HomeMy WebLinkAbout5B OCRCity Council Staff Ref)orl
DATE: October 22, 2020 NEW BUSINESS
SUBJECT: AWARD A CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT TO JOHN BEAN
FROM:
BY:
SUMMARY:
TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION, A DELAWARE CORPORATION, IN
THE AMOUNT OF $7,042,945 FOR THE AIRPORT PASSENGER
BOARDING BRIDGES, CITY PROJECT NO. 19-34
David H. Ready, City Manager
Development Services Department
Approval of this item will allow staff to proceed with the Airport Passenger Boarding
Bridges, City Project 19-34 with an estimated construction cost of $7,042,945. This
project will remove and replace eight passenger boarding bridges with new passenger
boarding bridges to provide a high level of service through efficient operation and
enhanced aesthetics.
This item is being presented as this time as it is 100% funded by a Federal Aviation
Administration Airport Improvement Program (AIP) grant. No General Fund or Measure
J Funds are required for this project.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
1. Uphold the City Manager's final determination to reject the appeal submitted by
Thyssenkrupp Airport Systems, Inc., reject the bids submitted by American Steel
Builders California, Inc, Thyssenkrupp Airport Systems, Inc., and AERO Bridgeworks,
Inc. as non-responsive to the bid specifications, reject the bid protests submitted by
AERO Bridgeworks, Inc. and Thyssenkrupp Airport Systems, Inc., and waive any
irregularities in the apparent responsive and responsible low bid submitted by John
Bean Technologies Corporation, a Delaware Corporation; and
2. Award a construction contract (Agreement No. ) to John Bean Technologies
Corporation, a Delaware Corporation, in the amount of $7,042,945 for Airport
Passenger Boarding Bridges, City Project No. 19-34; and,
3. Delegate authority to the City Manager to approve and execute construction contract
change orders up to $176,055 with all change orders reported to the City Council; and
4. Authorize the City Manager to execute all necessary documents.
rrEM No. _5 ...... ~---
2City Council Staff Report October 22, 2020 --Page 2 Award Construction Contract for CP 19-34 Airport Passenger Boarding Bridges BUSINESS PRINCIPAL DISCLOSURE: The Public Integrity Disclosure Forms from John Bean Technologies Corporation are included as Attachment 1. BACKGROUND: Passenger boarding bridges (or "PBBs") are enclosed passageways consisting of multiple glass or steel tunnels equipped with a hydraulic or electromechanical elevation system that extends or retracts in a telescope type fashion; from an articulating mount fastened to the airport terminal gate to an aircraft to allow passengers to safely board or disembark an aircraft without exposure to the outside environment, and to enhance access for passengers with disabilities or mobility impairments. The Airport Passenger Boarding Bridges, City Project No. 19-34, (the "Project"), will replace the existing PBBs that have exceeded their service life, upgrade operating components and improve passenger convenience, security and safety during enplanement and deplanement. On July 23, 2020, the City Council authorized City staff to approve acceptance of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Airport Improvement (AIP) Grant #58, reject all bids received on June 23, 2020 and re-bid the Project. A copy of the staff report is included as Attachment 2. STAFF ANALYSIS: On July 30 and August 1, 2020, Staff advertised the Project for bids in the Desert Sun, submitted the Notice Inviting Bids to plan rooms 1, and provided the contract documents free of charge to prospective bidders. On September 1, 2020 at 3:00 p.m., the Procurement and Contracting Division received four (4) bids from the following contractors as identified in Table 1 : Location Bid Amount Indiana olis, IN $6,623,675* Fort Worth, TX $6,885,000* Marietta, GA $6,932,500* $7,042,945 *These bids were determined as non-responsive for failure to submit a bid in compliance with the specifications. John Bean Technologies Corporation (JBTC) submitted the lowest responsive bid at $7,042,945, which is higher than the engineer's estimate of $6,670,000. In reviewing the 1 A Plan Room is a "library" where contractors can freely view bidding documents (plans and specifications) for public works projects. There are 10 various plan rooms in southern California where the City submits its bid documents to ensure all contractors within the area are aware of the City's bid solicitation.
3City Council Staff Report October 22, 2020 --Page 3 Award Construction Contract for CP 19-34 Airport Passenger Boarding Bridges bid, Staff identified the cost to upgrade power requirements at the airport to accommodate the new units as driving the total project cost higher than estimated. In addition, Staff identified two minor irregularities in JBTC's bid. The first irregularity was the failure to submit the requested third-party test results confirming National Fire Protection Associated (NFPA) compliance along with the requested NFPA certification documentation. Staff notes that no bidder submitted this requirement, however, Staff has determined that verification of NFPA compliance will confirm satisfactory test results. The second irregularity was that the City's technical specifications required the new PBB's to withstand up to 140°F; however, the industry standard is a maximum of 125°F. Given these facts, Staff recommends the minor bid irregularities be waived. Non-Responsive Bids Staff reviewed all of the bids received and determined the apparent lowest three bids received were deficient and non-responsive. On September 17, 2020, Staff, in consultation with the City Attorney's office, issued notices of intent to reject the bids received from American Steel Builders California, Inc. (ASBC); Thyssenkrupp Airport Systems, Inc., (TAS); and AERO BridgeWorks, Inc., (AERO). The notice of intent to reject the bid from ASBC was based on their inability to meet the minimum requirements for structural live load and roof loads for the PBB's, and for excluding the required upgrading electrical power and upsizing pre-conditioned air units (PCAs) as required by the project specifications. The notice of intent to reject the bid from TAS was based on their failure to include pricing for the fixed walkway refurbishment scope of work as part of their total base bid schedule as required by the specifications. The notice of intent to reject the bid from AERO was based on their exclusion of the electrical power upgrades scope of work, which in lieu of the upgrades, contained a material deviation from the bid specification requirements. Staff recommends that the bids received from ASBC, TAS, and AERO be determined as non-responsive. Copies of the notices of intent to reject these bids are included as Attachment 3. Bid Protest Section 7 .08.030 "Bid Protests" of the Palm Springs Municipal Code (PSMC) provides bidders an opportunity to protest the City's consideration of award to the apparent low bidder, by filing a written protest within five working days of bid opening. The City's bid protest procedure emphasizes that "The purpose of the bid protest procedures in this Section is to protect the public interest. The bid protest procedures are not intended to give losing bidders an opportunity to evaluate the bid or proposal of the winning bidder to have the award of contract overturned to secure the award of contract for itself."
4City Council Staff Report October 22, 2020 --Page 4 Award Construction Contract for CP 19-34 Airport Passenger Boarding Bridges On September 18, 2020, AERO submitted a timely bid protest alleging that their bid included the complete electrical scope within their bid package. The City Engineer, in consultation with the City Attorney's office, reviewed AERO's bid protest, completed an independent legal analysis, and determined the bid protest was without legal merit. The City Engineer issued his decision to reject the bid protest and issued a written decision on September 23, 2020. As of October 1, 2020, AERO did not submit an appeal of the City Engineer's determination to the City Manager. AERO's bid protest and the City's bid protest response is included as Attachment 4. On September 24, 2020, TAS submitted a timely bid protest alleging that their bid included the complete refurbished walkway and acknowledged that a clerical error was made and as a result there was insufficient NFPA certification documentation in their bid submission. The City Engineer, in consultation with the City Attorney's office, reviewed TAS's bid protest, completed an independent legal analysis, and determined the bid protest was without legal merit. The City Engineer issued his decision to reject the bid protest and issued a written decision on September 28, 2020. TAS's bid protest and the City's bid protest response is included as Attachment 5. The City did not receive a bid protest from American Steel Builders California, Inc. Bid Protest Appeal On October 5, 2020, TAS submitted a timely appeal to the City Manager in response to the City Engineer's September 28, 2020 bid protest rejection letter. The City Manager, in consultation with the City Attorney's office, reviewed TAS's appeal, completed an independent legal analysis, and determined the appeal to be without legal merit. The City Manager issued his decision to reject the appeal in a written decision on October 13, 2020. TAS's appeal and the City Manager's response is included as Attachment 6. Bid Analysis Staff reviewed all bid documents submitted by the apparent low bidder and determined that JBTC complies with the instructions to bidders and has submitted the lowest responsive and responsible bid. A check on references found they have successfully completed similar projects at the Denver International Airport, Atlanta Hartsfield-Jackson International Airport, and the Salt Lake City International Airport. As a matter of public record, Staff recommends the City Council formally uphold the City Manager's final determination to reject the appeal filed by TAS; determine the bids submitted by ASBC, TAS, and AERO as non-responsive; reject the bid protests filed by AERO and TAS; and waive any irregularities in the low bid submitted by JBTC. Staff recommends that the City Council award a construction contract to JBTC; a copy of the agreement is included as Attachment 7.
5City Council Staff Report October 22, 2020 --Page 5 Award Construction Contract for CP 19-34 Airport Passenger Boarding Bridges Public Works Contractor Registration Law (SB 854) Under California Labor Code Section 1771.1, as amended by Senate Bill (SB) 854 (2014), unless registered with the State of California Department of Industrial Relations (DIR), a contractor may not bid, nor be listed as a subcontractor, for any bid proposal submitted for public works projects on or after March 1, 2015. Similarly, a public entity cannot award a public works contract to a non-registered contractor, effective April 1, 2015. Staff has reviewed the DIR's contractor registration database, and has confirmed that JBTC and their listed subcontractors are registered with the DIR and are appropriately licensed. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT: Section 21084 of the California Public Resources Code requires Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"). The Guidelines are required to include a list of classes of projects which have been determined not to have a significant effect on the environment and which are exempt from the provisions of CEQA. In response to that mandate, the Secretary for Resources identified classes of projects that do not have a significant effect on the environment, and are declared to be categorically exempt from the requirement for the preparation of environmental documents. In accordance with Section 15301 "Existing Facilities", Class 1 projects consist of the operation, repair, maintenance, permitting, leasing, licensing, or minor alteration of existing public structures, facilities, mechanical equipment or topographical features involving negligible or no expansion of use beyond that existing at the time of the lead agency's determination. Therefore, in accordance with Section 15301 (b), Staff has determined that the Airport Passenger Boarding Bridges Project, City Project 19-34, is considered categorically exempt from CEQA and a Notice of Exemption will be prepared and filed with the Riverside County Clerk. FISCAL IMPACT: The Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act signed into law by the President on March 27, 2020, increased the federal share to 100% for Airport Improvement Program (AIP) and supplemental discretionary grants already planned for fiscal year 2020. Under general circumstances, AIP grant recipients must contribute a matching percentage of the total project costs. The Cares Act provided additional funding and eliminated the local share allowing for the project to be fully funded by a Federal Aviation Administration AIP Grant. On July 6, 2020, airport staff and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) established a multi-year grant, AIP Grant #58, to provide full funding for eight new passenger boarding bridges with added accessories and spare parts, and a new runway sweeper for a total funding allocation of $7,919,014. Of the total funding allocation, $7,219,000 is available for the passenger boarding bridges project. The construction cost for this project is $7,042,945 for new passenger boarding bridges. The remaining $176,055 is to be utilized for construction contingency and the purchase of spare parts.
6City Council Staff Report October 22, 2020 --Page 6 Award Construction Contract for CP 19-34 Airport Passenger Boarding Bridges This Project is 100% funded by the FAA AIP Grant #58. No General Fund or Measure J Capital Funds are required for the Project. SUBMITTED: Director of Development Services ~ --------~ ~ __;:; 2 ~ ~ /. David H. ReadyYh.o: City Manager Attachments: 1. Public Integrity Disclosure Forms 2. Staff Report -July 23, 2020 3. Non-Responsive Letters 4. AERO Bid Protest 5. Thyssenkrupp Bid Protest 6. Thyssenkrupp Appeal Marcus L. Fuller, MPA, PLS, PE Assistant City Manager 7. Construction Agreement-John Bean Technologies Corporation
7Attachment 1
81. Name of Entity PUBLIC INTEGRITY DISCLOSURE APPLICANT DISCLOSURE FORM John Bean Technologies Corporation 2. Address of Entity (Principle Place of Business) 70 West Madison Street, Suite 4400, Chicago IL 60602 3. Local or California Address (if different than #2) 4. State where Entity is Registered with Secretary of State Delaware If other than California, is the Entity also registered in California?~ Yes D No 5. Type of Entity [8] Corporation D Limited Liability Company D Partnership D Trust D Other (please specify) 6. Officers, Directors, Members, Managers, Trustees, Other Fiduciaries (please specify) Note: If any response is not a natural person, please identify all officers, directors, members, managers and other fiduciaries for the member, manager, trust or other entity __________________ [8] Officer D Director D Member D Manager [name] D General Partner D Limited Partner SEE NEXT PAGE •Other ____________ _ __________________ D Officer D Director D Member D Manager [name] D General Partner D Limited Partner •Other ____________ _ __________________ D Officer D Director D Member D Manager [name] (Revised 05/16/19) D General Partner D Limited Partner •Other ____________ _ CITY OF PALM SPRINGS-PUBLIC INTEGRITY DISCLOSURE APPLICANT DISCLOSURE FORM Page 1 of 2
9John Bean Technologies Corporation 1805 West 2550 South Ogden UT 84401-3396 USA Phone: 801-627-6600 EIN: 91-1650317 OFFICERS OF THE CORPORATION NAME ADDRESS PHONE/EMAIL TITLE Thomas W. Giacomini 70 W. Madison, Ste. 4400 312-861-5885 Chairman, President & Chicago, IL 60602 Tom.Giacomini@jbtc.com CEO 70 W. Madison, Ste. 4400 312-861-5887 Executive Vice President Brian A. Deck and Chief Financial Chicago, IL 60602 Brian.Deck@jbtc.com Officer 70 W. Madison, Ste. 4400 312-861-5935 Executive Vice David C. Burdakin President and Chicago, IL 60602 David.burdakin@jbtc.com President, JBT AeroTech James L. Marvin 70 W. Madison, Ste. 4400 312-861-5886 EVP General Counsel & Chicago, IL 60602 James.marvin@jbtc.com Secretary Jason T. Clayton 70 W. Madison, Ste. 4400 312-861-5733 EVP Human Resources Chicago, IL 60602 Jason.clayton@jbtc.com Megan J. Rattigan 70 W. Madison, Ste. 4400 312-861-6048 Vice President, Investor Chicago, IL 60602 Megan.Rattigan@jbtc.com Relations and Controller Paul Sternlieb 70 W. Madison, Ste. 4400 312-861-5778 Executive Vice President Chicago, IL 60602 Paul.Sternlieb@jbtc.com and President, Protein 400 Fairway Ave. 863-499-0429 Executive Vice President Carlos Fernandez and President, Liquid Lakeland, FL 33801 Carlos.Fernandez@jbtc.com Foods 70 W. Madison, Ste. 4400 312-861-5787 Executive Vice Bryant Lowery President and Chief Chicago, IL 60602 Bryant.Lowery@jbtc.com Procurement Officer The officers of John Bean Technologies Corporation do NOT own nor have investments of 5% or more of the business. Revised: SEPT 2020 Page 1 of 1 PROPRIETARY AND CONFIDENTIAL
107. Owners/Investors with a 5% beneficial interest in the Aoolicant Entity or a related entity EXAMPLE JANEDOE 50%, ABC COMPANY, Inc. [name of owner/investor] [percentage of beneficial interest in entity and name of entity) A. BlackRock Fund Advisors 13.70%, John Bean Technologies [name of owner/investor] [percentage of beneficial interest in entity and name of entity] B. The Vanguard Group, Inc. 10.15%, John Bean Technologies [name of owner/investor] [percentage of beneficial interest in entity and name of entity] C. T. Rowe Price Associates, Inc. 8.06%, John Bean Technologies [name of owner/investor] [percentage of beneficial interest in entity and name of entity] D. iShares Core S&P Small Cap ETF 6.24%, John Bean Technologies [name of owner/investor] [percentage of beneficial interest in entity and name of entity] E. ArrowMark Colorado Holdings LLC 5.60% John Bean Technologies [name of owner/investor] [percentage of beneficial interest in entity and name of entitvl I DECLARE UNDER PENAL TY OF PERJURY UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THAT TH FOREGOING IS TRUE AND CORRECT. Signature of Disclosing P Jeff Wheeler Controller, Jetway Date September 22, 2020 PENALTIES Falsification of information or failure to report information required to be reported may subject you to administrative action by the City. (Revised 05/16/19) CITY OF PALM SPRINGS-PUBLIC INTEGRITY DISCLOSURE APPLICANT DISCLOSURE FORM Page 2 of 2
11Attachment 2
