HunTORTmAnn
City of Pismo Beach Council Meeting
V. Lopez Jr. & Sons ( Lopez)
Debarment Hearing
March 7, 2023
John Darling, Esq.
�OPgZ JR. & SpN
J• o � p S
v
GENERAL ENG. CONTRACTORS, INC.
A • leosl szenise
Lopez, A FamilyStory
• 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 �OQV.z J R. SO
�• © %.
g
, n
SINCE 1979 LIC.#507333A
GENERAL ENG, CONTRACTORS, INC.
SANTA MARIA, CA • (805) 928-1198
HUn
401SW
The Two Projects
• The Five Cities Lift Station Project
— Providing Pismo Beach with a new and upgraded sewer pumping and distribution system
• The Lift Station Maintenance Project
— Deferred maintenance and improvements to various lift stations • Water Systems Consulting (WSC) working for Pismo Beach was the designer of record for the Project and Pismo Beach's Construction Manager
— As such WSC would be responsible to Pismo Beach for any Project delays and extra costs caused by their design
Un
�Tmann www.huntortmann.com
The Law :
Defective Plans & Specifications
• Pismo Beach is responsible for all delays and all extra costs Lopez encountered due to problems with Pismo Beach's plans and specifications
• As a matter of law, Pismo Beach can, if WSC's plans and specifications are defective, look to WSC for reimbursement, if Pismo Beach is forced to pay Lopez extra money because of problems with the plans HUn
P ,
Pismo Beach 's Responsibility
for Defects in the Plans & Specifications
Lopez
It is settled law that "A contractor of public works who, acting reasonably, is misled by incorrect pla s and specifications issued by the public authorities as the basis for bids and who, as a result, submits a bid which is lower than he would have otherwise made may recover in a contract actin or extra work or expenses necessitated by the conditions being other than as represented [Citations.] This rule is mainly based on the theory that the furnishing of misleading plans and specifications by the public body constitutes a breach of are implied warranty, of their correctness."
• G. Voskanian Construction v. Alhambra Unified School Dist., (2012) 204 Cal.App.4t" 981
ORTMAAn
Public Contract Code § 1104
Plans & Specifications
Pismo Beach Lopez
• No local public entity, charter city, or charter county shall require a bidderfto assume responsibility for the completeness and accuracy of architectural or
engineering plans and specifications on public works projects, except on clearly designated design build projects .
,
HUn
�F--S'WGP
The Law:
Defective Plans & Specifications
8 Q. Have you ever seen a set of public works plans 9 that are perfect?
10 A. Hmm . Meaning unicorn?
11 Q. Yes.
12 A. No.
— Deposition of Russell Fleming, Page 51
HUn
�Tmann ,
How The Project Went
Not in the Staff Report
• Start date : February 2, 2018
• Original completion date : April 16, 2019
• 34 Change Orders = $232, 781 . 23
— Mostly due to defects in the plans and specifications • No complaints about the quality of Lopez' work • No complaints about safety issues
• The meeting minutes and emails are comprehensive • Absolutely no inclicia in the Project records supporting debarment
. . �Tmann � ,
How The Project Went
Not in the Staff Report
• Project Delays
— The Project was supposed to be completed on April 1612019
— 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 H U n
�Tmann www.huntortmann.com
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 17, 2020,, to May 112020
— 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
HUn ,
�F--S"'nL'-PR
SCADA & Electrical
The Delays Design Problems
Lopez vs. Pismo Beach — Delay Analysis (Plan vs. As-Built) — Maintenanc,,, New Lift Station L T M y 9 C D to
p.n.. Z 0 3'> y> 3
ry O - C p.n.. zO 0m m L C = C ry p w
po m m po m Co Oo m m m m m cD i io cD T t0 co in co cD cD a o 0 o G o 0 0 0 0 Maintenance-Generator Building(Baseline) Nearly every major scope of the Project (between Maintenance-Spyglass Lift Station(Baseline) . Maintenance and New Lift Station Construction) Maintenance-Manholes(Baseline) . experienced significant delays to completion ranging from 8 months to well over a year
Maintenance-Foothills(Baseline)
• The critical path ultimately runs through testing/start-up Maintenance-Sunset Palisades(Baseline) delays in the New Lift Station construction.
Maintenance-Vista Del Mar(Baseline) .
New Lift Station-Force Main(Baseline)
New Lift Station-Lift Station(Baseline) [ 4/1 6 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 T 489 CD (329 WD) Delay
(Maintenance Complete)
Maintenance-Sunset Palisades(As-Built) 457 CD Delay Maintenance-Vista Del Mar(As-Built) 252 CD Delay
New Lift Station-Force Main(As-Built) 601 CD Delay New Lift Station-Lift Station(As-Built) New Lift Station Complete-5/4 384 CD (261 WD) Delay (Lift Complete)
L_ -n . 9 D 9. .`. ..`. ..D cn O Z 0 c -n. 9 D 9 C_ L. D . N O Z 0 L_ -n ..g. . D ..M ` ..` D cn O u C m q o m i+ m a s, c C m M 'a5 o m L m � v m � >_ C mn -a .^.
M CO co CO W W W 00 W Co efl t0 lD f0 (D cp (O tp O O NO O 0 O O O O O ..
.rp Hun
i Ir i r
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
• Pismo Beach's design documents had significant flaws • The Project was completed 13 months behind schedule
— Due exclusively to these significant design flaws HUn �Tmann ,
The Project - A Summary
Typical Project
• Although the Project was completed approximately 3 years ago, Pismo Beach still has not paid Lopez $ 152,574. 14, owed as of July 5, 2020 for retention . — Even though there are no questions about the quality of Lopez' work
HUnD
MI "IP11 www.huntortmafin.com
The Project - A Summary
Typical Project
• The Project is completed in May 2020
• Competing Delay Claims linger
• Lopez was willing to give up its Delay Claims if Pismo Beach would also drop its Claims
H U n
�Tmann www.huntortmafin.com
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, like 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
HUn
�Tmann ,
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
HUn
4Tmann ,
On These Facts — Only One Logical
Explanation ... Punishment and Protection
• From November 2 until 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 ta I ks to G reg Ray
HUn
Ml
UM I ,
On These Facts — OnlyLogicalOne
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
. 1 1. A I was told the end product you will get wi-! h�7 21 satisfactory; the road to gettlag there will he 22 miserahle ; if you can find a way out of the contract , I i = h l,: 'h y recommend you do s o .
HUn . TI11�1111
On These Facts — OnlyLogicalOne
Explanation . . . Punishment and Protection
• From the onset Ben Fine was predisposed to dislike Lopez — Behind the eight ball from the get-go !
• Ben Fine is already thinking of a way to get rid of Lopez — Benjamin Fine Deposition Transcript, Page 64
= = Q Did you ask him "If it ' s a miserable situatian 19 can you give ins some more facts because I would like to 20 just declare them nonresponsive and n;-t have to deal
2.1 with these yahoos" "'
.22 A I asked him if - - I asked him if he had 23 anything that - - basically, I asked hire if there was a 24 war to not award it .
M www. untortmafin.com •
.'. - _k r '. . ..r .
On These Facts — Only One Logical
Explanation ... Punishment and Protection
• December 17 , 2017- Pismo Beach awards the contract to Lopez
• April 16, 2019 — The original Project completion date • July 2019 — Lopez, after completing the Grover Beach Project on time, and only after Grover Beach refused to even go to mediation with Lopez, Lopez files suit against Grover Beach for the extra costs associated with Grover Beach's defective plans and
specifications
HUn4'J. Tmann ,
On These Facts — Only One Logical
Explanation ... Punishment and Protection
• Also, by July 2019, it becomes very clear that the missing design elements in Pismo Beach's plans and specifications are 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 Pismo Beach's incomplete design
HUn
�TmM ,
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
HUnTfflAflfl ,
4� 0
On These Facts — Only One Logical
Explanation ... Punishment and Protection
• August 2020 - Even though there are no issues with the quality in Lopez' work
and even though there is absolutely no
legitimate basis to debar Lopez
— Ben Fine and Chad Stoehr decide to debar Lopez
— They enlist WSC to make up a story
explaining why Lopez should be debarred
H U nTfflAflfl ,
4R
On These Facts — Only One logical
Explanation ... Punishment and Protection
0n Stj,'L I r"ti I 2020 A a 543? EIP1 PD�_Joslna Reywk4 e-jrv-ywlda?y�iw_-carr,>wmyce:
+ LM*Cd tgwI#Wht kW falmr to prpedW perform bypasr pumpll&V Lver read rhirk submn6vdardid W have adMLWW ft4.ypmi7r?r of,Arhar to s2feh :!�Ipass the Sumter Fafems*y uTt artIas N f IdrthrQwhP Fymm kaksd Mah 0 of t J r,zirrvwed rrwpRe w b4r#d up M the W t s!az r aM 17W rcgr r ed 4 ty peirsotW 'W tray J?r atofi aT wd lm st wkM bypm' 4s0 road ariu. Wthat Grty rriarveni102 *fift St Mold hirmV.Duerflo wed dty sfl{rtz to ado W tMW tt ifeir J stab 13n mirarrr Ule xe giagecd or ti fn t 15Pe+adaM WV" a+39bk to peffiVM -Oej�ff redUk'&d fhsks_ Thv dy f+CU tY vk2h "" hYFEda spa[ EM Mt Crhnw t praMLr AL h6dd,k,_
¢ In date Ilrtw m9 V_ Lapel Inll:I a ad ehautltati im d TFe SLEkwt ICI sad3 iIF1 51 Sti mhyJ NoI Brig bgrpasi pumping m HG-"er,the byvass system exptrke&md I*tkN In the f 111 a rgs a Iri the plug#, -City �&f wii m ed V Lopft -M h pu r0 rg t ha *a wdli do m Fm&ai r4g t he sy-ri C rna-ad p'al d:n guidance tip jjr t tk bYRasd MMm funrt 4 oI r4 The g o8 a fs Art ht he bfpa5s s"e m rrea rt t hen I e T ao ieverai days IoNer t-D Cou the wer woH Th4n pl armed and the Clt} kept a presence an thi,Site in order 10respand igk'suq&
Joshua Odyvar s. PU
Owrcmaomcr nc.Ccm
PMrAw: (Mj A57-M33 5f1 D7
Aftble,(WS)215-0MA
On These Facts — Only One logical
Explanation ... Punishment and Protection
From Chid glbehr
Sent! FA12Ya Septer '4 2020 ]:55 PM
To: Jogm Rcyrwdi� Mite.al Cia mw
&Das %*. N ormo
Josh dark axe r am gp*Io iv orpc�,arc ifn �uITrrjxir aril 1mvc tz Hen by Moadq Clad
Sct fora Work$Qiwg. 1)N C EloxGf
HUn
T �1
'. - _k r ' ..r .
On These Facts — Only One Logical
Explanation ... Punishment and Protection
• Some context is needed to understand how inappropriate it was for Ben Fine and Chad
Stoehr to ask WSC to put together the
debarment package
• By the Fall of 2020, when WSC was actively preparing the debarment package, no one was
asking WSC some basic questions
HUn
Ml
UM I ,
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 so
incomplete that it took 13 months longer to complete this Project?
• Why did Pismo Beach have to pay Lopez approximately $ 230,000 in change orders to
overcome WSC's design ?
HUnDIIIfflAflfl ,
On These Facts — Only One Logical
Explanation ... Punishment and Protection
• Why did Lopez even have a Delay Claim if WSC's actions as a Construction Manager and
as a designer were consistent with their
contractual obligations to Pismo Beach ?
• What did my team do that caused this Project to take, instead of 300 working days, 459
working days, what did we do wrong?
HUn
LEM'
I ,
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"
HUn
sl
Um I ,
On These Facts — Only One logical
Explanation ... Punishment and Protection
Q Before you decided to debar Lopez , did you ask t) yourself those questions? Those questions would be:
6 We ' re going to do something serious here. What did we 7 do? What did my team do that caused this project to 8 take -- instead of a 13-month 300-working-day project 9 that took 459 working days, what did we do wrong? 10 Before T debar this contractor, I got to make sure we ' re 11 okay; we didn ' t screw this up or contribute to it _ 12 Did you have that discussion with Chad or Russ 13 or anybody? "Something like this is serious ; what about 14 us?IF
T don ' t recall.
Benjamin Fine Deposition Transcript, Page 159
Hun wuhuntortmann.com
'. . ..r .
On These Facts — Only One logical
Explanation ... Punishment and Protection
-5 Q. Did anybody ask you to develop information, 16 facts, concepts that went into the effort to debar 17 Lopez?
18 A. No.
19 Q. Did anybody ask you is this a good idea before they did it?
-1 A. No .
Russell Fleming, Utilities Manager, Deposition Transcript, Page 25 HUn
EM.'. _kr ' r .
On These Facts — Only One logical
Explanation ... Punishment and Protection
i6Q Same questions for your design professional 17 Nunley and then with regard to WSC, the design 18 professional and the CM, did you, in your mind, think we 19 ran long . Lot of change orders . Debarment is serious _ 0 Did my design people screw up and do I need to factor 1 that in
22 A I don ' t recall .
Benjamin Fine Deposition Transcript, Page 159
On These Facts — Only One Logical
Explanation ... Punishment and Protection
• Ben Fine tasked the construction management consultant with developing evidence for the debarment of Lopez
• A year late and at a cost of over $200,000 for design deficiencies of Pismo Beach's money
— Benjamin Fine Deposition Transcript, Page 160
What was your thinking in having somebody you
3 were paying to do something help develop your debarment 4 evidence for the city council?
This is the best the 5 A They were the boots on the ground every day.
