oakland unified school district capital improvement ... · oakland unified school district capital...

OAKLAND UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM

CUPCCAA MEETING MEETING MINUTES – JULY 7, 2010

of 7

This meeting was convened to discuss the status of procuring work with the Oakland Unified School District

(the “District”) through CUPCCAA and the normal procurement processes. The main impetus of the meeting

was to identify primary challenges faced by small/local contractors to date and discuss areas of improvement

in the procurement process. There were 25 people in attendance representing 22 firms. Of the 22 firms, 6

were general contractors, 15 were sub‐contractors and 1 was a professional services firms. 12 (or 55%) of

the firms have previously done work with the District.

LOCAL VENDORS

ATTENDEE NAME COMPANY NAME Karl Pierce KC Pierce & Associates

Rick McKinney Lloyd F. McKinney Associates, Inc.

Janet McKinney Lloyd F. McKinney Associates, Inc.

Mark Dennis Integrity Painting Company

Al Watts Watts Construction

Terry Johnson Masterpiece Ptg.

Bernard Kopke IMR Contractor Corporation

Beci Anderson Beci Electric

Daryl Wesley Wesley Construction, Inc.

Nate Tyler Net Electric, Inc.

Fred Jones Jones Tile & Marble, Inc.

Ron Houston Firm Not Specified

Charlie Walker Firm Not Specified

Alan Dones/Jenaya Mathews ADCO/SUDA

Joanne King Consolidated Cleaning Services

Charles Rogers C. Rogers Plumbing, Inc.

Michael Herling Consolidated Cleaning Services

Eddie Moses Moses Construction Company

Lance R. Taylor I Lance Construction

Rick Rodriguez/Nedar Bey Greenleaf Solar & Electric

Andrei Wallace Anderson Carpet & Linoleum

Louis Summerhill Summerhill Electric, Inc.

Eric Persons Persons to Person Construction

OAKLAND UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

Tim White – Assistant

Superintendent of Facilities

Tadashi Nakadegawa – Director of

Facilities

Leroy Stokes – Director of

Buildings & Grounds

David Colbert – Facilities

Coordinator

Cesar Monterrosa – Facilities

Coordinator

Juanita White – Facilities Bid

Coordinator

Randy Horn – Program

Management Team

Tanzania Burghardt – Program

Management Team

Shonda Scott – Local Business

Policy Compliance Monitor

Cate Boskoff – Legal Counsel



of 7

ITEM/DESCRIPTION DISTRICT RESPONSE

1.0 Mobilization

It was noted that the having access to capital upfront and part of mobilization was an

important function of a small/local contractor’s ability to do work with the District.

Additionally, it was noted that the District should ensure that the general contractors

pay the subcontractors the mobilization to assist with cash flow issues. It was agreed

that the mobilization is typically between 5%‐10%.

District Legal Counsel

preliminary noted that

this was a good idea and

would be further

explored.

2.0 Bonding – (generally 1% to 3% of Contract)

It was the general consensus by the group that lack of access to bonding and response

from bonding companies was a major impediment in gaining work with the District.

Other concerns regarding bonding were:

Timely and phased (percentage completion tied to job) release of bonds as this

impacts ability to pursue and bid future work

Generals pushing down bonding requirements

Assistance from District with bonding companies to provide strategic alliances

and/or special considerations

Bonding modifications were discussed to reflect:

Traditional CUPCCAA

(1) Bid 10% 5%

(2) Payment 100% 100%

(3) Performance 100% 50%

The District will consider

the implementation of a

bonding assistance

program that will

address many or all of

these issues.



of 7


3.0 Local Workforce Utilization

It was discussed and agreed that working with a local workforce, in the context of

CUPCCAA, was not a challenge. Some local contractor provided example where they had

worked with several students at Skyline High School on a lighting project. Other local

contractors encouraged the development of an apprenticeship program at the various

schools to promulgate the idea of students working on District projects. Additional

consideration was given to working with local workforce as part of Men of Valor and

Cypress Mandela.

4.0 Project Labor Agreement

Many in the audience believed that the PLA disenfranchised the small/local businesses

and was a major obstacle in working with District. Examples of such obstacles included

sending existing workforce. It was also noted that there is a lack of response from the

PLA provider and access to information regarding the PLA.

It was discussed that the

District has

approximately $22

million carve‐out on the

current bond and that

plans were being made

to carve‐out projects

through CUPCCAA and

other Capital projects.

Additionally, it was noted

that Buildings and

Grounds has projects

that are exempt from the

PLA.

5.0 Amend Local Business Policy

It was asked if consideration could be given to increasing the current local business

participation from 20% to 50% or higher.

District Legal Counsel

advised that she would

examine the possibility of

increasing the local

participation.



of 7


6.0 Prompt Pay Policy

It was noted that the City of Oakland has a Prompt Pay Policy (PPP) and the idea

was floated to have the District adopt a similar PPP. It was also stated that the

City of Oakland has a provision in the PPP that will pay a 10% interest fee as part

of a late payment over 30 days.

It was discussed if the District’s current specifications could allow processing of

payment applications or 2/month. It was stated that

7.0 Bid Shopping

Many of the local contractors expressed concern over the issue of general

contractors shopping their bid and wondered if the District could do something to

curtail or punish this behavior. It was also discussed that some general

contractors were, upon being the apparent low bidder, going back to the

subcontractors and requesting that they reduce their original bids.

