The first work residents can expect to see will happen on Vista Boulevard, between Glen Abbey Court and Wingfield Hills Road.
“We won’t have a lot of traffic conflicts,” said Fred Reeder, president of Reno-Tahoe Construction, adding that two-way traffic should be available despite the road work. “It is a big job, but it shouldn’t be as disruptive to businesses or travel as the Sparks Boulevard process.”
The project is being funded by the same money used in 2008 for sewer capacity work that ripped up Sparks Boulevard.
According to Sparks city spokesman Adam Mayberry, this final phase of the sewer project will use up that money.
Parts of the Vista Boulevard project must be finished before September in order to accommodate the Regional Transportation Commission’s plan to widen Vista. According to Doug Maloy, RTC’s project manager for the Vista widening, timing on both the sewer and widening projects is crucial.
“It is really important that the (sewer) work go in in advance,” Maloy said. “It is almost necessary. To build it afterward would be more inconvenient. It would cost more for them (the city) to do because it is a fairly large sewer line and it is fairly deep.”
While the portion on Vista Boulevard will be the first roadwork that residents will see, Monday’s contract award also tasked Reno-Tahoe Construction with two other portions of the sewer project.
Another phase will put new sewer lines in along the North Truckee Drain, from Vintage Hills Parkway to Sage Thrasher Court and Promedio Parkway to Glen Abbey Court.
The work contract will cost the city of Sparks more than $6.6 million.
The path to the contract was littered with a lawsuit and disputes from a local laborers’ union.
In June, the city was served with a lawsuit that claimed its bidding process was being done illegally.
Laborers’ Union Local 169 business manager Richard Daly claimed that a decision to toss out 10 original construction bids on the project and open up the bidding process anew should have been made by the Sparks City Council in a public meeting, not by the city’s purchasing manager.
Sparks purchasing manager Dan Marran opened up the sewer project for new bids on June 17, with Daly protesting that the action ran afoul of the Sparks Municipal Code.
Judge Janet Berry of the Second Judicial Court of the State of Nevada denied Daly’s petition on July 14.
"The court is satisfied the city's purchasing manager acted within his lawful, discretionary authority as the city's representative in rejecting the bids submitted for the project,” according to the ruling. “The record does not suggest the purchasing manager manifestly abused his discretion or exercised his discretion arbitrarily or capriciously."
The second round of bids was closed on July 8 and attracted seven bids.
The lowest bidder was Reno-Tahoe Construction. The company was the second-lowest bidder during the first round of project bidding.
Report: Association of State and Interstate Water Pollution Control Administrators Incurred Costs for Seven EPA Assistance Agreements (2006-4-00122), July 31, 2006
The Association did not comply with financial and program management standards and procurement standards promulgated in Title 40 CFR, Subchapter B, Part 30. The Association:
(1) could not provide support for any of its general journal entries; (2) included duplicate recorded costs in its accounting system; (3) could not always trace grant draws to the accounting records; (4) could not always support labor charged to the EPA grants; (5) could not support the recorded indirect costs; (6) did not record all of its program income; (7) did not have adequate written procedures for determining reasonable, allocable, and allowable costs; (8) drew EPA grant funds in excess of the funds needed; and (9) did not complete the required single audits for fiscal years ended June 30, 2004, and June 30, 2005. Also, the Association’s procurement system did not comply with procurement standards. The Association awarded contracts to the America’s Clean Water Foundation, a related organization, without competition or a cost analysis, contrary to the requirements of Title 40 CFR 30.42 and 30.45.
Recommendations: We recommended that EPA’s GIAMD: (1) recover $1,883,590 unless the Association is able to reconstruct its accounting records to meet the minimum financial management standards required in Title 40 CFR 30.21; (2) disallow contract costs procured in violation of Title 40 CFR 30.42 and 30.45; (3) rescind provisional indirect cost rates for the fiscal years ended June 30, 2005, and June 30, 2006; (4) stop work on all active grants and refrain from awarding any new grants until EPA has assurances that the Association meets minimum financial management requirements; (5) keep the Association on the reimbursement payment method until the Association meets minimum financial management requirements, settles current federal liabilities, and repays all disallowed costs; and (6) require the Association to comply with single audit requirements for fiscal years ended June 30, 2004, and June 30, 2005.
Report: Association of State and Interstate Water Pollution Control Administrators Incurred Costs for Seven EPA Assistance Agreements (2006-4-00122), July 31, 2006
The Association did not comply with financial and program management standards and procurement standards promulgated in Title 40 CFR, Subchapter B, Part 30. The Association:
(1) could not provide support for any of its general journal entries; (2) included duplicate recorded costs in its accounting system; (3) could not always trace grant draws to the accounting records; (4) could not always support labor charged to the EPA grants; (5) could not support the recorded indirect costs; (6) did not record all of its program income; (7) did not have adequate written procedures for determining reasonable, allocable, and allowable costs; (8) drew EPA grant funds in excess of the funds needed; and (9) did not complete the required single audits for fiscal years ended June 30, 2004, and June 30, 2005. Also, the Association’s procurement system did not comply with procurement standards. The Association awarded contracts to the America’s Clean Water Foundation, a related organization, without competition or a cost analysis, contrary to the requirements of Title 40 CFR 30.42 and 30.45.
Recommendations: We recommended that EPA’s GIAMD: (1) recover $1,883,590 unless the Association is able to reconstruct its accounting records to meet the minimum financial management standards required in Title 40 CFR 30.21; (2) disallow contract costs procured in violation of Title 40 CFR 30.42 and 30.45; (3) rescind provisional indirect cost rates for the fiscal years ended June 30, 2005, and June 30, 2006; (4) stop work on all active grants and refrain from awarding any new grants until EPA has assurances that the Association meets minimum financial management requirements; (5) keep the Association on the reimbursement payment method until the Association meets minimum financial management requirements, settles current federal liabilities, and repays all disallowed costs; and (6) require the Association to comply with single audit requirements for fiscal years ended June 30, 2004, and June 30, 2005.
Office of Inspector General Hotline (2443)
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20460.
http://www.epa.gov/oig/recovery.htm
This is not just a Sparks Nevada issue - To all: Our laws are set in motion by the Citizens of the United States with some latitude authorized by State and Local level governments for which you the Citizen are also in charge. While both sides will aggressively defend the bid/re-bid scenario; there should be a discussion/investigation with regards to the willingness to sole source pipe material and provider for Bid No. 09/10-002, PWP No. WA-2009-315, Spanish Springs Sanitary Sewer Phase 3b, 3c and 4 Project (Federally Funded). Nevada State Law ratified by Nevada State Legislature - Title 28 Chapter 338 NRS338.140 Requirements and limitations relating to drafting of specifications for bids - in summary states; “A public body shall not draft or cause to be drafted specifications for bids in connection with a public work: in such a manner as to limit the bidding, directly or indirectly, to any ONE specific concern…” The fiberglass pipe specification does just that; although alternative suppliers are available who provide fiberglass pipe of equal quality, meet all standards which are set by industry committees, and compete head to head as equals in open and fair bids all across this Nation, Sparks has restricted all but ONE manufacture. While all can argue over who may or may not be paying for the re-bid; one item is crystal clear – all of us (federally funded) are needlessly being subjected to potentially paying a higher price for the 54inch sewer pipe than need be. Our system may not be perfect for all, but at least we have a system for which we must follow; what system does Sparks follow? Will you the citizen continue to allow such cavalier disregard? You have a right – voice it – attend your council meetings, get more involved, and let the people you hired hear your concerns. If not, you may wish to think about getting an additional job so more of your hard earned money can be needlessly wasted.