CM had to offer in
support of 6 while Chad waa project manager, he has thousands of debarment 7 other responsibilities and he cant be out there all the - It's anemic
Debarment not $ time . So we hired a consultant who can provide those warranted resources and be out there rRost of the .ime inspecting things, and so they were the people who saw everything 51 that went on.
HUn T1M
'. - .I r
On These Facts — Only One logical
Explanation ... Punishment and Protection
12 Q And would you agree that you expected the 13 consultant to do the things that Chad couldn ' t do 14 because he wasn ' t there"
1~ A Y e s
15 Q And would those be "Let ' s try to make sure the 17 job gets done as quickly as it can"?
is A Yes _
19 Q And for as minimal amount of change orders, 29 only changes orders that are necessary?
21 A Yes .
22 Q And the person or entity you charged with 23 developing the evidence was the same person and entity 24 you charged with making sure the joky got done as quickly 25 as possible and with the most reasonable price as Benjamin Fine Deposition Transcript, Page 160
Hun
AT
.'. - _k r W
On These Facts — Only One logical
Explanation ... Punishment and Protection
1 possible -
2 Is that accurate?
3 A I believe so-
4 Q Did you, in your mind -- I 'm not asking you to 5 be a lawyer -- think that this might be a conflict 6 because if they ' re pointing at Lopez and Lopez is out of 7 here, nobody ' s going to point at us?
8 MR. BROOHARD: Objection, vague.
9 THE WITNESS : I don ' t know what they were 10 thinking, but I do know there was nobody else who had 11 the experience and knowledge of the project to prepare 12 the information.
Benjamin Fine Deposition Transcript, Page 161
HUn
T
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 any scrutiny, protected
WSC from any scrutiny, and protected Grover
Beach by trying to put Lopez out of business • In fact, Mr. Ray and Mr. Fine were in communication and apparent coordination
relating to Lopez' debarment
HUn
RTfflAflfl ,
On These Facts — Only One Logical
Explanation ... Punishment and Protection
• Chad Stoehr Sent,: Cd
hwI 5 smehr
To:Michael Goynterae
requests help Cr. ° ` '°Sn6ject: Fow�cpoir>t Presetxetian-hloxi-Rssponsibie BiC&r- V. Lopez 1 I.17.2.020 Sensitivity:Normal
Attachments;
from WSC days X.X RcportNon Rc ponsibiv Bidder V1.docx; These are the best the CM had to offer
before the in support of
debarment
DebarmentBen rust notified me he wants eke to start a prnverpointpreSentation for the meeting next Tuesday,11.17. He wane lots of plcxure,%of their mess v col nclde with what we discuss in the attached Staff Report.
HearingCan you guys provide me pictures of; "mess-ups" not debarment
+ Spyglass Park Excavation
Deposition Exhibit 129 • Use of City Wartor truck when they were nut prepared * At the five cities Is,I open dri I I I ng a Chou I ar hal a In the bottom of the precast concrete valve vault tea Fit a square Concrete sump and grate without price consideration for haw the instal latl on wouJ d be completed-or waterproofed, All are design * Issue with bypsssi no at the Sunset Palisade lift Station flaws • Float and electrical misinterpretatlon,etc.at Five Cities[S • Meter pane I size at Five Cl ties L5
+ Elbow flange and different material pipMg at Five Citlas LS None of these Sorry for the late notice,but r would Iike to have a draft of the powerpaint to Ben by end of day tomorrow,so if you could get those to me asap that would be awewme,
reasons are worthy
of debarment Also,I would IIke to dump all your photographs onto our server,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 a IJ the photos on ii 7 Thanksl
Chad
007%n
1 On These Facts — Only One Logical
Explanation ... Punishment and Protection
• Chad Stoehr Rom(,hW Swelw
Sear:TwWay.N o rrhcr 10,2020 9ja5-00 PM
prepared the To: 13eryarnin Bw Design Flaws - Subject: V.Lopez Non-ReWonsible BreaWwmi ofDmxrs WSC costs not on damages breakdown 'hwhy..Wounal Lopez' Dime (See §1104)
for Ben Fine days ?cn,
before the Here Is the breakdown forthe , :
Construction Management WSC(Amendment#1};W,900
Debarment Hearing Construction Management WSC(Amerrdrnent#2}: tQW CanstnXtlon Managerrtient WSC[Amendment#3}= g,645
Additional Engineering Services During Construction WSC(Amend mant#7 to WSC's design contract):$95,dg5 • Totally invalid NMI-$22,223{2.0 working days $1,000 Per day($Xr000)and$2,293 additl anal cost)—see diseusslort in the section Isbele-d"lack of understanding of PG&E sondaWs"within the staff rapa%ti,is change order was issued for the change to a 4DUarnppanelandtheCitywas not ultimately oblig dtoissuethisdiangeorder,itwasissuedtoMalntelaprogressonthe • Not worthy of prajectandthe electrical item was on the critical ppvth, C00#26-$97,214.75(47 warki rng days $1,0W per day{$47,o0D}and M214,75 add i ti octal cost)—see di stussion ire the debarment section labeled"poor pump oorttrol panel assuM*GWe within the staff report;,this change order was anotherthat theaty was not obligated to issue but did Soto maintain pragress and the work was critical to getting the project completed.
Deposition Exhibit 131 -r.ta,,smw7.7s
Chad
The Change Orders are
a Done Deal - Cannot revisit
them
On These Facts — Only One logical
Explanation ... Punishment and Protection
WHEREAS, the project experienced significant delays and resulted in the City extending the contract time '159 days past the Soo-day contract time to a total of 459 days; and WHEREAS, V. Lopez completed the work 69 days past the contract time, for which the City withheld 69 days of liquidated damages for a total of $69,000; and WHEREAS, the total approximate financial loss to the City as a direct result of V. Lopez Is $322,500.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Pismo Beach hereby declares V. Lopez Jr. and Sons as a non-responsible bidder, thereby disqualifying them from performing future work for the City of Pismo Beach for a period of five years from the date of this action.
Resolution R-2020-094
HUn .......
'. - OR
'. . ..r .
On These Facts — Only One Logical
Explanation ... Punishment and Protection
8 0. Is Mr. Ray the same gentleman that gave you 9 negative information about Lopez before the contract was 10 awarded to Lopez?
11 A. He is.
12 Why were you keeping Mr. Ray apprised of the 2 Did yca invite him to attend?
13 City of Pismo Beach's effort to debar Lopez at this time? 3 A. I believe I did.
14 A. I don't recall.
4 I don't understand. This isnTt his city. Why 15 Why did you ask Mr. Ray to show up at the city 5 do you want him there?
16 council meeting via Zoom to debar Lopez?
6 A. go he can share the experience that the City of 17 A. I believe it was to share the City of Graver 7 Grover Beach had with the contractor.
18 beach's experience with the contractor.
19 Q. For whatever reason, he didn't want to do that, 20 did he?
21 A. I don't recall.
Benjamin Fine Deposition Transcript, Pages 335-336
HUM,T.A.-AW1111 " 1111 www.huntortmann.com
PTMA
On These Facts — Only One logical
Explanation ... Punishment and Protection
From:Benjamin Fine,�8fine(DPismoBeach.o >
Sent.Monday, November 2,2020 9:51 AM
To:Greg Ray-egwCcDeroyerbeach.ore>
Cc:Daniel HeimeI (dheimeifcpwsc-in Exam)
Subject:Re: Meetingwith State Parks
It was last week-
0 n another topic,ran yflu come to Gur V_ Lopez headng on 11/17uia zoom? Pease forgive typos, Seat from my lPad
From:Crreg Rayr�grayPgroVerbeach_ara,
Benjamin A. Fine, P.E. Sent:Monday, November2,20M2-06PM Director of Pubic Works/ To: Benjamin Fine
City Engineer Subject:RE,Meetingwith State Parks City of P srno Beach
(805) 7-73-7037
�xterri�!
O k,
Our co-unsel representing the City on the V- Lopez claim doesn't think it is a good idea f-Dr me to attend/comment on VUur V.
Lopez item.
Grrgsry A-Rzy, P.I— I#rblii--Works di rector?City Enorr II Pk 8QS. 73AS3G l fe 805.4 .9657 1 gravr::graverbearAg.o ro Deposition City of&m r9amhFw6-oWa-L Geparrneql 549ouh8 'Sweet;GrmerBamoh.CA %[,w www.*welkexia-1 Exhibit 158
HUn . TWOkr
On These Facts — Only One logical
Explanation ... Punishment and Protection
Vrunu ti
5em:Wcd= my,Nwiieiking4,20211 1137=1 ANI
TO; III=P IM
X-0b)t-0 P. i—M=ng Wdh Stave gecla
$eqq€d}q[t r;Nmr o
Rey flpedthree dalrrts.Only ane Is eye rtsilghtlksmbstankiatcd. Thrggrnw6yunderestimat�d the wwVaree rirocsraFyta tarnprete the projrtL
"wv A,&W,FA J FWAl:WarM Obsn r w f the Ema N I A iGS4n$m I Err&WAvLWT 1 1�MtW�FIrY W'A;r 1+N tMrvrP6'AWT+Eb im-er.1n3imwonummrinrrnaw rnwurgwip wminvw imramew,n it"urkrrhuLim Nib uirwdi,imMpWrftri—Hjr�"Jn4nwrhm r w•.,ie■nrd+inrwrrr-rr.MWh;SwAMMgt-ALIAJWdlietd.IW,y.indudinp E%G"nKGarmLjrffejkenq I'Ay-wFalrvvrunryq'fir+qenrron**n4 annatt Wit Ini-aiA11u-3111MrrFcajkftarmg�Gnlmr�#IkR ^•" Firm; vrijinWnFinr c]iRnte@hlsmaBea€h.wp
Seimit,WedneWay,Novemtle-rA,=10:28AM
To-.dreg W 4graV@kgvverbe 2r:h,or8>
Sul3j—RE=;%%ptinY wi#h 5tm Parka
Deposition MALEtre xmUa[IVSiMt 4rt Over'
Exhibit 158 Ber,aarr�„A•Fire,PE
Director d Public ftrk-�FOty Engineer
City-DP Pismo Aeaeh
W5.M.2017 J arm[)
�U5,771 4£26Ifaxl
bflne���sfigoheadr.ore
HUnT. ' K
T
1 r kr r r
On These Facts — Only One logical
Explanation ... Punishment and Protection
[from C hid ;S&x�w
To DM 0 hic'n
. -61; KS' PLiptc IImi INofire - Nove ]?a 2020 rrt- Sewh ky: Norrnd
Wow, let the havle begInL
RUW Erin Dim Ps + dPPly ach.orlp
art;Thu rPdav, N0Ve Mb@F 15�. 10M! '31 Am
T.m Chad Stoehr -XStoahr@PjM0Bea&-8rP
' fi:FW-Public H6nring Natlrw • NOVUmb@F 17r 1 0 Fe; Non-Fie ppo 'L ibl-e R cider It':iz1ff118ai..
Fria ()1 5 L-n
MRnaZemenk MaIWst PuiaIr-Worksfg"breerN
Deposition f- ry of�&MG Bea&
Exhibit 128 91)6`773L MM�10'4-vrkj
ems, IF W)
Hun
T111�1
On These Facts — Only One Logical
Explanation ... Punishment and Protection
• Ben Fine wanted to punish Lopez by putting them out of business Punishment
— Benjamin Fine Deposition Transcript, Page 47
= - t Mir hope was tG not prevent there from gattiilg It was to prevent other cities from having to = - deal with what we dealt with.
• To put Lopez out of business
— Benjamin Fine Deposition Transcript, Page 102
-- THE WITNESS : It protects us from having to do - ~ business with Lopez in the future .
HUn
T1�1111�1
On These Facts — Only One Logical
Explanation ... Punishment and Protection
• The timing of Pismo Beach's November 17, 2020, debarment of Lopez does not appear to be accidental
• Three days later, Grover Beach files a strategically timed Motion for Summary
Judgment
• Pismo Beach is trying to put Lopez out of business so that it cannot afford to defend itself
HUMRTfflAflfli www.huntortmann.com
On These Facts — Only One logical
Explanation ... Punishment and Protection
1 D2vidP.Hale1SB.#90230 FILED
AProfessionalCorparaten 1112012020 2:52 PM
'- City Attorney
3 1233 W.Shaw,Ste.106 caN wi
Fremo,CA 93711
4 (559)227-2600 Ott
David ialepdphlawaffice.com
5 Molly E T}u rmond l S.B.#104973
6 A Professional Corporation
Assistant City Attorney
e 1241 7ohm m Ave.,Ste 151
8 San Luis Obispo,CA 93401
(805)459-1115
mollyCdsvfhtinmondlaw.rom
Attorneys far Defendant
16 CITY OF GROVER BEACH
11 Fee EremptPursuant to Govt Cade§6I03
1'
13 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
A
14 COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBLSPO
15 V.LOPEZ JIL&SONS GENERAL CASE NO.:19CV-0400
16 E CA NEERRING CONTRACTORS,INC--a [Assigned to Hon.Tana L Coates fn Dept.9 far aff 17 California corporahm purPa.9-1
18 Plaintiff DEFENDANT,CITY OF GROL'ER
vs_ BEACH'S NOTICE OF MOTION AND
19 MOTION FOR S'UAJAL R1 TLDGIIENi
THE CITY OF GROVER BEACH,a
20 California n=apal oorparalim and DOES 1
—20_inrhicive; {Filedconcrrrrerrt -with:Declaration of 1 Gregori,3.Ray;Separate Statement of
Defendants_ Undisputed Facts;Erhibii Package(Erhs.A- R);andRegirestforTrrdicia1 ofife.)
