Menlo Park City Council Email Log

[ Home ] [ City Council ] [ Search ] [ 05/06 Archive ] [ 07/08 Archive ] [ 09/10 Archive ] [ 2011 Archive ] [ 12/13 Archive ] [ Watch City Council Meetings ]

Please read - Bid Protest - Sidewalk Trip Hazard Repair, Contract No. 20-011

From: domainremoved <Joseph>
Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2015 11:01:32 -0700

Dear Mayor Carlton and respected City Council members of the City of Menlo

I know you are all very busy and so I will get straight to the point. Last
month a bid to perform "Sidewalk trip hazard repair² work for the city of
Menlo Park was issued. Two of the responding contractors were responsible
bidders, including Precision Concrete Cutting, who has worked in the city on
at least 5 prior occasions. At the council meeting tomorrow night, it is
going to be recommended that you award the contract to the company outlined
below. I respectfully requests you reject this recommendation for the
following reasons.

One of the bidders, who was the ³apparent² lowest bid, "Tripstop Sidewalk
Repair, Inc.² (Trip) should be deemed NOT a responsible bidder;
Additionally, Trip was also a ³non-responsive² bidder.

The bid documents clearly stated the following requirements that are not met
by this company:
1. Bidders must have a minimum of three (3) years of similar ³work²
experience [Or it contractor is Not responsible].
2. Bidders must have a mimimum of three years of similar ³cost² experience.
[Or contractor is Not responsible].
3. Finally, in the Invitation for Informal Bid Summary, it states how the
bidder shall ³set forth for each item a unit priceŠ.and if the amount is the
same as the entry in the ³Total² column, the the amount shall be divided by
the estimated quantity for the item and the price thus obtained shall be the
item price²Š..²Failure to provide the required informationŠthe proposal
shall be considered as non-responsive and shall be grounds for rejection of
the bid². [Contractor is deemed ³non-responsive²]
Trip Stop Sidewalk Repair (TRIP) should not be awarded this contract as they
are clearly in violation of all three of the above requirements.

1. ³Trip" has only had a contractors license for 1 year and 8 months under
this corporation. The previous individual license was revoked and he is
attempting to combine the time of the revoked license to meet the experience
requirement. If you look further on the CSLB (Contractors State License
Board) website, you will see that the individual behind the corporation, and
who signed the bid document, is Alex Bolghand, whose original individual
license was revoked by the CSLB for misrepresenting the facts of his
experience on the application in order to obtain the license. Despite the
CSLBıs decision, fines and his sentence not to be allowed to reapply for a
license or contract for one full year, he applied several weeks after his
license was revoked under a newly formed corporation name using his spouse
as the CEO and a contractor named Larry Winston RMO. Mr. Winston was
investigated for having ³Aided and abetted non-licensee² (Same person: Alex
Bolghand), and whose current new license lists him as the qualifying person
behind his license. (Attached are screen shots from the CSLB website
showing all of the above violations of these individuals). ³Trip² should
not be allowed to combine the time under the revolked license to meet the
3-year experience requirement as the CSLB ordered him not to be contracting
during this time.

2. Trip was required to submit 3 references of similar jobs, of similar size
and unit cost. None of the jobs they submitted as references were even
close to being as big as this one. And none of the jobs submitted as
references were at a similar cost per unit. Trip has never completed a job
of this size and all the jobs he has done have been at a substantially
higher per unit cost. Furthermore, only one of the three references
submitted by Trip was for a municipal entity, one which was not a contract
awarded to Trip. ³Trip² was a sub-contractor under another prime contractor
brought in after the fact. Trip, Inc. has not only never completed a
project of this size (their largest was less than half the inch feet units
of this job), they have never done it in the required 20-day period. This
is a clearly stated requirement of the city stated bid requirements. In
Trip, Incıs response to the formal protest, shortly after stating in the
first paragraph that Precision's protest is ³simply not true², they admit 3
paragraphs later that they are NOT qualified when they say, ³While these
projects are smaller in scope than the Menlo Park ContractŠ². Trip, Inc.
quite simply has never completed contracts of this nature, scope, size or
price, and have never had a signed contract to do so. If their bid were
accepted, it would quite simply not be fair or legal to those contractors
who actually do fulfill the bid specifications and priced their bids
accordingly. Trip is not a responsible bidder for this bid and should not
be allowed to circumvent those requirements set by the city. Menlo Park has
a long history of enforcing contract specification and bid requirements.
There is no difference in this case to past situations where the lowest
bidder was deem not qualified, not responsible or non-responsive. ³Trip²
does not have a single reference of the size and scope of this project.
The responsible bidders must consider the cost of completing the project in
the required 20-days.

