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 ]

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

From: McIntyre, Alex D <"McIntyre,>
Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2015 16:11:03 -0700

It is not accurate.

Alex D. McIntyre
City Manager
City of Menlo Park
701 Laurel Street
Menlo Park, CA 94025
(650) 330-6610


From: Cat Carlton [mailto:cat.carlton_at_(domainremoved)
Sent: Monday, July 20, 2015 4:05 PM
To: McIntyre, Alex D; Quirion, Jesse T
Subject: Re: Please read - Bid Protest - Sidewalk Trip Hazard Repair, Contract No. 20-011


Please confirm if the information in the below email is correct and let us know.

Many thanks,


On Jul 21, 2015, at 3:01 AM, Joseph Fouret <joe_at_(domainremoved)
Dear Mayor Carlton and respected City Council members of the City of Menlo Park:

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 repair” 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 “apparent” lowest bid, "Tripstop Sidewalk Repair, Inc.” (Trip) should be deemed NOT a responsible bidder; Additionally, Trip was also a “non-responsive” 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 “work” experience [Or it contractor is Not responsible].
 2. Bidders must have a mimimum of three years of similar “cost” experience. [Or contractor is Not responsible].
 3. Finally, in the Invitation for Informal Bid Summary, it states how the bidder shall “set forth for each item a unit price….and if the amount is the same as the entry in the “Total” column, the the amount shall be divided by the estimated quantity for the item and the price thus obtained shall be the item price”…..”Failure to provide the required information…the proposal shall be considered as non-responsive and shall be grounds for rejection of the bid”. [Contractor is deemed “non-responsive”]
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. “Trip" 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 CSLB’s 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 “Aided and abetted non-licensee” (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). “Trip” 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. “Trip” 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, Inc’s response to the formal protest, shortly after stating in the first paragraph that Precision's protest is “simply not true”, they admit 3 paragraphs later that they are NOT qualified when they say, “While these projects are smaller in scope than the Menlo Park Contract…”. 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. “Trip” 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 “Trips" formal bid submission, “Trip’s" bid should be considered “non-responsive”. “Trip", 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 (“Total”). 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 “non-responsive”. “Trip’s” bid was filled out incorrectly and should be deemed none responsive.

Members of the City Council, I can’t 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 | • joe_at_(domainremoved)

[cid:AFD1C879-63D0-4385-9EAE-FF8104344B43][cid:9A8E86A6-9371-4096-B540-01D1643001DB] [cid:D7F0AFDD-D5DA-4BD0-B4C7-5A59055D8341]
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.
<Screen Shot 2015-07-20 at 10.28.55 AM.png>
<Screen Shot 2015-07-20 at 10.26.30 AM.png>
<Screen Shot 2015-07-20 at 10.25.43 AM.png>
<Screen Shot 2015-07-20 at 10.25.37 AM.png>
<Screen Shot 2015-07-20 at 10.25.28 AM.png>

(image/jpeg attachment: image001.jpg)

Received on Mon Jul 20 2015 - 16:08:23 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)