13 DATE:Febmary 10,2021
14 TIME: 9.3O ft. 9:00 am
DEPT:9
2;
Comp6iru Filed:July US,2019
6 Ttisl:
Hun Pff
4� N
tr WL
T1�11
On These Facts — Only One logical
Explanation ... Punishment and Protection
V.Lopez Jr. & Sons Ggwervf Engineering C-6u-fraar'rrg,lug. V. The Gif eGrover Heftek,19CV-0400
FILED
Hearing: Motion for Suinmsi � ,ludgmen#
Data February 10T 2021
ar,L � ��s�o ��� rauAr
�r
H C Ilnd. Ajvsla .G3�r9BkJN Dep Clerk On July k 2D193 Plain t'LE V_Lopez Jr,& Sons General Engineering Comractors,1M.filed a lawsuit against Defendant the city of Grovcr Bcach(the city). Flaintifrs first amended complaint (FAC) alleges causes of aeiion for (1) breach of oor MCL and (2) equitable adjustment to contract_
The motion is den'A.
1 0 HUnT 1 U1�1
The First Debarment was Unconstitutional
• Pismo Beach Debarred Lopez on November 17, 2020 • The Court ordered the Debarment Set Aside on June 24, 2022 • Depositions taken - Full story now known
• Settlement/2nd Mediation date cancelled by Pismo Beach • 2nd Debarment - Full circle
1. USED AS LITIGATION LEVERAGE
2. TO PUNISH LOPEZ
• 2nd Debarment based on facts and the law is Not warranted H U n
1Tmann www.huntortmann.com
The First Debarment was Unconstitutional
• U.S. Constitution was violated
• Debarment is not for:
— Leverage "Debarment is never a manner of small moment .... [¶] But despite its severe — Punishment impact on contractors, debarment is not intended as punishment. It is, instead, a necessary means to enable the contracting governmental agency to deal with irresponsible bidders and contractors, and to administer its duties with efficiency. [Citation.]" (Id. at pp. 703-704.)
A person facing debarment" 'has a constitutionally protected liberty interest at stake,' [Citation]" entitling him or her to due process. (Golden.Day supra, 83 Cal.AppAth at p. 706.) What qualifies as due process, and the specific procedural protections required, depends on the particular situation. (Gilbert v. Homar (1997) 520 U.S. 924,930 [due process is a flexible concept).) Here, both sides agree that debarment requires due process, but disagree on the parameters of due process to be applied under the circumstances.
Court Ruling, June 23, 2022
• Debarment is for:
— Protecting the Public
• Debarment can very quickly put a contractor out of business.
ORTMAAn
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 HUn
�Tmann
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."
HUn 4Tmann www.huntortmafin.com
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 . "
HUn
�Tmann ,
ABA
2000 Model Procurement Code for State &
Local Governments § 9-102 (2)
• Causes for Debarment:
— Conviction for commission of a criminal offense; — Conviction under state or federal statutes of embezzlement, theft, forgery, bribery, falsification or destruction of records; — Conviction under state or federal antitrust statutes; — Violation of contract provisions:
• Deliberate failure without good cause to perform in accordance with the specifications or within the time limit provided in the contract; or • A recent record of failure to perform or of unsatisfactory performance in accordance with the terms of one or more contracts; provided that failure to perform or unsatisfactory performance caused by acts beyond the control of the contractor shall not be considered to be a basis for debarment;
— Any other cause to be so serious and compelling as to affect responsibility; and
— For violation of the ethical standards.
HUnDIIIWLI
;OWS
Lessons Learned :
The Other Pismo Beach Litigation
• Pismo Beach Self-Storage, L. P. v. City of Pismo Beach et al. (Court of Appeals, Second Appellate District,, Division Six; Case 2d Civ. No. 13310289)
— Opinion Dated September 12, 2022
In the words of the Court :
"The city's determination was arbitrary,
capricious, and without evidentiary support ."
HUn
4� N RFS L P ,
Protect the Public Interest and Not For
Purposes of Punishment
• Definition of Arbitrary and Capricious
— Character of a decision or action taken by an administrative agency or inferior court meaning willful and unreasonable action without consideration or in disregard of facts or law or without determining principle. Elwood Investors Co. v.
Behme, 79 Misc.2d 910, 361 N .Y.S.2d 488, 492. See also Rational basis Test
• Black's Law Dictionary, Page 105
HUn
�Tmann ,
Instructive :
Other Municipalities in California that have
Debarment Standards
• County of Los Angeles
• City of Oakland
• City of San Francisco
• County of Alameda
• These public entities have substantially similar grounds for debarment as those contained in the ABA model rules for debarment described above
Iann ,
HUn
The First Debarment Applicable Standards
• Pismo Beach's 2020 debarment of Lopez was not warranted based on the applicable standards
• Throughout the Project, Lopez proactively worked through Pismo Beach's design flaws by offering suggestions and solutions to get the Project completed in a timely and efficient manner.
• The quality of Lopez' work and safety record on the Project is without question.
• Based on the history of what actually happened on the Project, there was never any basis whatsoever to seek Lopez' debarment
— Staff used the Council to try and put Lopez out of business HUn I
�Tmann ,
The First Debarment : Applicable Standards
• The depositions reveal the following :
1. The Staff Report in support of debarment is insufficient to support debarment
2. Debarment was to gain leverage over Lopez regarding Project delays
3. Staff wanted to punish Lopez
4. Staff wanted to put Lopez out of business
5. Most importantly, the Staff Report at best is incomplete and, in some cases, contains false information
HUn I
�Tmann www.huntortmann.com
November 2020 Debarment :
Punishment
• Ben Fine has a conversation with Greg Ray of Grover Beach in the Fall of 2017
— Benjamin Fine Deposition Transcript, Page 64
20 A I was told the end product you will get will be 21 satisfactory; the road to ge- t i-g there will he 22 miserable ; if you can find a way out of the contract , I 23 highly recommend you do so ,
HUn .. T 1111
i kr i r
November 2020 Debarment :
Punishment
• From the onset Ben Fine was predisposed to dislike Lopez — Behind the eight ball from the get-go !
• Ben Fine is already thinking of a way to get rid of Lopez — Benjamin Fine Deposition Transcript, Page 64
= = Q Did you ask him "If it ' s a miserable situatian 19 can you give ins some more facts because I would like to 20 just declare them nonresponsive and n;Ot have to deal
2.1 with these yahoos" "'
.22 A I asked him if - - I asked him if he had 23 anything that - - basically, I asked hire if there was a 24 war to not award it .
HUnD111fWL .,
.'. - _k r
November 2020 Debarment :
Punishment
• The Project was completed, and it worked per plans and specifications, according to Chad Stoehr
Chad Stoehr Deposition Transcript, Page 255
-� So the issue of the debarme-nt isn ' t - - as I =' understand it , isn' t that the work is not complete per 14 plans and specs , it ' s the oth-er issue you raised, the -s other issues you raised?
A� Yes .
HUnTfnnPuntortmafin.com 61
4� N
r '. . .
November 2020 Debarment :
Punishment
• Ben Fine says the end product was satisfactory — Benjamin Fine Deposition Transcript, Page 41
= Z-i Quality �:- a factor .
Was it in this one
= _ The end product was s at i a f ac t ory .
Q So it ' s not in this one .
A The end product was sati of actor .
21- Q You mean the lift station works fine . 2 A To ray knowledge , yes .
- - Well , you would know if it didn ' t , wouldn ' t - I would .
Hun
4T111�1 62
'. - _k r '. . ..r .
November 2020 Debarment :
Punishment
• Chad Stoehr believed Lopez was trustworthy — Chad Stoehr Deposition Transcript, Page 42
- - -. Did you untrustworthy?
No .
HUn
4Tmann ,
November 2020 Debarment :
Punishment
• Ben Fine never even met Vince or Butch Lopez — Benjamin Fine Deposition Transcript, Page 74
= Igo you know Vince or But an L op L z?
- - A No
=_ Q Have you ever met them?
- - A I don ' t recall meeting there. I may have popped --t ing and they ' ve been there .
y
ORTMAAn jumahuntof t
..
November 2020 Debarment :
Punishment
• Behind the eight ball
from the beginning FR,m. :. �
Senfi o�y, Scpirnl;Tr 21,2020 10337IS AM
• In September of 2020, T. ' . k.;.... .
Sobjc&: V. Lo y.
Ben Fine and Chad Sens'6vity:NomaI
Stoehr were planning Chad
Are they dor-0 Are we ready to go tocoundi fornoticc of ompletion and non-responsive biddv? the debarment of Lopez Tmnks
Ben
• But they waited until Ben1amI^A. Fine, PF
irL-CIfi;of Putrlic VvorksJCity Eriyl Piet i
:ivy of PNma�Pach
Lopez finished the .}oi,773.7037(Direct)
,31a5.772A (faxM
Project
— Deposition Exhibit 122
HUn'LJft1WLwww. untortmafin.com 65
4MRS
November 2020 Debarment :
Punishment
• Ben Fine wanted to punish Lopez by putting them out of business Punishment
— Benjamin Fine Deposition Transcript, Page 47
= - t Mir hope was tG not prevent there from gattiilg It was to prevent other cities from having to = - deal with what we dealt with.
• To put Lopez out of business
— Benjamin Fine Deposition Transcript, Page 102)
-- !HE WITNESS : It protects us from having to do - ~ business with L2pez in the future .
HUn
T1�1111�1 www.huntortmafin.com 66
November 2020 Debarment :
Punishment
• Ben Fine tasked the construction management consultant with developing evidence for the debarment of Lopez
• A year late and at a cost of over $200,000 for design deficiencies of Pismo Beach's money
— Benjamin Fine Deposition Transcript, Page 160
What was your thinking in Having somebody you
3 were paying to do something help develop your debarment 4 evidence for the city council?
This is the best the 5 A They were the boots on the ground every day.
CM had to offer in
support of 6 while Chad waa project manager, he has thousands of debarment 7 other responsibilities and he cant be out there all the - It's anemic
Debarment not $ time . So we hired a consultant who can provide those warranted resources and be out there most of the .ime inspecting things, and so they were the people who saw everything 51 that went on.
HUn T1MLI untortmafin.com .
'. - .I r
November 2020 Debarment :
Punishment
• Chad Stoehr » : Iu
To:Michael Goynterae
requests help Cr. ° ` '°Sn6ject: Fow�cpoirtC Presetxetian-hloxi-Rssponsibie Bidder- V. Lopez 1 I.i 7202f1 Sensitivity:Normal
Attachments;
from WSC days X.X RcportNon Rx ponsibiv Bidder V1.docx; These are the best the CM had to offer
before the in support of
debarment
DebarmentBen rust notified me he wants erne to start a powerpointpresentation for the meeting next Tuesday,11.17. He wane lots of plcxures of their mess v col nclde with what we discuss in the attached Staff Report.
HearingCan you guys provide me pictures of; "mess-ups" not debarment
+ Spyglass Park Excavation
Deposition Exhibit 129 • Use of City Wartor truck when they were nut prepared * At the five cities Is,I open dri I I I ng a Chou I ar hal a In the bottom of the precast concrete valve vault tea Fit a square Concrete sump and grate without price consideration for haw the instal latl on wouJ d be completed-or waterproofed, All are design * Issue with bypsssi no at the Sunset Palisade lift Station flaws • Float and electrical misinterpretatlon,etc.at Five Cities[S • Meter pane I siz@ at Five Cl ties L5
+ Elbow flange and different material pipMg at Five Citlas LS None of these Sorry for the late notice,but r woulii like to have a draft of the powerpaint to Ben by end of daytomorrow,so If you could get those to me asap that would be awesorne,
reasons are worthy
of debarment Also,I would Re to dump all your photographs onto ourserver,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 a IJ the photos on ii 7 Thanksl
Chad
ORTI%n
1 68
November 2020 Debarment :
Punishment
20 So if Lopez wrote a delay letter a..d a claim aud 21 they took the position that the contract did not bar them 22 from getting additional working days, how is that a basis 23 for debarment, from your perspective?
24 A. I don't recall the circumstances. To answer the 2S question would require speculation.
Benjamin Fine Deposition Transcript, Page 333
Pismo Beach 's Alleged Damages
Punishment
• Chad Stoehr Rom(,hW Swelw
Sear:TwWay.N o rrhcr 10,2020 9ja5-00 PM
prepared the To., 13eryarnin Bw Design Flaws - Subject: V.Lopez Non-ReWonsible BreaWwmi ofDmxrs WSC costs not on damages breakdown 'am HWI ..Wounal Lopez' Dime (See §1104)
for Ben Fine days ?cn,
before the Here Is the breakdown forthe , :
Construction Management WSC(Amendment#1};W,900
Debarment Hearing Construction Management WSC(Amerrdrnent#2}: tQW CanstnXtlon Managerrtient WSC[Amendment#3}= g,645
Additional Engineering Services During Construction WSC(Amend mant#7 to WSC's design contract):$95,dg5 • Totally invalid NMI-$22,223{2.0 working days $1,000 Per day($Xr000)and$2,293 additl anal cost)—see diseusslort in the section Isbela "lack of understanding of PG&E sondaWs"within the staff rapa%ti,is change order was issued for the change to a 4DUarnppanelandtheCitywas not ultimately oblig dtoissuethisdiangeorder,itwasissuedtoMalntelaprogressonthe • Not worthy of prajectandthe electrical itern was on the critical ppvth, G00#26-$97,214.75(47 warki rng days $1,0W per day{$47,o0D}and M214,75 add i ti octal cost)—see di stussion ire the debarment section labeled"poor pump oorttrol panel assuM*GWe within the staff report;,this change order was anotherthat theaty was not obligated to issue but did Soto maintain pragress and the work was critical to getting the project completed.