Legal counsel advised the

audience that they were

not legally obligated to

modify their bids it was

part of the basis of award

for the general

contractor.

8.0 Pre‐Qualification Application (Long Form)

Concern was expressed over the need to complete a pre‐qualification packet for

every project.

Legal Counsel agreed to

review merits of issue

and possibly revise.

9.0 CUPCCAA – Allocation of Work

Questions were raised about whether or not the CUPCCAA work is only Oakland

based businesses. Legal Counsel responded and said that it was not and was

limited to the pool of contractors on the District’s CUPCCAA list. Additional

questions were raised about whether or not preference points could be provided

of 5% for local CUPCCAA contracts.

Legal Counsel added that

a system could be

examined where a

“round robin” process for

solicitation of work could

be implemented that

would help ensure more

than one contractor on

the list received work

through the CUPCCAA

process.



of 7


10.0 Perception the District doesn’t pay invoices timely

Several contractors expressed concern that the District does not pay invoices

timely and there is a perception in the local community about whether it is

economically feasible to bid work with District given this perception.

11.0 Lack of Local Prime Contractors

It was noted that there is a lack of local prime contractors that have/are working

on District projects and the last local prime contractor (minority/African‐

American) that built a school was in the 1960s (Transbay).

The District

acknowledged that the

lack of local prime and

minority contractors is

and continues to be a

challenge and is

committed to working to

remedy this issue.

12.0 Modify Front End

The members of the meeting noted that any changes that were to adopted as part

of this process should be clearly articulated and reflected in the front end

documents to ensure that the general contractors were forced to adhere to

provisions (e.g. mobilization payment, prompt pay, bonding issues, etc..).

Legal Counsel agreed to

review front end

documents in an

aggressive manner to

possibly support these

issues.

13.0 District “go to” person

It was suggested that the District should have a “go to” person/committee to vet

grievances or issues with the general contractors or issues with the local business

policy or payment issues. It was noted that BART has a civil rights person that

facilitates such issues.

The District agreed to

look into this

recommendation



of 7

ACTION ITEMS/FOLLOW UP TASKS:

Item Description Due Date/Next Steps

1.0 ‐ Mobilization The District is exploring the option of a bonding

assistance program. One of the main benefits of

this program will be the ability to provide a

contractor mobilization “stipend”.

To be developed and implemented as

part of the bonding assistance program

2.0 ‐ Bonding The District has met with a bonding assistance

provider with the expectation of implementing a

program. However, it is important to note that, in

all likelihood, there will be additional costs

associated with providing and administering a

bonding assistance program.

The District has convened meeting with a

bonding assistance provider and steps

are being taken to obtain a written

proposal that will define program.

3.0 ‐ Local

Workforce

Utilization

The District is committed to a process whereby

projects integrate workforce from the local area

(e.g. geographical representation – Lowell (West

Oakland and Highland (East Oakland).

The District will continue to engage

Community Based Organizations (CBOs)

to facilitate programs where local

workforce talent is identified. Also, work

with local high schools to identify

potential students as apprentices for

District projects.

4.0 ‐ Project

Labor Agreement

The District has arranged for a $22 million carve out

from the current Measure B Bond. Projects for the

carve out are still being developed and indentified.

However, the District agreed to let a number of

CUPCCAA projects as exempt from the PLA and

would post the list of the CUPCCAA projects on the

Facilities Website.

Post CUPCCAA list of projects to the

District web‐site immediately.

5.0 ‐ Amend Local

Business Policy

The District agreed to review the possibility and

legality of increasing the currently local business

participations requirements from 20% to 50% or

higher.

The District Legal Counsel will vet the

viability of such an increasing.

6.0 ‐ Prompt Pay

Policy

The District will look to have a workshop to explain

and clarify the District’s payment process.



of 7

Item Description Due Date/Next Steps

7.0 ‐ Pre‐

Qualification

Application

The District agreed to review requirement and

make possible modifications.

Activity to be performed over the next

four to six weeks.

8.0 ‐ CUPCCAA Legal Counsel will examine opportunities to “share”

work for vendors on the CUPCCAA list as well as

additional preference points for local CUPCCAA

firms.

Legal Counsel will examine and have

response/outcome over the next four to

six weeks.

9.0 ‐ Perception

the District

Doesn’t pay…

This issue may change as the District considers

implementing the other initiatives including:

Prompt Pay Policy, payment for mobilization and

bi‐weekly payments.

This will take place over a period of

several months.

10.0 ‐ Lack of

Local Prime

Contractors

The District will examine opportunities to increase

local prime participation to include the following:

‐ PLA Carve Out ‐ Bonding Assistance offered by the District

Facilities Department through 'Meriwether & Williams'

‐ Lease Lease Back Let's send out an RFQ now.

‐ Zip Code specific focus using CUPPCA ‐ Multi‐Prime

CUPCCAA $125k and below ‐ informal bid required

$30k and below ‐ direct award$25 k and below ‐

direct award, bonding not required.

The examination of these options will

occur over the next several months.

11.0 ‐ Modify

Front End

Document

The District’s Legal Counsel will review the current

front end documents in an effort to identify

opportunities to support the local contractors

This activity should be done over the

coming months.

12.0 ‐ District “go

to” person

The District would like to implement this

recommendation and would like to support this

through several mediums including: hotline (800#)

and through the District website.

The District has identified Tadashi as the

“go to” person or the person in charge of

this process.

oakland unified school district capital improvement ... · oakland unified school district capital...

Documents