no spill or leak.
Pismo's utilities
manager on -site
virtually daily at the r 8
Q . Gkay. . So what happened?
Project
='
A. Um, I remember the line was still lime, l
Yea
believe they though- is was isolated and :so they had
n1
made a saw cut and they realized that it was still live, 12 and so until they could figure out how to stop the flow, 13,
i-Is just going to keep going. That's my recollection
14 of that particular one.
15 Q. And so what did the vac tru:k do that day, if
16 anything? Fleming not aware of
any sewage spill
I f
A. We kept up with the flow coming out of the
pipe.
13 Q. Must talking it so it didn't spill?
2*0
A. Fight.
Russell Fleming, Utilities Manager, Deposition Transcript, Page 38
Debarment Issue: Staffs Position
Issue #1: V. Lopez begin n--"iwork
without proper pfanning
WORK ORDER
"MOMM M Fltrn 5LF3 do
It IAp Mwirs in Man •
T"**:'fM
+"ems, �"�• o s� awns »anJw UM n
Taft
TQWC=t
s+�ssass
Not a valid basis I
1 for debarment
Less than $500 issue
tts
Debarment Issue: Staffs Position
§ 1104 Violation
Not a valid basis for
debarment
sue #. Lack O un a an- 7nmg"oT=m=u=nT pay
No breach of .r sewage pump station practice and materials contract
ept. 2018 V. Lopez interpreted plans to replace only one set of the existing plug Valves
• "the picture" suggested that there was only one set of plug valves False Statement
• Notes on the plans dearly show two for a total of four plug valves.
• Municipal lift stations almost always include two pumps • Provide redundancy in case of failure Not shown on plans To keep the project moving, V. Lopez was compensated for the cast of replacing the Other two plug valves
Lopez paid!
NO CONTEMPORANEOUS COMPLAINTS
Not proper basis for
debarment
Lopez paid!
Debarment Issue No. 1
The Truth
WORK DIRECTIVE CHANGE
(Instructions Follow)
No 4
Project: Fine Cafes LIM Station and Lift,
Dale of Issuance October S. 2018
Contractor_ V. LOPEZ JR. & SONS
You are directed to make the following change($): In aorl formanco with REI #022 Resoonae Dated 9- 27-18 Contractor fb dirttoted to Provide a total of
4p1ug valvss as per n 7 8heot C-107.
Descmtton: Contractor shall Provide and install a total of 4 Plug Valves in can formanaf with Porn artd Specs (Shoot C-107 attache).
Purpose of Work Directive Change: Contractor contends that only 2 Piun Vatvas are Shown on Sheol C-107, Sheet 10 of 27 oar Note #7 as indicated an ail attched drawing. Gorrtractor to urovidie cast to Provide and Arista_ h 2 additigngl Plua Valves.
Attachments: (List documents supporting change)
Sheet C-107._Sheet 10 of 27,
If a claim is made that the above change(s) ^ave affected Contract Price or Contract Time, any dalm for a Change Order based theron will involve one of the following methods of determining the effect of 11he change(s)
Method of determining
change in Contract Price.
new and materials
unit Prow
Q Cost Pon fixed roe
0 mtw
meted increase
crease) in Contract Price
S 5,000 to 7,O00
In the change Involves an increase, the
estimated amount is not io be exceeded
without further authonzattion.
Method of determInlm3
change in Contract Time
❑ Convaaors Re=rds
Q Engheers tieCordS
Estimated increase
(decrease) in Contract Time
I— - days
If the change Involves an Increase, the
estimated time is not to be exceeded
without further authorization.
Recommend Author)
by _5Y__.
Chad Sloe , , . Bert)amm A. Pine, P.E.
Title: Engineer City Engineer/Director of Public Work
§ 1104 Violation /
Implied warranty
of correct plans
and specifications
Debarment Issue No. 1
The Truth
mkn
WATIF 'WAS*C VIA TIQ RS715r
September 27, 2018
Rob Comes, RC
conefuclion Menager
Water Systems Consulting, Inc.
M Aerorista Ln., Suse 20'
San Luis Obispo. CA 93401
Boar Mr Carries,
C'onsiVui Lion Phase RFI Review
Pismo Booth Licit Station Maintenance Project
RFI No. 022- Spy.glass Litt Station Plug Valves
D4. eM tM4
AO&A Grude CA 93421
W5 W4 65SO lei
WWW.1r13(11I"Miews ms
Michael K. Nunley and Associates Inc. (MKN) has rev4 wed the attached Request for Inforrrlat}on #= regarding the number of valves located within the Spyglass Lift Stalron dry well and have the fotx:wing comments:
Sheet C-107 shm a section view of a duplex puma. station ,rnciuding inlet and discharge Not shown on the p01ngjfor darificatioiri, with inthe dry well- It isintengedthat re lacementofr ,h sets o(v{ valros A Wail; would be included within the work �
plans or specs -
Not bid on! rftnoerely,
JJJJ�
l�Lri=Y-J
J. I_ Re ctur uth, RE
Attachments:
V. Lmez RFI #022
§ 1104 Violation I
Implied warranty
of correct plans
and specifications
"It is intended that
replacement of both sets of
plug valves (4 total) would
be included within the
work."
INot shown on the I
plans or specs! ,
Debarment Issue No. 1
The Truth
V. Lopez Jr. & Sorts, Inc.
200 E. Fesler Street, #101
Santa Marla, CA; 93454
REQUEST FOR INFORMATION
to: MKN Associates
530 Paulding Circle
Arroyo Grande, CA $3420
Atm.: JJ Relchmuttt
RI:I No. 22
Date: 91 M018
Respond 9y:
Project No.:
PrOjeet Can 4hrm &uh 1A Stem Nfluuenm Fwtt
INFORMATION REQUESTED:
On Sheet C•107, Construction Note Item No. T calls to remove and replace existing plug valves wh kb an shows two per plans. According to out Inspector there are 4 Plug Valves requiring replat tumour e mpectfully mqmt a change order for the 2 Plug Valves not shown on tho plans. "... which only shows two
per plans."
Costtmpad. Unknown $- 5kgrlature:
Schedule lmeat:l; Unkmowln Unknm Days Pages AtfWW:
TradeLontractor Schedule Tasft /1tem-
The V ` t shin tte tarred 00 m aaordxrca ON Inc I irq wmmm k%tnic km Fssum to somnJaaee WM WNW Daeumeras v4hovl change in the C&drad Sum aT C*1rvd Tmto Fracedirg udh the WM in x=rdmce WIA tt m intirde&m Indicates your admwlmt me d Atat ftm wit be r a chaile In due Gtlraci &rn a Conrad Tirx If the Ccraador conaders tha, this k 0em"I Instruction requires s orange in the Cmci Sum or C*wo Tuna; 78 cnaatu stett nd pmcead wish this Work and MA prwoty submit an iWr&ad proposal tote Arc#riW for doing this vak ff you pro =W 0ound fo Oe salistaclmy and in oraer, tins supplemenlal kVnaDn uat be supF, aedec ty a Cans7LI don;_ ?r, a Dilecsve.