12City Council Staff Reporl DATE: July 23, 2020 CONSENT CALENDAR SUBJECT: REJECT ALL. BIDS RECEIVED FOR THE AIRPORT PASSENGER BOARDING BRIDGES PROJECT, AUTHORIZE STAFF TO RE-BID AIRPORT PASSENGER BOARDING BRIDGES, CITY PROJECT NO. 19-34 AND ACCEPT FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION AIP GRANT #58 No. 3-060181-058-2020 FROM: David H. Ready, City Manager BY: Marcus Fuller, Assistant City Manager SUMMARY: This action will reject all bids received on June 23, 2020 for Airport Passenger Boarding Bridges, City Project No. 19-34, authorize staff to re-bid this project, and approve acceptance of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Airport Improvement (AIP) grant required to fund the Airport Passenger Boarding Bridges project and to purchase other airport related equipment. RECOMMENDATION: 1. Reject the bids received on June 23, 2020 for the Airport Passenger Boarding Bridges, City Project No. 19-34; and 2. Authorize staff to re-bid the Airport Passenger Boarding Bridges, City Project No. 19-34, excluding the refurbishment option; 3. Accept the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Airport Improvement AIP Grant #58 in the amount of $7,919,014 for the Palm Springs International Airport (PSP); and 4. Authorize the City Manager to execute all necessary documents. BUSINESS PRINCIPAL DISCLOSURE: Not applicable. BACKGROUND: At the May 7, 2020 council meeting, the City Council approved the plans and specifications and authorized staff to bid the construction of the Airport Passenger Boarding Bridges Project. Staff presented the work to prospective bidders in separate bid schedules with the option to proceed with new (Bid Schedule A) or refurbished (Bid ITEM NO ..... ~_J __ _
13City Council Staff Report July 23, 2020 --Page 2 Award Construction Contract for Traffic Signals HSI P Cycle 7 Schedule B) passenger boarding bridges. Additive Bid Schedules were included to provide airport operations and maintenance staff options with added accessories to the passenger boarding bridges based on budget availability and airport needs. The additive bid schedules provide staff with the flexibility to choose which items to add to the contract. The basis of award was based on the' total bid amount for Bid Schedule A and the collective total of items listed on Additive Bid Schedule A A copy of the May 7, 2020 staff report is included as Attachment 1. On June 23, 2020, the Procurement and Contracting Division received four construction bids from the following contractors. Company Bid Schedule A Bid Schedule A Bid Schedule B Bid Schedule Bid Amount + Additive Bid Bid Amount B + Additive New Schedule A Refurbished Bid Schedule (Basis of B Award) Bid Amount Thyssenkrupp $6,280,698.00 $6,909,772.00 $7,207,000.00 $9,922,000.00 Airport Systems, Inc. AERO $6,470,000.00 $7,268,000.00 $5,192,000.00 $8,085,000.00 Bridaeworks, Inc. John Bean $6,219,138.00 $7,276,459.00 $4,710,926.32 $6,714,112.00 Technologies, Corporation American Steel $6,732,103.00 $7,453,678.00 $3,991,250.00 $5,426,932.00 Builders, California, Inc. The Engineer's estimate for the project as reported to the City Council on May 7, 2020 was $4,500,000 for refurbished passenger boarding bridges and $6,500,000 for new passenger boarding bridges. Revisions to the plans and specifications to proceed with new passenger boarding bridges with the inclusion of select accessories places the revised Engineer's estimate at $6,670,000. STAFF ANALYSIS: Passenger Boarding Bridges Staff evaluated the bid results and found that the cost difference between refurbished and new passenger boarding bridges do not warrant selecting refurbished passenger boarding bridges over new passenger boarding bridges. In addition, topics presented in amendments to the solicitation were of such magnitude that a new solicitation is desired. Staff revised the project specifications to remove the refurbishment option and incorporate the amendments to the original solicitation in the new solicitation. 2
14City Council Staff Report July 23, 2020 --Page 3 Award Construction Contract for Traffic Signals HSIP Cycle 7 The FAA had originally expected bid results to be made available by April 15, 2020. COVID-19 altered many details including the deadline for bids and after the Airport Passenger Boarding Bridges bid opening, staff anticipated that the necessary grant funds for the project were no longer available. As the bid results of the June 23, 2020 bid opening were shared with the FAA, the FAA actively collaborated with airport staff to establish a multi-year grant to provide full funding for eight new passenger boarding bridges with added accessories and spare parts for a total funding allocation of $7,219,014. Staff is recommending that the City Council reject the bids received and authorize staff to re-bid this project with revised specifications to satisfy the full funding grant provided by the FAA for new passenger boarding bridges. With City Council approval, Staff anticipates project advertisement in the Desert Sun newspaper, and access to bid documents free of charge for interested parties and prospective bidders. A copy of the contract documents is on file with the Engineering Services Department. The following tentative schedule has been identified for the advertisement and bid process: Notice Inviting Bids to be posted: Deadline for receipt of bids: Contract awarded by City Council: AIP Grant #58 July 27, 2020 August26,2020 September 17, 2020 The initial pre-application submitted to the FAA on December 31, 2019 included funding allocations for the following projects for a total of $5,100,000: Passenger Boarding Bridges (PBBs) Design Regional Terminal Pier Acquire Runway Sweeper Total $3,950,000 $500,000 $650,000 $5,100,000 As part of the airport's collaboration with the FAA to establish funding for the airport passenger boarding bridges project, on July 6, 2020, airport staff revised the request to the initial application to remove funding for the design of the Regional Terminal Pier. Airport staff found there to be no immediate need to design for adding capacity to the regional concourse at this time as a result of COVID-19 reduced airport passenger activity. The details of the July 6, 2020 revisions consist of the following: Passenger Boarding Bridges (PBBs) Acquire Runway Sweeper Total $7,219,000 $700,000 $7,919,014 3
15City Council Staff Report July 23, 2020 -Page 4 Award Construction Contract for Traffic Signals HSIP Cycle 7 The total funding allocation for passenger boarding bridges includes the $6,670,000 based on Engineer's estimate for new passenger boarding bridges, additional accessories, and the estimated cost for spare parts based on bids received on June 23, 2020. The cost for the runway sweeper was revised from $650,000 to $700,000 as a result of increased costs since the submission of the initial application to the FAA for funding. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT: Section 21084 of the California Public Resources Code requires Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"). The Guidelines are required to include a list of classes of projects which have been determined not to have a significant effect on the environment and which are exempt from the provisions of CEQA. In response to that mandate, the Secretary for Resources identified classes of projects that do not have a significant effect on the environment, and are declared to be categorically exempt from the requirement for the preparation of environmental documents. In accordance with Section 15301 "Existing Facilities," Class 1 projects consist of the operation, repair, maintenance, permitting, leasing, licensing, or minor alteration of existing public structures, facilities, mechanical equipment or topographical features involving negligible or no expansion of use beyond that existing at the time of the lead agency's determination. Therefore, in accordance with Section 15301 (b), Staff has determined that the Airport Passenger Boarding Bridges Project, City Project 19-34, is considered categorically exempt from CEQA and a Notice of Exemption will be prepared and filed with the Riverside County Clerk. FISCAL IMPACT: The Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act signed into law by the President on March 27, 2020, increased the federal share to 100% for Airport Improvement Program (AIP) and supplemental discretionary grants already planned for fiscal year 2020. Under general circumstances, AIP grant recipients must contribute a matching percentage of the total project costs. The Cares Act provided additional funding and· eliminated the local share allowing for the project to be fully funded by a Federal Aviation Administration AIP Grant. The estimated cost for this project is $6,670,000 for new passenger boarding bridges and added accessories. AIP Grant #58 will provide funding for the Airport Passenger Boarding Bridges project and a new runway sweeper. These improvements will enhance safety, improve operating efficiencies and will significantly reduce maintenance costs. This project is funded solely by the FAA AIP Grant, with any additional funding budgeted and available in the Airport Capital Improvement Fund 416. No General Fund budget will be required. 4
16City Council Staff Report July 23, 2020 --Page 5 Award Construction Contract for Traffic Signals HSIP Cycle 7 SUBMITTED: Marcus L. Fuller, MPA, PLS, PE Assistant City Manager Attachment: 1. May 7, 2020 City Council Staff Report David H. Ready. ~ City Manager Attachment 1 is on file with the City Clerk. 5
17Attachment 3
18CITY OF PALM SPRINGS Development Services Department 3200 East Tahquitz Canyon Way • Palm Springs, California 92262 Tel: (760) 322-8380 • Fax: (760) 323-322-8360 • Web: www.palmspringsca.gov September 17, 2020 AERO Bridgeworks, Inc. 2700 Delk Road SE, Suite 150 Marietta, GA 30067 Via email: Jay.Grantham@aerobridgeworks.net Attention: Mr. Jay Grantham, President Subject: Airport Passenger Boarding Bridges Project, City Project No. 19-34 Notice of Intent to Reject Non-Responsive Bid Proposal Dear Mr. Grantham, The City of Palm Springs ("City") has reviewed AERO Bridgeworks, lnc.'s ("AERO") bid for the Airport Passenger Boarding Bridges project ("Project") and determined that the bid is non-responsive for failure to meet certain requirements in the bid specifications. City staff will recommend that the City Council reject AERO's bid as non-responsive and award the contract to the lowest responsible bidder submitting a responsive bid, John Bean Technologies Corporation, Jetway Systems. As a general rule, the City has the discretion to demand strict compliance with its solicitation requirements. {See Menefee v. County of Fresno (1985) 163 Cal.App.3d 1175; Ghilotti Construction Co. v. City of Richmond (1996) 45 Cal.App.4th 897; Konica Business Machines v. Regents of the University of California (1988) 206 Cal.App.3d 449.) Addendum No. 1 requires the bidder to upgrade all 400A breakers and wiring at the main breaker panel to 600A breakers. However, AERO's bid expressly excluded upgrading to 600A breakers. This does not comply with the clear instructions of the bid specifications and is a deviation that makes AERO's bid non-responsive. Based on the foregoing. City staff will recommend to the City Council at its meeting at 5:30 p.m. on October 8, 2020, to reject the bid submitted by AERO as non-responsive. The agenda for that meeting will provide instructions if AERO desires to participate in the meeting.
19CITY OF PALM SPRINGS Development Services Department 3200 East Tahquitz Canyon Way • Palm Springs, California 92262 Tel: (760) 322-8380 • Fax: (760) 323-322-8360 • Web: www.palmspringsca.gov We thank you for your interest in this Project and look forward to your participation in future bidding opportunities. Should you have any questions regarding the foregoing, please contact the Project Manager, Art Cervantes at {760) 323-8253 ext. 87 43. Sincerely, Joel Montalvo, MPA, P.E. Civil Engineer C 62624 Enclosure: Non-Responsive References
20Page2of3 following equipment-al of wh1ch are approved within 1he Bid Specifications -and we are happy to discuss In more detail; o John Bean Technologies (JBl) Passenger Boarding Bridge o llW/GSE Hobart Ground Power Unit (GPU). ITW/GSE Powercoil 2400 o ITWIGSE Preconditioned Air (PCA) • Six (6) 60-Ton Units • Two (2) 90• Ton Units o Palm Sprtngs Airport selection of Semler Potable Water Cabinet (PWC) OR Pheonix PWC o P&W Nova Bag Lift. US Patent #6676359 o P&W Nova Bag Slide. US Patent #6390757 • AERO BridgeWorks, Inc. Team has property licensed elecml, structural and mechanical engineers in the State of California. AERO also has full time representatives living nearby in Los Angeles as well as other cities on the West Coast. ADDENDUMl1 AERO is in receipt of Addendum #1, received on August 26, 2020, which includes several questions related to the existing power service at each gate. The Addendum requests aft bidders to upgrade the existing 400A Service at six (6) gates to a 600A Service ln Older to accommodate larger new PCA equipment However. the Addendum did not provide any further detail related to this request to upgrade six gates to 600A Service. In order to properly and accurately price this, AERO would need additional information related to the existing panels. existing conduit from panel to gate, what type of room / access J c:ailng heights are between the electrical room and each gate, as well as where the electrical room is located in proximity to each gate. Given the lack of detall on new 800A Service, AERO developed an alternative approach that still meets the Bid dellgn lntenL AERO's bid Includes a viable alternate to allow the existing 400A service to remain at each of the six gates. but atUI provide a functional and operational new PBB, PCA, GPU and PWC to meet the daalgn criteria In the Bid Specifications. Please note our Bid does not Include upgrading to 800A service, but our Bid does Include the ITW/GSE lntelllgent Power Management Syaffl, which wlll allow new PBB, GPU, PCA and PNC to be provided and Installed to meet the Design Intent In the RFP. This Power Share system product data Is attached, as required br RFP, with our Bid package. We are happy to answer any further questions. In addition ID the cost savings to avoid upgrading to 600A service there are several other long-tenn cost-savings and operational benefits 1o utilizing an Intelligent Power Management (1PM} system. The 1PM aOows PSP to connect more equipment at an aircraft stand. and at the same time, IPM reduces complexity and ensures PSP will not exceed the available power capacity at each gate. Please see the attached product data cut sheet for more Information. ...... ~ ................ ~~-.....,....., ...... MINlf .................. . .......,., ... ___._.,.. ..................... , ....... ~ ................ ~ ................... . .. ._ ...... ..... __ ............. ~ Ir ~wi•·-· =~-~-l ))i~ dJ ~;..;? -~~ t ·:O::: • -~ ,fl -MOAl EQUIPMINt LESS~m' ...... ._ ................... .___.. ..... ................ ~_..__...... .... ......................... __ _, ---•-....-·~ ..,""._,v __ _ ;.."':'.:-::::.::..-:,-: =-:.:---::.:""!:..~ 1t6t~~=~ ····--2700 Delk Road SE • Suite 150 • Marie"' GA 30087 • PH (770) 423-4200 • FAX (770) 423-4203 ATLANTA + DALLAS + SOUTHERNCAUFORNIA + SALTLAKECITY + SEATTLE www.aerobridgeworks.net
21Question 28: (ii) 2.21.5 Existing Breaker size available The airport has specifically identified that no power upgrades will be made to accommodate new PCA equipment. Please provide the existing breaker size available for PCA, per gate. Answer 28: GATE! 4 5 6 8 9 10 Main Breaker (Bono) 400 400 400 600 400 400 600 Panel at Gate The Contractor is to upgrade all the 400A breakers and wiring at the main breaker panel to 600A breakers. The Contractor shall proceed with the new PCA units based on the Pre-Conditioned Air table under section 2.21.4 (page 69) of the technical specifications. Question 29: (iii) 2.21.5 Minimum amperage Sized via the provided aircraft mix, our PCA units would require the electric listed below. Please confirm availability of required power. 200 AMPS: Gates 4, 6, 8, 9 & 11 225 AMPS: Gates 5, 7 & 10 Answer 29: GAlEi 4 5 8 g 10 Main Breaker (Bono) 400 400 400 600 400 400 600 The Contractor is to upgrade all of the 400A breakers and wiring at the main breaker panel to 600A breakers. The Contractor shall proceed with the new PCA units based on the Pre-Conditioned Air table under section 2.21.4 (page 69) of the technical specifications. 11 400 11 400
22CITY OF PALM SPRINGS Development Services Department 3200 East Tahquitz Canyon Way • Palm Springs, California 92262 Tel: (760) 322-8380 • Fax: (760) 323-322-8360 • Web: www.palmspringsca.gov September 17, 2020 American Steel Builders California, Inc. 5425 Poindexter Drive Indianapolis, IN 46235 Via email: dustin.sloan@ameribridgeinc.com Attention: Mr. Dustin Sloan, Vice President Subject: Airport Passenger Boarding Bridges Project, City Project No. 19-34 Notice of Intent to Reject Non-Responsive Bid Dear Mr. Sloan, The City of Palm Springs ("City"} has reviewed American Steel Builders California, lnc:s (" American") bid submitted for the Airport Passenger Boarding Bridges project ("Project") and determined that the bid is non-responsive for failure to meet certain requirements in the bid specifications. City staff will recommend that the City Council reject American's bid as non-responsive and award the contract to the lowest responsible bidder submitting a responsive bid, John Bean Technologies Corporation, Jetway Systems. As a general rule, the City has the discretion to demand strict compliance with its solicitation requirements. (See Menefee v. County of Fresno (1985) 163 Cal.App.3d 1175; Ghilotti Construction Co. v. City of Richmond (1996) 45 Cal.App.4th 897; Konica Business Machines v. Regents of the UniversityofCalifomia (1988) 206 Cal.App.3d 449.) The PBB Bid Submittal, part of the bid forms, requires the bidder for new PBB's and equipment to submit, among other things, NFPA certification documents identifying all components including, but not limited, to the cab closure, cab spacer (bumper}, all doors and the Passenger Boarding Bridge ("PBB"), along with 3rd party test results. American's bid lacks documentation providing that it's PBB is NFPA compliant. This does not comply with the clear instructions of the bid specifications. Additionally, Section 1.10.4.1 of the Technical Specifications requires the bidder to provide PBBs that will support a live load of 50.125 pounds per square foot and a roof load of 30.075 pounds per square foot. American's bid indicates that its PBBs will support a live load of 40 pounds per square foot and a roof load of 25 pounds per square foot. This does not comply with the minimum requirements of the Technical Specifications.
