SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL
1 Responses to City Council Agenda Items – September 16, 2025
Regular Meeting
Agenda Item #18 Receive a report and provide direction on a draft recommendation for updates to the Utility Billing Discount Program to include a 30 percent utility bill discount to qualified low-income and income-qualified senior residents with less than 24 hundred cubic feet (ccf) usage per water bill with a maximum cap of $425,000 in General Fund allocation:
1. Under the proposed change, if a household uses 35 units, and the discount applies only up to 24 units, does the customer lose eligibility entirely, or do they receive the discount for the first 24 units only (assuming they qualify by income)? A. If a customer uses more than the average water quota, the customer will not be eligible for the discount on their entire bill for that billing period. The usage cap is part of the current discount program and was put in place to promote water conservation. The proposed change is to update the usage to align with a typical user under the recent water rate study.
2. How is the City going to add these new criteria for eligibility in #4 & #5, but then also limit the total program to $425,000 in #6 (a specific amount). If the cap is reached by May or June, would households be denied any discount for the remainder of the fiscal year?
A. When the annual cap is reached, the discount will not be applied to the remaining billing periods until the annual cap is replenished in the following fiscal year, or a budget amendment is made, subject to City Council approval.
The intent of the proposed adjustments is to adjust the program to be sustainable within the City’s budget while still supporting lower-income households with the greatest needs. The City could choose to adjust either the program requirements or the budget limit (or both) as part of the mid-term budget amendments once more data is received.
3. Did staff analyze what reducing the discount percentage (i.e. from 30% to 25% or 20%) would mean in terms of total program cost? What does each 1% cost the program?
A. The current discount program consists of 225 total low-income households, accounting for approximately 11 percent of the discount cost (based on overall expenditure) and 3,200 total senior households, accounting for approximately 89 of the overall discount cost. Under current program requirements, the Senior Discount is age-based and not income-based. It is
SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL
2 difficult to accurately project total program cost with the proposed changes, as staff does not have a way to verify the number of households currently receiving the discounts who may or may not be eligible under the new requirements.
As a reference, using data from current low-income customers shows how many customers could be served with the proposed $425,000 budget cap at different discount rates:
Discount Rate Estimated
$/yr/customer
Estimated Max. No.
Customers
30% (Current) $208 2,000
20% $138 3,000
10% $70 6,000
MEMORANDUM
Date: September 15, 2025
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Gerry Beaudin, City Manager
Siew-Chin Yeong, Director of Public Works
Subject: Request to Pull Council Item #12 on Fire Alarm & Communication System Retrofit at Multiple City Buildings from September 16, 2025, Council Meeting
On August 20, 2025, the City received four proposals for a Request for Proposals (RFP) for the Fire Alarm and Communication System Retrofit project at multiple city buildings, Project No. 23457 Rebid. On September 8, 2025, the City received a bid protest from Integra on the responsiveness of Wilson General Contractor’s proposal. City staff is in the process of evaluating the bid protest and is requesting to pull Council Item #12 from the September 16, 2025, Council Meeting. Staff will provide a recommendation after the evaluation is completed.
MEMORANDUM
Date: September 16, 2025
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Gerry Beaudin, City Manager
Siew-Chin Yeong, Director of Public Works
Subject: City Council Agenda Item 14 – Ratify a Contract with DPI Construction, Inc. for the Emergency Sewer Pipe Replacement at Denker Drive. Request to Amend the recommendations to increase project costs from $500,000 to $650,000.
During the emergency sewer line repair on Denker Drive and Inglewood Drive, the contractor encountered large underground voids outside of the initial failed sections. These voids, caused by soil loss through the failed sewer line, created unstable trench conditions that required additional excavation and expanded pavement restoration than was estimated.
The work was performed on a time-and-materials basis, and the initial pricing received from DPI Construction, Inc. indicates that project costs will exceed the previously estimated $500,000.
Staff recommend increasing the total project budget from $500,000 to $650,000 to cover all costs incurred. Sufficient funding is available in the Sewer Replacement CIP to support the additional $150,000.
RECOMMENDATION
1. Ratify a contract with DPI Construction, Inc. in the not-to-exceed amount of $650,000 for the emergency sewer pipe replacement at Denker Drive.
2. Approve the creation of the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) project, Denker Drive Emergency Sewer Repairs, CIP No. 26203, to the approved 5-year CIP for FY 2025/26, and the budget amendment to appropriate $650,000 from the Sewer Replacement CIP (Fund 431).
Submitted On:
Sep 11, 2025, 01:04PM PDT
City Council Regular Meeting -
Submit your written public
comment
City of Pleasanton
Full Name First Name: Alexander
Last Name: Giammona
Email (this entry is disclosable if
included) [email protected]
Meeting Type City Council Regular Meeting at 7 p.m.
Agenda Item Number 12
Comments The attached protest of award to Wilson General Contracting was submitted to City Staff, via email and hand delivery, on September 8, 2025, and has not been acknowledged, addressed, or responded to; therefore, under state law, the contract cannot legally be awarded.