Raterred To: Referred Date: Return Dale.
§ 1104 Violation /
Implied warranty
of correct plans
and specifications
Debarment Issue: Staff's Position
§ 1104 Violation / Not a proper basis
for debarment
Implied warranty
of correct plans 4 Y i _
and specifications �� I,ssue 2: Lack of understan In of municipal "�" 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 haw the floats are to operate if the PLC (programmable logic controller) gees down �,,�
The PLC is intended to operate the pumps based on input from the submersible level sensing transducer #r
False Statemen� . 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.
NO CONTEMPORANEOUS COMPLAINTS
Debarment Issue: Staffs Position
Issue #2: Lack of understanding of municipa"
sewage pump station practice and materials
* Their interpretation --that there would be no independent float back - Delays were not up --is an unconventional way of controlling the pumps for a critical False Statement caused by Lopez asset like a sewage lift station.
• V. Lopez's abnormal assumption and failure to submit an RFC resulted in:
v • Additional delays and inefficiencies
• Additional project management and inspection costs
• April 20, 2020— change order for $50,214.75 and 47 working days to: J1 False Statement
• Modify the incorrect installation that was completed
• Complete the configuration in accordance with the project specifications and industry standard practices.
False Statement
Debarment Issue No. 2
The Truth
• September/October 2019 - More Pismo
Beach design problems come to the surface
• Pismo Beach realizes it has no SCADA vendor
to make the Lift Station work
This was Pismo Beach's responsibility
• The Program Logic Controls (PLC) system must
be able to function through a SCADA system
to make the sewage Lift Station operational
I00
MWIIhuntortmiann.
Debarment Issue No. 2
The Truth
• This Pismo Beach failure resulted in Project
delays from October 2019 to May 2020 and
additional money being correctly paid to
Lopez
• October 2019 - RF1 29 Design Change 1
— False Statement
• December 2019 - RF1 29.1 Design Change 2
— False Statement
Debarment Issue No. 2
The Truth
• December 10,, 2019 - Pismo Beach issues
Work Directive Change 13
— Pismo Beach pays for part of its design flaws 1 and
2 • December 17,,2019 - CO 25 (SCADA)
— Pismo Beach takes responsibility for all SCADA
delays up to that point
• February 2020 - Pismo Beach still makes more
design changes to the Lift Station
ORTMAnn
Debarment Issue No. 2
The Truth
• April 1,, 2020 — Change Order 26
—Pismo Beach takes full responsibility for all delays as to those issues from October 2019 to the end of
February 2020
• Finally in September 2020, Pismo Beach took
full responsibility for all delays from April 16,
2019, to March 17, 2020
— 85% of the overall sewage Project delay, on Pismo
a-7. 0 Wo
ORTmAnn
Debarment Issue No. 2
The Truth
• The
relevant
delay is 6 weeks or
15% of
total delay at
the
very end
of the Project from
March
17, 2020, to
May 1, 2020
— This 15% of the delay is 100% Pismo Beach's responsibility for the SCADA issues
• Critical Path Analysis: Pismo Beach is responsible for all delays on the Project
• May 1, 2020 - When the SCADA system is finally
working - the sewage Lift Station is operational
• The old system is offline = Project Completion
ORTMAnn
Debarment Issue No. 2
The Truth
For purposes of this subdivision, completion"
means any of the following:
The occupation, beneficial use, and enjoyment
of a work of improvement, excluding any
operation only for testing, startup, or
commissioning, by the public agency, or its
agent, accompanied by cessation of labor on
the work of improvement.
— Public Contract Code §7107(c)(1)
Debarment Issue No. 2
The Truth
• A Relevant Specification from Pismo Beach's bid
documents, before the contract was awarded
,SFCTION 40 6100 - COM&MON WOR K R aSULT FOR PROCESS COt IROL AND INSI'ttU:`V,E ,T.ATIONT SYS`t'MS
., RT 1 GENERAL
t . l SUM MARY
A.
"PLC programming
and SCADA HMI
software configuration
will be provided by the
Owner."
SCADA
specification
Section includes:
1. GencrRl requirwncnts appiicablc to all Procrss control and instrumentation WOAL
2. General mquinrnents for process control and instn entation submittals. . As specified in this Scction, some Pi SrADA 1-CM I sotqone c:+nf *uration wiu be provided by The Owner. thrt uch they spry cep of 7 70mj rooter rei-cired 14% as the t't drnmer.
4. PLC props-dmming at the lift station will be provided by the pump cor rol pane! vendor.
Debarment Issue No. 2
The Truth
What *Is SCADA7.
4trpvrvi%c ry . ont rol and Data Aquisitiorl
.� �
�.. v
••■ Opp,-
SM
=i
0 RF1 29: Design Change 1
October 2019
The first design change
Two different specifications
in conflict regarding how to
make the sewage Lift
Station Pumps work
correctly
RFI 29 submitted by Lopez
on October 21, 2019
- False Statement
REQUEST FOR INFORMATION RFI No. 29
To wa#+>tr Systems Consulting, Inc. Date; torsir�ais
$05 ta , SuRe � RWWdBy: AW
San Luis Wsp, CA 9XI
P1k:
Aw Joshua Keynokis, R.E.
NW: 0y0'Pama BWh UR Stun mcd (1Iwy 1)
INFORMATION REOUES71):
FI110I "I Niched from my Eloddol;3ubCatlkadv WOW Thomposon Its, ICanm Corp. P%m Advin
CWhTW WOW
6d,-1 IOU
6ftM Im a Arm Utz m D* P p$ A11 d:
Trade/Cwrntr Schedule TaskNoAtem,
The WA #all be ww as m mdam ear the big egg "Wont *44 in ROW* 0 ft CanW h AIe �trid !� ar Cow Tlme. � wl�t Vie V4fork n � � meee netru�ona kftllG�t 1+o+x tOXWIWWMtt NO" *bervdwqqtin Wa>aact Sum or CarM Tree.
!f the Cmbclor pOnti n Ago! Ihit iuppl4nlorfWl i%� Wairae a dmp h the Contmd San a Caatrard Tim the fWWKWr AM "V00"d nth MOwork xd N =0 tubs In WOW P110030 b h A+Chdtd Oar doirgLhh *ak V yu path Mauna b be ✓Y � � ader, Ih� wppMmen�l ir*trUCBan w� be � by a Wr*Cvdlan Chanpe fYm.
