Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-19-16 EO&WR Committee PacketOTAY WATER DISTRICT ENGINEERING, OPERATIONS & WATER RESOURCES COMMITTEE MEETING and SPECIAL MEETING OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS 2554 SWEETWATER SPRINGS BOULEVARD SPRING VALLEY, CALIFORNIA Board Room TUESDAY January 19, 2016 12:00 P.M. This is a District Committee meeting. This meeting is being posted as a special meeting in order to comply with the Brown Act (Government Code Section §54954.2) in the event that a quorum of the Board is present. Items will be deliberated, however, no formal board actions will be taken at this meeting. The committee makes recommendations to the full board for its consideration and formal action. AGENDA 1. ROLL CALL 2. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION – OPPORTUNITY FOR MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC TO SPEAK TO THE BOARD ON ANY SUBJECT MATTER WITHIN THE BOARD'S JU- RISDICTION BUT NOT AN ITEM ON TODAY'S AGENDA DISCUSSION ITEMS 3. APPROVE CHANGE ORDER NO. 7 TO THE EXISTING CONTRACT WITH OLYM- PUS AND ASSOCIATES, INC. IN THE CREDIT AMOUNT OF <$87,259.87> FOR THE 944-1, 944-2, AND 458-2 RESERVOIR INTERIOR/EXTERIOR COATINGS AND UPGRADES PROJECT (MARTIN) [5 min] 4. REJECT LOWEST BID BY GRFCO, INC. FOR BEING NON-RESPONSIVE FOR THE RANCHO SAN DIEGO BASIN SEWER REHABILITATION – PHASE I PROJECT (PROJECT); AND AWARD A CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT TO THE SECOND LOWEST BIDDER TRANSTAR PIPELINE, INC. FOR THE PROJECT IN AN AMOUNT NOT-TO-EXCEED $970,970 (BEPPLER) [5 min] 5. SAN DIEGO COUNTY WATER AUTHORITY UPDATE (WATTON) [10 minutes] 6. ADJOURNMENT BOARD MEMBERS ATTENDING: Tim Smith, Chair Gary Croucher 2 All items appearing on this agenda, whether or not expressly listed for action, may be delib- erated and may be subject to action by the Board. The Agenda, and any attachments containing written information, are available at the Dis- trict’s website at www.otaywater.gov. Written changes to any items to be considered at the open meeting, or to any attachments, will be posted on the District’s website. Copies of the Agenda and all attachments are also available through the District Secretary by contacting her at (619) 670-2280. If you have any disability that would require accommodation in order to enable you to partici- pate in this meeting, please call the District Secretary at 670-2280 at least 24 hours prior to the meeting. Certification of Posting I certify that on January 15, 2016 I posted a copy of the foregoing agenda near the regular meeting place of the Board of Directors of Otay Water District, said time being at least 24 hours in advance of the meeting of the Board of Directors (Government Code Section §54954.2). Executed at Spring Valley, California on January 15, 2016. /s/ Susan Cruz, District Secretary STAFF REPORT TYPE MEETING: Regular Board MEETING DATE: February 3, 2016 SUBMITTED BY: Dan Martin Engineering Manager PROJECT: P2531-001103 P2532-001103 P2535-001103 DIV. NOs.: 2 & 5 APPROVED BY: Rod Posada, Chief, Engineering German Alvarez, Assistant General Manager Mark Watton, General Manager SUBJECT: Approve Change Order No. 7 to the Contract with Olympus & Associates, Inc. for the 944-1, 944-2, & 458-2 Reservoir Interior/Exterior Coatings & Upgrades Project GENERAL MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATION: That the Otay Water District (District) Board of Directors (Board) approve Change Order No. 7 (Exhibit B) to the existing contract with Olympus & Associates, Inc. (Olympus) in the credit amount of <$87,259.87> for the 944-1, 944-2, & 458-2 Reservoir Interior/Exterior Coatings & Upgrades Project. See Exhibits A-1 and A-2 for Project locations. COMMITTEE ACTION: Please see Attachment A. PURPOSE: To obtain Board authorization for the General Manager to execute Change Order No. 7 in the credit amount of <$87,259.87> to the construction contract with Olympus for the 944-1, 944-2, & 458-2 Reservoir Interior/Exterior Coatings & Upgrades Project. ANALYSIS: At the October 1, 2014 Board Meeting, the Board awarded a construction contract in an amount of $1,206,008 to Olympus to replace the existing interior and exterior coatings for the 944-1, 2 944-2, and 458-2 Reservoirs. In addition to replacing the coatings of the reservoirs, the Project includes structural upgrades to comply with the current American Water Works Association (AWWA) and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration standards for both Federal (OSHA) and State (Cal-OSHA) levels. Since the award of the construction contract, substantial structural repair work was identified at the 944-1 (Install Date January 1963), 944-2 (Install Date June 1992), and 458-2 (Install Date October 1967) Reservoirs. Although an internal (dive) inspection was performed at the Reservoirs in advance of the Project, the extent of the required repairs could not be assessed until removal of the existing coating was completed. The contract does include a Board approved Structural Modification Allowance item, which was established to address structural deficiencies identified during construction. A Work Order was approved against the allowance on June 12, 2015, to construct structural roof support system repairs at the 944-2 Reservoir. On September 2, 2015 the Board approved a budget increase in the amount of $325,000 to cover the costs of change orders associated with the Project. Additionally, at the September 2, 2015 and October 7, 2015 Board Meetings, the Board approved contract Change Order Nos. 2 through 6. Table 1 below provides a summary of the approved contract change orders for the Project. Each change order addressed both cost and time impacts associated with the unforeseen work and serves as total compensation to the contractor. Table 1. Summary of Board Approved Change Orders Change Order Description Approval Date Value Time (Days) 1 458-2 Structural floor repairs 6/17/15 $41,778.00 20 2 458-2 Idled Equipment during structural floor and roof repairs 9/10/15 $44,458.00 30 3 458-2 Disposal of additional Coal Tar 9/10/15 $4,073.00 3 4 458-2 Floor coating change to 100% solids product 10/16/15 $28,071.00 0 5 944-1 Structural rafter repairs 10/16/15 $46,204.33 32 6 944-1 Overflow replacement/repairs 10/16/15 $11,413.89 2 Total $175,998.22 87 With the approval of the change orders summarized above, the contract completion date was revised from June 13, 2015 to September 8, 2015. Throughout the contract, Olympus has been notified that the District 3 will be assessing liquidated damages associated with the late delivery of the Project. Section 00400 (Form A) of the contract between the District and Olympus includes provisions for liquidated damages associated with completion of the work beyond the contract time. Per the contract, liquidated damages accrue at a rate of one thousand dollars ($1,000) per calendar day until substantial completion is reached. Olympus substantially completed the contract on December 3, 2015. In accordance with the contract provisions, the District has withheld liquidated damages from progress payment requests. Change Order No. 7, Exhibit B which is the subject of this staff report, reconciles the final number of liquidated damages assessed and adjusts the final contract amount accordingly. Additionally, Change Order No. 7 serves as a contract closeout change order and will credit the contract for items furnished by the District to Olympus at the request of Olympus, including the following: replacement of an existing 14-inch butterfly valve which was damaged by the contractor; compensation for damaged pavement; and premium time associated with specialty inspection on weekends. In total, Change Order No. 7 is a credit to the District in the amount of <$87,259.87>. The District’s Construction Manager sent Change Order No. 7 to Olympus on December 17, 2015. To date, Olympus has not executed the change order and returned it to the Construction Manager. In the absence of an executed change order from Olympus, staff is recommending that approval of Change Order No. 7 be processed unilaterally in substantially the same form as shown in Exhibit B so that closeout of the contract can be completed. FISCAL IMPACT: Joe Beachem, Chief Financial Officer Funding for the overall Project comes from CIP’s P2531, P2532, and P2535. The total budget is $2,175,000. The total budget for CIP P2531 (944-1 Reservoir), as approved by the Board at the September 2, 2015 Board Meeting, is $390,000. Total expenditures, plus outstanding commitments and forecast, are $345,384. See Attachment B-1 for budget detail. The total budget for CIP P2532 (944-2 Reservoir), as approved by the Board at the September 2, 2015 Board Meeting, is $946,000. Total expenditures, plus outstanding commitments and forecast, are $939,584. See Attachment B-2 for budget detail. 4 The total budget for CIP P2535 (458-2 Reservoir), as approved by the Board at the September 2, 2015 Board Meeting, is $839,000. Total expenditures, plus outstanding commitments and forecast, are $794,657. See Attachment B-3 for budget detail. Based on a review of the financial budget, the Project Manager anticipates that the budgets for CIP’s P2531, P2532, and P2535 are sufficient to support the Project. The Finance Department has determined that, under the current rate model, 100% of the funding is available from the Replacement Fund for CIP’s P2531, P2532, and P2535. STRATEGIC GOAL: This Project supports the District’s Mission statement, “To provide high value water and wastewater services to the customers of the Otay Water District in a professional, effective, and efficient manner” and the General Manager’s Vision, “A District that is at the forefront in innovations to provide water services at affordable rates, with a reputation for outstanding customer service.” LEGAL IMPACT: None. DM/RP:jf P:\WORKING\CIP P2531 & P2532 - 944-1 & 2 Reservoir Int-Ext Coating\Staff Reports\BD 02-03-16\BD 02-03-16 Staff Report 944-1 944-2 458-2 Reservoir CO 07(DM-RP).docx Attachments: Attachment A – Committee Action Attachment B-1 – Budget Detail for P2531 Attachment B-2 – Budget Detail for P2532 Attachment B-3 – Budget Detail for P2535 Exhibit A-1 – Location Map for 944-1 & 944-2 Exhibit A-2 – Location Map for 458-2 Exhibit B – Change Order No. 7 ATTACHMENT A SUBJECT/PROJECT: P2531-001103 P2532-001103 P2535-001103 Approve Change Order No. 7 to the Contract with Olympus & Associates, Inc. for the 944-1, 944-2, & 458-2 Reservoir Interior/Exterior Coatings & Upgrades Project COMMITTEE ACTION: The Engineering, Operations, and Water Resources Committee (Committee) reviewed this item at a meeting held on January 19, 2016. The Committee supported Staff’s recommendation. NOTE: The "Committee Action" is written in anticipation of the Committee moving the item forward for Board approval. This report will be sent to the Board as a Committee approved item, or modified to reflect any discussion or changes as directed from the Committee prior to presentation to the full Board. ATTACHMENT B-1 – Budget Detail for P2531 SUBJECT/PROJECT: P2531-001103 P2532-001103 P2535-001103 Approve Change Order No. 7 to the Contract with Olympus & Associates, Inc. for the 944-1, 944-2, & 458-2 Reservoir Interior/Exterior Coatings & Upgrades Project ATTACHMENT B-2 – Budget Detail for P2532 SUBJECT/PROJECT: P2531-001103 P2532-001103 P2535-001103 Approve Change Order No. 7 to the Contract with Olympus & Associates, Inc. for the 944-1, 944-2, & 458-2 Reservoir Interior/Exterior Coatings & Upgrades Project 939,585 938,086 1,498 939,584 ATTACHMENT B-3 – Budget Detail for P2535 SUBJECT/PROJECT: P2531-001103 P2532-001103 P2535-001103 Approve Change Order No. 7 to the Contract with Olympus & Associates, Inc. for the 944-1, 944-2, & 458-2 Reservoir Interior/Exterior Coatings & Upgrades Project 794,657 765,936 28,722 794,657 "Cé ¹r $R $R $R ¹r ¹r $R ¹r ¹r B r a n d y w i n e A v e O l y m p i c P k w y Morro Point Dr W P o i n t D r Point Barrow Dr Point la Jolla Dr P o i n t D e f i a n c e C t Laguna Point Ct Malibu Point Ct Diablo Point Ct San Pedro Point Ct O l y m p i c P k w y 066065 ! VICINITY MAP PROJECT SITE NTS ?ò Aä ?