Deposition Exhibit 131 TPtal:$MW7.7S
Chad
The Change Orders are
a Done Deal - Cannot revisit
them
Hun . WL _ www.huntortmafin.com ,
The 2nd Debarment - March 7 , 2023
• Debarment to punish Lopez - Wrong
• Debarment 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 HUn
mann I ,
The 2nd Debarment - March 7, 2023
• No contemporaneous evidence supporting the Staffs complaints that were concocted after the fa ct
— 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
HUn ...... ..... l
RTfflAflfl ,
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
HUn
RFP
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 or notice to cure letters
• A demand of Lopez' bond surety to take over the Project because Lopez was an irresponsible
contractor
HUn
�Tmann ,
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
HUALORTmann ,
Debarment Issue :
Spyglass Park Staff's Position
7Z:::1SSUe #1 : V. Lopez beginning work
without proper planning Not a valid basis
for debarment
0 Excavated — Sept. 2 , 2018
r 1
a Parts for repair not ordered .
* Area closed for 14 weeks
Not anyIL
violation
illd — .�a
of the
contract Re-excavated March 2019 Park rents $25/hour * Average income 00/month
• Approximate lost rental $1,,800
ORTMn
Debarment Issue : Spyglass Park
• The Truth = No debarment warranted
Means & Methods
• Pismo Beach could have stopped this
No contract issue • No contemporaneous complaints ' 1G'.11 STAT LIS UT RLU:Li VALVLS AND iYCAVAT ION AT, 5P YGL PARh Ikaber- Cap Mcu5sed &,a fait tKat the Pkj&va1wes for the BYp ss are not an she and than the site has been excawaied In excess of WitioNng an the exosting PCV FIA a rid[ice 9G a i the a-Vwelt VInae tD gent back to clry wrdi &Owi ryr dame tar,�akW,- If I=I� 17rr:ds the ' L�p�x � L$ �� airy date tD be co Ii..�ng cif a lead CAtyr rBayr direct topm to backfill I 11W201a LOPEZ HA5 akEKFlLLED EXCAVATION IN THE PARK- Raber. Carries�W5C; 0!�Oalrq 1 VV201-F 1-6 CONTR C'OWS USE OF SITE
No contract issue
AL Limit use of 1te to al o1T��: ` '�v contract wva issue I 2_ Access to RV- -,w-ra g-e Yard by RV- -,torra ge
yard crwmer and employees
l-? WORK-SEQUENCE tNocontract issue
A- Constuct Work in o:r&-i to keep the �istmg Lift station operational untd the nL-w Uft station and farce nuam is -ccnnpl,eted. Coordinate consttuction schedi ,e and operallom vz�ffi City- un
4�T111�1
'. - _k r '. . ..r .
Debarment Issue : Staff's Position
Exactly - Not a
breach of contract N ot a valid basis
�.. ... for debarment
Iiss,
e #19. V. Lopezbe�!gin6ningwork
without properplanningFalse Statement
6 Plan details 18--in square sump in the bottom of the -"Rol 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 hole in
Details the bottom of the sump
always •needed Then asked for a detail to allow for a functional waterproof installation.
• Additional time and costs to the City Alm • Proper planning would have identified the need for
this sump and incorporated it into the precast vault
Z//r
s
Lopez did
TMAA�1
Debarment Issue No . 1
The Truth
• Means and Methods = Not a contract issue • The Precast concrete vault
— Created offsite
— All but the tie-in
• Watertight sump/No design
• RF1 21
• PCC § 1104
• End Product : Fully functional valve
• No contemporaneous complaints
• No debarment warranted
HUn
�Tmann www.huntortmann.com
Debarment Issue No . 1
The Truth
V.Lopez Jr.&Sorls,Inc.
200 E.Fader Sbeet#101
Santa Marla,CA-93464
REQUEST FOR INFORMATION RFI No. 21
'W Water SysbRrms Consulting, Inc, race:u11V2075 § 1104 / No B05 Aarovista Mace, Suits 201 Respond 6y:ASAP contract issue San Luis ObiWo.CA 93401
PAgW No.:
Atm.: Joshua Reyr ue ft,P.E. Prate City ofPrsroo 13a h U t5htoe PmjW(K'wy 11 Wdh regards to the 6 Citiea Lift Station(Hwyl)l t'x7'Vault. Pioase provide a dtrtall for thip me had fora water ilght seal between the valve vault and drain 4ox.JPlease See►n"hed Photos) Rea&an heMg the ground water table is som$Nmes only d feet dawn.
Coat Impart Unknown $- SIgrrature.
Sd+aduke tmp9d: unknown ur&mown Gaps Pagas Attached, Trad00antrsntor: &hAule T&SKNa.Atem-
The Wort 3haII be mreed mi.f accordance wt Jie N;Dv 6Sl: Iume4;181 v411110"t8=ti'd rn aC-}Xdarl mw1h Ste Cwhect Dawnem wftaut�rmge in the Contract Swn tw Correct Time. Proceedr-j KiM tna Wfkk 4r aCWdenCeYd1a Wee aytr RSOM trdkrMn your oolmoQeNg rA lhat Were Yd1I be fip vjvwge w the Cnrftacr 6rn n Carhad Tine. rfvreCwtrreotarcc=We!s 31hattrds mpoenwial irrhutlkr.requires.a charge In the Contrad Sum orConlW F1me,the Cantraraoralurl not proceetl wM thla Ydort:snd&W pro.=Vy aubwA an itWLoad prGpdaat tdtM AfftW for ddn9ltgx tl y%r PmPoael[9 tallltl m pe sel!�raq antl orCer.this 9iuplarrwmal huhudlmwlll be a Cdratrudon 22W Imo.
Fw1aaad To; Re%mm dak1E' Return Date.-
SUPPLEMENTAL INSTRUCTIONS:
Coestd=rs Sign alum Errtpneeer,Sgnaiura.
Date' Gate'
Copy' E?ryr w L]irspalcr [EJT."L b C8lnxtural [340th. [:Flec. tether P aAnachee HUn
RLwww. untortmarin.com :.
t. - _kt
Debarment Issue No . 1
The Truth
Not a valid basis
for debarment
Fully functional
valve / No delay /
Full performance
*. 1IAM
4 r ,
WA
ORTMAnn www.huntortmann.com 81
Debarment Issue : Staff's Position
False Statement ctiiY - Not a valid basis There was NO Issue
su a #1 : improper
for debarment
leak
• 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: r
Assist V. Lopez with pumping the wet well down
* Monitor the system
Provide guidance to get the bypass system functioning
Pismo Beach Impacts to project
always had staff • it took several days longer to coat the wet well than planned present on the • Required the City to keep a presence on the site in order to Project respond to issues
Impacts to staff
• Regular duties
• Impact to other projects
• Backlog
i58
nT I
i 82
Debarment Issue : The Truth
• Installation of bypassed 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
H U n Ism iwwuhuntortmann.com
Debarment Issue : The Truth
• On these types of 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 sewer leak — There was no sewer leak. If there was, Staff had a legal obligation to report that to the regulatory authority • No contemporaneous correspondence from Staff about this "issue"
HUnLJ1
�MIP1 ,
Debarment Issue : The Truth
• According to Russell Fleming, there was no spill or leak. 8 Q. Okay. So what happened?
9 A. Um, I remernher the line was still live, I believe they thought it was isolated and so they 'f3ad 1 made a saw cut and they realized that it was still litre, 12 and ao until they could figure out how to atop the i1ow, 13 it ' s just going to keep going. That ' s my recollection 14 of that particular one .
3.15 Q. And ao what did the vac truck do that day, if 16 anything?
17 A. We kept zip with the flow coming out of the 18 pipe .
19 Q. Just taking it so it didn' t spill? 20 A. Right .
Russell Fleming, Utilities Manager, Deposition Transcript, Page 38 r
pw � Jil,1111111wwuhuritI�
i
4-J 1r -�
Debarment Issue : Staff's Position
Ly
Issue #1 : V. Lo ez� beginningwork
without proper planning Not avalid basis
WORK ORDER in MWOW G for debarment
F411kl6iU� ;hD Huhn
!�Mom►
GS fi'� lkrl[s � 741 19R7a •
lvE�:1i993k
� a
Less than $500 issue
NNW Uka cot low
Roue uTn.PP
T"W1 Cs.'s 1.
s+.aati
0 O-RTMAnn
J 2, 10 20
9$9
Debarment Issue : Staff's Position
§ 1104 Violation Not a valid basis for
debarment
[,SAY�7T
S U e 2 s LM�.r O 41 I I� Mrtg� ot I { 1 I 1 C i a ?i No breach of a e pump station practice and materials contract
ft ept. 2018 V. Lopez interpreted plans to replace only one set of the existing plug valves
• "'the picture" suggested that there was only one Set of plug valves False Statement
• Notes on the plans clearly show two for a total of four plug valves.
Is Municipal lift stations almost always include two pumps * Provide redundancy in case of failure Not shown on plans To keep the project moving, V. Lopez was compensated for the cost of replacing the other two plug Valves
Lopez paid!
NO CONTEMPORANEOUS COMPLAINTS
Debarment Issue No . 1
Not basis forL The Truth
proper
debarment WORK DIRECTIVE CHANGE
(lnstruc6ons Follow)
No 4 § 1104 Violation /
PrnJect, FivoCkiesLiftStationarjdLift- Implied warranty Cale of Issu2nce October 5,2013 of correct plans Contractor: V.LOPEZ JR.8 SONS and specifications You ang direclad to make the Following ch9ng9(s): 1n ConfCrmance with RFI#022_Rg5ponse Dated 43. 27-1-a Contractor is directed to_i!rQyldo in total of
4 plug valves as per note 97 5h$et C, U
bescrvptiow fontractarSh2lil PIMVICIG and install a total pf 4 Plug Valves in conformance with Plan and Specs iShest C-107 attached1.
Purpcsaflf Work Directive Change: n r r contends that cn Iv 2 Plug Valves are Shawn 0n Shank C-107,Siinat 10 of 27 Ver Nate#7 as InaIIWEl d on the attched drawing. Corttractttr to prpvidy Co}I t¢pmwidg
and install 2 a0d itiquip I P I uq alves.
Attachments:Risk documents supportirc7 change)
Sheet -107.Ehaet'10 of 77.
If a daim is made that the above change f s)have affected Coritract Price or Coraract Time,any claim for a Change Grdar based tharon will involve one~of the following methods o[de@ermining the effecl of the changeis}
M"Qdofdetermining Method ofdetermIrving
change In Contract Price- Change in Contract fi-hme Lopez paid! 71-nim and MatB a% Q1--n urg zircon$Q unit Rsces ❑f EtnQver-es Reeards CM P44 Axed'ee
©r7Rher 0 ,
Estimated ittcresae Estimated increase
se)in Contract Prim {decae2se)in Contract Tme
$5,000 to 7 X111 t da] a
In the change involves arh increase,the If the change Involves an increase,the estimated amount Is nol to be exceeded estimated time it,not to be axceeded without further authorization. without furwer autnordyatlon.
Recommend Author!
h
Chad Sloe - Bonomin A-Fine,P.E
TU,-; EaWn"r City Eryglnearl61rectar pf Public Works HUnD1,13TI www.huntortmann.com 88
.I. - .I r. ...I. . ..r .
Debarment Issue No . 1
The Truth
A Gcoode
mhn a��,�c���leca,ea4zr
�dS 904 6581 lei
WATER WASTEL-01% Rau%I fV.MK4flUfA EMA
September 27r 2018
Rob Cume5,RC
Coawuclion tanager
Water Systems ConsultkV, Inc.
8(l5 Aarav:Sta Ln..Suite 201
&m Luis bbisW.CA 93401
Dear Mr.Canm' § 1104 Violation /
CORW Ctl6n Dhaka PH Revi" Implied warranty P11wo Beach Lift StatJon Nalnmanee Prot of correct plans FS No.022=5 Ryplass Left Station Plug Valves and specifications MlchaaeI K.Nunloy and Associates trc. (MKN)has reviewed the attached Request for Informaton #= egarding the numbe'of valves located within the Spyglass Lift Stafron dry well and have the following
■ Sheet C-107 sitiows a section vkm of a duplex pump vafinn{Lncludirrg inlet and mscharoe p ipi nM far clarification within the dry well It is intended that reptacement at both sets 0t plug valves(4 WIN)would be i nckAded within the work
Sonaerely,
f
Not shown on the
a J lfP--L0 PE plans or specs —
Not bid on!
P�ltachmenCs.
V.l..CWpaz RFl#022
H U n
;J411
r '. . ..r .
Debarment Issue No . 1
The Truth
V. Lapea Jr- 8 Sons, Inc.
200 E. Fesler Street,#101
Santa Maria, CA, 93464
REQUEST FOR INFORMATION RFI No. 22
To; MKN Associates Date; W26CO18
530 Paulding Circle Respond By..
Arroyo Grande,CA 93420
Project No.;
Ad% JJRelchmuth PrOjeCt; r-ufl„m-alaaulrL`SauuiGfanrknwuc'ru;Cd INFORMATION REQUESTED: § 1104 Violation /
Cn Sh#MC-107,Constructlan Nate Item No.t calls to remove and replace exlating plug valveawhich Only Implied warranty shows two per plans. According to aurJnspectorthere are 4 Plug Valves requiring replacement. We of correct plans respedufly reque6t a change order for the 2 Plug Valves not shown on tine plans. and specifications
Not shown on the
plans or specs!