Re** To:
IRA* [i* Retm DE;
SUPPLEMENTAL INSTRUCTIONS:
RF1 29 Response: Design Change 1
October 2019
• The response to RF1 29 results in a design change
§ 1104 Violation /
Implied warranty
of correct plans
SUPPLEMENTAL L INSTRUCTIONS: and specifications
Pesponsos below s om3spond to numbertiq of quamlons prr vk$ed by Cannon,
1. So -ton 333219 stafts the Nghaetemperatura and ntgistur'e Oteftcks Wq pr'OvOnt the pump from rurming in all ►-mcies. Note specification conflict % ti 2. _E-1 a.1 (hardwired low-level interlock) and .4.E, � V.1.a (km4eveJ Interlock will pravenk pump(s) frorn opeMling h!elorw i In strto rrvde only), The hardwired kwMevef Int ack must ftrxdl on in the 1hand, rode per 2A.E,1,e,1, RVAde irtiler'100k tO Moto starter panW(s) from LSLL-653 and LK-65 low-1cow lsve3 erxd I,,w Wet Control rslg within VCP, Changing the a. To molnU3n functionality in hard and hm operation be Mdeoendtnt of PLOSCADA, oroville adustoI� contract fterftlred delay h Q vwthin motor stader paral(s) to mainta n functionality
2. Original des) n W the m, ow sera wegrai to vcP-8 :j so s oon "RESET" is writlon to her the MMMO n resat at VCP'-$ tea fir' any fault =. This ii-ociudes 333219 2A.E,1.d.2.a h 9h tam4 and MOM* alarrn resat as w(i as 24.E.1.w2 Nghw Irel swituh aalarrn reset, wh are motor starter ovodoW remit is implied. Rernote reset l $CADA is r*t requlred nordesired- Provida cornmArn'RESET' at VCP-650 for sn fault ow
C*nsuffanrs Si irtur c;
i
Frigmeeft Signature:
081e: 10r2119
11 Cannon Proposal re: RFl 29.1:
Design Change 2 - December 2019
The second design change I Cannon
More Pismo Beach design
changes per RA 29.1
Cannon's cost of design
changes: $17,800 for design
of the control wiring and
circuitry
I Redesign Work I
§ 1104 Violation /
Implied warranty
of correct plans
and specifications
Qecernt)er 6, 2919
Justlh (spider) Thompson
Moreland Thomp", inc,
P.O. got 2717
craA CA ff4ff7,2717
ter: WTBWATJM FOP
SULIM P ip COY1MC$ 900F"MN, NTc>rxesGKran PER SM ram, X1 Dow W Thompsom
As rectueefed, nc -a a
iexrfairniv rnar;riv.
tirr>p�, ty rl X rwM1� N of v4sui1g
vuklnQ snip f Da ,, and mas,SIY the adftcn of a
modtffa Vw* in the alto SU-" r 6 rW
Ths mot to redesign the r mwd wl*V arld efreudtry, fa Oro suburftf arrd suomRW rrampors, to pis ltxs mat&dals, "prov'09 18bor is melee lh$ after W It $17AD0.00 and ars seflrm* c:f tan (10) arQ*JA9 dGA, Tha Oddtbr MI ar Oft daps we "red fix chseigrer submi te+t, pur+ch W and M&t0Uatian. Wo"V daps ,ere *W*Vftu *A mvgsw iiroe and fe rnati Mat lead Ime, If this ffftfs ym epprawaf, pfeaas sJ9n errsd return is me.
If you ha" any questk" tar cornrrrerefxI please do not h@$Ute to CON me at BUS-2W,12* or amali 36MCCanronCorp,us.
�s/4ric�(eerrraly,
.hlrffJ3�erv►tratser, f�
fir, AiltQlrne'lfcan & Efecricaf Eng1l Mrinrg
C 661311
Work Directive Change 13: Design Changes 1 & 2
December 2019
Work Directive Change 13 is
for design changes 1 and 2
0 Pismo Beach issues Work
Directive 13 on December
11, 2019
The City pays for the money
and time associated with
design changes arising from
RFIs 29 and 29.1
Pismo Beach pays for
the design changes
missing from RFIs 29
and 29.1
WORK DIRECTIVE CRANGE
(Instructions Fallow)
No -- -1.3 -
Project: Five Cities Uft Station end LS AWralanerrce Pmfect Data os issuance Deaembet ttQ, ?Oiii
Contractor: V. Lapez Junior and Sons, Inc.
Five Cities LS Project
previdle indivitwai alarms for four (4) dement faults with one reset fur aR, Teak - rcxvir e oats to go to the motor contreu rather then the PLC t�
DescnRtian: Task iand Task 2"described above
purpose 0 Work Directive Change: Task f and Task 2 as described above Attachments: (List documents wppomng dxanpe)
See attached supporting docurneMallo n-Contracior's proposed coat ►f a claim is made that the above changes) have affected Contract price or Carrtrect Time, any claim for a Changs Order based theron will knvolv9 one of" following methods of determining the~ of the change(a).
Method of de!errnining
change in Cnrrtrwt Price:
0 TOM And rsemrWs
"ads
❑ COM Phis f d for
�o0--- _
cast Proposal frcmn Y.Lopex
Estimated krarease
(decrease) in Contract Prim
S 24 792.95
ff the change involves an increase, the
esthnated amount Is not ic be exceeded
without further aulhorhmnwL.
Recotmtnended: �.
Chap'-�tFie!>P, p-
Tilfe: Engwmw
Method of determining
change In Contract rime
Q rau,xmrs fteaKos
d engmars secmrcta
E.slimated increase
(deorease) in Contract Time
1tl says
If the change irvohros an ir"aase, the
estimated time is trot to be exceeded
without further Quthartzatlan.
