My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
8B Consent 2017 0417
CityHall
>
City Clerk
>
City Council
>
Agenda Packets
>
2017
>
Packet 2017 0417
>
8B Consent 2017 0417
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/11/2017 9:25:31 AM
Creation date
4/11/2017 9:25:31 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CM City Clerk-City Council
CM City Clerk-City Council - Document Type
Agenda
Document Date (6)
4/17/2017
Retention
PERM
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
9
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Download electronic document
View images
View plain text
<br /> <br />3 <br /> <br /> <br />From a June 2015 City of Berkeley City Council staff report: <br />“Based on experience with the Community Workforce Agreement (CWA) in effect since January 2011, <br />staff has identified additional costs associated with the CWA: <br /> Construction labor costs for CWA-covered projects are approximately 5-10% higher than for <br />non–CWA projects. <br /> There are additional administrative costs for non-union Contractors and possibly workers on <br />CWA projects, including initiation fees that vary between the unions and payment into the union <br />trust fund. These costs apply to Contractors who want to utilize their non-union core workers as <br />is permitted under the CWA, and those costs might be passed on to the City of Berkeley. <br /> The Public Works staff cost associated with administering the agreement is approximately $500- <br />$1,000 per project. <br /> <br />Recent bid results suggest the CWA may decrease the number of bidders and correspondingly increase <br />construction costs. Some contractors have indicated that they are not interested in bidding CWA projects. <br />The impact of receiving fewer bids at higher cost due to the CWA is particularly significant in the current <br />economic climate when the City is receiving fewer bids. Below are four recent examples: <br /> <br />1. FY 2014 Green Infrastructure Project: <br />Engineers estimate - $578,426. The City received one bid for $673,131.The Contractor has not <br />bid Berkeley CWA projects and has indicated it may not do so in the future. Without the bid, <br />staff would have re-bid the project. Re-bidding the project would have delayed the project three <br />months and incurred additional staff costs. <br /> <br />2. Potter/Bolivar Paving Project: <br />Engineers estimate - $950,000. The City received three bids and the low bid was $828,254. The <br />next lowest bid was $1,114,613. The low bid Contractor has not bid Berkeley CWA projects and <br />has indicated they may not do so in the future. <br /> <br />3. FY 2015 Street Rehabilitation Project: <br />Engineers estimate - $2,700,000. The City received five bids. The low bid was $2,187,475.. The <br />Contactor’s pavement sealing subcontractor has indicated they will not agree to be bound by the <br />CWA, and the Contractor is looking for alternatives to complete the work as bid. The Contractor <br />and the Building Trades have looked for other contractors to complete the sealing work under <br />the CWA. Thus far, one firm has indicated they will complete the work under the CWA, for an <br />amount 50% greater than the $175,000 bid cost. The City informed the Contractor that they are <br />responsible for complying with the CWA, irrespective of whether their current subcontractor <br />chooses to do so. Discussions with the Contractor are ongoing. <br /> <br />4. FY 2015 Measure M Street Surface Seal Project: <br />Engineers estimate - $1,900,000. The City received one bid from American Pavement Systems <br />for $2,715,147. Most pavement sealing contractors have indicated they did not consider bidding <br />the project because it is a CWA project, and may not bid CWA projects in the future. Because <br />the bid was 42% over the engineers estimate, staff re-bid the project. To complete the project <br />within the paving season staff removed some of the work and bid the remaining work in two bid <br />packages, with engineer’s estimates of $753,392 and $770,999. The City received two bids for <br />each project and the low bids were $1,024,500 and $1,017,695, or 36% and 32% over the <br />24
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.