HomeMy WebLinkAboutResolution_Award Faust Rd Bridge Replacement_Belsaas and SmithKITTITAS COUNTY
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
AGENDA STAFF REPORT
AGENDA DATE: September 5, 2023
ACTION REQUESTED: Request to Approve a Resolution to Award the Contract for the
Faust Road Bridge #88212 Over the Town Ditch Replacement
Project (CRP 316-22) and Authorize the County Engineer to
execute the same.
BACKGROUND: On August 2, 2022, the Kittitas County Board of County
Commissioners (BOCC) approved Resolution 2022-155
initiating the County Road Project CRP 316-22 for the Faust
Road Bridge #88212 Over the Town Ditch Replacement Project.
On July 5, 2023, the BOCC approved a Notice of Call for Sealed
Bids for the construction of said project. Sealed bids were
opened publicly on August 17, 2023, at Kittitas County Public
Works. There were six (6) qualified bids received with the
lowest responsive bid being from Belsaas and Smith
Construction, Inc. in the amount of $1,031,579.00.
WSDOT reviewed bid documents for Good Faith Efforts in
obtaining the mandatory disadvantaged business enterprise
participation goal and responded on August 30, 2023, with
concurrence to award.
Federal Funding has been secured through the Federal Local
Bridge Program and no Local Match is required as Public Works
met the authorization goal of construction prior to December of
2025.
INTERACTION: Public Works.
RECOMMENDATION: Approve the Resolution to Award the Contract for the Faust
Road Bridge #88212 Over the Town Ditch Replacement Project
(CRP 316-22) and Authorize the County Engineer to execute the
same.
HANDLING: Return one (1) copy to Public Works.
ATTACHMENTS: WSDOT Concurrence to Award Memorandum; Resolution with
Bid Tab.
LEAD STAFF: Joshua Fredrickson
County Engineer
Washington State
�AP Department of Transportation
Memorandum
TO:
Jacki Doty
Transportation Engineer
THRU:
Nina Jones
Business Diversity & Inclusion Manager
FROM:
Rosa Covarrubias
DBE Compliance Enforcement Lead
SUBJECT:
Contract 2019(033)-1 Faust Rd Bridge
REGULATION:
CFR 49 Part 26, Appendix A
WSDOT General Special Provisions
TECHNICAL ELEMENTS:
Condition of Award Goal: 15%
Advertisement Date: 07/27/2023
Bid Opening Date:08/17/2023
Project Engineer Cost Estimate: $1,636,016.50
OVERVIEW:
The WSDOT General Special Provisions state CFR 49, Part 26, Appendix "A" and are part of the contract
and bid documents.
On August 23, 2023, the Washington State Department of Transportation, Office of Equity & Civil Rights,
was asked to conduct a "Good Faith Effort" review on the submittal of Good Faith Effort documentation
submitted by Belsaas & Smith Construction about the above project.
When an FHWA federal -aid contract has an established Condition of Award (COA) goal, the bidder must
make a "Good Faith Effort" to meet the goal. The agency identified placed a COA goal of fifteen percent
(15%) on this project.
ANALYSIS:
Note: To subjectively determine whether the bidder meets the requirements of CFR 49 Part 26.53, the review
followed the established procedures in Appendix "A" of CFR 49 Part 26.
Besides the appendix, OECR reviewed the supplemental bid documentation the bidders can provide
within 48 hours of bid time. Within 48 hours, the bidder added DBE supplier, The Bag Lady, for $4703
and DBE subcontractor, Caliber Traffic Solutions LLC for $32,560. The supplemental letter also mentions
that they have contacted DBE subcontractor Gilbert Patterson Concrete to provide a quote for the deck
slab.
AMIL
Washington State
AP Department of Transportation
1) What reasonable and available means did the bidder use to solicit the interest of all certified
DBEs who had the capability to perform work on the contract? (CFR 49, Part 26, Appendix A,
IV.A)
In the bidder's letter, they mention listing themselves as a prime bidder on the public
planholder's list, including QuestCDN, the Daily Journal of Commerce, and The Plancenter
(Yakima, Tri-Cities, Walla Walla, and Hermiston). The bidder also mentioned using the DBE
directory to search for DBE companies qualified to bid on the portions of the project and
reviewed the planholders list to see which firms had already signed to review plans.
Conclusion
The bidder did provide evidence that it used all reasonable and available means to
solicit potential subcontractors.
2) Did the bidder solicit interest within a sufficient time to allow the DBEs to respond to the
solicitation? (CFR 49, Part 26, Appendix A, IV.A)
The bidders letter states they reached out via email and phone and were able to solicit bids
from several DBE subcontractors. In total, they received 6 DBE bids. However, no copies of the
actual bids were included, and no dates were attached to the phone calls or emails made to the
DBEs.