Cost Impact. Unknowr $• Signature:
Schedule lmpacl; U*owr Unknm Days Pages Attac�led; Trad"ontrac or: Schedule Tasft Morn:
—Pie OP1 Shall�e dried 6.1..r•Amofapxp dlh IN rWAng g!We enl;I i>$trWt"asked In gamma.e Win Ire Conlrsct Documents xithppl phRngn in the CorllrAd Surr.pr C Nrpd TmG Nx..r.edirx3 Wlh Ihr.W rA in adthrdnnN'auth PA E inMrutlibhS inditnitt W13UF aoirrw d adgmat Thal ftt All ha nc charge in the Conlracl Sinn or Ccrlrau Tirt If the C rkedor¢ons&d IV.lhla R plemantal malruutian requires a change in the Conloci Sum 4r Cootracl Tte,IN Ccr#iKV INII nut pmaed vAh this WA and BvJ pmmptlyauhmit an ilemzed Vcpcsa to dre Archite;�V doing this irk H your proposal�found iv be salisladary and it orcer,this supplerrerdal mstrucboa MI he superseded ty a Cons.rudlon Change dire.lve.
R*rrted Tc; Referred Date. Ral:vn pale.
HUn
401SLW • .
Debarment Issue : Staff's Position
Not a proper basis
§ 1104 Violation / for debarment Implied warranty
of correct plans � - ..
ISSJe .and specifications r I Lack C under tan Ing 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 how the floats are to operate if the PLC (programmable logic controller) goes down
• The PLC is intended to operate the pumps based on input from the submersible level sensing transducer
False Statement e Backup operation isprovided by mechanical float switches. ather than submitting an RFi or RFC, V Lopez, its 1 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. i
NO CONTEMPORANEOUS COMPLAINTS
TM�11�
www.huntaftmann.CDMI 91
Debarment Issue : Staff's Position
�iY x
issue #2 : Lack cof understanding of munici a + sewage pump station practice and materials
* Their interpretation,--that there would be no independent float back Delays were not up—is are 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;
• Additional delays and inefficiencies
* Additional project management and inspection costs
• April 20, 2020— change order for $50,214.75 and 47 working days to: False Statement
Modify the incorrect installation that was completed
Complete the configuration in accordance with the project specifications and industry standard practices.
False Statement
TMAAn untortmann.com 92
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 Lift Station operational
HUn
mann I ,
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 • December 2019 - RF1 29 . 1 Design Change 2 HUn ...... .....
ml
Um I ,
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
HUn
�Tmann ,
Debarment Issue No . 2
The Truth
• April 1, 2020 - CO 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 (JUST BEFORE THE FIRS T DEBARMENT) Pismo Beach took full
responsibility for all delays from April 16, 2019, to March 1712020
— 85% of the overall Project delay, on Pismo Beach H U n T.;�J. Tmann �
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 112020
— 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 Lift Station is operational
• The old system is offline Project Completion HUnUtImmul www.huntortmann.com
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)
H U n
�Fann ,
Debarment Issue No . 2
The Truth
• A Relevant Specification from Pismo Beach's bid documents, before the contract was awarded
SECTION 40 6100 - COMMON WORK RESULTS FOR PROCESS CONTROL AND
INSTRUMENTATION SYSTEMS
PART 1 GENERAL
1.1 SUMMARY SCADA
A. Section includes: specification
1. General requimmcnts applicable to all process Control and Wtrumentation Work.
2. General requirements for process control and instrumentation submittals.
3. As specified in this Section, some PLC lxogn. inmutg and SCADA HMI soRware cc►nf *uration vial be provided by the (h�-ner. through the services of a co sultnnt. heivinafter relerred 10 a: the Programoler.
4. PLC programming at die lilt stadon wilt be provided by the pump control panel vendor.
HUn
1IM11511111
Debarment Issue No . 2
The Truth
What 1*s ADA
Supervisory Control and Data Aquisltion
■ ■ ■ �
v
RF1 29 : Design Change 1
October 2019
The first design change REQUEST FOR INFORMATION RFI No. 29 Tw water8ptems coosuiting,inn. UP:1� V2019
• Two different specifications 805 Aeravista Place,Suite 201 Rnpvn By; n? in conflict regarding how to San Luca Obispo, CA 93401 Project No,:
make the Lift Station Pumps Attn.: Joshua Reynold!l r P.E. Rra�ectl Lti yof E'�rrw E3r�ch U Slelion Proj (E1Wy Ej INFORMATION REQUESTED:
work correctly Please see attached from my ElK(ftal 5uh-Canl=lar M ace land Th4mpvlon Ilne,r CariocaCorp. PIS Advise
• RFI 29 submitted by Lopez
on October 21, 2019
Impkt 4rik qwn $ Si�naCWre: {
S�Aedule Irnpw Unkrflwn Unknarm [days Pep Attached:
Tradi3 Cwtrxtor,. Schedule Tasftfitem:
The Nark shall be ormo .•n ricoordarn wnh the talIM9 supplements!iffiNkGuns iHL4, u,anudamz%dh%C9nW DOp'inifft w�hpir 061rip n h9 Gani,rdGt Sim v Corim,Tlnla. Vrr?mWirywD the WA rn awdarm With 1heae nsirudim MOM pir rrkmw4,rlgrrm1 Ihar rhCT w11 be rpcharp In III*OrM Sum orCaVndTim.
If hu CuiU eix wnsidrrs W Ih i NUPPlprndl W ind?Wk I ntgrin%a Chop In the Dmbmr,E So or 001raet Tin,1he Gontrulu aNII iat praoeed w9h hle Wor W 0411070 WW.xn IMM omp"W hArc A4 fa dang IN's ykuk. F your Drnpoaal i faune to be ae9ektary am an order,Ihm k"viel idrLyipi will b4 suum 5Wk�y e COWh an C langc thrc[m Role*To: Referred date: Retum dale:
SUPPLEMENTAL INSTRUCTIONS:
Hun
T111�1iwwuhuntortmann.com .
RF1 29 : ( MTI 's RF1 4 Design Change 1 October 2019
• The PLC design specification REQUEST FOR INFORMATION — problem with how to clear
the alarms TO: Spider Thompson WE-. 101110019 Moreland Thompson,Inc. VI NO. 04
• M T I's RFI 4 was submitted Cl: REVIS1ON .
FROM: Jeff Spannbouor,Cannon Corporation CANNON PROD O 171027 as part of Lopez' RFI 2 Q J PROJECT: �u� �� g�Ion far Fi�+e CI4s Lid e S�iinn SUBJECT: Five Cities Lift Station and LiR Station Maintenance Projam Rtmqurrst:
1. Slwifiaftn SacUan 333219 2.4 E.1,a,1 stntesthat with Une HOA in HAND,the low-level interlock shall prevent the pUMpS ff'41i1 running after a programmable delay,SpedhCatkx►Uctiuii 333219 2AE.1.d.1.a stapes the inbarlaicks are in auto rnDde only.The first section impgas ttw inte�are wired to the motor clans.The second seeder~implles the Interiockg are wired to the PLC:.Currently, (as designed,conatnidted,and Installed)the low level and huh level#tarfodas are wired to the PLC arld a re r of wired to the Mt*)r StHrIM.ROOM will not Stbrt of stop the matoM irrdepe nderrt of OW PLC.As part of this cvrivad,ffoats have been added at ather sites tD allow independent operation of lne pvMps outside PLC intervention, Pleese provide clerrir"icm&r dior dirediun. a. Noce:programmable delays timers,asslwlh u In many lamdons,can be used It PLC bowed interlock control�s employed, Hardwe datay timers wig need to be used 1 the Interlocks are dlmc*Iled to the molar starters outside PLC oxftl.
2. Specification section 333219 does rat discuss how alarms are to ba cleared.Tbc design calls for a 'RESET'bww on trio door of the oantrol pan el.Reset ie cunrently ncl avallable via SCACA.Mahar overload requires on-site user IntsnrentJon and kxal hti=SET is easily am mpllshed.7amperausa end mature also present pumps from mmniN and will require omits inlorvontion 1v restart the station.Was this the deslgn inwL
Response;
Hun
T111n
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 INSTRUCTIONS: and specifications Responscs bdow correspond to numbwi n of questlene provided by Cannon 1 Section 333219 statics the high-ternparatum and moisture interloeks Mil prevent the pump from running is all diodes. Note specif"ion Lnnil in wii h 2.4.E.1-a,1 (ha+`dv4ed low-level interlo&) and 2 A E,1,d,1,a (k)w levea in#arkw-k will pr�eV4 pump(s)fro m oWallng below I I In auto nnods only). The hardwired k w-leve! InWock must ftrKtlon in the h" mode per 2.4,E,1.a.1. Provide irderlook to motor starter panel"s)frorn LSLL-E53 and LSL-654 bw-low lavel a ncl low liMP 0xdr01 reel withii1 V P , Changing the a. To malntWn fonctlonallty In h0A 13104 hm gperatior~ be Independent of PLG�EGAal1, provide adjustable contract herdWred delay dmen(s)mohfn n1o'bOrsftarter panel(s) 10 rnaLt�ain functionality.
2. Odglnal design hid the rrx)tx sty kftra�tv VGP-650, so speelficataon "RESET;is wrkWrn 1e be the m mmon meet at VCP-650 to der wy faint eonditian. This incl u des 33321 g 2.4,E,y.d.2-.a nigh tamp and t1nolsb.wre alarn reset as well ae 2,4,E.I,@.2 high level switch alarm r9sel,whars motor starter ovoilmd ra t Is impWd. Rernole Feeet from SCADA is not required nor desired. Provide carnmon'RE E1'at VCP-W fQr any fo u It cinnd!flim.
Cansuftnf%Signature; Enoneers SIgna6urw
Date.. We:
Hun
TI111111I www.huntortmafin.com ,
Cannon Proposal re : RFl 29 . 1 :
Design Change 2 = December 2019
The second design change Cannon
• More Pismo Beach design
changes per R F 1 29 . 1 °eceribo ,2019
Justin(suer)TAwpron
Moreland Thoaworp,Ina,
• Cannon's cost of design � �l° K 114117 changes: $ 17,800 for design PAWECT- s'fSrTeM tN1 MRATIOW FOR FrVE Crrw-+s Lair$T*7 SuluriCT'_ PFWPPIEP CCWAA�,-MODFF CATIDN,PAOMFIGATlCN9 PER RF1 Ni)..29.1 of the control wiring and Dear Mr.T�OMpeor,,
As r"14esled,har9 ifi cur Lipoat6tl q J4to hm 9�on RFl NO-4�$-1 wflh IhA mmov9I aC Kom 3(FT$ circuitry Rgrt#frnmtiCt Ulcnal(y).The rcrrwlniW modrtir:3tlrr-g stll r&CpLfre nddlelanad I.-ghtg,bu"no,retsyb,�gpwy dmeea,end WWr,,@ inciud:-1� revArfng of wdsting camp"enl$r mvdlllaepana to thep Wtwsferlar ONW k and A Wo.-OnC pUssai aly the addr.brL of a s,n-Ell 9rdaBurn tp aowramodate lhts addPj"i Pwowarc
T hO Mt tO radealgn 014 COnlart wirirg and cmajar/.for one su:;mrttal and 9I1t)R'RW rmpum%to Redesign Work PUnDlI IRtheMOU"Jslm,WdproviCO labor ID make Shecharkgas la$17.#ll)o.00Snd an@edmatecfIsn (10)warklrl d ,Tha sdd&nsl WJr*inp days are FBgUIred kit derion,is ubn d1al, punch end lrlst64stG"Wod*V days&-a tQnyng§n!V1 rev-OW l MO A nd �10 material lea d Urn e_If th,s rr.e013 your aWroval,Please align an d rtihxn b me.
§ 1104 Violation / ItyM hm My quMUM w OWMBMM,plwle d��rrst hmMte tc:021I.mp at W5.236.1245 yr om�lI Implied warranty ' "I'°nUrP.u`-
of correct plans slnaer8,y,
and specifications
doff$Wnnbauar, PE
Mpecior,Autorr.atcn&E]OcO l EVnasring
C W1$1
Hun Pff
www.TkSPLuntortmafin.com ,,
4� N
r
MTI Proposal re : RFI 29 . 1 Design Change 2 December 2019
The second design change Change Order
Mods per Rpi#29.1
• More Pismo Beach design
Moreland T%ordptont Inc.
