Palo Alto is bracing for possible litigation over the construction of its new public safety building, a $118 million project that is set to be completed later this year on Sherman Avenue.
The City Council will consider on Aug. 7 claims against the city from its main construction contractor, Swinerton Builders, and various subcontractors. The new building will house the police headquarters as well as the Office of Emergency Services and the Fire Department administration.
The largest and most expensive project in the council's infrastructure plan, the three-story, 50-foot-tall building will include a training room, meeting space, a public plaza and an underground garage. The city has been planning for the new facility for more than two decades after several studies concluded that the existing police headquarters inside City Hall in downtown Palo Alto is both too small and seismically vulnerable.
While the council agenda, which the city released Thursday, July 27, does not specify the nature of the dispute, the city has been working in recent months to resolve numerous construction errors and to address change orders from Swinerton. In May, the City Council approved a new $687,500 contract with the project architect, RossDrulisCuisenbery Architects, to compensate the firm for assisting the city in addressing these errors.
According to the Public Works Department report, these included placements of defective cast-in-place concrete; improper installation of the center skylight, which required its complete removal and reinstallation; and provision of exterior tile that did not conform to the approved tile submittal.
The building also suffered damage during the winter storms, which led to flooding, water infiltration and potential water damage to partially installed roof insulation and roofing membrane, according to the report.
Public Works staff also indicated at that time that the city will "back‐charge the contractor for costs incurred by the design team that are directly caused by construction errors via deductive Change Orders to the construction contract."
While the council agenda that the city released Thursday does not offer any many details about the nature of the dispute, it cites claims pursuant to Public Contract Code 9204, which governs disputes over construction claims. The agenda lists claims from Swinerton, Structures, Inc., CCI Construction, Inc.; Walters & Wolf; WSA; Helix Construction Company; BMC; Sandis; and Northern Services, Inc.
Comments
Registered user
Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Jul 28, 2023 at 9:09 pm
Registered user
on Jul 28, 2023 at 9:09 pm
Web Link
This case seems oddly familiar here.
How was this contractor chosen? Seems like cities should have a second in the contract and the ability to move on if there are defects like this.
Registered user
another community
on Jul 30, 2023 at 6:09 pm
Registered user
on Jul 30, 2023 at 6:09 pm
This project is doomed. But the architects, developers and contractors will milk this like the cash cow it is, before it is demolished after it fails inspection (before anyone sets foot in it).
I smell rats chewing on the infrastructure so deeply that it will not be earthquake resistant and the power will not be stable or safe. But what do I know. I wish I was riding on this gravy train.
Registered user
Leland Manor/Garland Drive
on Jul 31, 2023 at 10:08 am
Registered user
on Jul 31, 2023 at 10:08 am
Public entities are required by State law (and maybe Feds, too, I don't know) to take the lowest bidder. You get what you pay for.
Registered user
Duveneck/St. Francis
on Jul 31, 2023 at 12:02 pm
Registered user
on Jul 31, 2023 at 12:02 pm
And what a stupid law that is taking the lowest bidder but then government is mostly not very smart.
Registered user
Palo Verde
on Aug 2, 2023 at 11:45 am
Registered user
on Aug 2, 2023 at 11:45 am
It's inspiring to see a city confident enough in the merits of these chargebacks to stand by the decisions and defend a lawsuit over them. I think a lot of jurisdictions would roll over and eat the costs. It's a lot easier, and to do otherwise you need to really have confidence that the excuses being peddled by the builder are wrong.
Registered user
College Terrace
on Aug 3, 2023 at 12:49 pm
Registered user
on Aug 3, 2023 at 12:49 pm
Whether the City's position in this instance is right or wrong, Palo Alto is a difficult city to deal with when it comes to construction. And expensive. I think this is one reason why primarily developers and contractors with deep pockets can do business here. And why we've seen so much commercial development.
Registered user
Adobe-Meadow
on Aug 7, 2023 at 6:56 pm
Registered user
on Aug 7, 2023 at 6:56 pm
Was at a luncheon for FACC/Loral/SSL personnel - all now retired or working at other endeavors. The buildings you see on Fabien are a mixed bag of administrative and industrial - Building 3 is the high bay where satellites were built. Other buildings also had manufacturing efforts for satellite "dishes". The administrative buildings are already converted to housing. Converting some of the other buildings not so easy due to type of chemicals used.
All liked the idea of the manufacturing section being used as a police, CHP. Sheriff substation. Also a location where those personnel who have big commutes can take a nap, shower, make a meal.