Ë ;&s DIV 5 DIV 1 DIV 2 DIV 4 DIV 3 ?p F P:\WORKING\CIP P2493 & P2535 624-2 & 458-2 Reservoir Coating\Graphics\Exhibits-Figures\458-2 Location.mxd OTAY WATER DISTRICT458-2 Reservoir Interior/ExteriorCoating and Upgrades EXHIBIT A-2 CIP P2535F 458-2 Tank1.75 MG Steel Reservoir OTAY WATER DISTRICT 2554 SWEETWATER SPRINGS BLVD., SPRING VALLEY, CA. 91978, (619) 670-2222 CONTRACT/P.O. CHANGE ORDER No. 7 PROJECT/ITEM: 944-1, 944-2, & 458-2 Reservoir Interior/Exterior Coating & Upgrades CONTRACTOR/VENDOR: Olympus and Associates Inc. REF.CIP No.: P2531/P2532/P2535 APPROVED BY: Board REF. P.O. No: 718662 DATE: 12/17/15 DESCRIPTION: See attached page 2 of 3 for continuation. REASON: See attached page 2 of 3 for continuation. CHANGE P.O. TO READ: Revise Contract to deduct $87,259.87 and add 3 days time for a total Contract amount of $1,294,746.35 with a Contract Duration of 312 Calendar Days. ________________________________________________________________________________________________ ORIGINAL CONTRACT/P.O. AMOUNT: $ 1,206,008.00 ADJUSTED AMOUNT FROM PREVIOUS CHANGE: $ 175,998.22 TOTAL COST OF THIS CHANGE ORDER: $ (87,259.87) NEW CONTRACT/P.O. AMOUNT IS: $ 1,294,746.35 ORIGINAL CONTRACT COMPLETION DATE: 06/13/15 CONTRACT/P.O. TIME AFFECTED BY THIS CHANGE: Yes REVISED CONTRACT COMPLETION DATE: 09/11/15 IT IS UNDERSTOOD WITH THE FOLLOWING APPROVALS, THAT THE CONTRACTOR/VENDOR IS AUTHORIZED AND DIRECTED TO MAKE THE HEREIN DESCRIBED CHANGES. IT IS ALSO AGREED THAT THE TOTAL COST FOR THIS CHANGE ORDER CONSTITUTES FULL AND COMPLETE COMPENSATION FOR OBLIGATIONS REQUIRED BY THE CONTRACT/P.O. ALL OTHER PROVISIONS AND REQUIREMENTS OF THE CONTRACT/P.O. REMAIN IN FULL FORCE AND EFFECT. CONTRACTOR/VENDOR: STAFF APPROVALS: SIGNATURE: PROJ. MGR : DATE: NAME : DIV. MGR : DATE: TITLE: DATE : CHIEF: DATE: COMPANY & Olympus & Associates, Inc. ASST. GM : DATE: ADDRESS: 405 Lovitt Lane DISTRICT APPROVAL: Reno, NV 89506 GEN. MANAGER: DATE: COPIES: o FILE (Orig.), o CONTRACTOR/VENDOR, o CHIEF-ENGINEERING, o CHIEF-FINANCE, o ENGR. MGR. o ACCTS PAYABLE, o INSPECTION, o PROJ. MGR., o ENGR. SECRETARY, o PURCHASING, o PROJECT BINDER Contract / P.O. Change Order No. 7 page 2 of 3 Description of Work Description Increase Decrease Time Item No. 1: Reimbursement for liquidated damages from September 11, 2015 until Substantial Completion on December 3, 2015 (83 Calendar days at $1,000/calendar day) $83,000.00 0 Item No. 2: Reimbursement for asphalt concrete removal, base repair and replacement of damaged asphalt concrete paving at the 458-2 Reservoir. ($0.75/SF Base Remove/Replace and $12.00/SF Asphalt 0”-6”) (Credit 180 SF at $12.75/SF) $2,295.00 0 Item No. 3: Add 3 calendar days due to weather impacts per Contract Specifications 00700-8.5 $0.00 $0.00 3 Item No. 4: Reimbursement for District labor and equipment costs to replace the existing 14-inch butterfly valve at the 458-2 Reservoir. $1,508.18 0 Item No. 5: Reimbursement for additional inspection costs outside normal work hours per Section 00800-1.2 at the 944-1 Reservoir. $375.00 0 Item No. 6: Reimbursement for 1.5” Grind and Pave of damaged asphalt concrete paving at the 944-2 Reservoir. ($11.67 1.5” Grind & Pave) (Credit 7 SF at $11.67/SF) $81.69 Sub Total Amount $0.00 $87,259.87 3 Total Net Change Order Amount ($87,259.87) Reason: Item No. 1: Pursuant to contractual provisions, failure of the Contractor to complete the work within the time allowed will result in damages being sustained by the District for each calendar day the Contractor fails to substantially complete all work. The adjusted Contract complete date was September 11, 2015 and substantial completion was achieved on December 3, 2015 resulting in 83 days of liquidated damages. This change order is required to reimburse the District for costs associated with the Contractor not completing the project within the allotted time. Item No. 2: The Contractor damaged existing asphalt concrete paving including base materials at the 458-2 Reservoir. In lieu of replacing the damaged asphalt concrete paving the contractor elected to utilize the District’s 2016 As-Needed Paving Services Contract pricing to reimburse the District for the associated repair cost. This change order is required to reimburse the District for costs associated with damaged asphalt concrete replacement at the 458-2 Reservoir. Item No. 3: Contract Documents Section 00700-8.5 provides for no cost time extensions due to weather impacts on the project progress. Weather impacted the project three (3) days between September and October 2015. The project was impacted on September 15, October 5 and October 16, 2015 due to weather. Item No. 4: During sandblasting operations at the 458-2 Reservoir the Contractor damaged the existing to remain 14-inch butterfly valve on the reservoir fill line. The Contractor purchased and tested a replacement valve, however they were not licensed to complete the valve replacement and elected to utilize District staff to complete the work. This change order is required to reimburse the District for labor and equipment costs associated with the valve replacement. Contract / P.O. Change Order No. 7 page 3 of 3 Item No. 5: Contract Documents Section 00800-1.2 provides for reimbursement of additional expenses of Owner’s personnel and inspection services resulting from work outside normal working hours. The Contractor requested and was granted authorization to work on November 14 and November 28, 2015 with the provision for reimbursement of additional inspection costs. The delta between overtime and regular time inspection costs is $25/hr. A total of 15 hours of overtime inspection was provided requiring premium time reimbursement. This change order is required to reimburse the District for additional costs associated with providing inspection outside normal working hours as requested by the Contractor. Item No. 6: The Contractor damaged existing asphalt concrete paving at the 944-2 Reservoir. In lieu of replacing the damaged asphalt concrete paving the contractor elected to utilize the District’s 2016 As-Needed Paving Services Contract pricing to reimburse the District for the associated repair cost. This change order is required to reimburse the District for costs associated with damaged asphalt concrete replacement at the 944-2 Reservoir. Print   |   Close Window Subject: Rain Day 9/15 From: lyndsey1282@gmail.com Date: Wed, Sep 16, 2015 8:30 am To: Douglas Cook <dcook@alysonconsulting.com>, kcameron@otaywater.gov Good morning,  We would like to request a rain day credit for yesterday.  Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, Lyndsey  Sent from my iPhone   Copyright © 2003­2015. All rights reserved. Print   |   Close Window Subject: 10/05/2015_Rain Day From: Gtsiopos <gtsiopos@aol.com> Date: Tue, Oct 06, 2015 1:52 pm To: dcook@alysonconsulting.com, kcameron@otaywater.gov Hello,   We would like to request a rain day for yesterday as both of our sites were shut down due to the rain.   Thank you,     Lyndsey Tsiopos   Copyright © 2003­2015. All rights reserved. Print   |   Close Window Subject: 458­2 Weather Day and Permission to Work Saturday From: Gtsiopos <gtsiopos@aol.com> Date: Fri, Oct 16, 2015 10:54 am To: dcook@alysonconsulting.com, kcameron@otaywater.gov Good Morning,   We were unable to work today due to the weather. We would like to request a weather ay as we had to send everyone home.   Secondly, we would like permission to work tomorrow to mop the tank roof. This was the plan for today but we are now unable to do so. There will be no surface preparation or inspection necessary. All we will be doing is mopping and cleaning the roof for the coating application as scheduled for Monday.   Please let me know if this is possible.   Thank you,     Lyndsey   Copyright © 2003­2015. All rights reserved. y PO~~sHE~'~~ ~ ~ , a~ ...medicated to (',oE~~«~w,ity Sen~ice .~ G 2554 SWEETWATER SPRINGS BOULEVARD, SPRING VALLEY. CALIFORNIA 91978-2096 ~~tc~("~ TELEPHONE: 670-2222, AREA CODE 619 December 4, 2015 INVOICE #CWK-00014 WO 988 Olympus &Associates, Inc. Attn: Lazarus Tsiapos 405 Lovitt Lane Reno, NV 89506 RE: Date of Loss: 10/28/15 Occurrence: This work order is labor and equipment charges, for the replacement of inlet valve to 458 tank. It was originally changed out at Otay's expense. However, the contractor damage the new valve so contractor is being billed for the change out this time. Below is the final billing for the above work order. (To ensure proper credit, please return one copy of invoice with your payment in the enclosed envelope) If you have any question regarding this invoice, please call Kevin Cameron at 619.670.2248. LABOR: (Amounts include base pay, overtime and fringe and overhead %calculations) Dept 3225--Water Systems Operations Dept EQUIPMENT: VE174 Class 7 Service/Utility Body VE202 Class 4 Contractors Body VE177 Compact Car VE168 Class 2 Pick Up INVOICE TOTAL No. of Hours 13.00 1, 389.58 1, 389.58 3.00 44.10 3.00 34.50 1.00 10.00 3.00 30.00 118.60 1,508.18 ATTACHMENT B STAFF REPORT TYPE MEETING: Regular Board MEETING DATE: February 3, 2016 SUBMITTED BY: Stephen Beppler Senior Civil Engineer Bob Kennedy Engineering Manager PROJECT: S2033-003103 DIV. NO.: 5 APPROVED BY: Rod Posada, Chief, Engineering German Alvarez, Assistant General Manager Mark Watton, General Manager SUBJECT: Reject Lowest Bid by GRFCO, Inc. and Award of a Construction Contract to Transtar Pipeline, Inc. for the Rancho San Diego Basin Sewer Rehabilitation - Phase 1 Project GENERAL MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATION: That the Otay Water District (District) Board of Directors (Board): 1. Reject the lowest bid by GRFCO, Inc. for being non-responsive for the Rancho San Diego Basin Sewer Rehabilitation - Phase 1 Project; and 2. Award a construction contract to the second lowest bidder Transtar Pipeline, Inc. (Transtar) and to authorize the General Manager to execute an agreement with Transtar for the Rancho San Diego Basin Sewer Rehabilitation - Phase 1 Project in an amount not-to-exceed $970,970 (see Exhibit A for Project location). COMMITTEE ACTION: Please see Attachment A. PURPOSE: For the Board to reject the lowest submitted bid by GRFCO, Inc. for being non-responsive and obtain Board authorization for the General Manager to enter into a construction contract with the second lowest 2 bidder, Transtar, for the Rancho San Diego Basin Sewer Rehabilitation - Phase 1 Project in an amount not-to-exceed $970,970. ANALYSIS: The District provides sanitary sewer collection service in the Jamacha drainage basin located in the northern area of the District. Deficiencies throughout the sewer service area have been observed and documented by closed-circuit television inspection and condition assessment. This phase of sewer improvements consists of sewer system repairs at 14 locations within the Rancho San Diego Basin (see Exhibit A for Project location). This Project is one of several that will address the noted deficiencies to maintain the sewer collection system. The sewer improvements involve the replacement of approximately 3,252 linear feet of 8-inch gravity sewer, four (4) new sewer manholes, reconnection of sewer lines and laterals, maintaining sewer service, restoration of pavement and landscaping, removal of trees, traffic control, erosion control, protection of existing utilities, and all testing and inspection as required by the Contract Documents. The Project was advertised on October 14, 2015 on the District’s website and several other publications, including the San Diego Union-Tribune. A Pre-Bid Meeting was held on October 29, 2015, which was attended by one (1) general contractor, followed by a site visit to those areas of work that are on private property. Two (2) addenda were sent out to all bidders and plan houses to distribute the County of San Diego Excavation Permit and address questions and clarifications to the contract documents during the bidding period. Bids were publicly opened on November 17, 2015, with the following results: CONTRACTOR TOTAL BID AMOUNT 1 GRFCO, Inc. Brea, CA $958,200.00 2 Transtar Pipeline, Inc. San Diego, CA $970,970.00 3 Wier Construction Escondido, CA $1,021,196.00 4 Paul Hanson Equipment, Inc. El Cajon, CA $1,027,432.00 5 Palm Engineering Construction Co., Inc. San Diego, CA $1,152,720.00 6 Burtech Pipeline, Inc. Encinitas, CA $1,474,564.00 3 The Engineer’s Estimate is $950,000. A review of the bids was performed by District staff, during which several irregularities were identified in the