Attachment 1
Date: 6/25/26
975 Carden Street, San Leandro, CA 94577
(510) 639-0639 (Office)• (510) 639-4653 (Fax)
BID PROTEST
Re: Bid Protest -Santa Rosa Ave at Bellevue Ave Traffic Signal Bid Date: 6/23/26
(02283
To Whom it May Concern,
This letter serves as St. Francis Electric's (SFE) formal protest of the award to Mike Brown Electric (MBE) for the Santa Rosa Ave at Bellevue Ave Traffic Signal Project with the City of Santa Rosa. MBE failed to follow the requirements set by the City in the Specifications related to the maximum amount allowed for Bid Item #1, Mobilization. Accordingly, the City of Santa Rosa (City) should reject MBE's bid because it contains non-waivable irregularities and SFE hereby requests that the City reject MBE's bid as nonresponsive and award the contract to the lowest responsive and responsible bidder, which appears to be St. Francis Electric.
Pursuant to statute and applicable case law, the City is required to award construction contracts to the lowest responsive and responsible bidder. (See Konica Business Machines v. University of California Regents, 206 Cal.App.3d 449, 457 (1988).) To put it simply, any bid that does not conform to the specifications is nonresponsive. (Southern Exchange v. County of San Diego, 5 Cal.App3d 81, 85 (1975); 14 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 54, 55 (1949).)
In Konica, 206 Cal.App.3d at 456-457, the court stated the importance of strictly following the rules for the competitive bidding process:
"Because of the potential for abuse arising from deviations from strict adherence to standards which promote these public benefits, the letting of public contracts universally receives close judicial scrutiny and contracts awarded without strict compliance with bidding requirements will be set aside. This preventative approach is applied even when it is certain that there was no corruption or adverse effect upon the bidding process, and deviations would save the entity money ... The importance of maintaining integrity in Government and the ease with which policy goals underlying the requirement for open competitive bidding may be surreptitiously undercut, mandate strict compliance with bidding requirements. " There is no question that MBE's bid is nonresponsive. Contrary to the bid documents, MBE put $65,000 into the bid item for Mobilization. However, per the bid specifications, "Section 10-7.01 Payment:
Mobilization shall be paid for at the contract lump sum price, which price shall not exceed 3% of the contract amount ... ".
From the desk of Ryan Dunham
During review of the bid documents made available by the City, SFE confirmed that MBE listed $65,000 for Bid Item No. 1, Mobilization, against a total bid of$981,092.50. Based on MBE's total bid of$981,092.50, the maximum allowable Mobilization amount under Section 10-7.01 was $29,432.78 (3% of the total bid amount). MBE's Mobilization amount of $65,000 exceeds the allowable maximum by $35,567.22 and represents approximately 6.63% ofMBE's total bid amount.
MBE clearly exceeded this amount by placing 6.63% (more than twice the maximum amount permitted by the specifications) into the Mobilization item. This has a direct impact on the bid amount and is not a waivable error. MBE's Mobilization amount exceeds the maximum allowable amount by approximately 121 %, demonstrating that the deviation was material and substantial rather than technical or de minimis.
The specification uses mandatory language, stating that Mobilization "shall not exceed 3% of the contract amount." The specification does not provide discretion to exceed this limit, nor does it provide any mechanism for post-bid correction of a Mobilization amount that exceeds the stated maximum. A bid that exceeds an express limitation contained in the bidding specifications fails to comply with a mandatory bidding requirement.
The City has only limited power to waive irregularities in a bid. In this instance, the City cannot waive the non-responsiveness in MBE's bid because: (1) The City made this 3% cap on Mobilization a mandatory part of the bid documents; and (2) because MBE obtained an unfair advantage over other bidders in failing to fulfill this mandatory requirement.
Having established the 3% Mobilization limitation in its Bidding Documents, the City is bound to enforce that requirement equally among all bidders. In Pozar v. Department of Transportation, 145 Cal.App.3d 269 (1983), Caltrans failed to follow a rule set forth in its own bidding documents with respect to resolving a discrepancy between a bidder's unit price and the extension of the unit price. The aggrieved bidder sought a Writ of Mandate requiring Caltrans to follow its own rules for resolving this type of discrepancy. The Court of Appeals issued the Writ, Stating as follows:
"The court has no power to direct the award of a public contract to any individual. We can, however, direct an agency to follow its own rules when it has a ministerial duty to do so or when it has abused its discretion. Here, we are concerned with a ministerial duty. Ca/trans' own rules obligate it to accept the unit price in the absence of specified circumstances, none of which are here present." Similarly, MBE was required to NOT exceed 3% in the Mobilization item. Because this is a direct violation of the rules set forth in the bid documents, it renders MBE's bid nonresponsive and the City cannot waive this irregularity.
The issue here is not merely that MBE priced Mobilization higher than other bidders. Rather, MBE failed to comply with an express bidding requirement established by the City. This is therefore not simply a question of bid balancing or pricing judgment. It is a direct violation of a mandatory specification that applies equally to all bidders.
The Mobilization limitation exists to prevent front-loading of contract payments and to ensure that all bidders compete on equal terms. By allocating $65,000 to Mobilization instead of the maximum allowable amount of $29,432.78, MBE obtained a payment structure unavailable to bidders who complied with the specifications. Allowing such a deviation would undermine the competitive bidding process and prejudice bidders who strictly followed the requirements established by the City.