23CITY OF PALM SPRINGS Development Services Department 3200 East Tahquitz Canyon Way• Palm Springs, California 92262 Tel: (760) 322-8380 • Fax: (760) 323-322-8360 • Web: www.palmspringsca.gov Further, Addendum No. 1 requires the bidder to upgrade all 400A breakers and wiring at the main breaker panel to 600A breakers and proceed with the new pre-conditioned air units ("PCAs") based on a certain PCA table. American's bid does not provide for upgrading the existing power and upsizing the PCAs, as required. These foregoing deviations make American's bid non-responsive. As such, City staff will recommend to the City Council at its meeting at 5:30 p.m. on October 8, 2020, to reject the bid submitted by American as non-responsive. The agenda for that meeting will provide instructions if American desires to participate in the meeting. We thank you for your interest in this Project and look forward to your participation in future bidding opportunities. Should you have any questions regarding the foregoing, please contact the Project Manager, Art Cervantes at (760) 323-8253 ext. 8743. Sincerely, Joel Montalvo, MPA, P.E. Civil Engineer C 62624 Enclosure: Non-Responsive References
24• AUTHORIZATION TO MARK This authorizes the application of the Certfflcatlon Mark(s) shown below to the models described In the Product(s) Covered section when made In accordance with the conditions set fOrlh In the Certlflcallon Agreement and Listlng Report. This authorization also applles to mull_,le llstee model(s) ldentlfted on the correlation page ot the Listing Report. Thia document 1s the property of lntertek Testing Services and Is not transferable, The certification mark(s) may be applied only al the locatlon of the Party Authorized To Apply Mark. Applloant: Ameflbrldge, LLC Addrees: 5425 Poindexter Drive lndlanapons, IN 48235 Country: USA Contact: Mr. Jon BorowllZ Phone: (317) 828-2000 ext. 107 FAX: NA Enlell: jon.borowftz@amerlbrtdgatnc.com Party Autholtzecl To Apply Mark: Same as Manufacturer Report laaulng Office: Columbus llanufactuNr: Amertbrldge, LLC Addreaa: Country: Contact: Phone: FAX: EmaU: 5425 Poindexter Drive lndlanapolls, IN 46235 USA Mr. Jon Borowltz (317) 826-2000 ext. 107 NA Jon.borowllz@ameribrldgelnc.oom Control Number: 5011462 Autborlled by: --~~----i---,7..,.n11i~~l"-""lfoiiMlli.l"T:::" i~--T"::------n A ~ for Dean oavijionlifiticatlOn Manager lntertek This document supersedes all previous AuthorlzatJons to Mark for the noted Report Number. Thil~ IOMllkia,_lhnlllllUlhetMollllllNlal"aa.. Mdia,-,.WpUf'MIIIIIOU.c.titmllolt11,.....bDNft._.. Mltil8Clionl lnloltGk'ar....-w~aio llllladlOdlollfnendcondillonaDllhe..,.,.._lnlallall __ nollali1Jtoa11J,,._,411htflhMIIOU.Clioftlift.....,_1lliltlh ...... nl.loran,1Mt.-.-..• ...... ~ bJlhtuseof lllitAulllllrlatioftlo...._Olii1 U.CiNl • ....... topellllilOGPJitlf ot ....... •al llllaAIAadldan la .... Md !hen -,in lls....,. U..d lfttlllla'•Cdlaloa,_. ii ...... totJlfoondiUDMtlldOIIIIIII ......... Mdlr\lllilAulhonlalio,ilO ..... ,..flldllet ... allhl.,...,..to,u.. .. o,..,.liamonldU. .... fflllMll. ..... arNNleellalll fstlllletpDNMdll'I _,....,.....,lnllill~Mllltllllftll ..... Fallew•lloMcot•lot a..,..,._.o1 ... ,......-11118'oflM~IM!kift----wilhfle ......... lheftt•notlcwlhlPl#PMtolpcodudloft._,.OOllhlMlldoftd...._U.Clieftlcfltitit_...lllliN••lhll_,... lnlertek Tnting Servicn NA Inc. 545 East Algonquin Road. Arttngton H.tghts, IL 60005 Te hone ATM for Aeport 103439779COL-001 Page 1 of 1 ATM Issued: )3 ft S' -S·-U>lf EDIU.11--·IJ)llllndllo,r
25• AUTHORIZATION TO MARK This authortzas the appllcatlon of the Cerlflcallert Marl((s) ehown below to the models dascrlbecl In the PIOduct(s) Ccwered 88dlon ¥Alen made In aocordance with aie c:ondltlons sat forth In lie Cerffllcallon Agreement and Uatlng Report. This authorization also apples to mu1tlple liatae model(a) Identified on lhe COfflllatlon page of lhe Usttng Report. This document la the property of lnlelt8k Taatlng Services and Is not transferable. The certlftcatlon ma,k(a) may be applled only at lhe location of Iha Party Authorized To Apply Mark. Applicant: ITW GSE ApS Ad ..... : Smedabakken 31-33 DK-5270 Odenae N Co1111try: Denmark Coalact: Ronni AZJJfay PIIOne: Phone: +45 8318 60 oo FAX: NA ErnaH: ra@Jtwgae.com Party Authorized To Apply Marl(: Same as Manufacturer ManufactuNr: GSE Holdings Inc., Hobart Ground Systems: Hobart Gtound Power; Tftlectron: 11W Military GSE Add,_.: 11001 US Hlghway41 Nartht Palmelo, Fl.34221 Country: Contact: Phon•: PAX: Emal: USA Ed Upshaw (941) 721-1081 (941) 721-1081 ~.us Report l•ulng Office: Cor1land, NY -;, Conln>INumber: aQ04934 Authorlzedby: ---"--... w~----(,,,.,,.._. -----~---~·~-~,,.·.::::a::: _ _A;...,,_,_,lJ...;::;.\.;:i.U,...., Ma.lot,an~~~ .. tor Dean Da\1daon, Ctttiflcltlon Manager lntertek Thia document euperaedea an previous Authorizations to Mark for lie noted Repo,t Number. _....._111-.11t1r ......... fll ...... Glll..S• ........ ---••caa.1111....-~---IICln._..,.__..,IIIII...,• ....... _ ............................................... Clllil ................... ., ....... ., .... ....... ______ ......._ ....... _ .. e11111 ........................... __..... .......... .,.,-. .. ....,u.,,, ...... ~-----· ....... -................... ~ ....... -...... " ......... _........... . .......................... ... ... -.,.._..~ ...... ....._ ..... .....,___._,,_..,....__._ .. ,.,._d_.. ............ d .. ~..-111---• .. ......... lllf•IIICIDt ........... ......_ .. ....,..,,_,_....._ .. Cllllllf .......... ._ ..... lnler1ak T...U. ltnfoee NA Inc. M East Alganquln Rold, A111ng1cn HelQtlll. U. 80005 8tanclard(1): Heating And Coollng Equipment <exptree: 30Nov'l0'l2> (UL 1895:2011 Ed.4 +R: 030ct2014) Heating And Coaling Equipment <E,cpns: 30Nov2022> [CSA C22.21D8:2011 Ed.4] Pfoduct: Alr-condlllorw wflh oplfonal elecb1c heat. Models: PCA210; GSl:3400 PCA 130 ATM for Report 102487248CRT-004 1~ Page2of2 ATM laeued: 8-Jul-2017 ID tU.IIONp,.1r, .....
26intertek 'IDIII Qulllly. Amnd. AUTHORIZATION TO MARK This authorizes lhe appllcatlon of the Certiftcatton Martt(s) shown below to Iha models described In the Product(a) covered aec::lon when made In 8000fdance with the conditions set fonh In the Certlftcadon Agreement and Usttng Rspott. This aulhodza11on also applla to m~llple llatee model(s) klentffled on the C0#81atlon page of the Llatlng Report. Thia document la the property of lntertek Testtng Services end Is not transferable. The C8f11ftcatlon mark(•) mey be ac,plied ortJ at the locallon of the Party Authorized To Apply Mar1'. Appllclnt 11W GSE ApS Addrea: Smadabakken 31-33 DK-5270 0denle N Country: Denmadc Contact: Ranni Azulay Pllone: Phone: +46 63 18 eo 00 FAX: NA Emal: ca@ltwgse.com Pa~ AuthOl'INd To Apply Marte: Same aa Manufacturer Manufacturer: nw GSE ApS Country: Contact: Pllona: FAX: Emall: Smedebakken 31-33 DK-6270 Odenae N Denmark Ronni Azulay Phone: +46 8318 80 00 NA ra@llwgae.com Report ,_,,na Office: Cortland. NY r .. -:> , Control Number: 5004933 Authorized by: -----~lilllllllliil~---~-&L:;;;;;-..;:;;.· ··.;;;;. -;..._&... L:L_' '"'!",..~~---✓'-,,.;\:....;..U.;;;;;;;;....;U=· Ulla-AaJoh~ for Dean Davidson, Cenlftca11on Manager lntertek This document eupersades alJ pmlous Authorizations to Mark rar Iha noted Report Number. -~ ....... .., ......... ., .... ca.. .. i. ................ c.-... ................ CIIIII. ....... ......., • ...,_ ....... --............ ..,...., ..... __ ..._ • ..,..,., ......... c:11111 ....... ,. ............ .,,,, .............. ...... .., .. _OI_ ........... ...._ ... Cllllll•..._. .. ,_.._... .................... llllll •• -, ... ....,_.,..,~~--11 .................... -. ............ ~ ...... ,.,, ...... r1 ........ _., ............. ., ....... ,..... ............ ....... 11 ... ., ...... ,..,, ....... ,.. .............. ,..,.. ................. -.. c......--•---•111 ...-.-••lllf .. ._..d ............................ Cllllld ......... ln .. ....... --. --------,,. ---.-...... -~-Fu 312-283-1812 Standanl(•): Healng And Coollng Equipment <Expires: 30Nov'l022> (UL 1996:2011 Ed.4 +R: 030ct2014) Healing And Cooling Equipment <Expires: 30Nov2022> (CSA C22.2#236:2011 Ed.4] Product: Air-conditioner with optional electrlc heal Models: GSE3400 PCA 210: GSE3400 PCA 130 ATM for Report 102487248CRT-004 1~ Page 1 of2 ATM la8U8d: 8.Jul•2017 ID II.S.tl ... 17)......,
27• • 1S5of1M lntertek AUTHORIZATION TO MARK This authorlzea the application of the Certlflcatlon Mark(a) shown below to the modela described In the Product(a) Covered aection when made in accordance with the conditions eet forth in the Certification Agreement and Uating Report. Thia authorization alao applies to multiple listee model(a) idenlffled on the correlation page of the listing Report. Thia document la the property of lntertek Testing Servlcea and is not transferable. The certification mark(a) may be applied only at the location of the Party Authorized To Apply Mark. Applloant: Add,_.: Country: Contact: Phone: FAX: Emall: GSE Holdlnga, Inc. DBA Hobart Ground Systems 11001 US Hlghway41 North Palmetto, FL. 34221 USA Ed Upshaw (941) 721-1081 (941) 721-1081 eupa~.ua Manufacturer: Add,_.: Country: Contact: Phone: FAX: Email: GSE Holdings, Inc. DBA Hobart Ground Systems 11001 US Highway 41 North Pabnelto, FL. 34221 USA Ed Upshaw (941) 721-1081 (941) 721-1081 eupahaw@ltwgaa.ua Party Autllolmtcl To Apply Mark: Same aa Manufacturer Report luulng Ofllce: Cortland. NY USA IJ!IA L,v.1/G, ConnlNumber: 118681 Authorlzedby: __ !""""'!!!!'!"""'"'-~'!!!!!!'f"""!'!"'"..,_1..__~-----for Thomas J. Patterson, Certification Minaier lntertek This document supersedes all prevloua Authorizations to Mark for the noted Report Number. 'TNIAulhocb:allo-•11»111111 ltllf 1111 ....... medNNW1Clfllll•llprowldell,..._. IO .. CWlftclllOll ........ ...._. lrflrlllk..SlleCln. ...... ""°' I 11'\ andllllllJIN llldtldlOIMllftMMl...._.d .. ..,...,.._...,__no..._to._pwlf, oa.e.1t .. Cllntlftacairdancad ............ to, ................ ......_. li,lleUNoltNl~lt..._Odt .. Clllnl• ....... pan!A..,.. ........ or.Adlullllw, ..... IWl .... ...,ln .. ~.Ulldlnlldlik'lc.llkllllanmnll Nlllltdld1a .. Cllld ... lllllCIUlln .. .,..,._nlftNaAUllldzlllllntltMlllt.AnJblMr1ad .......... 11r ..... ..___,. .............. ...,._._..l'IUII ftlllN ...... ln--llflllllfllle.NIIFICIDfJf:-mrft"lftllFC111gw..»..,_.•fOrllllfUIPOl9C'l....,._.,... ......... ~.._ln...,.._wll,_ ....,._._._notfor ......... ol ..... .....,, ................ Cllll'llol ......... tn ... ....... lntertek Testlng Servlcea NA Inc. 545 East Algonquin Road, Arllngton Heights, IL 80006 Telephone 800-345-3851 or 847-439-6867 Fax 312·283-1872 -····----·-------Standard for Power Units Other than Claaa 2, UL-1012, 8th Edition, Dated November 9, 2010, includlng revilione thn:,ugh January 19, 2012. ltandaftt(s): canadlan Standard far General Use Power Suppftea,CSA C22.2 # 107.1-01, lasued September 1, 2001. Ed 3, Reaffirmed 2011 Product: PowarSumw Modell: 2400GPU ATM for Report 101819452CRT-001b Page 1 of 1 10l30/2018 SJC (4Gate Prajec:t) llW-AERO Subm!Ual ATMlasued:11-Feb-2015 ED 1U.11 (1~13)......,
28• SPECIFICA 110N WA Series 2 and 3 tunnel Apron Drive Arnerlbrldge Specification 2.0 STRUCTURAL DESIGN & FINISHES 2.1 General Design Revision 07 2.1.1 Structl.l'al Loads A. The Ameribridge will support the following loads. These loads may be applied in total or in part, singularly or simultaneously. The design is based on the combination that imposes the most adverse loading condition. In addition to the dead loads and strain caused by movement. the entire passenger boarding bridge will support: 1. A live load of 40 ounds er s uare foot. 195 /m2 • . n operat1ona w n oa . pounds per square foot (81 kg/m2) or an approximate wind velocity of 60.0 mph (97 km/h} 3. A retracted and stowed wind load of 25 pounds per square foot (122 kg/m2) or an approximate wind velocity of 90.0 mph (145 4. A roof load (snow load) of 25 pounds per square foot. (122 kg/ m2). B. The structural design provides sufficient torsional rigidity to avoid excessive sway when the Ameribridge is brought to a gradual stop. C. All mechanisms for actuating. guiding and restraining the Ameribridge and its components are designed so that no noise. sway or sense of insecurity is apparent to passengers. No operating vibrations or loads shall be transmitted to the terminal building. D. The Ameribridge is designed to accommodate the added loads of 400 Hz ground power equipment, 28 Volt DC equipment, and/or pre-conditioned air (PCA) equipment. The 400 Hz unit is undercarriage or side mounted and the 28VDC unit is side mounted. A combination 400 Hz / 28V DC unit is available. The PCA is either roof or Llldercarriage mounted. 2.1.2 Environmental considerations A. The Ameribridge operates satisfactorily under ambient temperatures from -400 F (--4()0 C) to 125° F (52° C). All of the Amerlbridge components and materials either individually or collectively are designed or selected for long service life under such conditions . 8