Sefj� A. Fine, P.F.. ---
City Engirneer/fitracux of Public works
0 Debarment Issue No. 2
SCADA CO 25 = December 2019
CHAT U ORDER
Pismo Beach takes full (Instructlons Follow) "Additional working days No 25 for delays associated with
responsibility for all SCADA schedule of City°s SCADA
Project: Flea Cft7es i! ift SfatYarr Improvements and ! 1h r in tegra tor. " related delays from October®"f'asuance Mr
corstractor: Y. LOuninr
21, 2019, to December 121
2019
§1104, Implied Warranty
Per the contract terms,
Lopez protests validity
YQo are directed to make the following changes in the Contract Documents, Description: NO COST CHANGE ORDER . Ardditinnat uvnrkinn A„M f when contractor
which_is on the (*,cat path has not
delay aegan is 10.28.2E;19 and
Attachments: (List dauments seopI
Change in Contrast Price
Original Contract Prime:
$ 2,901,486.00
PrOA00 Change Orders:
No. t :e
No. 24
S 142,60&13
Contract Price Prior to this Change Order
8 .3,044.094.13
12,
Ch3nw In Contract Time:
Orlgtnal Contract lime-,
Previous Change Orders:
No. 1 to
No. 24
The SCADA
design flaw
300 days
70 Days
Contract Time Prior to this Change Order,
370 days
Not increase (decrease) of this Change Order Net change of this Change Order:
S 0.00 - 32 days
Contract t; 60A with all approved Change Orders Contract Time with all approved change Orders:
$ 3,t344,C1g4,13 402 days
The Maintenance Project is Completed
• On January 9,, 2020, the Maintenance
Project is completed
10 Debarment Issue No. 2
February 2020
The third design change
More design changes to the
hardware, software and
control standby for the New
Sewage Lift Station
More design work by
Cannon filling in the gaps
Changing the
contract
February 14, 2020
,Justin (Spider) Thompson
Moreland Thomason, Inc
P.O.15 ox 2717
Oran% CA 93457-2717
"First, after the award of
"Contract Modification per
RFI NO. 29.1 "" the City
requested additional
PROJECT; SYST"I INTRGRAYDON FOR FIVE CMPR L.IFF STATION SVWECT,. PROP[GED CM --ACT iatGt7tPICATM,
AD0MONAL MODIFiCATiONS PZR RR NO.29.1
Dear Mr. Thompson,
modification."
The purpose of this oonlract modlfaation is to aciaress a vo nems. Rcaj Mad fieataz e F iwN. 9 -e vested addir rrrod" n
rra to we 6 re, sa are, and
r wily on the purpose of the
existing two floats, the addition or a third float, and ancillary functions and parts connected to these devk�es,
Aa 11t* initial a nftol parcel comnguratlon contained
s , rtsf sa a r9:Bys a cAr re aaaane could not bear the UL 60BA Shaker. The previous cont�evt modification c:orttairred the cast to move these ISI�ts to as new enclosure which, once owpileted, VAl Slow the Panel to bear a UL 509LA sticker. The City would eSso like the new fSR andosure, to bear the UL 696A sticker. UV recFultes that laWls added to ermlosures a±ready> inskdled In the 11094 be 2Wred by their inspectors. The cost for this effart was not Included h tt►e original Contract Modification but is Incuded below.
The eadttional coat to further design the oonirol wiring and o+TQjtry, additional materials. and low to maka the addltlonal changes is $7,190.00 and art estimate of ten (10) wrorlkino (fgyg, The 84(ji1lor waking days are reoited fc - punchase, instdKetaan, and testing. Wor*ln4 days are conurIgent or matoetai lead tirne. If this mools yourapprovat, olease shot end return to me, 111- has not provided us a quote for the installation of the UL 5a8A stickier but have verbally quotea betvmen $1,5W and 93.0W The quota to instep the UL 608A stinker (sae attached) Is betwawi $4,400 ard44 Wo are adding those ea opbanal terns should the City wish to add them.
It you have any clue . o' carnmaatts. please do not hestate In cmil rrre at 805,236.1246 or emnil JaPfS0CsnnonCCwp.us.
Sincerely,
cx7o awssorms the -R
_
=rye& tX bit er
leibetlnp tasks'are Fiat
neces6ary..if requir6d:
I" V Lopez b Sons V4
..
Jeff Soarmba LW. PE
big a npenwlild bib on •.'
tHlsorfal,OC CS th YSppGvr,
Director, AutomaWn & Eiectrioal Engines ing
C 66131
Debarment Issue No. 2
Design Changes 1, 2 and 3
CO 26
Pismo Beach takes
responsibility for all
these issues ,
Now Pismo Beach
wants to debar
Lopez for them
CHANGE ORDER
(instrudons Follow)
No 25
DOCUMM 2020
Ct n"Vtor V. Loped JWW
FhmCffin Lf!t Stadpn Prooct
Yew am ftacbd to Mgt1* foflnkv chavw In to Co rtraa Dommnt, t7ucrlp bw J ir3 WC, VI arrd'tm
ft?P a>t of Chtettgo order Provfdla in* LW I;Qht WW W (a} sit Wt teulb aid mwh ifta tab to r:'� � dte >uCC ,r WCa #13. Mallftcaihxta to the axlstn flogt � etas , edditlon of � Ihitd ttoat, and UL SOM and OWA t*pWtrAteft of enperoi marked up COR19, Ti, is CCO aswmea Ov *9 requited" UL 598Atnspec fi n Labe ft k w0 nat be ner vy. 9 raOred, than W, Lopez & Sons V* ba sompmated Av an additional CCO to f*w Van receipt of paid hrvofces from UL. sae etrtrchad Wer for Mher evlanati n of ghat m it Mft orh am one.
Attaohm : Llaidoctmtarttf grpportlJtp eharnp�i 1. C h, .mv!ced execs WWCD013 and (1Marked up COR019, - _ -
COMO PMe PrW to thle Change Order
$ 3,044 034.13
Net llfAsc td sej of NS ChaMe War
Fr7'A,
toll l Tit" Mt, to WS Charge Ord":
4cayi
►fit amp of hS Change Order;
days
Urgmcl fries w9h 11 iplixov+ed Change Orders Corthd Time with ali appm+act Change Drdary $ 3,0"301AR 454 days
the amount wd tore vft* d in the oonnct change order ane a rrA and 4iet @=)rd end wolwe or of At Ma and l e,d and of oL* cloir am
chartP MW am all Mnm thereto are
a=uftted hX 01 U* MMMOM lebeted'Attachment A'
CO is a
Done Deal
Lift Station Project is Completed
DAY: M T W T (F) S Su
WREMAtd:
QDl1lTR= No. j
AM
WXJRS LQV MX M MR wWkWh
SCHEDULE: - — PROBLEMSAX
ccWnpietiorl Dete
DOP Ahead of Schedule —
04" Behind Schedule
Fm ISSUES; ACCIDENiTSANC DM&.
