1685 Main Street, MS#18, Santa Monica, CA 90401 • www.santamonica.gov • @cityofsantamonica • @santamonicacity
Public Works Department
February 1, 2023
Willie Tarazi, President
West Valley Investment Group, Inc.
18750 Oxnard Street, Suite #405
Tarzana, CA 91356
Subject: Final Determination for Request for Bids (RFB) 3200 Airport Avenue Renovation (SP2486)
Dear Mr. Tarazi,
I have received West Valley Investment Group’s (WVIG) protest letter, dated January 23, 2023, for SP2486 RFB 3200 Airport Ave Renovation (Project).
I reviewed your concerns and provided my findings below:
1. “… under no circumstances were we not awarded a contract whenever we came in lowest…”
The Santa Monica Municipal Code requires the City to award contracts to the best bidder. In doing so, it may evaluate the capacity of the bidder to perform the contract or provide the service promptly, within the time specified based on prior experience. As an example, WVIG offered the Parking Structure #5 Project in its selection of prior projects. The project duration was 274 days and completed in 441 days.
2. “… we were invited to bid on the 3200 Airport Avenue one-story building renovation project and were prequalified for that bid, which implies that we were vetted and deemed capable of taking care of such a project…” The solicitation was broken down into two steps. The first step was the Request for Qualifications which identified four contractors who were capable of
constructing the Project, including WVIG. The second step requested additional information and helped determine which of the prequalified contractors had the most experience with similar projects, the best project understanding/schedule, and the best subcontractor support. WVIG did not emerge as the best bidder during this phase.
3. “… the only reason why it was recommended that the project be awarded to Swinerton is because their timeline was favored to ours. With a highly daily liquidated damages rate, we have every reason to complete the project within the allocated period of time. We have also informed the City that we will not be involved in any other project while working on this one to make sure that all our available resources will be allocated here.”
The best bidder was not based solely on the duration of the contractor’s provided schedule. As mentioned previously the best bidder selection was based on having the most experience with similar projects, the best project understanding/schedule, and the best subcontractor support. While WVIG indicated during the interview that they would focus solely on this project, the proposed 2-3 staff management team represented a fraction of management teams proposed by other bidders to meet the aggressive timeline. In addition, it was identified that the sub-contractor recommended by WVIG for the glazing portion of the Project, had repeated issues in measuring and fabricating glass on a previous city project. Having such issues on the Project could heavily impact the schedule since the procurement of the windows is a critical path item.
4. Per Public Contract Code (PCC) Division 2, General Provisions, any solicitation for bids shall include a section identifying and describing the criteria that will be used in evaluation bids, the methodology or weighting system that will be used in the evaluation, and the relative importance or weight assigned to the criteria identified in the request for bids.
The City is subject to the provisions of the Santa Monica Municipal Code for contracts involving the construction of public works projects. The Instruction to Bidders of the Request for Bids includes a section titled “Best Bidder” which reads:
The award, if any, will be made to the best bidder. In evaluating whether a bidder is the best bidder pursuant to the Santa Monica Municipal Code, City may utilize some or all of the following criteria:
(1) Price.
(2) The quality of the material or services offered.
(3) The ability, capacity, and skill of the bidder(s) to perform the contract or provide the materials or services.
(4) The capacity of the bidder(s) to perform the contract or provide the service
promptly, within the time specified, and without delay or interference. (5) The sufficiency of the bidder’s financial resources. (6) The character, integrity, reputation, judgment, training, experience, and efficiency of the bidder.
(7) The ability of the bidder(s) to provide such future maintenance or service as may be needed.
(8) Any other factor which will further the intent set forth in Section 608 of the City Charter.
The City of Santa Monica (the “City”) shall have absolute discretion in determining the applicability and weight or relative weight of some or all of the criteria listed above and is not required to select the lowest monetary bidder.
At this time, I find no reason to alter the RFB scores and will proceed with awarding this project as noted in the Award Notification for 3200 Airport Ave Renovation Project. This constitutes a final decision on this protest. Thank you for your continued interest in our City’s projects.
Respectfully,
Rick Valte, P.E.
Public Works Director