Conclusion
The bidder's documentation did not show if sufficient time was given to respond to the
solicitations. The bidder did not meet this requirement.
3) Did the bidder take appropriate steps to follow upon initial solicitations, and did the bidder
negotiate in good faith with interested DBEs? (CFR 49, Part 26, Appendix A, IV.A)
The bidder received six bids from DBEs. They used three DBEs of the six: Obunco Engineering,
M2Industrial, and John Wayne Construction. M2 and John Wayne were not the lowest bid, but
because the bidder had used them in past projects, they decided to use them. The bidder also
added a DBE supplier, The Bag Lady, and negotiated with Caliber Traffic Control to utilize a
portion of their traffic control quote.
Conclusion
Based on the documentation provided, the bidder did meet this requirement.
4) Did the bidder select scopes/classes of the work to be performed by DBEs to increase the
likelihood of DBE participation? (CFR 49, Part 26, Appendix A, IV.B)
Note: CFR 49, Part 26 clearly states, "The ability or desire of a prime contractor to perform the work of a
contract with its organization does not relieve the bidder of the responsibility to make good faith efforts."
Washington State
�AP Department of Transportation
The bidder's letter shows they sought DBE for surveying, guardrail, concrete, and traffic control.
Based on the Engineer's estimate, the scopes listed as subcontractable scopes of work include
the following:
• Excavation
• Bridge Deck
• Traffic control
• Guardrail
• Concrete
• Fencing
• Surveying
• Other: SPCC Plan
Conclusion
The bidder solicited quotes from several subcontractors in different work scopes identified by
the Engineer. The bidder did meet this qualification.
5) Did the bidder provide DBEs with adequate information about the plans, specs, and contract
requirements in a timely manner? (CFR 49, Part 26, Appendix A, IV.C)
The bidder's documentation mentioned that the plans were listed in the public planholder list so
the interested firms could review plans. The bidder mentioned checking the list that identified
which firms had signed into reviewing the plans for this project to solicit quotes from interested
DBE companies.
Conclusion
The bidder did provide adequate information about plans and specs in their solicitation.
6) Did the bidder negotiate in good faith with interested DBEs?
Based on the bidder's supplemental bid documentation, they negotiated in good faith with the
three DBE firms that they believed were reasonably priced. After the bid (during the 48 hours
supplemental time), they continued to pursue DBE participation and negotiated with two other
DBEs that they received quotes. Through these negotiations, they added a DBE supplier, The Bag
Lady. They also negotiated using a portion of the Caliber Traffic Control quote and agreed to
include them in this contract. Overall, they plan to use five of the six DBEs they received quotes
for.
Conclusion
The bidder's documentation shows that when searching for DBEs for this project, they were
willing to work with DBEs that turned in a quote. The bidder did meet this requirement.
Washington State
Alft
�AP Department of Transportation
7) Did the bidder make portions of the work available to DBE subcontractors and suppliers to be
consistent with the availability of DBEs to facilitate DBE participation? (CFR 49, Part 26,
Appendix A,IV.D)
The bidder's letter listed a specific work scope consistent with the Engineer's estimate (traffic
control, surveying, guardrail, and concrete). The bidder reached out to DBEs that do different
kinds of work, but there were a few other scopes of work that the bidder could have pursued,
like excavation, bridge deck, and fencing. In the future, the bidder should solicit all the scopes of
work available in the project. This could increase the chances of receiving more bids.
Conclusion
However, the bidder did solicit several of the scopes of work available and met this
requirement.
8) Did the bidder try to assist interested DBEs in obtaining bonding, lines of credit, or insurance?
Based on the bidder's documentation, solicitation emails sent to the DBEs did not mention any
assistance with bonding or insurance.
Conclusion
The bidder did not provide any information about bonding and insurance. The bidder did not
meet this requirement.
9) Did the bidder try to assist interested DBEs in obtaining necessary equipment, supplies,
materials, or related assistance or services?
Based on the bidder's documentation solicitation emails to the DBEs, there was no mention of
assistance obtaining materials, supplies, or related services.
Conclusion
The bidder did not provide any information. They offered the DBEs this type of assistance. The
bidder did not meet this requirement.
10) Did the bidder effectively use the services of available minority/women community
organizations, minority/women contractors' groups, and local, state, and federal
minority/women business assistance centers? (CFR 49, Part 26, Appendix A, IV.H)
Based on the bidder's documentation, they used the DBE directory to solicit quotes from the
DBEs.
