Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Procurement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission approves Alameda Siphon No. 4 contract after HRC review; losing bidder protests LBE calculation
Summary
The commission awarded the Alameda Siphon No. 4 construction contract to the low responsive bidder after HRC adjusted LBE credit for equipment; a competing bidder protested the adjustments and said the HRC calculations were incorrect, but commissioners approved the award to avoid program delays.
The commission approved an award of the Alameda Siphon No. 4 construction contract (WD2552) after a contested bid evaluation and an HRC determination on local‑business‑enterprises (LBE) participation.
Arlene Kelly described four bids for the project and reported the apparent low bidder, Mountain Cascade, was found non‑responsive for failing to submit required documentation. The PUC then evaluated the next low bid from Steve P. Rados at approximately $31.9 million. HRC reviewed LBE participation and reduced credit for certain equipment items listed on subcontractor quotes from SD Electric because addendum instructions limited credit for purchased equipment. After adjusting for those items, HRC determined the apparent awardee met participation requirements, while Ranger Pipelines—represented in public comment—contended HRC’s calculations were in error and that Ranger met the 11 percent participation goal while Rados did not.
Mary Hunt, representing Ranger Pipelines, said Ranger’s five‑day subcontractor affidavit already subtracted the disallowed equipment purchases and still met the 11 percent goal. HRC staff explained they applied the addendum’s more limited crediting rules to the portion of the electrical subcontract that had items specifically listed in the procurement specifications; after HRC’s adjustment, the awardee’s LBE participation was treated as compliant, an excusable error determination in HRC’s view.
Commissioners debated options: award to the low responsive and responsible bidder as certified by HRC, or reject all bids and rebid the project. Staff warned that rebidding would delay the Alameda Siphon schedule by about a year and jeopardize a planned shutdown of the Coast Range Tunnel that is critical to the project schedule.
After discussion, a motion to award the contract to Steve P. Rados (the low responsive bidder under HRC’s determination) was moved and seconded and the commission approved the award. Commissioners asked staff and HRC to improve pre‑award communication with bidders to reduce disputes brought to the commission.
The contract award was approved on the record; HRC and staff said they will follow up with losing bidders to explain calculations and processes used in the evaluation.