May 1, 2020:
The Lift Station
Project is completed MrrY of WORK P
Debarment Issue: Staffs Position
False Statement
Not a proper basis
for debarment
,r
ue## : Lack of understanding"64municipal
se a pump station practice and materials
• V. Lopez interpreted t electrical pardon the project plans and False Statement I plie Violation I Specifications to Call for a new 225-amp residential electrical panel to re Implied warranty
of correct plans the existing 200-amp electrical panel at the Five Cities Lift Station and specifications Is 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 22r 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 a inspection fees to the City ,6
Because Pismo
Beach's plans
were wrong
225=amp vs. 400=amp Issue
The Truth
• PG&E provides the power for Pismo
Beach's Lift Station
• In 2016, a year before the contract was
awarded to Lopez, PG&E's designer and
Pismo Beach's electrical engineer (EEOR)
agree a 400-amp panel is required for
the design of the new Lift Station
ORTmnnn
225=amp vs. 400mamp Issue
The Truth
• Fast forward to 2019
RF1 26 and PG&E's responses reveals that the
PG&E requirement for the 400-arnp panel was
not included in the plans and specifications by
Pismo Beach's designer
• A design error by Pismo Beach - Not Lopez
• Pismo Beach issues Change Order 21
ORTMAnn
www.huntortn� ann.com
Debarment Issue
From
Burke, Robert [email protected] *
Sent=
Tuesday, September 20, Z016 7:33 AM
To:
Tyler Troup
[e
Joshua Reynolds
Subject:
RE:1071 S598, PG&E - 5 Cities LS Service Lift Station
Hi Tyler, Thanks for the clarification. And yes, you are correct about the panel and CT's. I wilt tarn this in for estimating.
Regards,
Bob
Bab Burke
PG&E
Senfor New Business Representative
4325 S. Higuera St.
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
905-546-S236
From: Tyler Troup Ema1to:17mw*wroq.com j
"l believe we need a 400 Sena; Tuesday, sepiember 20, 2016 7:41 AM To: Burke, Robert
am three phase service `c'°ct* f.,107`�
p p st,l>�t: RE: 10i15S981 ICE 5 ones is 5ervkx Lift statlor meter panel for the lift This;s an EXTERMAL EMAIL Stop and think before clicking links or opening attachments. station."***a..*.**a****************«******�**
Good mom ing Bob,
9/2012016: Pismo's
Electrical Engineer
believe we need a 4W a,'*'
,' tfiree phase service meter variel tot the lift station. This is why Keynote 5 on drawing E-103 is way is con ma n nx r And currR - ran rmer ra : e easoning For this sae is the connected load is snowing to be just under 200 amps (main breaker/service disconnect sized for a bit more), arm indeed with demand factors file operating load will be less. However, we have provided provisions for a potential future chemical feed system for odor control at the lift station so I think tho 400 amp ntlai fus;rr toad added as part of the chemical feed system,
Atthis time ttipm is no anoritrated date for adding the chemical system to the IM station site no' projected bads.
Correct me If I'm wrong riere: the service mete- panels are purchased and instated by the contractor per PG&E greenbook standards, and the contractor then coordinates to havp PG&E to install Us (as needed) and metering equipment within the meter panels -
I can confirm the 100 amp RV park servke will be 24C/120 V single phase.
Please let me know if you have any other questions or concerns.
The 400-amp I
requirement
Debarment Issue
From: Tyler Troup
Sent: Monday, July 1, 2319 1150 AM
To: Joshua Reynolds; 'Adam Ronda'
Cc Tyler Troup
Subject Qismo 5 Cities tS Rft026 confrence call 07/01/19 notes H1 guys,
(Votes from our calf today.,
7/1/2019: WSC
Background
• Pff 026 PG&E Meter and Response
* Contract Documents
■ PG&E Project DWG (Service Details)
* Submittal No. 262416.1.5C-E Panelboards 2-12.18; Contractor submitted on metering equipment witNn panelboard submittal cover (not acceptable). No comments were made by Engineer on metering equipment via wbittl1W process (metering equipmentwas neverintem of panelboard submittal review, which Is LP-1).
Metering etlulpmerht/compalibility per PG&E's standards (greenbook and project drawing).
Atterulees:
W. Chad 5
Caro: Tyler Troup
WSC: Josh R and Adam R
GC: Vince Land Butch
MTI: Spider
Nate$ from call:
WSC and Pismo Looking to quickly resolve RFION/Response and find oath forward to keep project on schedule Beach confused ' contractor calmed they can get a 400 amp service equipment as shown on the drawings and specs and corroborated by PG&E dwg. Acknowledged that a standalone switchboard with pull section not anticipated per about the 400-amp PG&E"s standards used on this project, although switchboard is common for t00ampservicesize requirement bbcuss&hn co submittal 262416-L5C-E Panellboatds 2.12.18 (225 amp metering equipment):
a Metering equipment submitted but never commented an
o Submittal is not an appropritte channel to change contract requirements (less than 400A, I,e. a 725A service). The current meter.019 equipment submitted will not be compatible with PG&Vs connections per the PG&E drawing.
Confusion as to PG&E's standards (200 A or 400 A) compared to customer's equipment (225 AT) and cable sulM and interface betweem the two at metering equgsment/PGR's connection. Contractor sized met*nng equipment per customer service entrance disconnect/circult breaker ATS•G62 and not per referenced PG&E's standards (DWG E-103 Keynote and 26050314.A.2.a).