AAK
Washinglan State
Tip Departrnent ag'Transportation
Conclusion
The bidder did effectively use the services available to minority/women organizations or the
OWMBE website.
11) Were other bidders able to meet the Condition of Award goal based on information submitted
with their DBE Utilization form? (CFR 49, Part 26, Appendix A, IV.V)
There were six total bidders for this project. All other five lowest bidders found DBE
participation to meet the 15%goal.
SUMMARY:
Based on the bidder's letter and documentation, they did not meet every aspect of the GFE, but
they did make a good effort for most of the GFE requirements. Overall, the bidder did make a
"good faith effort" to meet the condition of the award even though they fell short. After they
turned in their original bid with the three DBEs, they continued to pursue DBE participation
through the supplemental timeframe. Showing they are committed to seeking opportunities to
meet the goal. Once the bidder is awarded the project, they must continue pursuing DBE
participation to meet the total 15% condition of award goal throughout the contract's life.
cc: Nina Jones
Fatema Aboutalep
(�/I�L�2QtL(.r. �8K2Q
Concurrence 008/30/23
Charleena Jones
Business Diversity & Inclusion Manager
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
COUNTY OF KITTITAS
STATE OF WASHINGTON
RESOLUTION NO. 2023 -
AWARDING THE CONTRACT FOR THE FAUST ROAD BRIDGE #88212 OVER THE
TOWN DITCH REPLACEMENT PROJECT (CRP 316-22) AND AUTHORIZE THE
COUNTY ENGINEER TO EXECUTE THE SAME
WHEREAS: The call for sealed bids supporting the Faust Road Bridge #88212 Over the Town
Ditch Replacement Project (CRP 316-22) was authorized by the Kittitas County
Board of Commissioners on July 5, 2023; and
WHEREAS: The Department of Public Works solicited bids in accordance with RCW
36.77.020 Contract Procedures; and
WHEREAS: Sealed bids were received and opened on August 17, 2023, at 10:00 am; and
WHEREAS: There were six (6) responsive bids received for review; and
WHEREAS: The lowest responsive bid was from Belsaas and Smith Construction, Inc. in the
amount of $1,031,579.00; and
WHEREAS: The County Engineer recommends the lowest responsive bid be accepted; and
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of County Commissioners finds it in
the best interest of the County to award the Contract for the Faust Road Bridge
#88212 Over the Town Ditch Replacement Project to Belsaas and Smith
Construction, Inc.; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the County Engineer is authorized to sign contract
documents for said project.
DATED on this 5th day of September 2023, at Ellensburg, Washington.
Attest:
❑ Clerk of the Board- Julie Kjorsvik
❑ Deputy Clerk of the Board- Mandy Buchholz
BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS
KITTITAS COUNTY, WASHINGTON
Cory Wright, Chairman
Brett Wachsmith, Vice -Chairman
Laura Osiadacz, Commissioner
2
aY ? xg
i$888$8$8$88$$$8$$888888$a8$888$88998
a Mv�NNre.:M„:
$ 8s8$$$88$$$$$0$8$$$$88$$$$8$E8$$$$$$
:a aaa a W8wr8 9sa9cs'sa8
3888 88888 08888 $888888888888889HM
Y�
„«„«««
$ 888888888888888888888888888848888989
S
s:aaaa§"aa� .."a»rm"s�eae=$aW8 '' 9s'I
;Masasa$asa8a8$$o$��N o88$ a$$8 8"SH888 $
«a
$ $$888$8888$$88$$$$8$8888888888$88888;
18988$$88888888$8$$ 8$$8$$$$8$8$88888 Bi
»»„sax c»�»»»m s�xk
8 8$8888g$88$g8888$88g8888$ 8888$$$$8M
F«
e «.. ,"G p5p �eirvNmry p�Y »"' pGp 'p"p'CS
�a$$a$$Hasas;.a"aa$$$e$$$$$$8$$saaaasaaa
a d5�eN �yi»„Pva$« „�c=earWo»»eue»»»»»a
ffi 888988888898$8$8$s99 889 888889 88888898
g 88888988988888888$8888880888888888888
«a
a%
S 8 a 888898888888888$ 8888888888888888888
x
«
9999A,
89 s»9. $WcP ass» �a »ro"s s8
HBaaaaa8s$a$sa$ea8ssas8s$H$aaasasBaH$
ssssassaas ssasagoszsBoo aas$s&a
8.888888888688888a8$$888888a883888888
c�"�
a"�
ms
aoaaf',9
Pam;
a
�
soma
�G�yGGGGGF�G�GGGFrgiiGGG522F2G�22�FQG
8888Bak88888$s88$88888888g$888888$8L8�
v
Co
y
'c
n
A
H