29Palm Springs Project No. 19-34 July 2020 PASSENGER BOARDING BRIDGES Section 14 9 5 00 . I The PBB will support the following loads. The structural design shall provide sufficient torsional rigidity to avoid excessive sway when the passenger boarding bridge is brought to a gradual stop. The PBB must support all identified ramp services equipment. In addition to the dead loads and strain caused by movement, the entire Passenger Boarding Bridge shall support: A live load of 2.4 kN/m2; 1~50.125 lb/ft"2 .2 A wind load of 1.1 kN/m2 at an approximate wind velocity of 146 km per hour when the bridge is retracted and stowed; .3 A wind load of0.59 kN/m2 at an approximate wind velocity of 97 km per hour when the bridge is operational; A roof load of 1.44 kN/m2; I 1-30.075 lb/ftA2 .S Design should resist seismic loads in accordance with NBC current for the Palm Springs area . . 5 Environmental Considerations .1 The Passenger Boarding Bridge shall operate satisfactorily under ambient tern perature conditions of 32° F to 140°F, with wind speeds up to 60 mph . . 6 Electrical . I Power supply .1 Voltage supply on this project is 480 volt, 60 Hz . . 2 Downstream of the building disconnect switch, provide disconnects and protection means that adequately protects each load. All disconnects shall be labelled showing the source location and have arc flash warning decals indicating the hazard. Use lamacoid for all external panel/disconnect labels. AIRPORT PASSENGER BOARDING BRIDGES RE-BID CITY PROJECT NO. 19-34 10 TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS JULY 2020
30• THE SMAR ITW GSE is a trustworthy partner design!ng and opt mizing GSE ec:iu pment. We have strong expertise within coohng technology and the ITW GSE 3400 PCA 1s the market's most innovative. rehable and environmeotalfy fr'endly point-of-use PCA. The 3400 PCA is also the market's only true modular PCA (patented) The 3400 PCA supplies fresh. clean a,r into parked aircraft. at carefully mon. tored temperatures and provides a pleasant atmosphere for the crew and the passengers. It also makes aircraft turn-around faster and more effective. Should propose 60 DESIGNED FOR ALL KINvtoV'n'VT" ........ ft'91'1"ftln---The 3400 PCA is available for bndge ound• mounting for aircraft parking positions or hangar applications. It is designed to su,t all types of aircraft from the Narrow-Body (Code C; A320) & Wtde-Body (Code 0: B767) equipped with 1 PCA connector over the Jumbo (Code E: 8777) to the Super Jumbo (Code F; A380) eQuipped with 4 PCA connectors connected to two ITW GSE 3400 PCA 210 units. The 3400 PCA uses a minimal amount of refrigerant due to micro channe: condenser technology and the compact design of the urut. The refrigerant R410A does not degrade the ozone layer at all; The refr1gerant further prov des re1i&ble operation at high amb·ent temperatures 1he distance between the evaporators and the tow air velocity optimize the effic::iency of each cooling circuit and prevent condensation drops from moving from one evaporator to the next. IMPROVE YOUR ENVIRONMENT AND CUT COST The increasing focus on environmental Issues means that airPOrts aim to let an e)(ternal pre• conditioned air un,t and a 400 Hz solid-state unit take over the funct10ns of the aircraft APU whtle the aircraft is p~rked at the gate. We call this the "Go Green on Ground· concept whereby carbon emission is reduced by approx 80·85%. The concept furthermore provides savings on the costly maintenance to the on-board APU. based on hours of operations. For the airPOrts. the "Go Green on Ground'' cf so means a reduction of the noise level to the benefit of the airport personnel. passengers and to surround•ngs 1n general. r 111111 i;. .,~. Gi • 2232 [87.9) • A700(185..0) ~ ~····. .1;~ I : el ' ~-.... --· 2212(879) · ' 4700(18S01 'H11tifi ~(f~ltln .)non
31SPECIFICATIONS ITVV GSE 3/iOO PCP, 130 & 21 Input • RecUication: 12 pulse • Line current distortion: < 10" Inrush current; None. softstart • Power factor: >0.97 at 100'6 load Output • Discharge air temperature· Subzero. depending on ambient temperature relative hum:d1ty and air flow Environmental data • Operating temperature .3o•c to +so•c c-22•F to +122•F) • Relative humidity: 10-100%. non condensing • Noise level: < 85 dB(A) at 4.6 m • IP class: IP54 (Electronic part) Ml1celtaneou• • MTTR: Typically 20 minutes • Refrigerant: R410A • Construction: Welded, anti-corrosive coated steel frame Directive contormltv • UL 1995 480 V version. only • 2004/108/EC EMC Directive • 2006/95/EC LV0 D,rect1ve • 2006/42/EC Machinery D1rect1ve conformity by complrlng with • E1L hst,ng 480 V version, only • EN61000·6·2 EMC • immunity standard • EN61000 6•4 EMC • emission standard • EN62040-t-1 LVD safety standard .. EN61558-2·6 General & safety reautrement • 1915·1&2 Machinery• general safety reQuirement • 12312-17 Aircraft ground SUPPOrt eQuipment specific reciu1rements The !400 PCA 11 equipped with th• foUowlftt features • Stepless regulation via VFO on main blower & compr95sors • Quick swap of coating module; only takes 20 minutes • Internal ducts made of stainfess steel • Smoke detector • Measure of outJet pressure and air flow • Arr temperature sensors (discharge and inlet) ~ 2 pressure and 3 temperature sensors as wetl as l sight glass on each refrigerant circuit • Micro channel condensers (sea water resistant aluminium) ,. "ePM10 70'6" filtration including clogging alarm • Remote control station with display and single communication cable • Internal 14'' damper of the second outlet • Special condenser coating • TCP/IP interface via RJ45 port • Fast evaporator de-,c,ng Available 1tandard options • Cabin sensor • Feet for ground mounted units • RS-485 port w•th Modbus/Jbus l)rotocol • 1rw GSE Service Tool • Colour RAL 7035 (standard) or any other RAL colour on an opt onal basis INot upgrading to • Heater with overtemp prote<:tion 60 tons )~-~. ··~ ~ d, .... I I r • 1, C i-i~ ~ 3 ! f J .c: j, l liig ! ,c:,-.. a !-8 i ~; J ~! l~ f 'E e ·I 12 !I ~1 ~~ t~ :,l'. ,( ~ f la. u..., Zu~ Q.. ,Mod .. (V) .. [ttz) [A] (Al [A] (Tons] [kg/min] (tb/mlnl (Pe) [inH,O] (kg) (tbs) [kWJ (Qty] CE 3x400 50 '45 180 200 45 130 280 8.500 34 3.200 7,000 72 2 m•u1112iiD ', J ~~n . m -c.tomJ smm m ma a a~ m fllD' mm CR) GD ClDEXII a • ce 3><400 50 175 200 225 €0 130 280 8.SOO 34 l,200 7.000 72 2 ADF•1J0/2X (M) UL 3x480 50/60 145 170' 200 60 130 280 8.SOO 34 3.200 7.000 72 1 U!•'lfilliD CE 3K400 so 275 300 !50 90 2'10 460, l0.000 40 4,000 8.SOO_ 120 ,,14 •xn ,m . .i, ~,c.i • DBI -m ., am -GD --am :tmla m ~ A0,-Z10/4 (H) tE 311:400 so' 345 310 400 . 120 2l0 460' 10.000. 40 •.soo 9,900' 120 a 4 Vt. 3x480 S0/60 290 31Q !SO 00 210 460 10.000 40 ,.soo 9.900 120 .,.4. '-' .,. i :i 0 (Q~) 1 x 14~ em lx14"' IX 14• 2xl4" um 2 x14-2xl4S-• 3 Module, 90Ton w,-singleoulput rs quoted, unit will be de rated to -7STon capacity to -limit mpul current to meet ex1shng facility l1mlls Spec1ficat1ons ~re ,uc1e~t to change w,thoul PliOI notice Indicates that nnections power is not to be upgraded
32Palm Springs Project No. 19-34 July 2020 PASSENGER BOARDING BRJDGES Section 14 95 00 .8 Cameras can be fixed or PTZ based on location/need. Bosch is the manufacturer of preference . . 9 Access point standard is the Ruckus R 730, ceiling mounted. 2.21 Pre-Conditioned Air (PCA) .1 Design units based on the maximum size aircraft they can be parked at each gate using point-Of-Use (POU) PCA units . . 2 Design to ASHRAE 0.4% day for Palm Springs, California. Passenger loading (btu/hr-person} shall be included in the PCA sizing calculation. The unit shall be rated for the largest type aircraft scheduled for the gate with 100% occupancy . . 3 Minimum acceptable equipment sizes and quantities are provided below. Perfonn calculation as specified herein to detennine if larger sizes are required to meet the perfonnance requirements . .4 Max. Aircraft Code@Gate 8 C D E -Single PBB E-Dual PBBl E-Dual PBB2 F -Single PBB F-Dual P881 F-Dual PB82 AIRPORT PASSENGER BOARDING BRIDGES RE-BID CITY PROJECT NO. 19.34 JULY 2020 Pre Conditioned A1r (PCA) -Point-of-Use Cooling Heating Hoses ton heat kW mobile mobile mobile 60 60 1 90 90 1 120 120 2 90 90 1 90 90 1 120 120 2 120 120 2 120 120 2 TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS
33Question 28: (ii) 2.21.5 Existing Breaker size available The airport has specifically identified that no power upgrades will be made to accommodate new PCA equipment. Please provide the existing breaker size available for PCA, per gate. Answer 28: Exlsti GAlEj 4 s 6 8 9 10 11 Main Breaker (Bono) 400 400 400 400 400 600 400 The Contractor is to upgrade all the 400A breakers and wiring at the main breaker panel to 600A breakers. The Contractor shall proceed with the new PCA units based on the Pre-Conditioned Air table under section 2.21.4 (page 69) of the technical specifications. Question 29: (iii) 2.21.5 Minimum amperage Sized via the provided aircraft mix, our PCA units would require the electric listed below. Please confirm availability of required power. 200 AMPS: Gates 4, 6, 8, 9 & 11 225 AMPS: Gates 5, 7 & 10 Answer 29: Exlstl Power 4 5 6 i 7 8 9 10 Main Breaker (Bono) 400 400 400 600 400 400 600 The Contractor is to upgrade all of the 400A breakers and wiring at the main breaker panel to 600A breakers. The Contractor shall proceed with the new PCA units based on the Pre-Conditioned Air table under section 2.21.4 (page 69) of the technical specifications. 400
34CITY OF PALM SPRINGS Development Services Department 3200 East Tahquitz Canyon Way• Palm Springs, California 92262 Tel: (760) 322-8380 • Fax: (760) 323-322-8360 • Web: www.palmspringsca.gov September 17, 2020 thyssenkrupp Airport Systems, Inc. 3201 N. Sylvania Suite 117 Fort Worth, TX 76111 Via email: enver.sarilar@thyssenkrupp.com Attention: Mr. Enver Sarilar, Director of Sales Subject: Airport Passenger Boarding Bridges Project, City Project No. 19-34 Notice of Intent to Reject Non-Responsive Bid Dear Mr. Sarilar, The City of Palm Springs ("City") has reviewed thyssenkrupp Airport Systems, lnc.'s ("TAS") bid submitted for the Airport Passenger Boarding Bridges project ("Project") and determined that the bid is non-responsive for failure to meet certain requirements in the bid specifications. City staff will recommend that the City Council reject TAS's bid as non-responsive and award the contract to the lowest responsible bidder submitting a responsive bid, John Bean Technologies Corporation, Jetway Systems. As a general rule, the City has the discretion to demand strict compliance with its solicitation requirements. (See Menefee v. County of Fresno (1985) 163 Cal.App.3d 1175; Ghilotti Construction Co. v. City of Richmond ( 1996) 45 Cal.App.4th 897; Konica Business Machines v. Regents of the University of California (1988) 206 Cal.App.3d 449.) The PBB Bid Submittal, part of the bid forms, requires the bidder for new PBB's and equipment to submit, among other things, NFPA certification documents identifying all components including, but not limited, to the cab closure, cab spacer {bumper), all doors and the Passenger Boarding Bridge ("PBB"), along with 3rd party test results. TAS's bid lacks documentation providing that it's PBB is NFPA compliant. This does not comply with the clear instructions of the bid specifications. Additionally, Addendum No. 1 requires the bidder to provide pricing for the fixed walkway refurbishment as part of its bid. TAS failed to include pricing for the fixed walkway refurbishment as part of its Total Base Bid Schedule.
35CITY OF PALM SPRINGS Development Services Department 3200 East Tahquitz Canyon Way• Palm Springs, California 92262 Tel: (760) 322-8380 • Fax: (760) 323-322-8360 • Web: www.palmspringsca.gov These foregoing deviations make TASts bid non-responsive. As such, City staff will recommend to the City Council at its meeting at 5:30 p.m. on October 8, 2020, to reject the bid submitted by TAS as non-responsive. The agenda for that meeting will provide instructions if TAS desires to participate in the meeting. We thank you for your interest in this Project and look forward to your participation in future bidding opportunities. Should you have any questions regarding the foregoing, please contact the Project Manager, Art Cervantes at (760) 323-8253 ext. 8743. Sincerely, Joel Montalvo, MPA, P.E. Civil Engineer C 62624 Enclosure: Non-Responsive References
36• • 1 n tertek Ustlng Constructlonal Data Report (CDR) 3201 North Sylvania Avenue Swta 117 Fort Worth. TX 78111 No "Authorization To Mark". This is just a draft . Inc. :,,, "-
37• Report No. 3181041SAT-008 ThysNnl(rupp Airport Syatem11 Inc. Page2of43 Issued: 22..Jart-2014 Revised: 22-Jan,,.2014 en the airport terminal The two models are identical except in the number of tefescx)ping tunnels designed Into each (two or three) EDtl.S.11~).,_....