GRFCO bid documents. The irregularities documented in Exhibit B include: 1. Insufficient response to Company Background Questionnaire – Form G, Question 4.3 regarding apparent apprenticeship violations of the State of California Labor Code; 2. Failure to disclose current debarment of company officer George Frost by the City of San Diego in Company Background Questionnaire – Form G, Question 5.2; 3. Failure to provide safety data for three (3) most recent years in Company Safety Questionnaire – Form H (only two years provided); and 4. Failure to include a copy of the two addenda issued for the Project with the bid package, as directed in the addenda. These irregularities were determined to be significant enough to reject the GRFCO bid proposal for being non-responsive. GRFCO provided a response to the letter in an email (Exhibit C). This has not altered the District’s decision on the non-responsiveness of their bid. For General Counsel’s opinion on the District’s ability to reject the GRFCO bid proposal, refer to Exhibit D. In addition, a bid protest was filed by the third low bidder, Wier Construction (Exhibit E), claiming the first and second low bidders were non-responsive for not acknowledging the addenda in accordance with provided instructions. District staff and General Counsel analyzed the protest and provided a response (Exhibit F) indicating that the claim was valid against GRFCO, but not Transtar. Staff reviewed the second lowest bid, which was submitted by Transtar, for conformance with the contract requirements and discovered that Transtar had minor irregularities in one document such as the Company Safety Questionnaire - Form H was not signed. It was also noted that, notwithstanding the irregularities, Transtar has a spotless safety record. Transtar was advised of the missing signature and follow-up question data (Exhibit G) and a signed Form H was submitted (Exhibit H) with no changes to the answers and missing information added. The irregularities in Transtar’s bid were thus determined not to be significant enough to deem their bid non- responsive as it was limited to one document and did not affect price or provide an advantage. Accordingly, staff determined that Transtar was the lowest responsive and responsible bidder. Transtar holds a Class A, General Engineering, Contractor’s License, which meets the contract 4 document’s requirements, and is valid through June 30, 2016. The reference checks indicated a very good to excellent performance record on similar projects. An internet background search of the company was performed and revealed no outstanding issues with this company. Staff verified that the bid bond provided by Transtar is valid. Staff will also verify that Transtar’s Performance Bond and Labor and Materials Bond are valid prior to execution of the contract. FISCAL IMPACT: Joe Beachem, Chief Financial Officer The total budget for CIP S2033, as approved in the FY 2016 budget, is $6,000,000. Total expenditures, plus outstanding commitments and forecast including this contract, are $2,691,654.22. See Attachment B for budget detail. Based on a review of the financial budget, the Project Manager anticipates that the budget for CIP S2033 is sufficient to support the Project. The Finance Department has determined that, under the current rate model, 100% of the funding is available from the Replacement Fund. STRATEGIC GOAL: This Project supports the District’s Mission statement, “To provide high value water and wastewater services to the customers of the Otay Water District in a professional, effective, and efficient manner” and the General Manager’s Vision, “A District that is at the forefront in innovations to provide water services at affordable rates, with a reputation for outstanding customer service.” LEGAL IMPACT: None. SB/BK:jf P:\WORKING\CIP S2033 Sewer System Rehabilitation\Staff Reports\BD 02-03-16 RSD Ph 1 Constr\BD 02-03-16 Staff Report RSD Basin Sewer Rehab Phase 1 Award Construction Project.Docx Attachments: Attachment A – Committee Action Attachment B – Budget Detail Exhibit A – Location Map Exhibit B – District Rejection of GRFCO Non-Responsive Bid Proposal Exhibit C – GRFCO Email Response to Bid Rejection 5 Exhibit D – General Council Memo on Bid Responsiveness Exhibit E – Wier Construction Bid Protest Letter Exhibit F – District Response to Bid Protest Exhibit G – District Letter to Transtar on Form H Exhibit H – Transtar Letter with Signed Form H ATTACHMENT A SUBJECT/PROJECT: S2033-003103 Reject Lowest Bid by GRFCO, Inc. and Award of a Construction Contract to Transtar Pipeline, Inc. for the Rancho San Diego Basin Sewer Rehabilitation - Phase 1 Project COMMITTEE ACTION: The Engineering, Operations, and Water Resources Committee (Committee) reviewed this item at a meeting held on January 19, 2016. The Committee supported Staff's recommendation. NOTE: The “Committee Action” is written in anticipation of the Committee moving the item forward for Board approval. This report will be sent to the Board as a Committee approved item, or modified to reflect any discussion or changes as directed from the Committee prior to presentation to the full Board. ATTACHMENT B – Budget Detail SUBJECT/PROJECT: S2033-003103 Reject Lowest Bid by GRFCO, Inc. and Award of a Construction Contract to Transtar Pipeline, Inc. for the Rancho San Diego Basin Sewer Rehabilitation - Phase 1 Project Bud Level Title1 Committed Expenditures Outstanding Commitment Projected Final Cost Vendor Planning Regulatory Agency Fees $100.00 $100.00 $0.00 $100.00 PETTY CASH CUSTODIAN Standard Salaries $220,584.09 $220,584.09 $0.00 $220,584.09 Total $220,684.09 $220,684.09 $0.00 $220,684.09 Design Consultant Contracts $152,957.78 $152,957.78 $0.00 $152,957.78 AEGIS ENGINEERING $20,720.00 $20,720.00 $0.00 $20,720.00 DARNELL & ASSOCIATES INC $21,445.89 $21,445.89 $0.00 $21,445.89 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA SOIL $21,538.00 $21,085.50 $452.50 $21,538.00 NINYO & MOORE GEOTECHNICAL $6,995.00 $6,995.00 $0.00 $6,995.00 AIRX UTILITY SURVEYORS INC $71,183.15 $71,183.15 $0.00 $71,183.15 ARCADIS US INC Professional Legal Fees $1,000.00 $419.52 $580.48 $1,000.00 STUTZ ARTIANO