1. Staff did not follow the standards for reviewing the format requirements or evaluating the proposals as specified in the request for proposals
2. Staff did not follow the evaluation and selection procedures as specified in the request for proposals
3, Staff did not follow the methods for evaluating and scoring the proposals specified in the request for proposal
4, Staff did not provide any explanation or breakdown of the 27 points Wilson General Contracting allegedly scored
Upload File(s) (CIP 23457) Protest of Wilson General Contracting Inc (2025.09.08).pdf
Public Works Department
Engineering Division
City of Pleasanton
200 Old Bernal Avenue
Pleasanton, CA 94566
[email protected]
RE: Request for Proposals for Fire Alarm and Communication System Retrofit Project at Multiple City Buildings, Project No. 23457 Re-proposal (“Project”)
Proposal Protest – Wilson General Contracting Inc.
Pursuant to the facts presented herein, Integra Construction Services, Inc. hereby protests the award of the above referenced Project to Wilson General Contracting Inc.
BASIS FOR PROTEST
i) The proposal documents submitted by Wilson General Contracting Inc are incomplete. The RFP provisions explicitly mandate incomplete proposal documents to invariably be considered non-responsive and rejected. (Fig. 1) (Fig. 2)
Fig. 1
a
g
e
CONSTRUCTION SERVICES, INC.
n
r
September 8, 2025
License # 481246
ii) The proposal submitted by Wilson General Contracting Inc is unsigned. The RFP provisions explicitly mandate unsigned proposals be considered non-responsive and rejected. (Fig. 1) (Fig 2)
iii) The qualifications and experience requirements set forth in the RFP are explicitly defined as constituting the minimum criteria required for Respondent eligibility to participate in the City’s RFP Selection Process. Wilson General Contracting Inc categorically failed to meet the minimum qualifications criteria, which, pursuant to the provisions set forth in the RFP, renders them ineligible to participate in the City’s RFP selection process. (Fig. 3) (Fig 4)
iv) The RFP Selection Process set forth in the RFP explicitly stipulates that only those proposals which meet the qualification and experience requirements set forth in this RFP will be evaluated by the City Selection Committee. The proposal submitted by Wilson General Contracting Inc categorically failed to meet the qualifications and experience requirements set forth in the RFP, thereby putting an incontrovertible end to Wilson General Contracting Inc’s participation in the RFP Selection Process and debarring the proposal from Committee evaluation. (Fig. 3) (Fig 4)
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
RFP – Fire Alarm Retrofit Project CIP 23457 RE-BID Page 11 of 26 RFP – Fire Alarm Retrofit Project CIP 23457 RE-BID Page 9 of 26 RFP – Fire Alarm Retrofit Project CIP 23457 RE-BID Page 10 of 26 Fig. 4
I . INCOMPLETE PROPOSAL DOCUMENTS
a) Wilson General Contracting Inc failed to acknowledge receipt of Addendum No. RB1, rendering the Addendum Acknowledgement section of the Bid Proposal incomplete. Furthermore, Addendum No. RB1 contained supplemental reference and record documentation, clarifications and modifications to the Scope of Services and revisions to contract documents’ special provisions, all of which directly impact the cost of work. Failure to include Addendum No. RB1 provides Wilson General Contracting Inc an unfair competitive advantage not allowed to other Bidders, is a material deviation from the requirements set forth in the RFP, and a material error and defect in and of Wilson General Contracting’s Bid Proposal. (Fig. 5)
Fig. 5
Wilson General Contracting Bid Proposal, CIP 23457 RE-BID Page 1 of 11
It is well established under California law that material defects are not subject to doctrine of discretionary waiver. Material defects cannot be waived, and the bid must be rejected. (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
b) Wilson General Contracting Inc failed to include the signed Addendum No. RB1 with their proposal as required per RFP Page 11 of 26 and Addendum No. RB1 Page 2. (Fig. 6) (Fig. 7)
(1) Desilva Gates Constr., LP v. Dep't of Transp., 242 Cal.App.4th 1409, 195 Cal.Rptr.3d 891 (Cal. App. 2015) (2) Ghilotti Construction Co. v. City of Richmond, 53 Cal.Rptr.2d 389, 45 Cal.App.4th 897 (Cal. App. 1996) (3) Valley Crest Landscape, Inc. v. City Council, 49 Cal.Rptr.2d 184, 41 Cal.App.4th 1432 (Cal. App. 1996) (4) Konica Business Machines U. Inc. v. Regents of University of California, 253 Cal.Rptr. 591, 206 Cal.App.3d 449 (Cal. App. 1988) (5) Taylor Bus Service, Inc. v. San Diego Bd. of Education, 241 Cal.Rptr. 379, 195 Cal.App.3d 1331 (Cal. App. 1987) (6) Menefee v. County of Fresno, 210 Cal.Rptr. 99,163 Cal.App.3d 1175 (Cal. App. 1985) Fig. 6
RFP – Fire Alarm Retrofit Project CIP 23457 RE-BID Page 11 of 26 Fig. 7
CIP No. 23457 Re-Bid – Addendum No. RB1 Page 2 of 2
c) The proposal submitted by Wilson General Contracting Inc does not include the Bidder’s (Wilson General Contracting Inc’s) CSLB number as required per the Minimum Qualifications identified on RFP Page 9 of 26 and RFP Page 13 of 26. (Fig. 3) (Fig. 8) (Fig. 9) (Fig. 10)
Fig. 8
RFP – Fire Alarm Retrofit Project CIP 23457 RE-BID Page 13 of 26 Fig. 9
Wilson General Contracting Bid Proposal, CIP 23457 RE-BID Page 2 of 11 Fig. 10
https://www.cslb.ca.gov/OnlineServices/CheckLicenseII/LicenseDetail.aspx?LicNum=798723
d) Wilson General Contracting Inc’s submitted proposal Pages 8 of 11 (Certifications of Bidder’s Experience and Qualifications), 9 of 11 (Bidder’s Contract Experience), 10 of 11 (Bidder’s Fire Alarm Subcontractor Experience), and 11 of 11 (List of Subcontractors) are incomplete. A more comprehensive account of individual details specific to each page is included in Section II and Section III below.