38PBB BID SUBMITTAL For new PBB's and equipment, submit with bid, each item listed below shall be under a separate heading: 1. Demonstration of an understanding and appreciation of the technical and managerial scope of this project, key issues, constraints, challenges and opportunities and site safety. Include the client organization and the project stakeholders as well as the key areas of responsibility for the delivery of this project; 2. Provide a proposed detailed schedule in the format of a Gantt chart. Propose any additions or changes required to the submittal schedule in the bid submission indicating submittal and approval dates for supplying and reviewing mechanical, structural, and electrical shop drawings, material and equipment specifications, and samples; 3. NFPA certification documentation shall be submitted identifying all components including but not limited to the cab closure, cab spacer (bumper), all doors and the Passenger Boarding Bridge. Include 3rd party test results; 4. For each of the following, provide cut sheets and information as indicated 1) GPU -model, input voltage, output capacity (marked clearly on the cut sheet or described in text) 2) PCA -model, input voltage, output capacity (marked clearly on the cut sheet or described in text) 3) PCA hose basket 4) Baggage lift (Nova Lift) 5} Baggage chute 6} Manufacturers commuter floor option 5. Location of the factory where the major components are manufactured and assembled for the PBB, PCA, PWC, and GPU 6. A recommended spare parts list for PBB, PCA, PWC, and GPU units including unit pricing shall be submitted as part of the BID response. Once the mechanical and electrical detailed design has been completed and approved for construction, the contractor shall update the spare parts list including itemized costs for newly added parts as well as removing parts that no longer exists in the design. The airport will review the spare parts list and select the parts and quantities for purchase; 7. List any deviations for the requirements and the(+/•) impact on the bid price. List any proposed product substitutions from those specified herein. 8. Provide estimated power requirements for the PBB, PWC, GPU, and PCA at each gate; 9. Programmable Logic Controller (PLC) details Including model and 1/0 modules manufacturers cut sheets; 10. The following "key" design personnel must be identified in the bid submission and will be designated the design professionals of record. The Successful Proponent will notify and obtain the approval of the Contract Administrator for any changes to the team described in the Successful Proponents submission; 1) Structural Engineer: This person will be a registered Professional Engineer in the State of California; 2) Mechanical Engineer: This person will be a registered Professional Engineer in the State of California; 3) Electrical Engineer: This person will be a registered Professional Engineer in the State of California; 4) Project Manager: This person has the authority to enter into commitments with the owner and their representatives; 5) Site Supervisor: This person will be on~site and the lead of the PBB installation. 11. Include the proposed base finishes or selection of standard finishes available that shall be included in the lump sum. Include a description and / or samples of the interior floor covering product and the wall panels. AIRPORT PASSENGER BOARDING BRIDGES RE-BIO CITY PROJECT NO. 19-34 JULY 2020 BASIS OF AWARD BID FORMS -PAGE 7
39thyssenkrupp Airport Systems thyssenkrupp 2 AuQusl 31. 20:zD 4. Fixed walkway refurbishment. The fixed walkway refurbishment was part of the previous bid. In the present re-bid, the specification does nowhere mentton the refurbishment mentioned above. The subject is reintrodlaced with the Addendum No 1 dated August 25, 2020. Yet, since the Bid Schedule (Schedule of Price) does notmntain a line Item for the said refurbishment, we, therefore, indicate here, in this present paragraph 4/ "Fixed walkway refurblshmen~ the cost for carrying out the requested refurbishment works: 51,000.00 USO (Fifty-One Thousand USD only). S. Electrical Upgrade To accommodate the new PCA units, the replacement of 6 old 400 A breaker by new 600A breakers and Its assodated new overhead wiring mst and Install has been included as specified. This cost has been incorporated In the PBB price. 6. Project Schedule We are cxxnmltted to undertake this project In 290 working days, as scheduled, as we trust that the • existing foundations are effectively good for reuse and do not require any modifications. • We are looking forward to bea>ming a trusted partner and supplier of Palms Springs Int1 Airport. Yours sincerely, ~J~ Enver Sartlar I Director of Sales lbyssenkrupp Airport Systems, Inc 3201 N. Sylvania Suite 117 Fort Worth, TX. 76111 817-210.5012 Addren: ~nKNpp MPQrt SWsllms, Inc. 3201 N. S,,V... Ave., Suite lOOE Fart Woldt, Te,cn 781 t 1 Phone: (817) 210-5000 Fax: (817) IM-8185 NIii: mfOOdcaps.com lnlamet www.~•ttpblt.com
40Attachment 4
41CITY OF PALM SPRINGS Development Services Department 3200 East Tahquitz Canyon Way• Palm Springs, California 92262 Tel: (760) 322-8380 • Fax: (760) 323-322-8360 • Web: www.palmspringsca.gov September 23, 2020 AERO Bridgeworks, Inc. 2700 Delk Road SE, Suite 150 Marietta, GA 30067 Via email: Jay.Grantham@aerobridgeworks.net Attention: Mr. Jay Grantham! President Subject: Airport Passenger Boarding Bridges Project, City Project No. 19-34 Response to Protest of Notice of Intent to Reject Non-Responsive Bid Dear Mr. Grantham, The City of Palm Springs ("City") has reviewed AERO Bridgeworks! lnc.'s ("AERO') bid protest, received on September 181 2020, for the Airport Passenger Boarding Bridges project rProject"). AERO1s bid protest is in response to the City's notice of intent letter issued on September 17. 2020, rejecting AERO's bid as non-responsive. The bid protest claims that, among other things, AERO included the entire electrical scope of work within its bid. As a general rule, the City has the discretion to demand strict compliance with its solicitation requirements. (See Menefee v. County of Fresno (1985) 163 Cal.App.3d 1175; Ghilotti Construction Co. v. City of Richmond (1996) 45 Cal.App.4th 897; Konica Business Machines v. Regents of the University of California ( 1988) 206 Cal.App. 3d 449.) At the same time, the City has no authority to waive errors that make the bid materially different than intended. (See Valley Crest Landscape, Inc. v. City of Davis (1996) 41 Cal.App.4th 1432.) Addendum No. 1 requires the bidder to upgrade all 400A breakers and wiring at the main breaker panel to 600A breakers. However, AERO's bid clearly states "that our Bid does not include upgrading to 600A service ... " Since AERO1s bid did not cover the entire electrical upgrade scope of work, AERO's bid contains a material deviation from the requirements of the bid specifications that makes AERO's bid non-responsive. As such, City staff will recommend to the City Council at its meeting at 5:30 p.m. on October 8. 2020. to reject the bid submitted by AERO as non-responsive. The agenda for the meeting will include details on the meeting and will be posted on the City's website.
42CITY OF PALM SPRINGS Development Services Department 3200 East Tahquitz Canyon Way• Palm Springs, California 92262 Tel: (760) 322-8380 • Fax: (760) 323-322-8360 • Web: www.palmspringsca.gov We thank you for your interest in this Project and look forward to your participation in future bidding opportunities. Sincerely, Joel Montalvo, MPA, P.E. Civil Engineer C 62624
43September 18, 2020 Leigh Gileno Procurement & Contracting Manager, Acting Office Hours 8AM-6PM P (760) 322-8374 F (760) 323-8238 RE: City of Palm Springs Bid No. 19-34, AIRPORT PASSENGER BOARDING BRIDGES PROJECT RE-BID CITY PROJECT NO. 19-34 Dear Ms. Leigh Gileno: AERO BridgeWorks, Inc. (AERO) was pleased to originally submit a responsive bid for Bid No. 19-34 in June 2020. On that initial bid, ThyssenKrupp was the low apparent bidder, AERO Bridgeworks was the 2nd bidder, John Bean Technologies 3rd bidder and AmeriBridge the 4th bidder. After the bid date, City Council voted to cancel the bid and re-bid the project. The project was re-advertised and the re-bid date was Tuesday September 1, 2020. AERO was pleased to re-submit a bid that fully met all the City's requirements, scope and design intent. After a review of the re-bid packages, AmeriBridge was the low apparent bidder, AERO Bridgeworks the 2nd Bidder, Thyssen Krupp the 3rd bidder and JBT the highest bidder. ThyssenKrupp acknowledges on page 12 of their bid that the City of Palm Springs needs to add fifty-one thousand dollars ($51,000.00) to ThyssenKrupp's base bid cost in order to include the intended refurbishment scope. As required by the RFP, AERO included that scope in our base bid, and thus is the second cost bidder and Thyssen the 3rd place bidder. We received a letter from City of Palm Springs, dated September 16, 2020, that states Project No. 19-34 will be awarded to the highest bidder, JBT and that AERO Bridgeworks, Inc. bid was deemed non-responsive. There is clearly a misunderstanding related to AERO's bid package. The City made an incorrect determination that AERO did not include the complete electrical scope within our bid package. As evidenced by AERO's "Bidder's List of Subcontractors" form included in our bid (copy attached for reference), AERO included and listed $1,200,000 for our electrical subcontractor, G2.0 Electrical Contracting. AmeriBridge, the apparent low bid, did not list an electrical firm except possibly Plump Engineering at a cost of only $77,100, ThyssenKrupp (3rd bidder) listed Elite Terminal Services as 'installation and electrical' for $619,650, and JBT (4th bidder), included $570,000 for RISELO Engineering. AERO's bid included $1,200,000 for an electrical subcontractor. AERO's bid included the HIGHEST electrical subcontractor cost by far of any of the four bidders. This is proof AERO included the entire electrical scope and all electrical was covered within our bid. Our bid was intending to offer City of Palm Springs options to have the 600A service as listed in Addendum, or as an alternate, to utilize an industry proven Intelligent Power Management system. As evidenced by AERO's Bidder's List of Subcontractors, our bid included all the electrical cost and scope required by the bid package, more so than any of the other three bidders. Please note AERO's bid also includes a John Bean Technologies (JBT) passenger boarding bridge. Thus, our bid includes the exact same bridge product as the 4th bidder, but at a $110,445 savings to City of Palm Springs. Pursuant to City of Palm Springs procedures, bidders have five (5) business days to respond. AERO received City of Palm Springs determination letter on September 17, 2020. We submit this letter to confirm that AERO did include all the electrical scope, exceeds the DBE participation, meets all California licensing and we meet all project technical requirements. Our bid is fully responsive, and we trust City of Palm Springs will reconsider
44the Award of this Contract. We respectfully request a response to this letter which would include a re-consideration, the reasoning other bids were deemed non-responsive and the meeting invitation/ details for the City Council meeting on October 8, 2020. AERO very much looks forward to delivering a safe and successful Passenger Boarding Bridge project the City of Palm Springs and PSP Airport can enjoy for many years to come. We have a local presence in Southern California and -per our bid -we commit to exceed the local DBE participation requirements. We are experts in this industry and are proud to submit a bid that fully meets your design criteria; a bid that includes a John Bean Technologies (JBT) Passenger Boarding Bridge and the properly sized Pre-Conditioned Air and Ground Power Units. Thank you for your consideration and we look forward to supporting the City in the future. Sincerely, Jay Grantham, PE, LEED, CCM President AERO Bridgeworks, Inc. Encl: AERO's "Bidder's List of Subcontractors" taken from AERO's bid package. B. UST OF SUBCONTRACTORS 1, Type of Suboootracta< (Check One) )( First Tier: tJ Seeooo Tier .. C Supplier, ~ervlca Contractor (o g. Truc~rml 2. Subcontractor Name: G 2.0 Electrical Contrc,cting 3. Address: 1S4S W. El S~gundo Blvd Gardena, CA 90249 4. Bid ttemsJPortioo of Work: Electrk:al Contractor 5. Phone No.'. 6. Contractor's License No.: 310-283..2074 1027180 9. DIR Public 8. Amount 1 Contracted W~: fM.t .,ua ra..J : I' 1-«>, ooo Roglstration No. 10 Percentage of Con.traded Work. 11. 08E Firm? ) ~ .. ,.,. t t J, 'f, 11 flPJ:-NtHIMYA AIRPORT PASSENGE:H 80-AAD!NG 8RJ0Gf'S RE,8!0 CITY PROJECT ,-.0, 19-34 JULY 2-020 Works Conttactor 1000053208 l!lYes •No 7. Annual Gross Receipts, 0<$1M D<SSM !Zl < $10M 0 < $15M 0 > $15M 12. DBE Certification No : 48675 LIST OF 'SU6CONAACTORS BIO FORMS " PAGE 6
45Attachment 5
46CITY OF PALM SPRINGS Development Services Department 3200 East Tahquitz Canyon Way • Palm Springs, California 92262 Tel: (760) 322-8380 • Fax: (760) 323-322-8360 • Web: www.palmspringsca.gov September 28, 2020 thyssenkrupp Airport Systems, Inc. 3201 N. Sylvania Suite 117 Fort Worth, TX 76111 Via email: enver.sarilar@thyssenkrupp.com Attention: Mr. Enver Sarilar, Director of Sales Subject: Airport Passenger Boarding Bridges Project, City Project No. 19-34 Response to Protest of Notice of Intent to Reject Non-Responsive Bid Dear Mr. Sarilar, The City of Palm Springs ("City") has reviewed thyssenkrupp Airport Systems, Inc. 's ("TAS") bid protest. received on September 24, 2020, for the Airport Passenger Boarding Bridges project ("Project"). TAS's bid protest is in response to the City's notice of intent letter issued on September 17, 2020, rejecting TAS's bid as non-responsive. The bid protest claims that among other things, TAS acknowledged that its bid submission lacked sufficient documentary evidence of NFPA compliance, the fixed walkway refurbishment was included in its bid submissionl and the City demonstrated leniency towards the apparent low bidder's bid submission. As a threshold matter, a bid must conform to the material terms of the bid package. (DeSilva Gates Constr. v. Department of Transp. (2015) 242 Cal.App.4th 1409; Menefee v. County of Fresno (1985) 163 Cal.App.3d 1175.) A bid is responsive if it promises to do what the bidding instructions demand. (Williams v. Clovis Unified Sch. Dist. (2007) 146 Cal.App.4th 757; Valley Crest Landscape Inc. v. City of Davis (1996) 41 Cal.App.4th 1432, 1438.) Responsiveness should be determined from the face of the bid. (Great W Contractors, Inc. v. Irvine Unified Sch. Dist. (2010) 187 Cal.App.4th 1425.) As a general rule, the City has the discretion to demand strict compliance with its solicitation requirements. (See Menefee v. County of Fresno (1985) 163 Cal.App.3d 1175; Ghilotti Construction Co. v. City of Richmond (1996) 45 Cal.App.4th 897; Konica Business Machines v. Regents of the University of California (1988) 206 Cal.App.3d 449.) At the same time, the City has no authority to waive errors that make the bid materially different than intended. (See Valley Crest Landscape, Inc. v. City of Davis (1996) 41 Cal.App.4th 1432.) The PBB Bid Submittal under the Basis of Award section on the project specifications required NFPA certification to be submitted as part of the bid. TAS recognizes in its bid
47CITY OF PALM SPRINGS Development Services Department 3200 East Tahquitz Canyon Way• Palm Springs, California 92262 Tel: (760) 322-8380 • Fax: (760) 323-322-8360 • Web: www.palmspringsca.gov protest that its bid submission lacked evidence of NFPA compliance. Since TAS's bid did not provide the proper NFPA certification documentation, TAS's bid contains a deviation from the requirements of the bid specifications rendering its bid non-responsive. Furthermore, TAS claimed that leniency was demonstrated towards the apparent low bidder for failing to include 3rd party test results. Every bidder on the Project failed to submit the requested 3rd party test results and it is the City's intent to waive this requirement for all bidders as a minor irregularity because verification of NFPA compliance would confirm satisfactory test results. Addendum No. 1 requires the bidder to refurbish walkways. However, TAS's bid clearly states that "since the Bid Schedule (Schedule of Price) does not contain a line item for the said refurbishment, we, therefore, indicate here, in this present paragraph 4/ "Fixed walkway refurbishment11 the cost for carrying out the requested refurbishment works: 51,000.00 USO (Fifty-Once Thousand USD only)." TAS claims that they included the cost for refurbishment to make the City aware of its inclusion. However, confirmation of the inclusion of other scope of work items did not have monetary values associated with them and those items clearly state that they are included in the bid. Since TAS,s bid did not cover the entire walkways refurbishment scope of work in its bid submission, TAS's bid contains a material deviation from the requirements of the bid specifications that makes TAS's bid non-responsive. Furthermore, TAS claims that leniency was displayed toward the apparent low bidder regarding its understanding of the walkway scope. While the apparent low bidder's bid does state that the 11lighting in the existing walkways will be upgraded", they do not state that the walkway scope of work comprises solely of what TAS claims. That is, the apparent low bid bidder's Bid Proposal commits them to perform the full scope of work required by the Contract Documents, including Addendum No. 1. As such, City staff will recommend to the City Council at its meeting at 5:30 p.m. on October 8, 2020, to reject the bid submitted by TAS as non-responsive. The agenda for the meeting will include details on the meeting and will be posted on the City's website. We thank you for your interest in this Project and look forward to your participation in future bidding opportunities. Sincerely, Joel Montalvo, MPA, P.E. Civil Engineer C 62624
48thyssenkrupp Airport Systems CITY OF PALM SPRINGS Development Services Department Joel Montalvo 3200 East Tahquitz Canyon Way Palm Springs, c.alifornia 92262 Re: Airport Passenger Boarding Bridges Project, City Project No. 19-34 Protest to Notice of Intent to Reject Non-Responsive Bid Dear Mr. Montalvo, thyssenkrupp 09/24/2020 Last week we received notice of the intent to reject our bid from being considered by the City as non-responsive for two reasons, I.e., lacking adequate NFPA certification documentation and non-Inclusion of the fixed walkway refurbishment. Also, PSP announced its intention to award the contract to JBT, the most expensive bidder. We herewith want to respectfully protest this intent on the following grounds: 1. "TKAS bid lacks documentation that the PBB is NFPA compliant." We regret that, Indeed, we had provided insufficient documentary evidence of our Passenger Boarding Bridge (''PBB'') being NFPA compliant. While this is unfortunate, we believe it can fairly be stated that this is a minor clerical mistake. Such minor omission typically is very easily addressed by requesting a bidder to furnish or complement such documentation upon simple request by the reviewing engineer. It is common knowledge that every single PBB manufacturer in the US is mandatorify NFPA compliant. This is an absolute non-negotiable prerequisite to be In the very business of PBB manufacturing in the US. As such, all PBB manufacturers are, of course, compliant with the latest NFPA standards for their steel PBBs. Therefore we consider it is easy to confirm that it certainly was a simple clerical omission of providing adequate documentation to substantiate our obvious NFPA compliance. Consequently, such minor clerical omission should reasonably be considered immaterial to the fair assessment of the responsiveness of our bid. Furthermore, the bid specification asked for including jd party test results. JBT, in its submission, failed to provide these results adequately. While we do not claim JBT to be non-responsive, nevertheless JBT also has not provided the entirety of the NFPA related documentation requested. It is correct that City has the discretion to interpret either generously or strictly bid requirements compliance. While our submission lacked sufficient NFPA compliance substantiation, JBT likewise did not address this requirement adequately either. There can be no gradual, or partial "strict compliance". We address our previous documentary omission, and, as a result of this, we attach herein the requested documentation. Likewise, we have addressed the 3rd party test results and attach herein the requested. Address: ThyssenKrupp Airport Systems, Inc. 3201 N. Sytvania Ave.. Suite 117 Fort Worth, Texas 76111 Phone: (817) 210-5000 Fax: (817) 834-6985 Mail: lnfo.tkas.usa@thyssenkrupp.com lntemet: WMY.thyssenkrupp-alrports.com