SHINOFF Service Contracts $5,004.94 $4,065.33 $939.61 $5,004.94 MAYER REPROGRAPHICS $384.90 $384.90 $0.00 $384.90 SAN DIEGO DAILY TRANSCRIPT $333.20 $333.20 $0.00 $333.20 THE SAN DIEGO UNION-TRIBUNE $1,500.00 $1,500.00 $0.00 $1,500.00 CHICAGO TITLE Standard Salaries $491,071.77 $491,071.77 $0.00 $491,071.77 Total $794,134.63 $792,162.04 $1,972.59 $794,134.63 Construction Consultant Contracts $50,150.00 $30,150.00 $20,000.00 $50,150.00 ALYSON CONSULTING $2,400.00 $2,400.00 $0.00 $2,400.00 RBF CONSULTING $24,747.94 $24,747.94 $0.00 $24,747.94 CALIFORNIA BANK & TRUST Construction Contracts $470,210.77 $470,210.77 $0.00 $470,210.77 ARRIETA CONSTRUCTION $970,970.00 $0.00 $970,970.00 $970,970.00 TRANSTAR PIPELINE INC Regulatory Agency Fees $13,018.27 $13,018.27 $0.00 $13,018.27 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO Reimbursement Agreements $11,675.00 $11,675.00 $0.00 $11,675.00 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO Standard Salaries $133,663.52 $103,663.52 $30,000.00 $133,663.52 Total $1,676,835.50 $655,865.50 $1,020,970.00 $1,676,835.50 Budget $6,000,000.00 Total to Date $2,691,654.22 $1,668,711.63 $1,022,942.59 $2,691,654.22 Expenditures through November 25, 2015. OTAY WATER DISTRICTRANCHO SAN DIEGO BASINSEWER REHABILITATION PHASE 1 EXHIBIT A CIP S2033F P:\WORKING\CIP S2033 Sewer System Rehabilitation\Graphics\RSD Phase 1\S2033, RSD Sewer Basin Phase 1, Location Map, Dec 2015.mxd JAMACHA RD C H A S E A V VISTA GRANDE HILLSDALE RD TINA ST WILLOW GLEN DR HILLSDALE RD HIDDEN MESA RD VISTA GRANDE RD SUNDALE RD RD WIND RIVER RD D O N A H U E D R 745 734 723 771 722 733 729 773 728744 880 867 753 779 VICINITY MAP PROJECT SITE NTS DIV 5 DIV 1 DIV 2 DIV 4 DIV 3 ?ò Aä%&s ?p ?Ë F 0 1,000500 Feet Legend Sewer Main Repairs (RSD Phase 1) Sewer Gravity Mains Sewer Manholes Site Number123 ...Qadicatvd fo Community Sen'ice 2554 SWEETWATER SPRINGS BOULEVARD,SPRING VALLEY,CALIFORNIA91978-2004 TELEPHONE:670-2222.AREA CODE 619 WWW.otaywater.gov Sent via electronic mail and Certified Return Receipt USPS 70151660000083624500 November 30,2015 Project No.:S2033-003102 George Frost GRFCO,Inc. P.O.Box 1747 Brea,CA 92822-1747 Subject:Rancho San Diego Basin Sewer Rehabilitation -Phase 1 (CIP S2033); Rejection of Non-Responsive Bid Proposal Dear Mr.Frost: The Otay Water District (District)has reviewed your bid proposal for the Rancho San Diego Basin Sewer Rehabilitation -Phase 1 (CIP S2033)submitted on November 17, 2015,and discovered several irregularities in your bid.As a result,your bid has been determined to be non-responsive.As stated in the Bid Proposal -Form A,the District reserves the right to reject any and all bids.The following irregularities in particular render the bid non-responsive: •Company Background Questionnaire - Form G,Question 4.3:Insufficient response regarding apparent apprenticeship violations of the State of California Labor Code. •Company Background Questionnaire -Form G,Question 5.2:Failure to disclose current debarment of the company officer George Frost by the City of San Diego. •Company Safety Questionnaire -Form H:The form requests safety data for the three most recent years,only two years,2013 and 2014,were provided. •Addenda Acknowledgement:Failure to include a copy of the two addenda with the bid package in accordance with the directions provided in the addenda. Please do not hesitate to contact me at 619-670-2209 if you have any questions in this matter. George Frost Rancho San Diego Basin Sewer Rehabilitation - Phase 1 (CIP S2033); Rejection of Non-Responsive Bid Proposal November 30,2015 Page 2 of 2. Sincerely, OTAY WATER DISTRICT Stephen Beppler,PE Senior Civil Engineer SB:jf cc:Rod Posada Bob Kennedy P:\WORKING\CIP S2033 Sewer System Rehabilitation\Design\8id Phase\RSD Phase HBid Opening\GRFCO bid rejeciion --RSD Basin Sewer Rehab Ph 1 docx 1 Steve Beppler From:Jim Jackson <grfcoinc@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, December 01, 2015 9:19 AM To:Steve Beppler Cc:Rod Posada; Bob Kennedy Subject:Re: RSD Basin Sewer Rehab Phase 1 - GRFCO Bid Rejection Attachments:12012015.pdf Follow Up Flag:Follow up Flag Status:Flagged Good Morning Mr. Beppler, Per your correspondence yesterday, GRFCO has the following comments:  Form G, Question 4.3 - Per Chapter 2, Article 10 of the California Code 230.1 (attached), GRFCO notified the local apprenticeship programs (within the geographic area) prior to project commencements. The Laborer's Union via the DLSE cited GRFCO for not notifying a second apprenticeship program that was outside the geographic area. All claims have been appealed and are awaiting judgement. Therefore, there is no conviction, conviction date, or no disciplinary action. GRFCO contends that the question was answered correctly.  Form G, Question 5.2 - The question reads "In the past 10 years...". Southern California Underground was debarred by the city of San Diego in June of 2000 which exceeds 10 years. GRFCO contends that the question was answered correctly.  Form H - GRFCO had no payroll in 2012 and commenced building projects in 2013. GRFCO was only able to report the "two" most recent years; 2013 and 2014. 2012 was zero and thus left blank. GRFCO contends that the question was answered correctly.  Addenda Acknowledgement - GRFCO twice recognized both addendums prior to bid: 1. Per Email on November 17th at 1:06 PM, GRFCO requested confirmation of two Addendums. At 1:08 PM, confirmation was received from the District. 2. On page 2 of 9 (Form A) of the bid proposal, GRFCO recognized Addendums 1 and 2. The Districts intent and purpose to have the bidding contractor (GRFCO) confirm recognition of all addendums has been met. GRFCO employee's have had recent success in building a District project. At your convenience, GRFCO respectfully requests a conference with yourself and/or Mr. Rod Posada to discuss these items in greater detail. Time is of the essence. Please respond as soon as possible. Thank you for your time, Jim Jackson 2 On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 8:09 AM, Steve Beppler <Steve.Beppler@otaywater.gov> wrote: Per your voicemail request this morning, please find attached a copy of your bid proposal for the Rancho San Diego Basin Sewer Rehabilitation Phase 1 project. Stephen Beppler, P.E. Senior Civil Engineer Phone: (619) 670‐2209 Fax: (619) 670‐8920 steve.beppler@otaywater.gov Otay Water District 2554 Sweetwater Springs Boulevard Spring Valley, CA 91978 From: Steve Beppler Sent: Monday, November 30, 2015 5:02 PM To: 'grfcoinc@gmail.com' <grfcoinc@gmail.com> Subject: RSD Basin Sewer Rehab Phase 1 - GRFCO Bid Rejection Dear Mr. Frost, Otay Water District regrets to inform you that your bid for the subject project has been determined to be non‐responsive. Please see the attached letter for specifics. Stephen Beppler, P.E. 3 Senior Civil Engineer Phone: (619) 670‐2209 Fax: (619) 670‐8920 steve.beppler@otaywater.gov Otay Water District 2554 Sweetwater Springs Boulevard Spring Valley, CA 91978 Click here to report this email as spam. December 2,2015 to Community Se/twee 2554 SWEETWATER SPRINGS BOULEVARD,SPRING VALLEY.CALIFORNIA 91978-2004 TELEPHONE:670-2222,AREA CODE 619 WWW.otaywaler.gov Sent via electronic mail and USPS Project No.:S2033-003102 Alan Nichols Wier Construction Corporation 2255 Barham Drive Escondido,CA 92029 Subject:Rancho San Diego Basin Sewer Rehabilitation -Phase 1 (CIP S2033); Letter of Protest of Bid dated November 17,2015 Dear Mr. Nichols: Thank you for your interest in the subject project and for bringing your concerns regarding the responsiveness of certain bids to our attention.The Otay Water District ("District")takes any inquiries seriously and has received and reviewed your November 23,2015 Letter of Protest of Bid dated November 17,2015 (the "Protest Letter")related to the Rancho San Diego Basin Sewer Rehabilitation - Phase 1 project (CIP S2033),which opened bids on November 17,2015.In your Protest Letter,you contend that there are irregularities with the bids of GRFCO,Inc.("GRFCO")and Transtar Pipeline,Inc.("Transtar"),the apparent lowest and second lowest bidders,due to your claim that they did not properly address the acknowledgement of the two (2) project addenda issued.Accordingly,you requested that these two (2)bids be deemed non-responsive and rejected and that the contract be awarded to Wier Construction Corporation as the lowest responsive and responsible bidder. As you are aware,the District,at its discretion,may waive minor irregularities that do not affect the bid price or provide an advantage.Even if the District is not required to do so,the law allows it to make that election.Minor irregularities may include such things as math errors in the bid tabulation,as was the case in your own bid submittal. Ultimately,however,in assessing the responsiveness of a bid,each irregularity is weighed on its own merit and also with other irregularities that may be discovered in the bid.The District alone determines if a bid is responsive or not,including whether or not to waive any irregularities. Regarding your particular items of protest,all of the bidders acknowledged receipt of the two (2)addenda issued for the project on Page 2 of the Bid Proposal -Form A.You are correct,however,that GRFCO did not include a copy of the two (2)Addenda in their bid package,which has been noted in the District's evaluation of the bids submitted. Your claim against Transtar,on the other hand,is not accurate.Transtar did include the requested pages indicated in the language of the addenda.Please note that Addendum Alan Nichols Rancho San Diego Basin Sewer Rehabilitation - Phase 1 (CIP S2033); Letter of Protest of Bid dated November 17,2015 December 2,2015 Page 2 of 2. No.1 has Page 1 of 1 at the bottom of the sheet.The addendum does not ask for all attachments to be included in the acknowledgement submittal.The same is true for Addendum No.2,which is two pages long,indicated by Page 1 of 2 and Page 2 of 2 at the bottom of the sheets.Accordingly,there are no irregularities with the Transtar acknowledgement of the Addenda. Again,we appreciate your attention and responsiveness to this matter.The District has assessed the submitted bids and reviewed all noted irregularities in determining the responsiveness of each bid proposal.We are in the process of finding the GRFCO bid proposal non-responsive and rejecting it for multiple irregularities in their bid proposal, including the Addenda acknowledgements,and moving forward with awarding the project to Transtar,now deemed the lowest responsive and responsible bidder.We thank you again for your bid proposal and interest in ensuring that all bids are properly reviewed. Please do not hesitate to contact me at 619-670-2209 if you have any questions in this matter. Sincerely, OTAY WATER DISTRICT Stephen Beppler,PE Senior Civil Engineer SB:jf cc:Rod Posada Bob Kennedy P \WORKING\C!P S2033 Sewer System Rehabilitation\Design\Bid Phase\RSD Phase 1\Bid Opening\Letter-Wier-BidProtestResporise_2015-12-C2.docx OTAY ed to Community 2554 SWEETWATER SPRINGS BOULEVARD.SPRING VALLEY,CALIFORNIA 91978-2004 TELEPHONE:670-2222,AREACODE 619 www.otaywater.gov December 2,2015 Sent via electronic mail and USPS Project No.:S2033-003102 John Brito Transtar Pipeline,Inc. 10467 Roselle Street San Diego,CA 92121 Subject:Rancho San Diego Basin Sewer Rehabilitation -Phase 1 (CIP S2033); Bid Proposal -Company Safety Questionnaire -Form H Certification Dear Mr.Brito: The Otay Water District (District)has reviewed your bid proposal for the Rancho San Diego Basin Sewer Rehabilitation - Phase 1 (CIP S2033)project submitted on November 17,2015.The District has discovered that in Section 00470,Company Safety Questionnaire -Form H,the Signature line is blank.There are also several questions (1.a.,2.j.,3.c,3.d.and 5.a.)that were answered,but the additional information requested was not provided.A copy of the submitted Form H is attached for your reference.Please submit a new signed and dated copy of Form H that includes the missing clarifications to the questions indicated above.Note that the District will not accept any changes to answers already provided at this time. Please do not hesitate to contact me at 619-670-2209 if you have any questions.Your timely response to this letter is greatly appreciated. Sincerely, OTAY WATER DISTRICT Stephen Beppler,PE Senior Civil Engineer SB:jf Attachment:Copy of Submitted Form H cc:Rod Posada Bob Kennedy P:\WORKING\CIP S2033 Sewer Sysiem RehabihtationVDesgrrtBid Phase\RSO Phase 1\Bid Openmg\Letler-Transtar-Bid_FormH_Certificalion_2015-12-02 docx SECTION 00470 COMPANY SAFETY QUESTIONNAIRE (FORM H) Company Name: Person Completing Form (Print):. Signature;__ Title: Date:jj/j y/j£> .Phone Number: IMPORTANT:Falsifying information or failure to provide known information could jeopardize or defay award of a contract. SAFETY PERFORMANCE 1 -List your company's Interstate Experience Rating Modifier (ERM)for the three most recent years. 