PG&E Drawing per CQR #W1 referenced applicable detail and backboard DWG details — no switchboard type construction shown
+ PG&E's schedule becoming larger concern
I Lopez can get the
400-amp panel
Debarment Issue
CHANGE ORDER
(Instructions Follow)
No 21
§ 1104 Violation /
Project: five Cities Lift Sfat%n hrrprvvements and Citk StMkn Maintenance Project Implied warranty Da+eoflssuance Juty22,7019
of correct plans Corwactoc: V. Lopez Junior & Sons, Inc. and specifications FIVE CITIES LIFT STATION
Yau are directed to make the following changes in the Contract Documents, Description: Pcowde ar4 rnsta+t 400 amp, 240V 3 ehass termination cabinent and 400 amp fusible disconnect t1226A fuses
Purpose of Change Order: Provide 400 amp, 240 V 3 phase termination cebinent and 400 amp fuslbie ftonnecttosupporl 400 amp panel erPGEequirements,
Attachments: (Ustdocuments supporting change) Charge Order Requestfrom V,Loogz Change in Contract Price
Original Contract Price:
S 2,901.4K00
Previous Change Orders -
No. _` to
No, 20
$ t3 AU.*
Contract Price Prior to this Change Order
$ 3,041,373,60
Net increase (decrease) of this Change Order
$ 2,283.00
Change in Contract Time,
Original Contract Time: 300 days
Previous Change Orders:
No. _1 to
No. 20
49 {lays
Contract Time Prior, to this Change Order:
349 days
Net change of this. Change Order:
..fi days
Contract Price with all approved Change Orders Contract Time w(th:ail approved Change Orders. I $ 3,043,45C60 3% days
Not a proper basis
for debarment
CO is a
Done Deal
Issue 3:
V. Lopez Demonstrated a Lack of
Understanding of Public Works
• The Staffs "Issue 3" slide and the "Schedule
Challenges" slides represent complaints by the
Staff with regard to:
— Change Orders
— Lopez reserving its rights under the contract
— Delay issues
• None of these complaints rise to the level of
debarment
Issue 3:
V. Lopez Demonstrated a Lack of
Understanding of Public Works
Common delay
issues are improper
for debarment
issue#3:
Lopez demonstrated a
of understanding of Public Works
Not true
process
• Failure to request compensatory days when submitting
chang
e 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
False Statement
IPismo Beach delays
acceleration not
warranted
IN Z4
Issue 3:
V. Lopez Demonstrated a Lack of
Understanding of Public Works
Change Order Issue #3: V. Lopez demonstrated a lack
processing not f understanding
warranted for oof Public works F
debarment
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 prop should include
sal
• proposed cost and additional working days to complete the additional work
in a5
Not true
Not true
Issue 3:
V. Lopez Demonstrated a Lack of
Understanding of Public Works
6''n-strated
Lopez agrees; only Issue #3: 1f`'. Lopez dema lack
Pismo Beach does o f understanding of Public Works
not to follow this
language. See CO 21
and 25 process
ange order form includes the following disclaimer:
• "Th_�unt 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
chan a order and all changes thereto are accounted for..." 167 26
Lopez reserved its
right under the
contract by refusing
to sign Cos which
did not reflect the
actual delays to the
project
FOLLOWING THE
CONTRACT DOES
NOT WARRANT
DEBARMENT
Issue 3:
V. Lopez Demonstrated a Lack of
Understanding of Public Works
FOLLOWING THE
CONTRACT DOES • January 7, 2020 — V. Lopez submitted a letter seeking 120 NOT WARRANT working days
DEBARMENT . Based on needing additional days for each executed change order
• Dade 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 37
Issue 3:
V. Lopez Demonstrated a Lack of
Understanding of Public Works
�( Before the Issue #3: V. Lopez demonstrated a lack
debarment, Pismo of understanding of Public Works
Beach took
responsibility for all process
delays from 4-16-19
to 3-17-2020. • May/June 2019 Staff had concerns of timeline A dispute over 6
weeks of delays • June 29, 2019 staff memorialized these concerns in a does not rise to the
level of debarment letter to V. Lopez 9
rm Dutch tops
V. WM R.. Sant
.(. dm8
Mtm M.", PE
y4M.14- R..Of" Uft Swim ft At.m.n A t Sudan M hft mm.
5"WP PROGRE65AtDSCNf,MUA55dSSSdfNT
EutMt,
Thk m.m. h to K" You of"W PPO" IMN MmP$Md W the MR4Wgc.Waet Ow we. Windy St-t-R t 0M.WS Dn& Th. fth. atV"wwM b h.od anatmntMa[na and tMedute aPd..tt am.M.a ay Y topaz R S... (v L"").t Me Mat N..W" m..N" (HdY �`'I and taa�a.ntl tatM wannt EaitndM firt. at[ampktbnafMqusti3.M]A56xdaNdurorkrequataRsnA(WmofMumireswmMf Wc" ie z8
Issue 3:
V. Lopez Demonstrated a Lack of
Understanding of Public Works
Misleading! StaffDelay disputes do
- not warrant
failed to tell the debarment.
L\11f
Council that Pismo _.. - Debarment is far too
Beach was Schedule Challenges serious a remedy
responsible for at
least 85% of all the • Project delays giving The project experienced significant delays resulting im the impression that • The City extending the Contract time 159 days past the 300-day Lopez should be contract time
debarred
• 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 32
Issue 3:
V. Lopez Demonstrated a Lack of
Understanding of Public Works
Delay disputes do
not warrant
azY�� debarment.
Debarment is far too
Schedule Challenges serious a remedy
9nRc M
• 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 Legally and factually
invalid
171 33
Debarment Issue: Staffs Position
Not a proper basis
for debarment
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
I Violation / Construction Management Amendment ##2
mpplielie d warranty men
$490000.00
of correct plans Construction Management Amendment #3
$69,645.00
and specifications Additional Engineering Services Amendment #7 $15,395.00
CCO #21 „ additional costs
$2,283.00
CCO ##26 - additional costs
S50,214.75
Subtotal (Direct Costs)
$25E,437.75
CCO #21- 20 working days @ $1,000/day
$20,.000.00
CCD #26 - 47 working days 1,000/day
$47,000.00
Total lass
$3231,437.75
172
Debarment Issue: Fiscal Loss
• Staff gave the erroneous impression to the Council
that somehow Lopez's performance caused Pismo
Beach over $300,000 in damages
This is a false statement!
• Apparently, this "Fiscal Loss" story was intended by
Staff to make sure the Council debarred Lopez and to
ensure no scrutiny was placed on Staff or WSC, the
designer and Construction Manager
Debarment Issue: Fiscal Loss
• The truth behind the four construction management
amendments was not presented by Staff to the
Council at the November 17, 2020, debarment
hearing
• The truth is not being presented today
• This is no accident - The amendments deal with
design flaws
• These are §1104 and Implied Warranty issues
Debarment Issue: Fiscal Loss
wsc
WATF R S3r5TOO COMIJOING, INC.
4/l/Z019
Mr. Chad Stoehr, PE
City of Pismo Beach,
750 Mattie (toad
Pismo Beach, CA 934419
SUBJECT: AM1ENt34M M 02 TO THE FIVE CITIES UFT STATWN CONSTRUCTION MANA FUT
SERVICES AGREEMENT
Dear Chad,
This letter is intended to serve as a proposal for Amendment III to the ri re Cities UR Stavon Construction Management Services Agreement between Water Systems Consulting, Inc. (WSC) and the City of Pismo Beach (City] dated January 17, 2017. The proposed amendment covers the fgilowing scope.