49thyssenkrupp Airport Systems thyssenkrupp Page: 2 Date: September 24. 2020 2. TKAS' alleged non-inclusion of the fixed walkway refurbishment. We are very surprised by this interpretation of our bid, and we respectfully disagree with the assertion that we did not include pricing for the fixed walkway refurbishment. To the very contrary, due to a certain ambiguity created by the last-minute addition of the fixed walkway refurbishment introduced by the Addendum, and since the Bid Schedule of Price provided for no separate line· item for the fixed walkway refurbishment, we, therefore, purposely Indicated in our "Proposal Letter/ Project Understanding Demonstration" that we had taken Into account the fixed walkway refurbishment and even indicated the price thereof, to precisely underline its very Inclusion in our bid. The refurbishment is valued at $51,000 USO and, naturally, part of our overall bid price. It was by no means to be interpreted as an alternate, or a deviation, or any additional monies to be paid. Again, we precisely wanted PSP to be aware of its inclusion. If there were any ambiguity in the City's understanding, a simple request for interpretation would have sufficed to clear things up. Besides, JBT, in their section UNDERSTANDING SCOPE OF PROJECT, under "Overview", describes their understanding of the refurbishment scope of works of the fixed walkways solely as "the lighting in the existing walkways will be upgraded". This is unambiguously insufficient and does not cover the entirety of the refurbishment work as required and detailed in the Addendum under question 38. It asks for four (4) tasks to be carried out: (1) Upgrade the existing lighting to LED with new motion-activated switches[ .. ] and (2) replace the floor covering material, In addition/ (3) replace the receptacles with new GFCl ( 4) Weather seals between the building and fixed walkway shall be replaced. Again, the City has full discretion to interpret either generously or strictly bid requirements compliance. While the City is very strict with thyssenkrupp Airport Systems by unfortunately misinterpreting our fixed walkway work inclusion, on the other hand, the City shows considerable leniency in considering JBT's submission where, clearly, in JBT's own words, the refurbishment scope of works is insufficiently addressed. In conclusion, we trust we have satisfactorily addressed the two topics where our bid was considered, in an unnecessary and unusual strict interpretation, to be nonwresponsive. We attach the previously missing adequate and requested NFPA documentation. We respectfuUy ask the City to apply the same rational discretion in its compliance assessment and to review our bid submission accordingly. Please reach out to us, at any time, for any further substantiation you may require. We are looking forward to Palm Springs awarding this important project to the lowest, responsive bidder, thyssenkrupp Airport Systems. Yours sincerely and most respectfully, Ulysse Wurtz Head of Business Development N .A. ulysse.wurtz@thyssenkrupp.com Thyssenkrupp Airport Systems, Inc. 3201 N. Sylvania Suite 117 Fort Worth, TX 76111 cell: 206 939 9429 Address: ThyssenKrupp Ailport Systems. Inc. 3201 N. Sylvania Ave., Suite 100E For1 Wolth, Texas 76111 Phone: (817) 210-5000 Fax: (817) 834-6985 Mall: lnfoitkaps.com Internet: www.thys.senkrupp-etevator-espbb.com
50Attachment 6
51October 13, 2020 City of Palm Springs David H. Ready City Manager 3200 E. Tahquitz Canyon Way• Palm Springs, California 92262 Tel: (760) 322--8350 • Fax: (760) 323-8207 • Web: www.palmspringsca.gov VIA CERTIFIED MAIL; EMAIL Mr. John D. Hanover, Esq. Alston & Bird 333 South Hope Street Los Angeles, CA 90071-1410 john.hanover@alston.com SUBJECT: Airport Passenger Boarding Bridges Project, City Project No. 19-34 Response to Appeal of Denial of Bid Protest Dear Mr. Hanover: The City of Palm Springs ("City") has reviewed the appeal letter filed by Alston & Bird on behalf thyssenkrupp Airport Systems, Inc. ("T AS") dated October 5, 2020 ("Appeal") with regards to the above captioned project ("Project"). The Appeal is in response to the City's September 28, 2020 bid protest response letter denying TAS's September 24, 2020 bid protest. TAS's bid protest challenged the City's decision to find T AS 's bid as nonresponsive. As noted in the City's initial decision and subsequent denial of TAS's bid protest, review of TAS's bid revealed two errors: (1) failure to provide proper NFPA certification documents; and (2) failure to provide the fixed walkway refurbishment scope of work and pricing as part of its bid. Upon further review, including review of the Appeal, the City finds the failure to provide the fixed walkway refurbishment scope of work and pricing is a non-waivable material mistake that renders TAS's bid nonresponsive. Based on the foregoing, the City staff will recommend the City Council reject the bid submitted by T AS as non-responsive and award the contract to John Bean Technologies Corporation, Jetway Systems ("JBTC"), the lowest responsible bidder submitting a responsive bid. The Appeal generally alleges that: (l) it was arbitrary and capricious for the City to deem T AS 's bid nonresponsive for failing to provide documentation of NFPA compliance; and (2) TAS clearly and unambiguously included pricing for the "fixed walkway refurbishmenf' in its bid. The Appeal further alleges that the City's actions in evaluating JBTC's bid constitute the unequal treatment of bidders and is arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, and otherwise unlawful. On all counts, the Appeal is unpersuasive and without legal merit. Post Office Box 2743 • Palm Springs, California 92263.-2743
52Mr. Hanover October 13, 2020 Page2 I. TAS's Bid is Nonresponsive and the City Has No Discretion to Waive the Material Errors Therein As a threshold matter, a bid must confonn to the material terms of the bid package. (DeSilva Gates Constr. v. Department ofTransp. (2015) 242 Cal.App.4th 1409; Menefee v. County of Fresno (1985) 163 Cal.App.3d 1175.) A bid is responsive if it promises to do what the bidding instructions demand. (Williams v. Clovis Unified Sch. Dist. (2007) 146 Cal.App.4th 757; Valley Crest Landscape Inc. v. City of Davis (1996) 41 Cal.App.4th 1432, 1438.) Responsiveness should be detennined from the face of the bid. (Great W. Contractors, Inc. v. Irvine Unified Sch. Dist. (2010) 187 Cal.App.4th 1425.) The City has broad discretion to determine responsiveness and accept a responsive bid even if there are minor irregularities or mistakes, as long as such mistakes are immaterial. (See Menefee v. County of Fresno (1985) 163 Cal.App.3d 1175; Ghilloti Construction Co. v. City of Richmond (1996) 45 Cal.App.4th 897.) At the same time, the City has the discretion to demand strict compliance with its solicitation requirements. (See Menefee v. County of Fresno (1985) 163 Cal.App.3d 1175; Ghilotti Construction Co. v. City of Richmond (1996) 45 Cal.App.4th 897; Konica Business Machines v. Regents of the University of California (1988) 206 Cal.App.3d 449.) However, the City has no authority to waive errors that make the bid materially different than intended, such as those that affect the price of the bid or otherwise give a bidder an unfair competitive advantage. ( Ghilotti Constr. Co. v. City of Richmond ( 1996) 45 Cal.App.4th 897; Bay Cities Paving & Grading, Inc. v. San Leandro (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 1181.) T AS 's bid contains two errors. The first involves the failure of T AS to provide the proper NFPA certification documentation. The second involves the failure of T AS to include the "fixed walkway refurbishment" scope of work and associated costs in its Revised Base Bid Schedule A. The City will focus on the later error because it is a material error that by itself warrants rejection of TAS's bid as nonresponsi ve. Addendum No. 1 requires the bidder to refurbish the existing walkways and provides a Revised Base Bid Schedule A that requires the bidder to "complete all work associated with this BID based on the prices provided herein". Additionally, the Instruction to Bidders states that: the bid shall be made on the bid schedule sheets; unauthorized conditions, limitations, or provisions attached to the bid will render it nonresponsive; and alternative bids will not be considered. Further, the Notice Inviting Bids require the bidder to bid on Revised Base Bid Schedule A (along with Additive Bid Schedule A) and that the basis of award will be based on the total lump sum of the two bid schedules. It is undisputed that T AS ignored these instructions. TAS's Proposal Letter/Project Understanding Demonstration clearly states that "since the Bid Schedule (Schedule of Price) does not contain a line item for the said refurbishment, we, therefore, indicate here, in this present paragraph 4/ "Fixed walkway refurbishment" the cost for carrying out the requested refurbishment works: 51,000.00 USO (Fifty-Once Thousand USO only)." Stated another way, the "fixed walkway refurbishment" scope of work and pricing was excluded from Revised Base Bid Schedule A and ultimately, TAS's Total Base Bid, making TAS's bid materially nonresponsive. Clearly, TAS's deviation affects the amount of its bid because by TAS excluding the "fixed walkway refurbishment" scope of work and pricing from its Total Base Bid, TAS's Total Base Bid is decreased. Similarly, TAS was given "an unfair competitive advantage by allowing it to make a lower bid than it would have been able to make without the deviations." (See Ghilotti Construction Co. v. City of Richmond (1996) 45 Cal.App.4th 897, 906.)
53Mr. Hanover October 13, 2020 Page3 Further, T AS had an unfair competitive advantage because it could have withdrawn its bid under Public Contract Code section 5103. A competitive advantage exists if the bidder could be entitled to relief without forfeiting its bid security and avoid its obligation to perform by its ability to withdraw its bid pursuant to Public Contract Code section 5103. (See Menefee v. County of Fresno ( 1985) 163 Cal.App.3d 1175, 1181.) Pursuant to Public Contract Code section 5103, a bidder, in order to obtain relief from its bid, must establish that: (i) a mistake was made; (ii) the proper notice was given to the public entity; (iii) the mistake made the bid materially different; and (iv) the mistake was made in filling out the bid and not due to an error in judgment or carelessness. (Pub. Contract Code, § 5103.) When such a competitive advantage is present because the bidder is entitled to relief under Public Contract Code section 5103, the public agency is without power to waive the deviation. (See MCM Construction Inc. v. City and County of San Francisco (1998) 66 Cal.App.4th 359, 367-377.) In this case, T AS made a mistake by excluding the "fixed walkway refurbishment" scope of work and pricing from its Total Base Bid. That is, T AS made a mistake when it filled out its Revised Base Bid Schedule A and did not include said work and pricing, thus making its bid materially different. While T AS never requested to withdraw its bid, the mere fact that it had the ability to without forfeiting its bid bond constituted an unfair competitive advantage. Contrary to TAS's assertion in the Appeal that the City is authorized to assume that T AS 's bid included all elements of the work for the price offered, the City has no such authorization. Instead, TAS left the City without any such discretion. TAS's failure to include the "fixed walkway refurbishment" scope of work and pricing in its Revised Base Bid Schedule A is a material deviation that the City has no authority to waive. As to TAS's error in not providing the NFPA certification documentation, it is clear that TAS failed to comply with the clear instructions of the bid specifications. T AS recognizes as much. This deviation makes TAS's bid nonresponsive. However, the issue is moot and there is no need for the City to detennine whether or not to waive this irregularity because of the material deviation discussed above. That being said, the Appeal's conclusion that the NFPA certification is a requirement related to responsibility and not responsiveness is incorrect and bears a quick discussion. 1 The Appeal Letter cites to a non-controlling Comptroller General case that found the missing manufacturer's certification related to responsibility and not responsiveness, but only because the record showed that the purpose of the certification was to ensure that the contractor was capable of perfonning the work and capable of obtaining a 5-year warranty. The City in this case required NFP A certification to confirm that the passenger boarding bridge and its components met the specifications, not whether T AS could perform the work. This could have been easily discerned if T AS followed the bid instructions and is an issue of responsiveness. (See Great West Contractors, Inc. v. Irvine Unified School Dist. (2010) 187 Cal.App.4th 1425, 1454 ("In all of the cases where a public entity's determination that a bid was nonresponsive was upheld, the detennination of nonresponsiveness was readily ascertainable on the face of the bid.")) Whether or not to look outside the bid is only an issue because T AS failed· to submit the proper documentation with its bid. T AS failed to follow the requirements of the bid documents and there is no obligation of the City to investigate outside the bid to detennine whether T AS 's bid is nonresponsive. 1 TAS failed to raise this issue in its September 24, 2020 protest and pursuant to the bid protest procedures in the special provisions, adopting Chapter 7.08 of the City,s Municipal Code, this argument shall be deemed waived. But, for argument's sake, the City will address the issue.
54Mr. Hanover October 13, 2020 Page4 And, it is not necessary to do so, the City found the bid nonresponsive. The question then becomes whether the City desires to waive the deviation, which, as discussed herein, the City doesn't need to opine on. 2. The City Has Treated the Bidders Equally T AS further makes the allegation of favoritism on the part of the City based on the City waiving a minor irregularity for all bidders and the City not finding JBTC's bid nonresponsive. This allegation is both false and disingenuous. T AS claims that leniency was demonstrated towards JBTC as result of JBTC failing to include 3rd party test results with its bid. In fact, not one bidder -including T AS -included 3«1 party test results. The City waived this requirement for all bidders because it was a minor irregularity. It follows that the City treated each bidder equally and the claim by T AS that this constitutes disparate treatment of similarly situated bidders on similar issues is disingenuous at best. Additionally, TAS claims that JBTC's bid is nonresponsive because JBTC's bid only indicates that it will perfonn the lighting upgrades for the walkways in regard to Addendum No. 1 and refurbishing the existing walkways. T AS cherry picks the statement -"Further the lighting in the existing walkways will be upgraded" -from JBTC's overview of the Project to support its claim that JBTC's bid only commits to performing a portion of the walkway work. In reality, the City's PBB Bid Submittal requested that the bidder demonstrate an understanding of the scope of the Project. JBTC's did this and the overview was just that, an overview of the Project scope. The City did not request the bidder to provide a rehash of the Project specifications and every such requirement. Unlike T AS, who excluded the "fixed walkway refurbishment" scope of work and pricing from its Total Base Bid, JBTC's Bid Proposal commits them to perform the full scope of work required by the Contract Documents, including Addendum No. I. TAS has offered only conjecture about JBTC's bid and the City does not agree that JBTC deviated from the bid requirements. At the same time, as discussed herein, the City has no discretion to waive T AS 's material deviation. The arguments set forth in the Appeal are not materially different than those presented in the initial protest. No substantive additional facts, legal authorities, documents or arguments have been provided to justify overturning the denial ofTAS's protest. The City intends to consider award of this contract at its meeting on October 22, 2020. The City will recommend that the City Council reject the bid submitted by T AS as non-responsive and award the contract for the Project to JBTC, the lowest responsible bidder submitting a responsive bid. The agenda for the meeting will include details on the meeting and will be posted on the City's website. Sincerely, ~=-z_; cc: Jeffrey S. Ballinger, City Attorney Marcus Fuller, Asst. City Manager Joel Montalvo, City Engineer
55John D. Hanover October 5, 2020 ALSTON&BIRD 333 South Hope Street, 16th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071-1410 213-576-1000 I Fax: 213-576-1100 Direct Dial: 213-576-1138 Via Email (david.ready@palmspringsca.gov) and Hand-Delivery Dr. David H. Ready, Esq., Ph.D. City Manager City of Palm Springs 3200 E. Tahquitz Canyon Way Palm Springs, CA 92262 Re: Solic;itation No. 19-34 Appeal of Protest Decision Dear Dr. Ready: Email: john.hanover@alston.com This firm represents thyssenkrupp Airport Systems, Inc. ("TAS"), a bidder for the Airport Passenger Boarding Bridges Re-Bid contract for the City of Palm Springs, the solicitation for which is identified as City Project No. 19-34 (the "Solicitation"). By this letter, TAS respectfully appeals the City Engineer's September 28, 2020 denial of TAS's September 24, 2020 bid protest, which challenged the City's decision to reject TAS's $6,885,000 bid as nonresponsive and recommend award of a contract to the highest bidder, John Bean Technologies Corporation ("JBTC"), who submitted a bid of $7,042,945. For the seasons stated herein, TAS requests that (1) the City Engineer's decision be reversed, (2) the City rescind both (i) its finding that TAS's bid was nonresponsive and (ii) its recommendation to award a contract to JBTC, and (3) instead (i) recommend that the City Council award the contract to TAS, as the lowest responsive, responsible bidder, or (ii) reject all bids and recompete the procurement. PROTESTOR: RESPRESENTATIVE: Alston & Bird LLP thyssenkrupp Airport Systems, Inc. 3201 N. Sylvania Ave., Suite l00E Fort Worth, TX 76111 John D. Hanover, Esq. J. Andrew Howard, Esq. Jessica L. Sharron, Esq. Alston & Bird, LLP 333 South Hope St., 16th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 www.alston.com Atlanta I Beijing I Brussels I Charlotte I Dallas I Fort Worth I London I Los Angeles I New York I Raleigh I San Francisco I Silicon Valley I Washington, D.C.
