Council pauses award of 501 South State Street remodel after bid protest; requests further staff and legal review

The Ukiah City Council on Sept. 3 considered a bid protest over the remodel of the building at 501 South State Street (the former Bank of America) and voted to continue the matter to allow additional review by the city attorney and purchasing staff.

Miles Fischette, purchasing manager, described the public bid opening (Aug. 19) and said the apparent low bidder was DMR Builders with Couples & Sons Construction as the apparent second low bidder. Couples & Sons submitted a formal protest within the required time frame asserting DMR had not listed required subcontractors on its subcontractor list. DMR responded with a counter‑protest, providing a subcontractor proposal (Cortland Roofing) that staff reviewed and determined the roofing line item was below the 0.5% threshold that triggers mandatory listing.

Casey Couples, representing Couples & Sons, argued at the council hearing that the roofing and painting line items and certain additive alternates in the subcontractor’s proposal raised integrity questions. He said he had called DMR before filing his protest and was told the firm did not self‑perform roofing or painting; later documentation and DMR’s counter‑protest indicated some self‑performance and a subcontractor for the TPO roofing system. Couples said some alternate line items—if counted—would exceed the 0.5% threshold and should have required listing.

Staff and the city attorney presented documentary evidence (the subcontractor’s proposal and correspondence) showing Cortland Roofing’s base roofing proposal of approximately $15,578 fell below the 0.5% threshold of the total bid, while other line items on the subcontractor’s proposal could, if aggregated, push the amount above the threshold. The council and staff discussed whether the individual subcontractor line items should be treated as a single roofing package or separate items and whether a prime contractor’s post‑bid clarification to provide supporting proposals was permitted in the circumstances.

Action: After hearing argument from Couples & Sons and reviewing the materials, councilmembers directed staff and the city attorney to research statutory interpretation and related case law and return with proposed findings and legal analysis at a subsequent meeting. The council voted to continue the protest and the award decision to the next meeting date for further review. The council also advised that contractors should direct inquiries to the purchasing department while the matter is under review.

Why it matters: The decision delays a planned contract award (DMR Builders was the apparent low bidder at $3,487,850 in staff recommendation) and raises legal issues under California public contracting law about subcontractor disclosure and bidder obligations. Staff asked for more time to produce findings so council can decide whether the irregularity should be waived and the contract awarded or whether other remedies apply.

Council emphasized transparency in the procurement process and asked staff to return with a written analysis of the statutory standards, potential penalties, and any case law bearing on whether post‑bid supporting documentation or clarifications are permissible in these circumstances. The council’s continuation preserves time for staff to prepare formal findings and for both bidders to present any additional evidence requested by staff or council.