Additio iij �;O ipn Phase Services., The original proposal was based on 160 working days to complete the lure Cities Uft Station project. When the Five Cities Lift Station was combined with the Lift Station Maintenance Project the combined schedule for oath projects was extended to 3W working days. It Is WSC's understanding that the City combined the two projects to leverage project interest W get snore contractors to bird on the project since the City received no bids In response to the first advertisement for the Lift Station Maintenanr* Project. This strategy was successful as the City received six bids from responsible contrauars_ Furthermore, it is our understandiing that the City% hope was the low bid contractor would pursue troth projects aggressively to save money. 'this strategy was also successful in that V. Lopez Jr. and Sons' hid for bath projects was approximately $250,000 less than the second lowest bidder. However, V. Lopez Jr. and Sons have built their schedUleto maximize their use of available time. At this time the contract days have been extended to 323 wro*ing days § 1104 Violation / Implied
with a current scheduled comp'let:nn date of July 10, 21319. Delays were caused by extra, =foreseen warranty of correct plans
circumstances including:
and specifications
* a darnaged existing storm drain enowntered under Highway x from$eniar Mobile ftwie Not a Lopez Issue
Park,
s the misiocwtron of the existing 8-inch forcemain due to inaccurate record drawings, and, • above average �ainfWl in the 201812019 winter.
I'this, schedule extension has required WSC to provide additional construction phase services, which I will include construction observation, routine nroprress meetings, and review o€monthly progress parr rstimat�es.
1s1 WSC payment
increase
Debarment Issue: Fiscal Loss
=�IVSC
WATER SYSTEMS CONSULTING, INC.
10.111 o19
Mr. grad Stoehr, PE
City of %rno Beach
760 Matti Road
Nino Beach, CA 93449 2"d WSC payment
SUBJECT. AMENDMENT#2 TO THE RVE CITIES UFT STATION CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT increase
SERVICES AGREEMENT
Additional Construction Phase Services: On April 4, 2019, WSC requested Contract Amendment #1 to provide additional construction phase services to accommodate project extensions caused by various delays, At the time Amendment #1 was prepared, the combined contract days for the Five Cities Lift Station project and the lift Station Maintenance project had been extended to 323 working days with a scheduled completion date of July 10, 2019. Since Amendment #1 was prepared, the contract days have been extended to 371 working days. The addition of these working days corresponds with a completion date of October 14, 2019. The extension of contract days, with respect to the Five Cities § 1104 Violation / Implied Oft Station project can primarily be attributed tofollowing unforeseen circumstances:
warranty of correct plans * the change from ductile Iron to stainless steel discharge piping at the Five Cities lift station; and specifications
Not a Lopez Issue and,
* misperception regarding the PG&E requirements and the lead time associated with ordering a new 400-amp, 240 V termination cabinet.
i Design Flaws I
Debarment Issue: Fiscal Loss
�wsc
WAY R ViTiil S (.OWIJUING, INC.
$I5I202o
Not a proper basis
Mr, Chad Stoehr, Pt:
for debarment
City of P'Ism o Beach
7601MattfeRoad
Pismo Reach, CA 93449
SIJBACT: AMENDMENT 413 TO THE FIVE CITIES UFT STATION COMMUCT10% 1W1AmA EMWT �
SERVICES AGREEMENT
Owar Chad,
This letter is intended to serve as a proposal for Amendment #3 to the five Cities Lift Station Construictren Management Services Agreement between Weer Systems Consulting, lnc. (WSC) and the City of Pismo Beach (City) dated January 17, 2017, The proposed amendment covers the following scope;
Additional CorisMaon Ph • On October 11, 2019, WSC requested Contract Amendment #2 to provide additional construction phase services to accommodate project extensions caused by various de.4ays. At the time Amendment 92 was prepared, the combined orsntract days for the Five Cities tilt StW*n project and the Lift Station Maintenance project had been extended to 371 workinit days ,with a scheduled completion date of OctobeT 14, 2019, It was known that the contractor would nvt be meeting the project completion date, therefore, Amendment N2 was prepared under the assumption that the project would tome to completion by mid -November,. Since Amendment M2 was submitted, the project has expo rienced additional delays, estimated by the €nglineer and City to on the order of apprw6matciy 84 working days. These deiays have primarily been as3ociated with SCADA § 1104 Violation / Implied
intrt ration and aleeexieal rnodificstlons. While constructionobser"bon needs during the past several months itas beer little to none, time has been spent by WSC managing ft following. - warranty of correct plans
a Clmfrrss to and from the corrtractn• regarding Iiquldatred damages, and specifications
o Cwrdination and submftal review associated with electrical modifications (RF1 029,1), Not a Lopez Issue
o Coordination wqthCity SCADA integraux,and
o Routine bf-weekly meetings and weeidy statements otworking days.
The contract completion date has continued to shfk making accurate projection of the final' construction administration fee difficult. This Amendment 03 is loterickc! to provide fee to close the gap from the last amendment and provide fee for WSC to support the City through June M20 3rd WSC payment
increase
"These delays have
primarily been associated
with SCADA integrations
and electrical
I modifications."
Debarment Issue: Fiscal Loss
-P SC
WATER SMIMS CONSULTING, INC.
10/10/2a 19
M% Chad Stoehr, Plc
City of Pismo Reach
760 iMattle Road
7th WSC payment
PISMO Bead% CA 93449
increase
SUBJECT: AMENDMENT #7 TO T44E FIVE OTIE5 UFr STATION REPLACEMENT PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMElflt
[fear Chad,
this letter is 'intended to serve as a proposal for Amendment 47 to the Five Cities t1ft Station ReptaCement Professional Services Agreement between water systems Consulting, Inc. JWSC) and the Clty of oksmo Beach (City) dated December 18, 2012. The pr000sed amendment ks speaK to the Engineermg Semces During Constructi v (ESDC) and covers the following scope:
I. E ended Proiect_Management; Ca?ollo Eng?nevrs, Inc, {Carotloi wit: provide additkma project management services, including the preparation of monthly prngrF.-ss reports, for additional lour - .month period,
2_ Additional Submittal RMv_"j-. The or,gln0l:y estimated quantity of nine (9) submittals and five (5) re-submittats was exceeded by fourteen (14) submittals and thivteer (13) r submittals, for a total Of twenty -Three 23) suCrrittals ard+tighteer (18) m-subtinitta.s reviewed thus fat, it is est mated that aisproxmiately six 1`6a adtftttonal submittals and eoulpment operstiatts and maintenance manuals will be submitted by the Contractor for review by Caroilo, ;he scope and budgetacerunts for the pitwogsly exceeded submittal reviews and assumes appfox,mately 3 hours to- initial review cf additional, submittals and 2 hours .-eview of re -submittals.
The total budget increase for this amendment is $153%, as shown in roe table on the next page. The current contract arr+ount is $362, 239 tror the Five Cities Lift Station Constriction Management services.
With this amendment, the newcontraLt amuu nt wi l :e $177,04.