Po Pmr2717
changes per RFI 29 . 1 MA,QkI3„f
F1ter 6dS.17s.u11
V.Lapu]rA Una iviWim
294 rarR FV+r 9lrpl, 161 FNr CM06 UR StrAp and Mpi'IEanrt • MTI s cost of design Santa 1Mr^CADA54 4A"W,M Sd49ur Mr..WHalvnarce Pmi,r.t;
A"Ifth;Sue ow WN,la.ttru
changes: $21,559 for Ihma9��,
%L9'«nql MlrCo-NA ivr:flee Clyq LX1&ratlan ano MpInSVdf48 Mt.1 additional lights, buttons, 49a1f r4AUW WOWthan6mabv :hangakgGWKrp'kffl; :,ItWdEiroaBcacons per FFrIPu1,SooadwwhrmCjrAg.rttk]�„.Tafts«a2w4y. re I ays, relay timer and 9 aartvr the right t2 mnw!rR,i jU rva IIIV OF NVA§ufu<.AH%ftp,p RBd Hr6'�*kftMr"ed"ALI C�gjhm A���La6e. wiring
�lRE�rL+49DRHR5 _ 1
�9P1lLTu6Qe ppLi�Q7 �— woo
4�6AHEACMVAfLUpiQTik _• .�— —._. A9a.dd __ _
ML2MlprAL i,8S4�f •••�
*pWaro"*MAElp1214 AI
/+CIF
For the SLM of $21,559.09
TM L0 yuni*p"h%Xail lahot,nnam'++ai sq ep;!ka�k rhL a m-"-4k0wPq crtivaromif 4 Arm hrthlrq�Mdw R)%h140&ggMWfibft4F41PN tiu it
Slrcanely,
HUn AU�r
HayrdllranPFm,Ne
WLuntortmafin.com ,4� 001S
Work Directive Change 13 : Design Changes 1 & 2 December 2019
Work Directive Change 13 is WORK DIRECT ME C"NGE pns,�u r,FW&nw}
for design changes 1 and 2 No
- 12
PMW-' Moe ci f"Lift sxaafon ar'd fs Makmarrice pm1ft-I Bate of Issuance December you 24)19
• Pismo Beach issues Work Gontrae+.or V.Lapas Junior and sans,Inc ..�_fi++e Citire L9 Project
YOu amdkectsd to mako the follcrMnU change(sj:
Directive 13 on December task i-Provide indluldt al figs alarms for four�4}different fe uft with one rase!for @N,Tack 2-rew[re the floats 10 go tO the motor eartO-d rather than ITM PLC 111 2019 De ortptrcn- Task 1 and Task 2 as described above Purpvee of Work Uilrective Change; Falk 1 iond Task 2 as described agave • The City pays for the money
Flttactrmants:(Lis!documents svppuMrV change}
She attached supporting do"rnonteftlon-Contractor's proposed 44st andtime associated with ff a delft}ie made that the above ctra ragn(s)tWep of q-_dPd i onlrert Price or Cant V of Tirne,any claim for a Cho nga Order 1e19ed therarr will involve one 4f tt*folkrw;in6 rnathads Gi detarminir*the af{ect of the design changes arising from chavefs},kgthod of dekwMinfng hTetfao.d ofdelermining change fn Contract pnca; ahanga In Contr2Ct erne RFIs 29 and 29. 1 E3TWM a�M� � nf C ,ft E3 lJrit Prices
❑Oxt plus road roe r s Remrds
oCW'6--r
east proposal from Y.l.apes
Pismo Beach a s for Estimated lunrease F tirret®a tnor p Y (decrease)ir,Contract Rrce (decrease}in Conirac(Tkne the design changes z�.7war, ,o- days
missing from RF I$ 29 n the ohsnge involves an increase,tibo If the change fnVONft:in increase,the estiMOW amount Is not to be sxoaaaed easmeled time is not to be 2zc+eaded and 29.1 WftioutfurtflrauthoriYsriarL withoutfun"rauthorf¢atksn.
Recommend by
Chz Loehr.P, t3e; A. f- t.P.E.
TM9: Engkww City Engfrrae A3kSOW of PuNlia Woft ORTMAAnunto rtmann.cam 106
Debarment Issue No . 2
SCADA CO 25 - December 2019
CHANGE ORDER
• Pismo Beach takes full Ons#ructfons Follow) responsibility f o r all SCADA
Prv*.t. Fin Ott¢,%L&sfatran IMPFO, ,ts a,W VOV st8dar,,tM;me,r as"Protect
❑are�[Issuance Deoemper IL,2019
related delays from October Tartar: �.�p �u�iarr�E�G.
You are directed to rnake the following changes in the Contract Qaauments. 21, 2 019, to December 12, Description; NO COST C14ANGE ORDER-Addilwal working d&A for daisys associated W#h schedule of CM SCADA irt#e raid.
2019 Pura°{che �Order: isactated with Ci s SCADA tion.vela c began when Contractor corn leted wft*Uan the electrical cabinet.pale ended when tsi ator was read for St8r[UP 0 the new UP statian. Startup and lestinq subrnbl, which is on the critical Wh has not yet been aporoued,
• § 1104.0 Implied Warranty Day delay n is t U•28•2019 and delk end Is 7 Z 12,2019 Attachments-(list documpntssuppvrtingchange) The SCADA design flaw
• Per the contract terms, Change in Contract Price Change in GoatjraO Time:
Lopez protests validity f]r$ 2 trtictPtioa:
S 2 SU14lt:6.40 O}riglrAi Contract Time: 3ttfl days i'revious Change Orders: Pravbus Change Orders:
NO. _ t 1.0 No. 1 to
No. 24 No, 24
$ 142,50V3 TD flays
Contract Pt1oe Prior to this Change.Order Contract Time Prior to ft Change Order $ 3,l? .094.13 370 days
Nst immase(demase)of tFiss Change Order Net change of this Change Order:
S 0.00
_32 _days
Contract Price wilh all approved Change Orders Contract Time Mfh all approved ChmVe Orders:
�44,D94,13 4D2 days
ORTMAAn v
The Maintenance Project is Completed
• On January 9, 2020, the Maintenance Project is completed
HUnDI Irtann www.huntortmann.com
Debarment Issue No . 2
February 2020
The third design change Felxiaary ia,20�C-
,luslln� �)-Rmrripson
More design changes to the f tt 7
• Inc
P.O.aGK27,7
OrcutE.CA 93dST-2717
hardware, software and SVILAPitojECF: SYSTePROPOSED hIDCONTRAC U0FNECFhF5 Fr57a7ioM
511B.i�GT: PR4POBEis CorrTR.�GT iA OGIRJGATJOM,
AGh)momAL Moairic Tian$nR RFI N.D.29.1
control standby for the New deeir Mr.Thompson,
Lift Station p *of Ihls Tract modlficattien �fs to apoo rtems.��t,hailer the a~w�Pd of'raellrad l dod'ificardan per RF:3 No.29.1`,the City requested addlianal modlraealion to the hardware,aafiwereh,and conW sfratoW of th®liff stetbrt.These additional rnodifucotiorha focus hawft nn the purpose of the e�fadng two floe Es.the addilion of a third float,and ancllary functfarts and parts connec W to Ihwa doyLma
• More design work by l'he second Ib3m Is the UL adckers for the enclosures.As Lfie irml:W oontrol panel corAlgurallcm Obi d nod Ihn Intrinslcally rule relpyG[fSR&} lha Control par,al cnultl not bHW the Ut itQM slicker.Tt*prevkM r.antruct thocdifivaWn conrWin d fie ooel lip m+7'u'e the5a I9Rs to&new enc�uare whkfi,once omple#ad, Cannon filling i n the gaps 1-ill LI1-allow5 the A slicker. el . bear a �� i Eli sinker.Tndco would a4 trice t<,a�w f d I enclosure u�ar x,e U�6gt#A 9lickar,UL faquff:aG lhat labels added to anolotsuroa already irtiskaled In the field be applied l:y their inspectors.The cost for this effort was not Included in the orkonaf Canlract Wdificttlon put is i:iduduad below_
ChanChanging the 11a adeittlonal cost to further&)sign,the owirol wiring arkd ca ctjKry,additional materittle,and 141W to g g mEaka the addldorial changer W$7.190 00 and ari"limets of tan f 1 IS)worlQng days.-rho addihSoner contract working days are required for pumhaae.instaalOon,and tesllnQ.�h'orkln�days are contingent en matar�al 1000 lhriie,tf this mode Your prove lr please eicpl Or"Cl raium to MO- 0 L has not pnDvided us a quote far t s,inat atlan of the UL 5NA sticker bun have verbadly quoted between$1,500 and$21,000-7ne quote M lr UAE the l3lr WLIA slicker{sae atlachad)Is petwrOM$4,400 and Win am adding lhose as opnaraal itWo ohptald the Clly wish to add them, If ycu fti6vE any Quo or cornmernts,please donbt hreeftaie In hall meet$05.235.1246 or email JaffS�#CCennanCOrp-us.
$ilt r Iy, C.00 asgLwwr ens-f
reWree ilL irrspeclfort
larxlq easks'are rwt
"ry-.tl requir d...
the V.topez�.5oe1s viin.
, ;a lAa hn .
Jeff ftonrtbe LW,PE ` addetWMI=Q 1#7oly.W,
Uarerlar,Aul4rnFWvrh E,Elaotrk;W Englneerinp
C 9l#431
Hun
�14ORS
.it .
Debarment Issue No . 2
Design Changes 1, 2 and 3 CHANGE ORDER
(Instwuliuns FQlluw�
• CO 26 No 25
Protect Frkrp Cfdas tt�Statlor�tmprowerner:ts andLrh S#adarr Matnterranc��rnfect Date of Issuance April 1,2020
C-0ntraotor Y.Lop"junlof&50ma In . .
Fla Cltes Llft Stallon Project
You are drocted W make the llok N d►ar%s In the Contrarn 6Dmmerts.
Descrfptlon: Nactrical mooificatons; ;13 and lie Pismo Beach takes rnartAupCM19. �TT
NrpOFb 0f Chi UA Order: amide inbicual I;ghtMrmo.and{pil(4E Offa'ent faults and rewire the tfeala responsibility for all lagotoft MCC OarMOMS.ModlfieedorletglheEjeq .opemuo�s.addManofa third float,and these issues ut5landC9QA;rpearaheprlggfandaeureagerCityrnarkedupCt? 19.Thiatr�Oessumas ttw'if required✓t1L 59BAInspec6on labeling task will;hct be necomry.0 required,thy V.Lopez&Sans will ho wrnpamalad Amin addltianal CCO to rollaw upon reWplflf pald lw0w`rvm UL.See attached Now Pismo Beach +eftff tor iu waxplenWnofcl"nincOnlrd� Wand On.
A ehmems:(List docu arrt:aWrft change) dad krkr,axeeutatl WOt7#13 rrd wants to debar City markod up MR01 9.
Lopez for them
w4httaCl Pr ce P71ar tothis C,narge Order DonlldCl Tirnrs Prior to hh s Change Order' $ 3,044,094,13 407 Gays
Nat increase(doomose)of tNj Cli<errpr}Order Net change of thls Change Order, S 50,214.75 47 days
CO is a
C:onlract Price wiM aN irppro*d Change Orms COntrsct erne wt all approved lw*g4 Orders' Done Deal U9d,30U8 a daps
T1v arrwurl and Wo prov,cod in lids cor7act change order are a fun and that surd ersd saWfectior of er cos:s and time directly and k►dlreclly+elated and al otfrer claims related hereto are herby waived, The Cantrw r hpa reryw�k'91hyy�9��d..tµµMe plaFn�sycrn y+dccatlans related to this change Oder and all oWgn Nato are $CtxlIJlltEd�in ltll$YR{i1.11��1�1 lat'leted�fiU�W In�nl��.
HUn
www.
T 1,
Lift Station Project is Completed
DATE: �� J - DAY: M T w T FpREMAN: �
CONTRA No-
VISiTGRS:
AM 1` Z",
HOURS LOST DUE M BAD WEATWR;
PROBL£MWTIELAYS:
wvmpletion iant�
Days Ahead ofSchedWe
Days 8ehkvd Schedule
ACyCIDBN�'S�IDENTBe -
May 1, 2020:
The Lift Station --
Project is
completedimomw----- ��� - --"-- �"
_ vo*y
v l T� 3T
HUn 0
T�
_ _ .�
i l � PL
Lift Station Project is Completed
Approved by,' Invoice
Invoice
Pro4=0 10:01:21 PM DA7E INfQIG`¢ren.
,. Phone✓ 461437-4W1
E-rmil wapRwmLys clan Sf18{2020 568
n an.aar,insrarr rrrr'r�G�iro i5ura rtsTau
iir iHrcir-ii_r= .r-4"Ji$a
Uient
i7ty of Pismo Brach
670 Mattle Read
Plsmo Beach,CA 93449
P.O.NO, TEA PROD€LT UXA710H
May 4, 2020: Net 30 4501•Flve Lltles Lift Station LiNra... Rye Cities LS The Lift Station ❑AIE °ESM1PTf IN UNITS R A7E AMOUNT iii=() 90*9Rupert-&r,SyatPersAaelyst-Twtmg 4 12$.00 540.00 Project is PIai a -1thL omandCkP O
i40W Sow Ruperd-Sr.Syae=AnOwt-F-1Fmy-b ixs, 5 125.00 790.00 completed U-k ch-c-P-CIV
__P:"
Finance charges wig be applied at the rate of Lw percent per month pltS any collection casts. Total S1,2M.00
HUn www.huntortmafin.com 112
1 Ir 4
Debarment Issue : Staff's Position
False Statement Not a proper basis
for debarment
ue ##2. Lack of underStandln of municipal
Se a pump station practice and materials
• V. Lopez interpreted t electrical portion of the project plans and False Statement Implied
Violation / specifications to call for a new 225-amp residential'electrical panel to re d warranty of correct plans the existing 200-amp electrical panel at the Five Cities Lift Station and specifications ■ PG&E handout package for the service relocation called for a 201-400 amp commercial service
■ Plans and specifications placed all responsibility an the Contractor for:
■ The electrical service relocation
+ Communicating/confirming PG&E requirements for the service relocation July 22, 2015 — change order for costs ($2,253) 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 164
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 20161 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
HUn �Tmann I www.huntortmann.com
225=amp vs . 400 =amp Issue
The Truth
• Fast forward to 2019
• RF1 26 and PG& E's responses reveals that the PG & E requirement for the 400-amp 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 CO 21
HUnD
Mi "IPM , www.huntortmafin.com
Debarment Issue
Frat= Burke,Robert rRM13e@pge,C4nn-
Sprit Tuesday.September 20.20t6 753 AM
Tv; Tyler Tromp
Cc: Joshua Reynolds
Subject. RF.1071 SS981 PG&E-5 Cltles LS Service Lffr Station tfi Tyler,Thanks for the clarifitation.And yes,you are correct about the panel and CT's, j wfU tam this in far estfrllatfng.
