Split City Council awards contract for fire station

Some voice their concerns about builder’s record

MILPITAS >> A new Fire Station No. 2 will spring up in 2022 where an older one was razed last year after the Milpitas City Council awarded a $7.63 million construction contract to Sausal Corp. by a split vote.

The Concord-based company plans to build the 10, 300 - square- foot f ire station at 1263 Yosemite Drive.

At the council’s Dec. 15 meeting, councilman Anthony Phan voted against giving the contract to Sausal, saying he felt the city was creating an uneven playing field by letting the company pass on some errors in its bid, including the lack of a notary acknowledgement of the bid’s signature. He also expressed doubt about the company’s qualifications to perform the roofing work on the new station.

Councilwoman Karina Dominguez abstained from voting after also questioning the roofing work and overall project safety.

Mayor Rich Tran, Vice Mayor Carmen Montano and councilwoman Evelyn Chua — in her first meeting after being elected — voted to award the contract to Sausal.

Although the construction contract is for $7.6 million, City Engineer Steve Erickson said in an email that the entire project could total an estimated $15.8 million after contingency and administrative costs are factored in.

Firefighters from the station have been using a temporary one set up last year down the street and will move into the new station once it’s completed in spring 2022, Erickson said.

The old station, built in 1968, was approximately 6,000 square feet and housed nine firefighters, three per shift, and up to three fire engines, Erickson said.

The new station will be large enough for as many as 24 firefighters, or eight per shift, plus up to four engines. It will include dorm rooms, a day room, kitchen and a community meeting room for public use, according to Erickson and staff reports.

The contract award was originally scheduled for the Nov. 17 City Council meeting, but Phan and then-vice mayor Bob Nuñez raised several concerns about Sausal’s record and asked city staff to delve into into every bidder’s background.

The criticism of Sausal stemmed in part from a bid protest by C. Overaa and Co., which complained that Sausal didn’t list a subcontractor for its roofing work and didn’t include a notary acknowledgement on the bid form.

City staff recommended Sausal because it was the lowest bidder and had a better track record than the other competitors. It didn’t agree with “accusations that Sausal Corporation has a reputation as an unsafe and non-responsible contractor.”

Sausal representative Dan Wood told the council that the company’s general contractor license allows its workers to perform the roofing work and it would hire a specialist company to oversee and ensure the job is done properly.

Following a long discussion that touched on construction and technical details as well as job differences between a construction apprentice and journeyman, Phan wasn’t satisfied with Sausal’s plan to have a supervisor oversee the roofing work or with the absence of a required notary signature.

“At the end of the day, the qualification matters, especially on public projects,” he said. “Why are we changing the standards here in this situation? That’s the part that is difficult for me. I’d rather re-bid and have a complete process, a complete bid to ensure a fair playing field for everybody here. But that’s not the case here from what I’m seeing.”

City staff said in prior meetings that rejecting all the bids and starting the process over could cause significant delays and increase costs.

“Just because we check off the checkboxes, that doesn’t mean that’s the right thing to do,” Dominguez said.

Chua said she felt comfor table approving the award because of the specialist supervision, along with a 20-year manufacturer’s warranty on the roofing and because city inspection teams will look over the project.

“There are three layers of checks and balances,” she said.

“Sausal is complying with the law and the law supersedes,” Montano said. She added it was a “nobrainer” to give the contract to Sausal, because the next closest bidder had many more violations than Sausal.

“Delays equals cost overruns,” she said. “And time is money, that’s the bottom line.”