56Dr. David H. Ready October 5, 2020 Page 2 SOLICITATION: STANDING: TIMELINESS: I. Background Telephone: (213) 576-1000 Email:john.hanover@alston.com; andy.howard@alston.com; jessica.sharron@alston.com Airport Passenger Boarding Bridges Re-Bid, City Project No. 19-34 Section 1-6.3 of the Solicitation adopts Section 7.08.030 of the Palm Springs Municipal Code, which provides in part: 11Bidders submitting a bid may file a written bid protest with the Procurement and Contracting Manager no more than five business days following the posting of award recommendation or the posting of bid results on the City's Website, or such other distribution generally used by the City in advising bidders or proposers of the competitive bid results, as the case may be." TAS is an actual bidder under the Solicitation and, but for the City's arbitrary and unlawful rejection of TAS's bid, it would have been the recommended awardee of the Solicitation. TAS therefore has standing to maintain the bid protest and this appeal. Section 1-6.3 of the Solicitation adopts Section 7.08.030 of the Palm Springs Municipal Code, which provides in part: 11Any Bidder may appeal the decision of the City Engineer to the City Manager by filing a letter of appeal within five business days of the City Engineer's decision [on a Bidder's bid protest]." Here, after the City notified TAS on September 17, 2020 that TAS's bid was deemed nonresponsive, TAS timely protested that decision. (Declaration of Ulysse Wurtz (11Wurtz Deel."), Exhs. E and F.) On September 28, 2020, the Assistant Director of Engineering for the City of Palm Springs, Joel Montalvo, MPA, P.E., issued a decision denying TAS's bid protest. (Id., Exh. G.) Five (5) business days following September 28, 2020 is October 5, 2020. TAS is filing this Appeal with the City Manager via email on October 5, 2020 and will hand-deliver a copy of same on October 5, 2020. Accordingly, the City Manager has jurisdiction to consider this appeal, and this appeal is timely. In July 2020, the City issued the Solicitation seeking bids for the removal, disposal, and replacement of eight (8) passenger boarding bridges1 in addition to other improvements at the Palm Springs International Airport. (Wurtz Deel., Exh. A (Solicitation), at p. 6.)2 Among other requirements, the Solicitation required bidders to submit documentation that certain 1 Passenger boarding bridges are the walkways through which airline passengers transfer from airport terminals to their aircraft during the boarding process. 2 A true and correct copy of the Solicitation is attached as Exhibit A to the Wurtz Deel., which is filed as Exhibit 1 to this Appeal. All page references to the Solicitation as used in this Appeal refers to the pagination stated in the lower right-hand corner of the Solicitation.
57Dr. David H. Ready October 5, 2020 Page 3 components of the passenger boarding bridges ("PBBs") met or exceeded National Fire Protection Association ("NFPA") standards and third-party test results confirming same. (Wurtz Deel., Exh. A (Solicitation), at p. 34.) The City issued one addendum to the Solicitation ("Addendum 1"), on August 25, 2020, seven days before bids were due. Relevant to this Appeal, Addendum 1 added a new scope of work and replaced the original Base Bid Schedule A form with a REVISED Base Bid Schedule A form (the "Revised Bid Schedule"). (See id., Exh. B (Addendum 1), at pp. 12, 19.) The Base Bid Schedule A form is the form bidders were required to use to reflect their pricing for the various items of contract scope. (See id., at p. 19.) Indeed, Addendum 1 advised bidders that failing to use it would "disqualify a bid as being non-responsive." (See id., at p. 1). Additionally, the Revised Bid Schedule did not include a line item specifically for the newly added walkway refurbishment requirement. Accordingly, bidders only needed to reasonably identify the cost of this added scope in their bids. Four firms submitted bids in response the Solicitation: (1) American Steel Builders California, Inc., which submitted a price of $6,623,675.00; (2) TAS, which submitted a price of $6,885,000.00; (3) AERO Bridgeworks, Inc., which submitted a price of $6,932,500.00; and (4) JBTC, which submitted a price of $7,042,945.00. (See Wurtz Deel., Exh. D) On September 17, 2020, TAS was notified that its bid was being rejected as non-responsive and that the contract likely would be awarded to the bidder that submitted the highest bid, JBTC. (See id., at Exh. E.)3 The City rejected TAS's lower bid ostensibly for two reasons. First, because the lntertek reports submitted by TAS to demonstrate the PBBs it proposed to install are NFPA certified inadvertently were marked 'Draft', the City Engineer determined that TAS had not sufficiently demonstrated NFPA compliance. Second, because TAS did not separately list a price for the fixed walkway refurbishment work added by Addendum 1 in the Revised Bid Schedule Form. (See Letter dated Sept. 17, 2020 attached to the Wurtz Deel. as Exh. E.) Neither ground reasonably should have caused the City Engineer to reject TAS's bid as non-responsive. As TAS demonstrated in its protest, TAS's NFPA compliance easily can be verified either by (i) requesting additional information from TAS or (ii) reviewing NFPA certification information readily available online which the City Engineer admits it will or has reviewed in connection with JBTC's bid. Indeed, TAS already has provided the City with evidence of its NFPA compliance. (See Wurtz Deel., at 1111 13-14, and Exhs. F & H.) Indeed, in its initial protest TAS provided the City with proof that TAS's NFPA compliance can be verified on the publicly available lntertek website. Specifically, TAS attached to its protest a letter from lntertek which included a hyperlink to the profile on TAS's PBBs that is on the publicly available lntertek website. (See Wurtz Deel., at 111112-14, and Exhs. H and 1.) Additionally, because the City's Revised Bid Form did not include a specific line item for the work added by Addendum 1, TAS included a statement in its Proposal Letter/ Project Understanding 3 For reasons not relevant here, American Steel Builders California, Inc., was eliminated from the competition by the City, meaning but for the City's improper rejection of TAS's bid as non-responsive, TAS would have been the lowest responsive, responsible bidder.
58Dr. David H. Ready October 5, 2020 Page4 Demonstration submitted with its bid that its bid price included $51,000 for this new scope. (See Wurtz Deel., at 1110.) For the reasons that follow, this appeal should be sustained. TAS respectfully requests that (1) the City Engineer's decision be reversed, (2) the City rescind both (i) its finding that TAS's bid was nonresponsive and (ii) its recommendation to award a contract to JBTC, and (3) instead (i) recommend that the City Council award the contract to TAS, as the lowest responsive, responsible bidder, or (ii) reject all bids and recompete the procurement. II. Discussion As the City Engineer correctly recognized, "[a] bid is responsive if it promises to do what the bidding instructions demand." Williams v. Clovis Unified School Dist. (2007) 146 Cal.App.4th 757. While the City has the discretion to "demand strict compliance with its solicitation requirements[,]" it does not have discretion to treat bidders disparately, which occurred here. Menefee v. County of Fresno (1985) 163 Cal.App.3d 1175. Further, nothing in TAS's bid reasonably conditioned or excluded the new work added by Addendum 1; in fact, TAS's letter transmitting its bid clearly and unambiguously reflected that $51,000 was included in its bid price for this work. For all these reasons set forth in its initial protest and stated below, TAS's protest should be sustained. A. The City's ability to independently verify JBTC's NFPA certifications demonstrates the arbitrary and capricious nature of the City's decision to deem TAS's bid nonresponsive for failure to more fully document TAS's NFPA compliance. The Solicitation clearly and unambiguously authorizes the City to waive informalities that otherwise would render a bid non-responsive. (See, e.g., Wurtz Deel., Exh. A (Solicitation), 11 N-3(a) at p. 6; 1117 at pp. 14-15.) In its initial protest, TAS argues that the City should have waived the informality of TAS's inadvertence in not including more complete NFPA certification information because the City waived the winning bidder's failure to include with its bid third-party test results demonstrating its compliance with NFPA standards. (See id., at Exh. F (protest), at p. 1.) In its protest decision, the City Engineer admitted the City elected to waive the third-party testing requirement for the winning bidder, JBTC (and all other bidders), in part because "verification of NFPA compliance would confirm satisfactory [third-party] test results." (Id., at Exh. G.) This demonstrates the 'immateriality' of the requirement that NFPA documentation be submitted with the bid and the City's disparate treatment of NFPA requirements as between JBTC and TAS. As TAS demonstrated in its protest, the City can independently verify TAS's NFPA compliance through the publicly available website of lntertek (the entity who generated the report that the City would have accepted if it had not been marked "Draft"). Moreover, it is common knowledge in the industry that every PBB manufacturer must be NFPA compliant as a matter of federal law. (See Wurtz Deel., at 1111 and Exh. F.) Thus, to the extent the City determined that TAS's NFPA
59Dr. David H. Ready October 5, 2020 Page 5 compliance documentation was incomplete,4 the City could have requested supplemental information from TAS to support TAS' obvious status as an NFPA compliant manufacturer of PBBs. Moreover, the City admits that NFPA compliance information is available from external sources and admits it has or will consult such resources to determine the winning bidder's -JBTC's -NFPA third-party test results. (See Wurtz Deel., Exh. G (Protest Decision), at p. 2 ("Every bidder on the Project failed to submit the requested 3rd party test results and it is the City's intent to waive this requirement for all bidders as a minor irregularity because verification ofNFPA compliance would confirm satisfactory test results.") The City's decision to waive third-party test results confirming NFPA compliance for JBTC, on the one hand, and contrary determination that TAS did not more completely prove its NFPA compliance, on the other, reflects disparate treatment of similarly situated bidders on similar issues, which is not permitted. Therefore, the City's actions constitute the unequal treatment of offerors, and is arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, and otherwise unlawful. Furthermore, it was arbitrary and capricious for the City to find that the NFPA certification was a requirement relating to responsiveness. The purpose of the requirement is to confirm that bidders are capable of delivering passenger boarding bridges that meet the specifications. Hence it is a requirement that relates to responsibility, not responsiveness, and may be satisfied any time prior to award, including after bids have been opened. (Compare DeSilva Gates Constr., LP v. Dep't of Transp., 195 Cal. Rptr. 3d 891, 897-98 (Cal. Ct. App. 2015) (affirming order overturning rejection of bid as non-responsive: "A bid is responsive if it promises to do what the bidding instructions require.") (citations and quotations omitted) to Western Roofing Serv., B-234314.2, 1989 WL 240715, *1-2 (Comp. Gen. May 22, 1989) (holding that a manufacturer's certification related to its ability to perform the work is a matter of responsibility, and not responsiveness, because it relates to whether the bidder is capable of performing and not the bidder's legal obligation to perform, and further holding that "(s]ince the certification is a matter of bidder responsibility, it may properly be supplied any time before award."). Based on the foregoing, the rejection of TAS's bid for failure to more completely document its NFPA compliance must be set aside. B. TAS's bid clearly and unambiguously included pricing for the scope of work added by Addendum 1. As noted above, as relevant here Addendum 1 added a new scope of work and replaced the bid form bidders were required to use to reflect their pricing for the various items of work required by the Solicitation. The Revised Bid Schedule, however, did not include a place where bidders were required to state the price for the work added by Addendum 1. Therefore, TAS elected to communicate clearly and unequivocally that its total bid price included $51,000 for this work. As reflected in Item No. 4 of its Proposal Letter/ Project Understanding Demonstration, TAS stated 4. Fixed walkway refurbishment. 4 TAS clearly included certain NFPA compliance documentation in its bid. See Bid, pp. 4-6.
60Dr. David H. Ready October 5, 2020 Page 6 The fixed walkway refurbishment was part of the previous bid. In the present re-bid, the specification does nowhere mention the refurbishment mentioned above. The subject is reintroduced with the Addendum No 1 dated August. Yet, since the Bid Schedule (Schedule of Price) does not contain a line item for the said refurbishment, we, therefore, indicate in the present paragraph the cost for carrying out the requested refurbishment: 51,000.00 USD (Fifty-One Thousand USDonlyJ. (Wurtz Deel., Exh. C, p. 10.) Nothing in TAS's bid exempted or made performance of the work added by Addendum 1 conditional. The City was authorized to assume, therefore, that TAS's bid included all elements of the work for the price offered. Because TAS clearly and unambiguously included the fixed walkway refurbishment work in its bid, it was arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, and otherwise unlawful for the City to reject its bid as non-responsive. Moreover, while TAS included no exceptions or deviations related to the walkway work, JBTC's bid appears to commit only to performing a portion of the walkway work that was added by Addendum 1. Addendum 1, Question No. 38 defined the additional walkway scope as follows: "Upgrade the existing lighting to LED with new motion-activated switches as described in the specification and replace the floor covering material. In addition, replace the receptacles with new GFCI. Weather seals between the building and fixed walkway shall be replaced. The wires inside conduits do not require replacement." (Wurtz Deel., Exh. B, at p. 12.) However, JBTC's bid only indicates that it will perform the lighting upgrades for the walkways: This project includes the replacement of the existing eight (8) passenger boarding bridges, point of use ground power, preconditioned air and potable water cabinets. Included also is the upgrade of the power from 400 Amp to 600 Amp at six (6) gates. This includes the changing of breakers on the main panel boards as well as the replacement of the feeder cables and upgrade of the gate breaker/distribution box. Further the lighting in the existing walkways will be upgraded. (Id., at Exh. J [emphasis added].) Based on such deviation, JBCT's bid should have been deemed non-responsive. (See Wurtz Deel., at Exh. A (Solicitation), at p. 14 ("Unauthorized conditions, limitations, or provisions attached to the Bid will render it non-responsive and may cause its rejection.")) Nonetheless, if the City determined that it could waive JBCT's walkway deviation, it should have done the same for what the City interpreted to be a deviation in TAS's bid related to the cost for such work. Once again, the City's decision to waive a deviation in JBTC's bid, on the one hand, and its contrary determination with respect to a perceived deviation in TAS's bid on the other, reflects disparate treatment of similarly situated bidders on similar issues, which is not permitted. Therefore, the City's actions constitute the unequal treatment of offerors, and is arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, and otherwise unlawful. Ill. Request for Relief For the reasons set forth above, this appeal should be sustained. TAS respectfully requests that (1) the City Engineer's decision be reversed, (2) the City rescind (i) its finding that TAS's bid was
61Dr. David H. Ready October 5, 2020 Page 7 nonresponsive and (ii) its recommendation to award a contract to JBTC, and (3) instead (i) · recommend that the City Council award the contract to TAS, as the lowest responsive, responsible bidder, or (ii) reject all bids and recompete the procurement. Enclosures Cc: Mr. Joel Montalvo, MPA, P.E. via email only at Joel.Montalvo@palmspringsca.gov
62EXHIBIT 1
63DECLARATION OF ULYSSE WURTZ 1. I, Ulysse Wurtz, am the Head of Business Development, N.A. of thyssenkrupp Airport Systems, Inc. ("TAS"). I make the following declaration in support of TAS's bid protest appeal related to the City of Palm Springs, California ("the City")'s Solicitation No. 19-34 for the Airport Passenger Boarding Bridges Re-Bid contract ("Solicitation No. 19-34"). I have personal knowledge of the facts set forth in this declaration and, if called as a witness, I could and would testify competently to them. 2. Attached hereto as Exhibit A is a true and correct copy of Solicitation No. 19-34, as initially issued. 3. Attached hereto as Exhibit B is a true and correct copy of Addendum 1 to Solicitation No. 19-34. 4. Attached hereto as Exhibit C is a true and correct copy of TAS's bid in this procurement. 5. Attached hereto as Exhibit Dis a true and correct copy of the City's bid tabulation for this procurement. 6. Attached hereto .as Exhibit E is a true and correct copy of the notice of intent to reject TAS's bid as non-responsive, w~ich the City issued to TAS on or about September 17, 2020. 7. Attached hereto as Exhibit Fis a true and correct copy of the bid protest letter TAS timely filed with the City on September 24, 2020. 8. Attached hereto as Exhibit G is a true and correct copy of the bid protest decision the City issued on September 28, 2020.