Regards,
Bob
9/20/2016: Pismo's
Bob PG&E
Electrical Engineer
Senior New Business Representative
4323 S.Wgunra St.
San Luis Obispo,CA 934DI
805.546.5236
Frarr1:Tyler Tmw[n Ao:TTroupWwv1b,comJ
Sent:Tuesday,September 20,2016 7:41 AM
To:Burke,Robert
Cc:Joshua Reynolds
subjBd RE: 107155981 PG&E-S t_ities LS Service Lift stsbon 11iis is an EXTERNAL EMAIL.Stop and think before clicking finks or opening attachments. d...�.a tr+•..***sr.�r er.**t*s w F r*+***
Good morning Bob,
r bellieve wP nrpd a 4f14 omp three phase servke meter panel fG r the 111 station.This is why Keynote 5 un drawing E-103 is warded the way it is'mmhrnation meter and rurrnnt-trdng%nYter raNMt-Reasoning fur this 5iae isthe connected load is showing to be post under 200 amps(main breaker/servkpe di,aonnettsized For a bit mare),and Indeed with demand factors the operating load will be teas.However,we have provided provisions fora potential future chemkal feed system for odor control at the lift station so I think the 4W am tentiai rut ere load added as part of the chemical feed system. The 400-a m p At this time there is rue anriclpriced slate for adding the chemical systertr to the lIR station site nor projected loads. requirement Correct me if I'm wrong here:d*serV3Ce meter paMIS are purchased and lrrstalkd by the Contractor per PG&E gneenbook standards,and the contractor then coordinates to have RGSE to install CTs[as needed)and metering equipment wtthrn this meter panels_
I can corrtrm the UM amp RV park service 601 he 2401120 V singre phase.
Please let me know ff you have any other questions or comems.
T www.huntortmarin.comHUnT.41 ,
116
Debarment Issue
From; Tyler Troup
seat: Monday,July 1,2019 1150 AM
To- )gslxra Reynolds,'Adam Rienda'
Cc; Tyler Troup
SubJprt, Pismo 5 Cities LS-RF1026 cank once call 07/01 fl 9 notes HI guys,
Notes from our calltaday.
ftd�g—nd
• Aft 026 PG&E Meter and Response
• Centraet 1 4kxki 1ernts
■ PG&E Project ours(service Detailsl
r SubmlttaJ No.362416.1.50E Panelboards 2.12.19:Contractor stibrrltted on metering equipmert within panelboard submittal ewer(not acceptable),No comments were made by Engineer on metering equipment via submrtlal process(metering equipment Wd5 neverinteot of panelboar l submittal review,which f LP-1).
Metering equipment/cnmpatibility per PG&E's standards(greenboak and project drawing).
Attendees:
Cftp:Chad S
Caro>fa:Tyler Troup
WSC:Josh A and Adam R
GC:Vince L and Butch i
1NTl:Spider
NWS fmto_caIl;
. LnokJng to quhckly rmNe RFIp26fitesponse and find path forward tip keep project on schedule ■ Contractor ch*ned they can grt a 400 atop service egtipment as shown on the drawmgs and specs and conroborated by PG&r dwg.AcknovAedged that a staftdalone switchboard wiih pull section not anticipaW per PG&E's standards used an this project,although switchboard b ramman for 4M arnp service si2e piscusslon Dn submittal 262d1Cr1` •E Pane cards 2•f2 18(225 amp metering equipment):
, Metering equipment submitted but never commented on
o Submittal Is not an appropriate channel to change contract requirements(less than 40OAr i.e.a 225A ServkeM.The current metering equipment Submitted will not be compatible with PG&E'S conned4onS per the PG&E drawing,
■ CanNsiun as to PG&E's standards(200 A or Opp Al compared to customer's equJpment(225 AT)and cattle siflq&and intarfue between the two at metering equiprnentlPG&Vs camtection.Contra ctorslzed rretenng equipment per customer service entrance Asronnettfcircuit breaker ATS-6Q and not per referenced PG&E`s standards(DWG E-103 Keymote and HMO].4.A,2,a),
■ PG&E Drawing per COR0002 referenced appticabke details and backboard O G details—no switchboard lype construman shown
• PG&E's schedule becoming larger concern
Hun
4T111�1
t. - _k r t. . ..r .
Debarment Issue
CHANGE ORDER
(Instructions Follow)
No 21 Not a proper basis
§ 1104 Violation / for debarment
Project; five Cities 1A Statim hurovements and E.ift 5tathn Wntenance Project Implied warranty Date of Issuance JyA1 22,2019
of correct plans convactor, V.LopezJunior 1 Sons,Inc.
FIVE Ct1'IUS LIFT STATION
and specifications y%are directed to make the foWrq changes in the Contract Docurn", Description: Provide and install 400 am ,240V 3 phaSs terminatten cabmen! and 40O amp feasible disconnect with 225A fuses
Purpose of Change Order; Provide 400 amp,240 V 3 phase terminatvn oebinent and 400 amp fusible disconnect to support 40D amp panel per PGE requirements Attachments:{List documents supporting change) Changg Order Request from V.Lopz Change in Contract Price Change In Contract Time; Cri irlai CordTscl Price:
$ 2 9486.00 „i Original ContraO Time: 300 days Previous Change Orders- Previous 04nrge Orders' No. _I to
No. io No. 20
$ 139.687.60 49 nap
Contract Prise Prior to this Change Order Con4rect.Tirne Prior to this Qwge Order: CO is a Done Deal
$ 5,041,373.60 .� 349 cays
Net increase(decrease)of this Change Order Net change of this.Change Order, $ 2 283.00 20 days
Contract Price with all approved Change larders Contact Time with:all approved Change Orders:
$ 3,043,656.60 369 days
Issue 3 :
V. Lopez Demonstrated a Lack of
Understanding of Public Works
• This 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
H U n ;�J. Tmann , 119
Issue 3 :
V. Lopez Demonstrated a Lack of
Understanding of Public Works
issue #3 : V. Lopez demonstrated a lack
of understanding of Public Works
Common delay Not true
issues are improper process
for debarment
• Failure to request compensatory days when submitting 'iFalsleStatement change order requests
* Submitted a claim for extra working days after change orders had been finalized
S
ch delays
o Failed to accelerate work effort to recover the projecttion not schedule nted
HUn
4T111�1 ,
'. - _I r '. . ..r .
Issue 3 :
V. Lopez Demonstrated a Lack of
Understanding of Public Works
Chan eOrder "" Issue #3 : V. Lopez demonstrated a ack 9 processing not f understanding warranted for o of Public Works Not true debarment
process
• Multiple times throughout the project, V. Lopez provided change order proposals
• with a proposed cost increase Not true • no request for additional working days
• Staff informed V. Lopez multiple times that its change order proposal should include
• proposed cost and additional working days to complete the additional work
166 �5
Issue 3 :
V. Lopez Demonstrated a Lack of
Understanding of Public Works
Lopez reserved its
_ right under the
contract by refusing
Issue #3 : V. Lopez demonstrated a lack to sign COs which Lopez agrees; only did not reflect the Pismo Beach does of understanding of Public Works actual delays to the not to follow this
language. See CO 21 project
FOLLOWING THE
and 25 process
CONTRACT DOES
• ange order form includes the following disclaimer: NOT WARRANT
DEBARMENT
"Th ount and time provided in this contract change order are a full and final accord and satisfaction of all costs and time directly and indirectly related and all other claims related hereto are hereby waived. The Contractor has reviewed the plans and specifications related to this change order and all changes thereto are accounted for..." 167 76
Issue 3 :
V. Lopez Demonstrated a Lack of
Understanding of Public Works
7Claim Letter
AU
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
o Made claims that limiting sections of the Contract Documents did not apply because its delay claim "declares void any arguably exculpatory contract clauses..."
• The City Attorney responded to this claim, although V. Lopez has insisted on this and since submitting the letter, V. Lopez refused to sign working day statements or contract change orders with the stated contract days.
yea z,
HUn www.huntortmafin.com 123
401S
Issue 3 :
V. Lopez Demonstrated a Lack of
Understanding of Public Works
P"—
STY
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/.tune 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 Dale W912019
Te: Butch Lopez
V.Lopez Jr.&Sons
yla email
prepared by: Adam Rienda,PE
ProjecU Five Cities Uft Station Replacement/Lift Station Maintenance SUBJECT: PROGRESS AND SCHEDULE ASSESSMENT
Butch,
This memo Is to Inform you of your pnsAmss status compared to the remaining contract time per the Weekly Statement of Working pays.The status assessment is kissed on current progress and schedule update,provided ay V Lopez&Sams(V Lopez)at the last bl-waekly meeting(July 25"')and compared to the wmm Eazanded Date 2S Of Completion of August 23,2019.Scheduled work sequence and Items of concern are summorUed below. 169
Issue 3 :
V. Lopez Demonstrated a Lack of
Understanding of Public Works
Delay disputes do
Misleading! Staff not warrant
failed to tell the debarment.
Council that Pismo -- Debarment is far too Beach was Schedule Challenges serious a remedy responsible for at
least 85% of all the • The project experienced significant delays resulting in:
Project delays giving
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 3z
Issue 3 :
V. Lopez Demonstrated a Lack of
Understanding of Public Works
Delay disputes do
not warrant
debarment.
= Debarment is far too
Schedule Challenges serious a remedy
• 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 : Staff's Position
Not a proper basis
for debarment
io
!7 i'/?v
Fiscal bass
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 $09,900.00
§ 1104 Violation / Construction Management Amendment #2 $49,000.00 Implied warranty
of correct plans Construction Management Amendment 3 $690645,00 and specifications Additional Engineering Services Amendment #7 $15,395.00 CCO #21 - additional costs $21,283.00
CCO ##26 additional costs . ..��� $50,214,75 Subtotal (Direct Costs) $255,437.75
CCO #21 - 20 working days @ $1,000/day $200000.00 CCO ##26 - 47 working days 1 D0Q da 47 000,04]
Total loss $3231437.75
172
TMAn
...hufitof tmann.com 127
Debarment Issue : Fiscal Loss
• Staff gave the erroneous impression to the Council that somehow Lopez's performance caused Pismo Beach over $3001000 in damages
— This is false !
• Apparently, this "Fiscal Loss" story was intended by Staff to make sure the Council debarred Lopez and to ensure no scrutiny was placed on staff or WSC, the designer and Construction Manager
HUn
Debarment Issue : Fiscal Loss
• The truth behind the four construction management amendments were not presented by Staff to the Council at the November 17, 2020, debarment hearing
• This was no accident — The amendments deal with design flaws
• These are § 1104 and Implied Warranty issues H U n
1Tmann www.huntortmann.com
Debarment Issue : Fiscal Loss
' S
WMA Q SYS3EMS CUMULTING,INC.
4,12/2019
Mr.Chad Smghr,K
City of Pismo Seam
760 Mattie R cad
Pismo#leach,CA,93449
SIJBJFCT.AMENOMFNT 01 TO THE FIVE CME'S LIFT STATION CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT WtVIC€S AGRE€MENT
§ 1104 Violation /
(}ear Cfiad,
Implied warranty
of correct plans Thus letter is intended to serue as a proposal for Amendrnelrt #1 to Uae F]ve Clties Uft 5tatiotl Cons#nx:.tlori Management Sefvlaes Agreement between Water$ystems Cpnsulting, tnrr JWSQ and and specifications the CAyofPisnvl>:each(City)dated Jan uary17,2017- The proposed amendment cpvers the following Not a Lopez Issue 'Pe"
Addltlonaf Constructjon Phase 5ervkes: The original proposal was loosed on 260 wor$Ing clays to complete the Five Citles Lift$talon praje Gt. When the Flue Cities Lift Statian was cornb1ned wlth tare Lfft Statlon Maintenance Proojen, the oombined whedube for both projects was extended to 300 warkIng days. It is WSCs undersmndirng that the City combined the two projects to leverage project -nterest to get axwe mntractorsto bid on the project since the City received no blda In response tuthe first advertisement for the Lift Station Mai nte nante Project. This strategy was suomsful as the City rQaeived sin bards from responsible ovntxactars- Furthermore,It is our understanding that the Citys hope was the low bld contrartor would pursue bath projects aggressively to save maney.This strategy was also successful in that V.Lopez Jr.and Son:, hid for bath projects was approximately$250,OM less than the second fanvest bidder. H owever,V. Lopez Jr.and Sons have built their schedule to maxsirr ixe their use of available time. At titiis time the contract days have been extended to 323 working dogs with a current SChettul ad tornpletlon date of July 10,2029. Delays were caused by extra,unforeseen drevrmstanees including.
■ a damaged existing storm drain encountered under tfighway 1 From Senior Mobile Home Park:
r the mislonnipn cdthe existing 9-7indh foraffnain due to inaccurate record drawinpz;and, abm+e average+ainfail in the 201812019 winter.
This schedule extensi on has required WSC to provide adcfitiorW co+etrLK-kan prase serwioes,which veilf include construction observation,tauslne progress meebirNp,and review of mo.xthly#regress ICY e5#I No 0
HUn
W I. - .I t
Debarment Issue : Fiscal Loss
-;zWSC
WATER SYSTEMS CONSULTING,INC.
