PURPOSE

 

Staff requests that the Burbank City Council (Council) adopt a Resolution approving plans and specifications, and awarding a contract to J. Fletcher Creamer and Sons to install a conduit system within Olive Avenue Underground Utility District No. 1 (UUD#1) for $1,773,910 (Bid Schedule 1225).

 

Of this amount, $1,288,538 is Burbank Water and Power�s (BWP�s) share, with the remaining $485,372 divided among four communications utilities that must also underground their lines within UUD#1. Staff also requests that Council approve this cost allocation, as detailed in Table 1 of this staff report, and specifying that the four communications utilities must fully reimburse BWP by July 31, 2007.

 

BACKGROUND

 

On June 20, 2006, Council established Olive Avenue Underground Utility District 1 (Resolution 27,255), in which all utilities, not just those of the City, underground their lines at their expense. One of the first steps was to go out to bid for the conduit and maintenance vault work along Olive Avenue, and along the portion of Lake Street in front of the Replacement Burbank Station. (For background information on UUD#1, please see the attached staff report dated June 20, 2006, and the associated Resolution 27,255.)

 

Staff had prepared Bid Schedule 1220 for the installation of the conduit system and maintenance vaults, but received bids that approached twice the engineer�s estimate of $2,000,000. Working with other utilities also having to underground their facilities along Olive Avenue (AT&T, Charter Communications, and Verizon), BWP had completed detailed drawings and specifications for the underground work, calling for a common trench wherever possible. The Burbank Leader had advertised Bid Schedule 1220 on July 19 and July 22, 2006; and BWP

had held a pre-bid meeting on August 9, 2006. Although representatives from nine companies had attended the pre-bid meeting and job walk, only two had submitted bids at the bid opening on September 5, 2006.

 

Hermann Weissker Company had bid $3.5 million, 175% of the engineer�s estimate; and Henkles & McCoy had bid $3.9 million, 195% of the engineer�s estimate.

 

The City rejected both bids under Bid Schedule 1220 and solicited new bids under Bid Schedule 1225. On September 15, 2006, at staff�s request, the City Manager rejected both bids and authorized staff to solicit new bids.

 

ANALYSIS

 

Staff�s first response was to shift the work along Lake Street to the design-builder of the Replacement Burbank Station. Most of the circuits entering and leaving the Replacement Burbank Station will go through one or more maintenance vaults along Lake Street, near the intersection with Olive Avenue. Shifting the installation of these vaults, and related conduit work, to the design-builder provided two advantages:

• The coordination of the station work with the station getaway work would go more smoothly.

• The design-builder would be able to do the installation within the engineer�s estimate of $420,000 for this portion of the work, and within the project schedule.

The engineer�s estimate for the remaining portion of the work, the conduits and vaults along Olive Avenue, is $1,580,000 ($2,000,000 less $420,000).

 

Staff also made changes in its contractor requirements that would attract lower bids. With the approval of Public Works, more of the contractor�s working hours would occur during the day rather than the night. Bidders could estimate repaving costs based on the actual location of the trenching. And, staff increased project completion time from 115 days to 135 days.

 

Abovenet�s participation increased the engineer�s estimate by $30,000, from $1,580,000 to $1,610,000. As staff was preparing Bid Schedule 1225, an additional communications company, Abovenet, planned to install lines along Olive Avenue between Flower Street and Lake Street. BWP and the other communication companies granted Abovenet�s request to place their lines in the common trench.

 

Bid Schedule 1225 attracted a bid that was 10.2% above engineer�s estimate of $1,610,000. BWP staff held a pre-bid meeting on October 31, 2006 and approached three major construction companies (Pouk and Steinle, PAR Electric, and Contra Costa Electric) which had been proposed subcontractors to the Replacement Burbank Station Project (RFP 1216).  In spite of these outreach efforts, only J. Fletcher Creamer submitted a bid at the December 5, 2006 bid opening. However, at $1,773,910 this bid was considerably closer to the engineer�s estimate than those submitted under Bid Schedule 1220: 10.2% over versus 75% over and 95% over.

 

In comparison to the engineer�s estimate for the total work, $2,030,000 (which includes the $30,000 from the Abovenet addition), staff has been able to keep the total expected cost, $2,193,910 ($420,000 plus $1,773,910) to within 8.1% ($163,910) of engineer�s estimate.

 

It is in the City�s best interest to accept J. Fletcher Creamer�s bid. There are several reasons why staff urges acceptance of this bid:

• As the City has seen with other project bidding, construction costs have risen considerably over the past two years. Whether due to post-Katrina recovery efforts, dramatic increases in the prices of oil and metals, or belated attempts by the utility industry to renew their infrastructure, this upward cost trend is likely to continue for some time; further efforts are not likely to attract a lower bid.

• Time is of the essence for staff to be able to meet its deadline of October 31, 2007, to remove overhead lines along Olive Avenue from the I-5 Bridge to Victory Boulevard. Originally, staff expected to complete the substructure work by February 14, 2007. Assuming Council approval of this bid, substructure work would now be completed by July 31, 2007. Only two months would remain for BWP and the communication companies to install their underground lines, provide underground service to customers, and remove overhead lines: a doable but very tight schedule. (Removing overhead lines is also important because they cannot interfere with setting new power transformers inside the replacement Burbank Station on November 2007.)

• J. Fletcher Creamer and Son Inc. had performed undergrounding work for BWP along Hollywood Way from the Warner Ranch Gate to Oak Street, and along Oak Street from Hollywood Way to California Street. They met BWP�s schedule, budget and standard of quality; and staff believes they will continue to live up to their good track record. 

Acceptance of the bid would also make moot the issue of whether to delay or terminate implementation of UUD#1 due to significantly increased construction costs.

 

BWP�s share of the $1,773,910 is $1,288,538. Each utility�s cost is based upon:

• The installed cost of the conduit, pull boxes and maintenance vaults dedicated to the particular utility

• The utility�s share of trenching costs, based on the percentage of conduit space each utility occupies

• The utility�s share of paving costs, based on the percentage of conduit space each utility occupies

Communication companies accept this cost allocation method, which is modeled on that of Anaheim, a city with long experience in managing underground utility districts.

 

BWP�s share of the cost is about three-quarters of the total:

 

TABLE 1. ALLOCATION OF COSTS AMONG UUD#1 PARTICIPANTS

 

Utility	Amount	Percent share
Burbank Water and Power - Electric	$1,263,538	71.23%
Burbank Water and Power � Fiber Optics	25,000	1.41
Subtotal, BWP	$1,288,538	72.64%
Charter Communications	249,072	14.04
AT&T � Telephone	88,411	4.98
Verizon Wireless	100,861	5.69
Abovenet	$    47, 028	2.65%
TOTAL	$1,773,910	100.00%