From the desk of Ryan Dunham
Even if the City could somehow get around the legal impediment that MBE was required to follow the bid documents, the defect in MBE's bid cannot be waived because it gave MBE an unfair advantage over other bidders, a benefit not available to SFE.
The bidding instructions only allow the City to waive "any informality or irregularity in bids received". This is consistent with California law, which provides that an irregularity in a bid can be waived only "if the variance cannot have affected the amount of the bid or given the bidder an unfair advantage or benefit not allowed other bidders" (Konica, 206 Cal.App.3d at 454.) Importantly, it has been well established in California that an irregularity is not waivable if it allows a bidder to withdraw its bid based on mistake. (See Valley Crest Landscape v. City o,/Davis, 41 Cal.App.4th 1432, 1442 (1996) because the irregularity affected the amount of the bid, it gave the low bidder grounds to withdraw its bid pursuant to Public Contract Code section 5103, the irregularity created an unfair advantage over other bidders and, therefore, could not be waived.
The Court of Appeals decision in Valley Crest makes this point clear. In the Valley Crest case the Bidder's mistake was in stating the percentages of work to be performed by its listed subcontractors. The Court of Appeals stated:
"North Bay had an unfair advantage because it could have withdrawn its bid per public contract code 5101. Misstating the correct percentage of work to be done by a subcontractor is in the nature of a typographical or arithmetical error. It makes the bid materially different and is a mistake in filling out the bid. As such, under Public Contract Code section 5103, North Bay could have sought relief by giving the city notice of the mistake within five days of the opening of the bid. That North Bay did not seek such relief is ofno moment. The Key point is that such relief was available. Thus, North Bay had a benefit not available to other bidders; Its mistake therefore could not be corrected by waiving an irregularitv" In conclusion, the Mobilization limitation is not merely a post-award payment provision. Mobilization appears as Bid Item No. 1 in the City's Bid Schedule and bidders were required to submit a price for that item as part of their bids. The specifications expressly provide that the Mobilization price "shall not exceed 3% of the contract amount." Accordingly, the limitation directly governs the amount that may be bid for Bid Item No. 1. MBE submitted a Mobilization amount of $65,000, more than twice the maximum amount permitted by the specifications. Because the nonconforming amount was included in MB E's bid at the time of bid opening, the defect cannot be corrected without altering a material component of the bid after opening and therefore renders the bid nonresponsive.
If the City were to reject MBE's Bid as nonresponsive, the City's decision will not be subject to viable legal challenge as the City is under no duty to accept a nonresponsive bid. (See MCM Constr., Inc. v. City and County of San Francisco, 66 Cal.App.4th 359, 374 (1998).) SFE respectfully requests that the City reject MBE's bid as nonresponsive and award the contract to the lowest responsive and responsible bidder, which appears to be St. Francis Electric.
By rejecting MBE's Bid and awarding the project to the lowest responsive, responsible bidder, the City will preserve the integrity of the competitive bidding process and ensure compliance with the requirements established in the bidding documents.
From the desk of Ryan Dunham
If you have any questions or need further clarifications, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Ryan Dunham
Vice President
St. Francis Electric
975 Carden Street
San Leandro, CA 94577
510-780-6793
[email protected]
From the desk of Ryan Dunham
10 GENERAL CONSTRUCTION
10-1.01A General: Amendments to the Caltrans Standard Specifications are identified using the following section headings, each with a specific meaning:
1. "In Addition" -The language that follows supplements the existing language in the referenced Caltrans Standard Specifications section.
2. "Replace With" -The language that follows completely replaces the corresponding section in the Caltrans Standard Specifications.
3. "Modification" -Only specific portions of the referenced Caltrans Standard Specifications section have been modified; the rest remains unchanged.
Headers without these amendments are supplements to the Caltrans Standard Specifications.
10-5 Dust Control: Sweeping, commercial street sweeping, covering stockpiles, applying water, and/or dust palliative, to control dust even caused by public traffic is included in the bid and not change order work.
All dust-producing work and unpaved construction sites shall require a minimum watering in the middle and ending of each workday. The frequency of watering shall increase if dust is airborne. Watering shall not produce runoff.
You shall maintain dust control to the satisfaction of the Engineer, 7 days a week, 24 hours per day.
At the end of each workday, you shall thoroughly sweep all streets effected by the project to minimize airborne dust.
At the end of each work week, you shall sweep all streets in the work zone with a commercial street sweeping truck equipped with a rear pick up broom and water.
At the Engineer's discretion additional sweeping or watering may be required, including the use of a commercial street sweeping truck equipped with a rear pick up broom, at any time or place.
10-5.01 Payment: Full compensation for Dust Control conforming to the provisions of these specifications shall be considered as included in the prices paid for the various contract items of work and no additional compensation will be allowed therefor. 10-7 Mobilization: Mobilization shall consist of preparatory work and operations, including, but not limited to, those necessary for the movement of personnel, equipment, supplies and incidentals to the project site; and for all other work and operations which must be performed or costs incurred prior to beginning work on the various contract items on the project site.
10-7.01 Payment: Mobilization shall be paid for at the contract lump sum price, w Icli price shall not exceed 3% of the contract amount and shall include full compensation for, Santa Rosa Ave at Bellevue Ave
Traffic Signal
C02283
Rev.4/08/2026
2026 Form TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS