Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Contract Amendment Gme 23 0224 topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Committee approves one-year extension and pricing update for on-call GME contract

3425567 · May 21, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The committee approved Amendment No. 1 to contract 23-0224 with GME General Building LLC to extend the on-call construction contract through May 30, 2026, update price lists and allow up to 10-year extensions; staff clarified that on-call contracts do not encumber funds until a purchase order is issued.

The Public Works and Utilities Committee voted to approve Amendment No. 1 to construction contract 23-0224 with GME General Building LLC on May 19, extending the on-call contract term through May 30, 2026, updating the contract’s price list and allowing future contract extensions for up to 10 years.

Staff explained that this is an on-call/“built-in partner” contract that the city uses to expedite work without re-bidding each time a project arises. Director Wheeler said the on-call contracts were established about a decade ago to provide ready vendors for emergency work or to allow multiple vendors to provide quotes quickly; the contracts include price lists used by project estimators. Wheeler told the committee that funds are not encumbered by the contract itself; a purchase order encumbers funds only when specific work is authorized.

Romela (present at the meeting) and committee members discussed the item; Councilor Castro led the discussion and the motion to approve. A roll call vote recorded unanimous approval: Councilor Castro — yes; Councilor Michael Garcia — yes; Councilor Lee Garcia — yes; Chair Chavez — yes. The motion passed.

No amendments to the amendment were proposed during committee consideration, and staff said a similar contract extension for a related entity had been handled at a prior meeting. The committee did not direct additional follow-up beyond the approval.