II . UNSIGNED PROPOSAL DOCUMENTS
a) The Bid Proposal documents set forth in the RFP required signatures to be endorsed in five locations across five separate proposal documents. Three out of the five proposal documents submitted by Wilson General Contracting Inc are unsigned: the Acknowledgement on page two of Addendum RB1, Page 9 ‘Certifications of Bidder’s Experience and Qualifications’, and Page 10 ‘Bidder’s Fire Alarm Subcontractor Experience’, (Fig. 11) (Fig. 12) (Fig. 13)
Fig. 11
Fig. 12
Wilson General Contracting Bid Proposal, CIP 23457 RE-BID Page 9 of 11 CIP No. 23457 Re-Bid – Addendum No. RB1 Page 2 of 2
By failing to endorse the Certifications of Bidder’s Experience and Qualifications proposal document, Wilson General Contracting Inc also failed to certify the required representations and acknowledgements present in the document, which is a material deviation explicitly non-responsive to the terms and requirements of the RFP that offers an unfair competitive advantage to Wilson General Contracting Inc not allowed to other Bidders. (Fig. 14)
Wilson General Contracting Bid Proposal, CIP 23457 RE-BID Page 10 of 11 Fig. 13
Fig. 14
Bid Proposal, Fire Alarm Retrofit Project CIP 23457 RE-BID Certification of Bidder’s Experience and Qualifications
III . MANDATORY QUALIFICATION & EXPERIENCE REQUIREMENTS NOT MET
a) The Mandatory Qualifications and Experience Requirements as set forth in the RFP are as follows:
“three projects completed in California in the last seven (7) years of similar size and complexity” Wilson General Contracting Inc provided zero out of three required completed projects and references. (Fig. 15) (Fig. 16)
Fig. 15
Wilson General Contracting Bid Proposal, CIP 23457 RE-BID Page 9 of 11
IV . PROPOSAL EVALUATION
a) In addition to the previously stated facts regarding Wilson General Contracting Inc’s non- responsiveness and ineligibility for participation in the RFP Selection Process, it is mathematically impossible for Wilson General Contracting Inc to achieve an Evaluation Score of 27 points when evaluated according to each Evaluation Criteria and scored as identified pursuant to the selection process established in the RFP documents. (Fig. 16) (Fig. 17) (Fig. 18) (Fig. 19)
RFP – Fire Alarm Retrofit Project CIP 23457 RE-BID Appendix A – Proposal Evaluation Page 13 of 26 Fig. 16
Fig. 17
Fig. 18
RFP – Fire Alarm Retrofit Project CIP 23457 RE-BID Appendix A – Proposal Evaluation Page 15 of 26
When evaluating the proposal submitted by Wilson General Contracting Inc according to each Evaluation Criteria and scored as identified pursuant to the selection process established in the RFP documents, the maximum possible Evaluation Score achievable is 17 Points.
Fig. 19
CLOSING STATEMENT
Wilson General Contracting Inc’s proposal carries numerous unwaivable material defects, failed to adhere to the requirements set forth in the RFP documents, did not meet the mandatory Bidder Qualification and Experience Requirements set forth in the RFP, failed to identify any relevant experience, and is mathematically incapable of achieving an Evaluation Score greater than 17 Points when evaluated according to each Evaluation Criteria and scored as identified pursuant to the selection process established in the RFP documents Pursuant to the facts presented above, Wilson General Contracting Inc’s proposal should be rejected as non-responsive, and the Project awarded to Integra as the lowest responsible and responsible Bidder with the highest overall final score.
Sincerely,
Alexander Giammona
President
Integra Construction Services, Inc.
Cc: Wilson Magat, Wilson General Contracting Inc ([email protected]) Lauren Stec, Lanak & Hanna ([email protected])
Adam Nelkie, City of Pleasanton ([email protected])