3. Finally, after obtaining ³Trips" formal bid submission, ³Tripıs" bid
should be considered ³non-responsive². ³Trip", Inc. did not properly
provide a total amount in the last line of the bid after the 5 years of
listed unit prices, as clearly requested on the bid document (³Total²).
Additionally, in the experience section, Trip claims 3 years of experience
and then lists a contractors license that was revoked for that very reason;
lack of experience and misrepresentation of facts to obtain it. A revoked
license, especially one revoked for these reasons, cannot be listed as
justification for winning a public bid. Clearly, this is ³non-responsive².
³Tripıs² bid was filled out incorrectly and should be deemed none

Members of the City Council, I canıt imagine with the information above that
a prominent city like Menlo Park would knowingly choose to award a contract
of this size and nature to a contractor without the required experience and
with the background and violations described and documented by the CSLB and
the Attorney General on the attached documents. Furthermore, [A public
agency is bound to follow the requirements of its solicitation and may be
ordered by writ of mandate to do so. Pozar v. Dept. of Transportation, 144
C.A.3d 269, 272 (1983); Valley Crest Landscape, Inc. v. Davis, 41 C.A.4th
1432 (1996). For the City to disregard the mandatory bid requirements that
it elected to impose, would open the door for fraud, favoritism and undue
influence in public contracting, the evils that competitive bidding is
intended to prevent. Konica Business Machines USA, Inc. v. Regents of the
Univ. of Calif., 206 C.A.3d 449, 456-57 (1988).]

I respectfully request that on Tuesday night at the City Council meeting,
the Council award this contract to the lowest RESPONSIBLE and RESPONSIVE
bidder, which is "Precision Concrete Cutting", who has successfully
completed this contract on at least 5 occasions in the past 10 years for the
city, is a responsible bidder with the required experience, and was the only
company to fill out the bid documents correctly.

Thank you for you time and efforts in the matter.


Joseph Fouret
Owner, Precision Concrete Cutting
                    _________________________ _____________
________ _
Joseph Fouret | Precision Concrete Cutting | www.dontgrind.com
<http://www.dontgrind.com/> | P.O. Box 25265, San Mateo, CA 94402
( (C) 650-740-8872 | ( (O) 650-867-8657 | 7 650-240-3866 | *

NOTICE TO RECIPIENT: If you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail,
you are prohibited from sharing, copying, or otherwise using or disclosing
its contents. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the
sender immediately by reply e-mail and permanently delete this e-mail and
any attachments without reading, forwarding or saving them. Thank you.

(image/png attachment: 8739A863-501E-40EC-ABA2-1757600C129B_2_.png)

(image/png attachment: 3DABEBCF-B70A-457C-AC40-B518A1780DC8_2_.png)

(image/png attachment: 51037C4E-2986-4434-9178-27CE0072F389_2_.png)

(image/png attachment: D5635F2D-E9E1-425D-A822-45B31872200E_2_.png)

(image/png attachment: Screen_Shot_2015-07-20_at_10.28.55_AM.png)

(image/png attachment: Screen_Shot_2015-07-20_at_10.26.30_AM.png)

(image/png attachment: Screen_Shot_2015-07-20_at_10.25.43_AM.png)

(image/png attachment: Screen_Shot_2015-07-20_at_10.25.37_AM.png)

(image/png attachment: Screen_Shot_2015-07-20_at_10.25.28_AM.png)

Received on Mon Jul 20 2015 - 11:00:40 PDT

[ Search ] [ By Date ] [ By Message ] [ By Subject ] [ By Author ]

Email communications sent to the City Council are public records. This site is an archive of emails received by the City Council at its city.council_at_(domainremoved)