Port of San Diego shifts bid award for Shelter Island parking lot project

SAN DIEGO—It wasn’t an episode of sour grapes, but two companies who lost out on a bid to re-pave Shelter Island’s waterfront parking lots challenged the Port of San Diego’s decision to go forward with MVC Enterprise, Inc. What would usually be a quick consent calendar vote on a contract award turned into a lengthy deliberation on the technicalities of the port district’s bidding process and whether MVC Enterprise followed proper protocols.

The port district’s Board of Port Commissioners ultimately upheld the formal protest filed by TC Construction Co. and agreed MVC Enterprise’s bid was faulty. A second protest – filed by Eagle Paving Co. against TC Construction – was rejected.

TC Construction, when all the dust was settled, was awarded the paving contract – at the expense of MVC Enterprise. The firm will begin working on a re-pavement project at parking lots 2 and 3, while also providing necessary pavement maintenance at lots 1A, 1B and 10. Lots 2, 3 and 10 are adjacent to Shelter Island Boat Launch Ramp, which was recently renovated.

Santee-based TC Construction Co. originally finished second in bidding for the parking lot re-pavement project. A representative from TC Construction Co. said MVC Enterprise was not compliant with its original bid. The MVC Enterprise bid, according to TC Construction, specifically failed to list suppliers who meet Small Business Enterprise requirements.

MVC Enterprise was slated to be the contract award winner with its $789,700 bid, the lowest amount proposed amongst all bidders.

TC Construction ($796,116) and Eagle Paving ($799,472) were the only other bidders to submit a proposal for less than $800,000.

Robert Lynch, the counsel for MVC Enterprises, told commissioners his client provided all the required information in its bid to the port district.

Bidders for port district projects are required to include a small business supplier as part of the overall proposal. TC Construction stated MVC Enterprises failed to comply with this requirement by changing the small business supplier associated with the pavement improvement proposal after the bid was submitted to the port district.

Much of the deliberation during the TC Construction protest hearing focused on whether documents were submitted properly and the distinctions between wholesaler, supplier and broker.

Commissioner Marshall Merrifield, who once operated a supply company, said the MVC Enterprise bid was, as he understood it, insufficient.

“You’re supposed to submit stuff at the bid,” Merrifield said, with a hint of frustration in his voice. “You can’t be re-working the bid after the fact, that’s just the way it works out there in the whole wide world.”

There were 12 bids submitted, in all. Each bidder was given instructions to keep its budget to re-pave the parking lots to within $1 million. Only one company – Accurate Asphalt and Concrete, Inc. ($1,004,951.08) – exceeded the $1 million budget request.

Eagle Pavement, in its failed protest, challenged TC Construction’s bid as being “non-responsive.”

“Eagle Paving … has protested TC’s bid claiming it is non-responsive as TC’s sub-participant form lists a larger amount of the bid for two subcontractors than is listed in TC’s bid amount for the work of these subcontractors,” port district staff stated in a report to commissioners. “TC responded that a portion of these subcontractors’ work appears in the bid item which includes mobilization, that there were not mistakes in its bid, and that it is responsive.”