649. As reflected in these documents, TAS understands that the bases for the City's rejection of TAS's bid was: a. The City believes that TAS did not including a price for walkway refurbishment as required by Addendum 1; and b. The City believes that TAS did not include proper National Fire Protection Association ("NFPA") certification documents in its bid because the documents TAS provided are marked "draft". 10. However, the walkway refurbishment work was clearly included in TAS's bid as stated in TAS's Proposal Letter/ Project Understanding Demonstration accompanying TAS's bid. 11. Moreover, the inclusion of the lntertek reports confirming compliance with NFPA standards in TAS's bid was clearly a de miminis technical error that did not give TAS an unfair advantage, particularly because it is common knowledge in the industry that every PBB manufacturer like TAS must be NFPA compliant as a matter of federal law. 12. Additionally, the City could have readily confirmed with lntertek that TAS's passenger boarding bridges meet applicable NFPA standards. 13. Indeed, lntertek currently has an online directory, available to the public at https:llramuk.intertekconnect.com/WebClients/lTS/DLP/products.nsf/SSSearch?OpenForm, which reflects that TAS's passenger boarding bridges are NFPA compliant. A true and correct copy of a printout of lntertek's website that confirms this fact is attached hereto as Exhibit H. 14. TAS attached a letter to it its initial protest which was from lntertek and which was dated September 22, 2020. This letter included a hyperlink to lntertek's profile for TAS's passenger boarding bridges. Thus, at the time the City denied TAS's initial protest it knew or should have known that it could have readily verified TAS's NFPA compliance through a publicly
65available website. A true and correct copy of this letter is included with TAS's initial protest, and attached again separately hereto as Exhibit I. ' 15. Exhibit J hereto is a true and correct excerpt from the bid that John Bean Technologies Corporation submitted in this procurement. The complete bid should be in the City's files. VERIFICATION I, declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 2015.5. B: ..J Ulysse Wurtz Dated: lo / of' /a; 26 ~ '
66Attachment 7
67AGREEMENT (CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT) THIS AGREEMENT made this _ day of _______ , 20_, by and between the City of Palm Springs, a charter city, organized and existing in the County of Riverside, under and by virtue of the laws of the State of California, hereinafter designated as the City, and __________________ hereinafter designated as the Contractor. The City and the Contractor, in consideration of the mutual covenants hereinafter set forth, agree as follows: ARTICLE 1 -THE WORK For and in consideration of the payments and agreements to be made and performed by City, Contractor agrees to furnish all materials and perform all work required to complete the Work as specified in the Contract Documents, and as generally indicated under the Bid Schedule(s) for the Project entitled: AIRPORT PASSENGER BOARDING BRIDGES CITY PROJECT NO. 19-34 (RE-BID) The Work comprises of removal, disposal and installation of eight (8) new passenger boarding bridges, new pre-conditioned air (PCA) units, new 400 Hz Ground Power Units (GPU),new potable water cabinets (PWC), shutdown coordination, and other items of work not mentioned above, as required by the plans and specifications, and completed in place. ARTICLE 2 -COMMENCEMENT AND COMPLETION The Work to be performed under this Contract shall commence on the date specified in the Notice to Proceed by the City, and the Work shall be fully completed within the time specified in the Notice to Proceed. The City and the Contractor recognize that time is of the essence of this Agreement, and that the City will suffer financial loss if the Work is not completed within the time specified in Article 2, herein, plus any extensions thereof allowed in accordance with applicable provisions of the Standard Specifications, as modified herein. They also recognize the delays, expense, and difficulties involved in proving in a legal proceeding the actual loss suffered by the City if the Work is not completed on time. Accordingly, instead of requiring any such proof, the City and the Contractor agree that as liquidated damages or delay (but not as a penalty), the Contractor shall pay the City the sum specified in Section 6-9 of the Special Provisions for each calendar day that expires after the time specified in Article 2, herein. In executing the Agreement, the Contractor acknowledges it has reviewed the provisions of the Standard Specifications, as modified herein, related to liquidated AIRPORT PASSENGER BOARDING BRIDGES RE-BID CITY PROJECT NO. 19-34 JULY 2020 AGREEMENT FORM AGREEMENT AND BONDS -PAGE 5
68damages, and has made itself aware of the actual loss incurred by the City due to the inability to complete the Work within the time specified in the Notice to Proceed. The parties intend for the Liquidated Damages set forth herein to constitute liquidated damages as such term is used in California Government Code Section 53069.85 to the extent said statute may apply, and to constitute stipulated damages to the extent that said statute is not applicable. Contractor acknowledges and agrees that the Liquidated Damages are intended to compensate the City solely for Contractor's failure to meet the deadlines for completion set forth in the Contract Documents and shall not excuse Contractor from liability from any other breach of Contract requirements, including any failure of the work to conform to applicable requirements. Termination Prior to Expiration of Term. City may terminate this Agreement for its convenience at any time, without cause, in whole or in part, upon giving Contractor written notice, pursuant to Section 6-8 of the Special Provisions. Where termination is due to the fault of Contractor and constitutes an immediate danger to health, safety, and general welfare, the period of notice shall be such shorter time as may be determined by the City. Upon such notice, City shall pay Contractor-for Services performed through the date of termination in accordance with the Contract Documents. Upon receipt of such notice, Contractor shall immediately cease all work under this Agreement, unless stated otherwise in the notice or by written authorization of the Contract Officer. After such notice, Contractor shall have no further claims against the City under this Agreement. Upon termination of the Agreement under this section, Contractor shall submit to the City an invoice for work and services performed prior to the date of termination. ARTICLE 3 -CONTRACT PRICE The City shall pay the Contractor for the completion of the Work, in accordance with the Contract Documents, in current funds the Contract Price(s) named in the Contractor's Bid Proposal and Bid Schedule(s), and any duly authorized Construction Contract Change Orders approved by the City. The amount of the initial contract award in accordance with the Contractor's Bid Proposal is $ _____ _ Contractor agrees to receive and accept the prices set forth herein, as full compensation for furnishing all materials, performing all work, and fulfilling all obligations hereunder. Said compensation shall cover all expenses, losses, damages, and consequences arising out of the nature of the Work during its progress or prior to its acceptance including those for well and faithfully completing the Work and the whole thereof in the manner and time specified in the Contract Documents; and, also including those arising from actions of the elements, unforeseen difficulties or obstructions encountered in the prosecution of the Work, suspension of discontinuance of the Work, and all other unknowns or risks of any description connected with the Work. ARTICLE 4 -THE CONTRACT DOCUMENTS AIRPORT PASSENGER BOARDING BRIDGES RE-BID CITY PROJECT NO. 19-34 JULY 2020 AGREEMENT FORM AGREEMENT AND BONDS -PAGE 6
69The Contract Documents consist of the Notice Inviting Bids, Instructions to Bidders, the prevailing rate of per diem wages as determined by the Director of the California Department of Industrial Relations, the accepted Bid and Bid Schedule(s), List of Subcontractors, Non-Discrimination Certification, Non-Collusion Declaration, Bidder's General Information, Bid Security or Bid Bond, this Agreement, Worker's Compensation Certificate, Performance Bond, Payment Bond, Standard Specifications, Special Provisions, the Drawings, Addenda issued during bidding (if any), and all Construction Contract Change Orders and Work Change Directives which may be delivered or issued after the Effective Date of the Agreement and are not attached hereto. ARTICLE 5-MUTUAL OBLIGATIONS For and in consideration of the payments and agreements to be made and performed by the City, the Contractor agrees to furnish all materials and perform all work required for the above stated project, and to fulfill all other obligations as set forth in the aforesaid Contract Documents. City hereby agrees to employ, and does hereby employ, Contractor to provide the materials, complete the Work, and fulfill the obligations according to the terms and conditions herein contained and referred to, for the Contract Price herein identified, and hereby contracts to pay the same at the time, in the manner, and upon the conditions set forth in the Contract Documents. Contractor specifically acknowledges and agrees to be bound by the Wage Rates and Labor Code requirements specified in the Contract Documents, including the requirement to furnish electronic certified payroll records directly to the Labor Commissioner (via the Division of Labor Standards Enforcement), and shall pay the general prevailing rate of per diem wages as determined by the Director of the Department of Industrial Relations of the State of California. ARTICLE 6 -PAYMENT PROCEDURES The Contractor shall submit Applications for Payment in accordance with the Standard Specifications as amended by the Special Provisions. Applications for Payment will be processed by the City Engineer as provided in the Contract Documents. ARTICLE 7 -NOTICES Whenever any provision of the Contract Documents requires the giving of a written Notice between the parties, it shall be deemed to have been validly given if delivered in person to the individual or to a member of the firm or to an officer of the corporation for whom it is intended, or if delivered at or sent by registered or certified mail, postage prepaid, to the last business address known to the giver of the Notice. ARTICLE 8-INDEMNIFICATION AIRPORT PASSENGER BOARDING BRIDGES RE-BID CITY PROJECT NO. 19-34 JULY 2020 AGREEMENT FORM AGREEMENT AND BONDS -PAGE 7
70The Contractor agrees to indemnify defend and hold harmless the City, and all of its officers and agents from any claims, demands, or causes of action and damages, including related expenses, attorney's fees, and costs, based on, arising out of, or in any way related to the Work undertaken by the Contractor or by any subcontractor or anyone directly or indirectly employed by the Contractor or any other employee or person employed or engaged on or about of in connection with, the construction. This Article 8 incorporates the provisions of Section 7-15 "Indemnification," of the Special Provisions, which are hereby referenced and made a part hereof. Prevailing Wages. Contractor agrees to fully comply with all applicable federal and state labor laws including, without limitation California Labor Code Section 1720, et seq., and 1770, et seq., as well as California Code of Regulations, Title 8, Section 16000, et seq. ("Prevailing Wage Laws"). Contractor shall bear all risks of payment or non-payment of prevailing wages under California law, and Contractor hereby agrees to defend, indemnify, and hold the City, its officials, officers, employees, agents and volunteers, free and harmless from any claim or liability arising out of any failure or alleged failure to comply with the Prevailing Wage Laws. ARTICLE 9 -NON-DISCRIMINATION In connection with its performance under this Agreement, Contractor shall not discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment because of actual or perceived race, religion, color, sex, age, marital status, ancestry, national origin (i.e., place of origin, immigration status, cultural or linguistic characteristics, or ethnicity), sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, physical or mental disability, or medical condition (each a "prohibited basis"). Contractor shall ensure that applicants are employed, and that employees are treated during their employment, without regard to any prohibited basis. As a condition precedent to City's lawful capacity to enter this Agreement, and in executing this Agreement, Contractor certifies that its actions and omissions hereunder shall not incorporate any discrimination arising from or related to any prohibited basis in any Contractor activity, including but not limited to the following: employment, upgrading, demotion or transfer; recruitment or recruitment advertising; layoff or termination; rates of pay or other forms of compensation; and selection for training, including apprenticeship; and further, that Contractor is in full compliance with the provisions of Palm Springs Municipal Code Section 7.09.040, including without limitation the provision of benefits, relating to non-discrimination in city contracting. ARTICLE 10-MISCELLANEOUS Terms used in this Agreement which are defined in the Standard Specifications and the Special Provisions will have the meanings indicated in said Standard Specifications and the Special Provisions. No assignment by a party hereto of any rights under or interests in the Contract Documents will be binding on another party hereto without the written consent of the party sought to be bound; and specifically, but without limitation, monies that may become due and monies that are due may not be assigned without such consent (except to the extent that the effect of this restriction may be limited by law), and unless specifically AIRPORT PASSENGER BOARDING BRIDGES RE-BID CITY PROJECT NO. 19-34 JULY 2020 AGREEMENT FORM AGREEMENT AND BONDS -PAGE 8
71stated to the contrary in any written consent to an assignment, no assignment will release or discharge the assignor from any duty or responsibility under the Contract Documents. The City and the Contractor each binds itself, its partners, successors, assigns, and legal representatives, to the other party hereto, its partners, successors, assigns, and legal representatives, in respect of all covenants, agreements, and obligations contained in the Contract Documents. ARTICLE 11 -CONFLICT OF INTEREST Contractor acknowledges that no officer or employee of the City has or shall have any direct or indirect financial interest in this Agreement nor shall Contractor enter into any agreement of any kind with any such officer or employee during the term of this Agreement and for one year thereafter. Contractor warrants that Contractor has not paid or given, and will not pay or give, any third party any money or other consideration in exchange for obtaining this Agreement." SIGNATURES ON NEXT PAGE AIRPORT PASSENGER BOARDING BRIDGES RE-BID CITY PROJECT NO. 19-34 JULY 2020 AGREEMENT FORM AGREEMENT AND BONDS -PAGE 9
72IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the City and the Contractor have caused this Agreement to be executed the day and year first above written. CITY OF PALM SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA By ____________ _ ATTEST: David H. Ready City Manager By __________ _ Anthony J. Mejia, MMC City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: By __________ _ Jeffrey S. Ballinger, City Attorney RECOMMENDED: By _____________ _ Joel Montalvo, MPA, P.E. City Engineer AIRPORT PASSENGER BOARDING BRIDGES RE-BID CITY PROJECT NO. 19-34 JULY 2020 APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: Date --------Agreement No. ___ _ AGREEMENT FORM AGREEMENT AND BONDS -PAGE 10
73CONTRACTOR By: ________________ _ Firm/Company Name By: _____________ _ By: _____________ _ Signature (notarized) Signature (notarized) Name: ---------------Name: ______________ _ Title: _______________ _ Title: ______________ _ A notary public or other officer completing this certificate verifies only the identity of the individual who signed the document to which this certificate is attached, and not the truthfulness, accuracy or validity of that document. (This Agreement must be signed in the above space by one having authority to bind the Contractor to the terms of the Agreement.) State of _____ __,_ County of _______ ~ss On _______________ _ before me, _____________ _ personally appeared _________ _ who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signatures(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument. I certify under PENAL TY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing paragraph is true and correct. WITNESS my hand and official seal. Notary Signature: Notary Seal: AIRPORT PASSENGER BOARDING BRIDGES RE-BID CITY PROJECT NO. 19-34 JULY 2020 (This Agreement must be signed in the above space by one having authority to bind the Contractor to the terms of the Agreement.) State of _____ _ County of -------~ss On _______________ _ before me, _____________ _ personally appeared __________ _ who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signatures(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument. I certify under PENAL TY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing paragraph is true and correct. WITNESS my hand and official seal. Notary Signature: Notary Seal: AGREEMENT FORM AGREEMENT AND BONDS -PAGE 11