More work by Pismo
Beach's designers for
responding to RFIs
about Pismo Beach's
Incomplete Design
Debarment Issue: Fiscal Loss
Pismo's employees also tried to reverse the time and
money added to the contract on Change Orders 21
and 26 through their fiscal loss slide as follows:
Not a proper basis
for debarment
Fiscal Loss
The total approximate financial lass 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 $59,645.00
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 1,000/day $47,000.00
Total loss $323,437.75
Debarment Issue: Fiscal Loss
CHANGE ORDER
(Instructions Follow)
No 21
Project Five Coles Lift Station imprevemonts and Litt Staflon Maintenance Profeef Cate of Issuance July 22, 2019
Contractor: V, Lopez Junior & Sons, Inc.
FIVE CITIES LIFT STATION
You are dkected to make the following changes in the Contract Documents, Description: Provide and instal! Opp amp, 240V 3 phase termination cabinenf and 400 am fosbe disconnect with 225A fuses
Purpose of Change Order: Provide 400 amp. 240 V 3 phase termination cabinent and 400 amp fusible disconnect to Support 400 amp panel per PGE requirements Attachments: (List documents suoWIng change)
Change in Contract Price
Original Contract Price.
$ 2,901.486,00
Previous Changp orders:
No.
NO, 20
S 1391887.60
Contract Price Prior to this Change {order
3,041,373,60
Net increase (decrease) of this Change Carder
$ 2,283.00
Charge Order Request from V.tooez
Change in Contract Time:
Original Contract Time: 300 days
Previous Change Orders:
No. 9 to
No. 20
41 Days
Contract Time Prior to this Change Order:
3�49 days
Net change of this. Ghartge Order,
20 days
Contract Price with all approved Change Orders Contract Time with all approved Change Orders: I $ 3,043,656.60 369 days
Not a proper basis
for debarment
CO is a Done Deal
Debarment Issue: Fiscal Loss
CHANGE ORDER
(instrucitm Poftw)
No 28
pmjeaf Five We$ U t SMrlan Improvements and [..t/t Station Mafntenance Projed Date oa issuance April 1, 2020 10
Contractor V. hopes Junin B Sans, tnc.
Five CJMm lift Station PM@Ct
You are Rooted is mane tree fo,gowkV charges in Uhih Contract Dooumants. i}escrtipi`lorh; Ctett Icd modll associs:Qd with Vial, as mft cod in WCi3 #13 and the City rnarkod up COR019 "
Purpose of Change Or4or cifferetvt fauns and Wre (he )rats ma go io IVMCC .a -MID #13. f 100 � iCBtions t4 the sx1stn9 boat 2eenitions, addl6lon of a third float. and UL SW and 698A inspectlonrlabeft 0 enclosures per Chy marked 4 COitf 9. This = assumes Me I required' UL 698A Ina on 1sbVIng task will not be neomary. If qegtrired, then V, Lo et & Sons w4I be compensated via or- additional CCO to foliovr upon Teceipt c paid invoices fr m UL, See sttac hed Bette* for further e)pfanatlon of changes in cahtrci price and tierce, Attachments. (Ust do00*nts supporting change) C' Ixovided letter, executed WCD #13 and City marked up CORO M
Change in Contract POw
Or4rwg Co!ltraci �16-w
S 2,901,405.OD
Previous Change, Orders:
No. 1 to
No, 25
S 147,608,13
Contract Price Prior to We Change Order
S 3.0446094,13 _
Not Increase (decrease) of tits Ghente Oziem
S $0,2214.75
Change in tContraet Time -
Original Contract Time: 300 days
Previous Change Ordew
No. t to
No. 25
107 Days
Contract Time ipnor to this Change Order!
— 407days
Net change of this d:henge Order,
-- -47_-days
Correct Price with a9 approved Change Orders Contract Time w th all approved Change Orders; $ ZAS4.306.88 454 dsva
Not a proper basis
for debarment
CO is a Done Deal
Recommendation to Sign Notice of
Completion
"The Five Cities Lift Station and Lift Station
Maintenance projects have been completed in
accordance with the plans, specifications, and
contract documents."
The Five Cities Lift Station and Lift Station Maintenance roiects have been comDleted In accordance with the plans s 7, lions and contract documents. Staff recommends Met the City Council accept the project as Compete an authorize the Notice of Completion (Attachment 1) to be recorded at the County Clerk's office. Staff also recommends withholding $69,000 in liquidated damages from the retention.
FISCAL IMPACT:
There Is no direct fiscal Impact associated with this action, however the City Is withholding liquidated damages in the amount of $69,000 ($1,000 per day).
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Approve the Notice of Completion; but do not assess liquidated damages.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Notice of Completion
Prepared by: Meeting Date: October 6, 2020
Erin Olsen, Management Analyst
Submitted by: Benjamin A. Fine, PL.,E., Director of Public Works/City Engineer City Manager Approval:
Council Agenda 10-6-2020 1
Council Agenda 10-6-2020 9.E-2
The Applicable Standard:
Responsible Bidder
• Public Contract Code § 1103 definition of
Responsible Bidder:
— "A bidder who has demonstrated the
attribute of trustworthiness, as well as
quality, fitness, capacity and experience to
satisfactorily perform the public works
contract:'
Debarment Improper per the Law and Facts
• Trustworthiness NO
• Quality N 0
• Fitness leiNO
• Capacity NO
• Experience je N 0
_1
Public Contract Code §1103 - Definition Responsible Bidder
California Case Law Regarding Proper Grounds for
Debarment = Improper
• 1-6 .
rSo.Cal Underground
FEI Enterprises v.
LACCD
Ogundare v. Dep't of
Industrial Relations
Stacy & Witbeck, Inc.
v. City and County of
San Francisco
LOPEZ
Fraud/Intent to
Defraud/Deceptive Practices
YES
N O
YES
N O
N O
Prevailing wage violations
NO
YES
NO
NO
NO
Criminal conduct
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
Filing False Claims
NO
NO
NO
YES
NO
Breach of material term of
N O
NO
NO
NO
NO
contract
Inadequate contract performance
YES
YES
NO
NO
NO
Corrupt practices involving the
administration or award of
YES
NO
NO
NO
NO
contract with the
municipality/agency
Some Perspective
• This sewer improvement Project was 100%
• Debarment is very serious
• No basis for Debarment
• Before you decide whether or not to debar Lopez a
second time, PLEASE:
— Take some time to think about what is fair and what is lawful
— Ask your Staff some hard questions about their
performance and WSC's performance
City of Pismo Beach Council Meeting
V. Lopez Jr. & Sons (Lopez)
Debarment Hearing
March 7, 2023
John Darling, Esq.
Patricia J. Wolfe, Esq.
QEZ J R. a,
�° off
SINCE 1979 -Aftw► - LIC.#607333A
GENERAL ENG. CONTRACTORS, INC.
SANTA MARIA, CA * (805) 928-1198