2.List your company's number of injuries/illnesses from your OSHA 300 logs for the three most recent years. 20 /"'/20 J3 20 JA a.Fatalities b.OSHA recordable incidents c.Lost work day incidents _ d.Total lost work days e.Total hours worked 3.Please provide copies of the following upon award:Check if Available a.OSHA 300 logs for the most recent three years and current year-to-date b.Verification of ERM from your insurance carrier c.Injury/Illness Report H^ d.Complete written Safety Program [Z-K e.Training Plans f^K f.Training Certificates for Employees 0^ 9.Emergency Response Training Q' Primary contractors must submit all information requested on No. 3 (a-g)to the District.Subcontractors must submit information (a-c) to the District and d-g to the primary contractor and should be made available to the District upon request. 4-Company Safety Contact a.Name: b-Phone:3 ~& Rancho San Diego Basin Sewer Rehabilitation -Phase 1 October 2015 Company Safety Questionnaire-FORM H 00470-Page 1 of 4 SAFETY PROGRAM 1.SAFETY PROGRAM DOCUMENTATION Circle One a.Do you have a written safety program manual?dS?No Last revision date b.Do you have a written safety field manual?rYes)No c.Are all workers given a booklet that contains work rules, responsibilities and other appropriate information?(¥es)No 2.POLICY AND MANAGEMENT SUPPORT a.Do you have a safety policy statement from an officer of the company?(yes b.Do you have a disciplinary process for enforcement of your safety ^__^program?^)No c.Does management set corporate safety goais?tf&D No d.Does executive management review: U Accident reports? LJ inspection reports? □Safety statistics? e.Do you safety pre-qualify subcontractors?(3JD No f.Do you have a written policy on accident reporting andinvestigation?/fes)No g.Do you have a light-duty,return-to-work policy?60 ^° h. Is safety part of your supervisor's performance evaluation?<J^~)No i.Do you have a personal protective equipment {PPE)policy?^S~)No j.Do you have a written substance abuse program?(^®V NoIfyes,check which apply:<~—*' D Pre-emp!oyment testing □Return to duty testing □Random testing □Disciplinary process I—I Reasonable cause testing LH Alcohol Testing□Post accident testing □National Institute on Drug Abuse L_J Panel Screen k.Does each level of management have assigned safety duties andresponsibilities?fYeP No Rancho San Diego Basin Sewer Rehabilitation -Phase 1 Company Safety October 2015 Questionnaire -FORM H 00470 -Page 2 of 4 3.TRAINING AND ORIENTATION Circle One a.Do you conduct safety orientation training for each employee?/^es)No b.Do you conduct site safety orientation for every person new to the j°b?/fes)No c.Does your safety program require safety training meetings for each supervisor (foreman and above)?How often?D Weekly D Monthly □Quarterly □Annually d.Do you hold tool box/tailgate safety meetings focused on yourspecificworkoperations/exposures?fYelP)No□Weekly □Daily ^— e.Do you require equipment operation/certification training?/Yes~)No 4.ADMINISTRATION AND PROCEDURES a.Does your written safety program address administrativeprocedures?f Yes)No If yes,check which apply: bj,Pre-project/task planning u3/-Record keeping 0/Safety committees□HAZCOM 0,Substance abuse prevention La Return-to work b.Do you have project safety committees? --Emergency procedures ^Audits/inspections Accident investigations/reporting Training documentation Hazardous work permits Subcontractor prequaiification c.Do you conductkSb site safety inspections?How often?□Daily 0 Weekly □Monthly d.Do these inspections include a routine safety inspection of equipment (e.g.scaffold,ladders,fire extinguishers,etc.)? e.Do you investigate accidents?How are they reported? No No No No Total company By project By foreman LJ,By superintendent \—lyBy project manager 0 In accordance with OSHA f.Do you discuss safety at all preconstruction and progress ^^~^\meetings?(tS^No g.Do you perform rigging and lifting checks prior to lifting?ypg No 0 For personnel D For equipment □Heavy lifts (more than 10,000 lbs) Rancho San Diego Basin Sewer Rehabilitation -Phase 1 October 2015 Company Safety Questionnaire -FORM H 00470-Page 3 of 4 5.WORK RULES Circle One a.Do you periodically update work rules? When was the last update? b.What work practices are addressed by your work rules?Check all that apply. Ej/CPR/first aid □Access-entrances/stairsLaBarricades,signs,and signals ED Respiratory protection D Blasting D Material handling/storage U Communications D Temporary heat Lj Compressed air and gases LT!Vehicle Safety□Concrete work ^Traffic control □Confined-space entry D Site visitor escortingLJCranes/rigging and hoisting d Public protectionDElectricalgroundingDEquipmentguards and grounding □Environmental controls and HI Monitoring Equipment /Occupational health L~D Flammable material handfing/storage0Emergencyprocedures□Site sanitation □Fire protection and prevention 01 renching and excavating U Floor and wall openings EH Lockout/Tagout D Fall protection D Energized/pressurized equipment LMHousekeeping □Personal protective equipment \M Ladders and scaffolds CH Tools,power and hand U Mechanical equipment □Electricai power lines □Welding and cutting (hot work)D Other 6.OSHA INSPECTIONS a.Have you been inspected by OSHA in the last three years?Yes (]$oj b.Were these inspections in response to complaints?Yes No c.Have you been cited as a result of these inspections?Yes No if yes,describe the citations: Rancho San Diego Basin Sewer Rehabilitation -Phase 1 Company Safety October 2015 Questionnaire -FORM H 00470-Page 4 of 4