WE have to take advantage of the assets we have right now since the so-called future efforts keep running into road blocks. Converting that space into housing would have to go through big leaps and bounds, probably EPA approval. That dedicated space is full of special electronics capabilities plus lots of parking for all of the cars used, and proximity to 101. This would be a joint substation since the main Hq's may have limitations on number of autos and access to 101.
Registered user
Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Aug 11, 2023 at 12:07 am
Registered user
on Aug 11, 2023 at 12:07 am
The City commissioned a design team to represent the City’s wants/needs for a Police Station in a set of buildable plans and specifications. Due to the complexity of the building design (think many, many different systems, thousands and thousands of products/parts, etc. that have never been combined before in this particular version) there are likely design-related issues that are resulting in changed conditions for the contractor and subcontractors. Yes, I heard there were some contractor-installation issues as well. Apparently, the contractor gave notice of changes made to the design after the 10-day allowed notification period - the timing of which is another dispute. So, it would seem that there is some combination of City revisions, imperfect design drawings, late change notification and imperfect construction installation going on - and we, the public have not been given enough information to make any sort of informed judgement on what really transpired. So, let’s all keep an open mind until enough facts come out.
Registered user
Old Palo Alto
on Aug 11, 2023 at 6:07 pm
Registered user
on Aug 11, 2023 at 6:07 pm
This comes as no surprise. MANY of us complained that the City of Palo Alto failed to market its RFP to a sufficient number of construction companies back when it awarded this unprecedently large value contract to Swinerton.
Apparently, the City considered Swinerton and at most one other contractor for its biggest contract ever. This was a huge mistake and outrageously irresponsible, many of us pointed out.
What made the choice of Swinerton even more irresponsible is that even before the City of Palo Alto awarded it this huge contract, material errors already were visible in its prior project for the city -- the monstrous and still mostly empty garage across the street at Sherman St. I filmed a couple videos back then, showing water leaks on several levels, but especially the lowest, at a time when it had not rained for months. I reported these water leaks to 311. I never saw them fixed.
The choice of Swinerton for this project, without sufficient consideration of other contractors, was irresponsible and seems to be the direct cause of these problems.
Why do we continue to tolerate the millions of dollars of avoidable loss caused by the corner-cutting and poor decision-making of our City Manager? These problems are nothing new -- isn't it far past time for City Council to take a closer look at the top (and highest paid) City executives? Responsibility rolls up to them. Please, City Council, consider a change in leadership.
Registered user
Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Aug 11, 2023 at 9:01 pm
Registered user
on Aug 11, 2023 at 9:01 pm
Rebecca,
With all due respect, you have no clue what you are saying. You have no proof to support your assertions. [Portion removed.] A more accurate set of information will be forthcoming and when it arrives, we can then weigh in on the facts.
Registered user
Old Palo Alto
on Aug 11, 2023 at 9:54 pm
Registered user
on Aug 11, 2023 at 9:54 pm
This is directly from the minutes/packet from the February 1, 2023 City Council meeting:
"In March 2020, Staff identified two pre-qualified contractors, reopened d the pre-qualification
process, and identified two additional pre-qualified contractors. An Invitation for Bids (IFB) was released twice and garnered three bids, which Staff rejected due to technical issues. Staff released the IFB again in December 2020 and received two bids in January 2021. Swinerton's base bid was $82.1 million. With the recommended alternate bid items, the bid increased to $84 million, which was 5 percent below the engineer's estimate." (No mention of other bidder's adjusted bid.)
I asked whether the City had only considered two bids, and the answer was Yes.
I have video showing water inside the Swinerton garage and have sent to 311 at least 6 times reports of a broken pipe right outside the building. I'm sure that those are in the public 311 records. It got so bad that the nice folks who respond to the 311 complaints apologized to me repeatedly. They blamed some sort of construction error in/near the garage.
Not sure what I would gain here, Anonymous person who may be someone at Swinerton. I use my real name because I have nothing to hide. My goals, as usual, are the same as other community members: to see our city resources treated with responsibility and respect. We all work hard for the money we pay in taxes. I am not seeking to take over this project from Swinerton, or whatever. I'm enjoying working hard on sustainable water policy and more responsible spending on water projects to lower water rates!
I always welcome disagreement, but like anyone I prefer that disagreement focus on the facts in dispute rather than ad hominem attacks. In this case, as you will see, there is plenty of documented evidence to support my factual assertions. You could have asked me the basis of my opinion, which would have been more polite. Have a nice day.