10/11/2019
Mr.Chad Stoehr,PE
City of Pismo Beach
760 Mattie Road
§ 1104 Violation / Pis m o Beach,CA 93449
Implied warranty
of correct plans SUBJECT:AMENDMENT 02TO THE FIVE CITIES LIFT STATION CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT
SERVICES AGREEMENT
and specifications
Not a Lopez Issue Additional Construction Phase Services, On April4,2019,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 Lift Station project can primarily be attributed to following unforeseen circumstances:
the change from ductile Iron to stainless steel discharge piping at the Five Cities lift station; Design F I aws :]
and,
misperception regarding the PG&E requirements and the lead dime associated with ordering a new 400-amp,240 V termination cabinet.
Hun
401SM
Debarment Issue : Fiscal Loss
SC
5 12a2¢ WAITRs rEko;co gut�nvc`INC. Not a proper basis Mr.Chad Stoehr,PE
for debarment
City of PISMO Beach
160 Wale POW
Pksma 9earh,CA 934+49
SUBJEC F-AMENDMENT#3 TO THE FIVE CME3 LIFT STAYION CONSTRL CnON MANAGEMENT sEitVKU AGREEM[WT
Dear Chad,
This letter es intendcd to serve as a uroposal far Amendment 03 to the FlVe Clxl,ss t.Ift 5#atlon Construction Management Services Agrcument.htween Water Sy-stems Consulting, Inc,{WSQ and the City of Pismo Beach(City;dat+dd January 17,2017.The prapasea ornendment cowers the following scope;
AddiVanal Com&Mqlon Ph On Uctaber 11,297.9,tNSC requested Contract Amendment #2 to provide sddl!Jonal construction Phm services to awommocWte project extensions caused by various delays.At the three Amendment H2 was prepared,the combined contract days for the Five Clots LHt Statlork project and the Lift Station Madntenance project}sad been extended to 372 working days with a schQd uked cornpletfon date of October id, 2019,It yeas known that the con€raaor would not be meeting the pro*t vampludorl date. therefore,Amendment 42 was prepared,ender the assurnprion that the pn*ett wnoW Coyne to corppdetion by raid-November.Slnee Amendment#2 was submitted,the protect has mWrlencertadditlonal delays,estimatud by the Engineer and City to on the order of appro)drnateiy 84►vorklN days- These delays have primarily been eseosiated with SLADA integration and electrical mocHficatdorm Wh Ile constru"ion observation needs durrog the past several Design Flaws or months his been laxtle'tfl none,rima has been.spent byW managrng the followrng: Delay Issues ca Claims to and from the contractor regarding Ilgtbda#ecl 4amap4 O Coordination and submittal revlew assodated with electrical modifKations JRFl 029.11, c Cowdinattan with City 5CAUA integrator,and
n 1>oWne bl-weekly me,G*ju and weekly statements of working days- The contract completion data has cpntlnuol to shift. making accurate projection of the fFnaf 0onstruttlian administration fee difficult This Amendment 03 is k4ended to provkk-Fee to cloic the gap from the last a mendment and provide fee for W5C to support the City through Tune 202C H U n L T I1
Debarment Issue : Fiscal Loss
��Wsc
WATER SYSTEMS CONSULTING, IUL
10/10 019
Mr.Oad Stoehr,RE
Gty of Pismo Beach
760 Mattin Road
Pismo Beatty,CA 9�449
SUEUEU-AMENUMENT#7 TO THE FIVE UTIE$ufr STATioly R EPI.ACEMEUT PRCFE5510NAii sEvlCU aur More work by Pismo
aearChad, Beach's designers for
r1i5 letter a intended to serve as a proposal for Amendm�Lrrt 47 to tlr4 Five Cltles A Stallon responding to RFIs Repi3ctvntnt Professional Services AgreomentWween Water 5WemaCom-ull.lnlg,Inr.JWSQ and the about Pismo Beach's City of Pismo asach (Clty) dated oe[enrher x$, 2012. The proposed amemment Is speCO'pc to the Incomplete Design Engheering Serrbaes NringComtmtrkm�EsDq and couefs the foElawing scope:
Exuded Prffiect Managpmew: Camila Engineers, Inc_ (Cerotlo)will provide additkwl pwXpa menage ment services,including the preparatInn of monthly progressreporvs for addRlonal fwr- munth period.
2_ Additional Sulsmltta I Reviews:Fhe GdaroallY ils6wnated qua iftity of nine(9)submittals and fire[S) re-.mbmittab was exceeded by fourteen(14)Aubmittals and IF&teep(13)reiubmlttals,for a total of xweilty4ree 123)submittals and ciahtee6(18)re-Submittais reyiewBd thus far.It Fs estimated that approxlrutely six 16) tddJthnnal submitrah and equipment nperaliorrs And maintenance rnanuais wkk be subralited by tIm Cuntractar for review by Camillo,The scope and budget attourms for tk previously wmedad sul rmit#al rsvlews and assumes appruirnately 3 lmos for f%hM review qf adckli rmi sabmittals and 2 hours review of re-sub mittals.
The total buikW Increase Inc this amendment is$15,3g5,85�bawn in tba table on fhb next gap— The Uffrenl rQn1rad arnaunt is$362,739 forthe%4-Cltles lift 5tari4r}Cor� iruc#ian Nfansgema►rt ser+iCeS.
UWith Mls ernendrnent,the new fflntrat ammnt oval bi�$377,a34.
Hun
T111�1iwwuhuntortmafin.com 133
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
POOP , Y — - for debarment
Risca�l boss -
The total approximate financial loss to the City as a direct result of V. Lopez Is $323,437.75 comprised of the following:
Construction Management Amendment #1 $69,900.00 Construction Management Amendment #2 $49,000.00 Construction Management Amendment #3 690-645,00
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) $256,47,75
CCo #21 - 20 working days @ $1,000/day $20,000.00
CCQ #26 -47 workin da s 1 000 da 47 Qt0.D0 Total loss $323,437.75
ORTMAII 134
Debarment Issue : Fiscal Loss
Not a proper basis
CHANGE ORDER for debarment
(Instrudons Follow)
No 21
P•q;@Ct: Five Cities Lily$tataion huprovernents and Lift'Sta kn Wntenance Prpfect Da:e of Issuance July.22,2019
ConvacW; V,La pez Junior&Sons,inc.
FIVE CITIES LIFT STATION
You are directed to make the fpltw*g changes in the Contract Dor.Lnneats, DescriWn; Provide and install 400 am ,240V 3 phase termination caninert and 400 am fUskls disconnect with 225A fuses
Purpose of Change Order: ProvideQUamp,240 V 3 phase termnatlon caoinert and 400 amp fusible dfsconnect to support 400 amp panel per PGE uirements Attachments;{List documents suppartfng charge) Change Order Re nest from V-Lopez Change in ContrW Price Change In Contract Time:
Qrlginei Contract Prise: CO is a Done Deal $ 2 901M.40 _ Original ontraGt Time: 300 days
Previous Change Orders: Previous C;fdrtge Orders:
No. 1 to No. _ 7 tc
No. 20 NO. T 20
$ 139,887-60 49 Days
Contract Pride Prior to this Change Order Con4reot.Time Prior io M Change Order:
$ 5,041,37160 , .W` 349 cays
Net.rcrease(decrease)of th+5 Change Order Nit change of this Change Order:
$ 2,283,0C 20
Cordrapt Price With ail approved Charge Orders Can-ract Time with ad approved Change Orders:
$ 3,043,656.60 . 30 days
Hun
4MISR
Debarment Issue : Fiscal Loss
Not a proper basis
CHANCE ORDER for debarment
rinstruckloll,�Fabw)
No 26
Project Flea Clue ift sfaf u fmpMematrts and l.ri`#Station ll ingerrarrca pr*af Cry of Issuance April 1,2020
contractor V.Lo oiJunior B Sons,Irr-
Five Utfra Lift staVon PFQJect
You are directed 10 make t11e followN changes In to Contract Documants., I}*WAPtlarr; El�#ieaf modlfloallans asswiwW wllh RFI,291 r os rff&xtd in 4VCD#13 and th* City marked up CCR 1)19.
Purpose of Change Drd*r. Provid-p iradkwal rightalarma and four 4 different faults and reWre the hoots 16 go 19 the MCC i2r YXD 013.Modifications to the ffldst!ng AoQ1 Voratims.addlllan 4f a third$oak,and UL 508A and 698A inspecdonAabe ing of endosures per City marked up CORE 9.This=a "mee the'4 raquired"UL 698A ins c ion Idbering task will nol bn neoeaeoty. If required,them V.1,0004 a Sons will he compensated Yla an additional CCO to follow Upon rec44pt pf paid invaces from taL.See attached latter for further explanaoon of Changes in auntedl pncs and Ume.
Attachmants:(Ust document**upporting ohan0e} Cq provided Iettar executed WCD 412 and City mamad up COR019,
C hang*I n Contract Price Chance 0 Contract Tiara:
Oripfnel Contrad Prue:
F 2.909,40BA4 .._ 0dginal contract Time: _ 3V days CO is a Done Deal Prevlaus aanga Orders; Previous Change Order?:
Nu. _ 1 b NQ. t to
S 142, ps,13 107 pays
Conlrad Prke Prior to thle Change Order Contract Tlms Prior lc Fria Change Order-. 3,ti44,�K13 4a7�days
W Immase{decrease}of this Crlange Order Mel change of Ihis Change Order,.
S $0,21415 .. 47 ddys
Contract Price with au approved Change Orders Conlraot 71ma with all approved Cflarrge O7t'demi $ 3.094,308,88 _ 454 days
ORTMAna�
olm Re� AALF Am
2021 Project of the Year
Disaster or Emergency
Construction/Repair $5415 Minion
Santa Barbara County Flood
Control & Water Conservatio
Randall Road Debris Basin
HUn ww.huntortmafin.com 137
Awards & Portended Awards to Lopez
Fiwrn:Chad Sloehr
Sent:Tuesday,May 14,2019 1223M PM
To:Eric Eldridge
Cc.BrnjainiaP'iae iFfPiSrrfL7[a:;C'i
Subject:Rr--ASCE SLO Bramh2018-2019 Animal Award Nom�Qonc! City 5eeaitivity.-Nonmi 805.773.7041(direct+
K)5.773.4686(fax)
e e I d rJ dfeLEDpis rn abe ach.ore
yoa,,mavte five OW!s although it wNF not be IWX complete by them..l will v{sitthe applicati-on guide. cima9e003J;19> www.Tmnhuzori3w.com For rn9 alu s.ma nda N F. 04 w.it-•i r�i r•:aetnii S4n4:Friday,M@y 3,20291055 AM
To:Chad Stoehr
Subject:FW:ASCE SL4 Branch 2018-2019Annual Award NomInatiansI From:ASCESLD Brand}(liudlujtenIarninr rp n#Odat[a.ctavl Sent:Thursday,FMV 2r 2019b05 PM
Child? To:€rigEldridge[eeldrld PPIsmopeach.or¢a Eric Eldridge,PE Suhjecu ASCESLQ Branch 2018-2619,4nnual Award Nomfna onst titni oar Fngineer
i_•ry 0!Pismil beach
5U5?23.70a1(Pirett�
aSOS 773.gf�y6(FaKj
galdrl d ee�o1 smohearfi.orn
���INK *
Yr sltyMyW.thIKtLIS201tOW.rbm fen.eLeie s,me/!bASPS,and,:erp pnyRrvp Kpn From:Benjamin Fine Annual Award Norninations Sent:Friday,May 3,201910:39AM
To:Erl c t:Idridge Tuesday,
Subject:Re:ASCE Sl0 Branch 2013-2 13 Annual Award NominatloasS Qo we have attyttiitg to TKm*tete for lim go mntffiV 5 Cries Lid Sw&]W Please•forgive NDOa g,Sew from my fpad
ScT>Wiin A.Fate,PM
DireCEar of Publc Work-4
C ay rhoncer
C ity of Pismo Beach
(905)773-7037
0a 1Nay 3,2019,at$3I AM,Eric bid ridge uUrJd&2WJpkawkujbaW Wrote:
We are an the Lover!
E1[{•UBR WY 1 0327 UR
Eric Eldridge,PE �
armor Engsneer
CRY=168
... . a1TM r www.huntortmafin.com 138 TTWRffSf7
t r
California Case Law Regarding Proper Grounds for Debarment = Improper
" FEI Enterprises v. Ogundare v. Dep't of Stacy& Witbeck, Inc.
So. Cal Underground v. City and County of
LACCD Industrial Relations
San Francisco LOPEZ
Fraud/Intent to YES N O YES N O N O Defraud/Deceptive Practices
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 NO NO NO N V N O contract
Inadequate contract performance YES YES N O N O NO Corrupt practices involving the
administration or award of YES NO N O N O N O contract with the
municipality/agency
H U n www.huntortmann.com
. T�1WL
4i kr
Debarment per Im ro er the Law and Facts p p
• Trustworthiness
• Quality
• Fitness
• Capacity
• Experience
Public Contract Code §1103 —Definition Responsible Bidder HUn
T
Perspective
• Debarment is very serious
• Putting a 42-year-old small family-run company potentially out of business
• This Project was successful . The City had Lopez perform needed deferred maintenance and Lopez gave the city a brand-new lift station
• On the facts of this Project and applicable standards there is absolutely no basis for debarment
• Before you debar Lopez a second time, PLEASE ask your staff if they were in any way responsible for the fact that this Project took over 1 year longer to complete and cost Pismo Beach's residents over $200,000 more than planned
H U n
4DIImann ,
HunTORTmAnn
_ RTRRfIER .HT LRU1
Hunt UFtrnafln PaIff REeues oaf 1ifl 2,MOK 1eG.
City of Pismo Beach
City Council Meeting
John Darling, Esq .
SINCE 1979 . ,
GENERAL ENG. CONTRACTORS, INC.
:0 • :