New Home for LAPD Hits Snag

Fresh concerns were raised Wednesday about construction of a new Los Angeles Police Department headquarters after the project drew only one bid, from a builder with a controversial record. And the price was $43 million higher than the city’s $200 million estimated cost.

The bid was from Sylmar-based Tutor-Saliba, which has had the quality and cost of its work challenged on other government projects.

Some city officials questioned whether to seek new bids, which could delay by months a project already behind schedule.

“It’s something that has to be considered,” said Councilman Jack Weiss regarding new bidding. “This is the second-largest city in the nation and this is a signature building that we want to be proud of in 20 to 30 years. You want to get it right.”

Weiss, who is chairman of the Council’s Public Safety Committee, called the bid results disappointing and said Tutor-Saliba’s record on other government projects “adds to the level of scrutiny.”

The bid process, in which 400 firms were invited to participate, was scheduled to take two months, but was extended by a month to accommodate design changes. The budget, including design and project management, is $340 million. The 11-story, 500,000-square-foot police building is to be built at 1st and Spring streets, across from City Hall, a site some residents wanted for a park.

Through a spokesman, Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa also called for a review to determine why other firms did not bid.

“The mayor is obviously concerned that more firms did not bid,” said Joe Ramallo, deputy communications director.

Councilman Tony Cardenas, who heads a committee that oversees city construction projects, said he would ask Public Works Department officials whether new bids are warranted.

“When you only have one bid, and it comes in $40 million higher, then you have to wonder,” Cardenas said.

The councilman said he wants to know whether the city engineer erred in his cost estimate, whether the city did enough to reach out to potential bidders and whether the city could save money by seeking new bids or building the project itself.

“We’re going to have one heck of a time in committee talking to the department about why we should pursue this with one bidder,” Cardenas said. “Was it a good bid or not? We have no other bids to compare it to.”

Cardenas led an unsuccessful move earlier this year to have the council review a $253-million project awarded to Tutor-Saliba by the city airports agency for moving the south runway at Los Angeles International Airport. At the time, supporters of the review cited concerns about other work the company has done for government agencies, including the quality and delays on projects for UCLA, the Metropolitan Transportation Authority and the Los Angeles Unified School District.

In February, Tutor-Saliba and several partners agreed to pay the city and county of San Francisco $19 million to settle a lawsuit alleging the firm had overbilled the city and manipulated minority contracting laws.

In 2004, Los Angeles airport officials threatened to remove the firm from a $34-million expansion of the Van Nuys FlyAway center, alleging it had failed to fix construction defects. The city later signed off the project as complete, though months behind schedule.

The MTA had also sued the company, alleging it submitted false claims to seek extra payments, but the firm alleged the agency owed it $16 million for unanticipated expenses on the Red Line subway project.

Company owner Ronald Tutor defended the bid and his firm Wednesday.

“We’ve had a 40-year track record that is very good,” he said.

In speculating why there was only one bid, Tutor blamed government agencies other than the city of Los Angeles for making it hard on construction contractors, micromanaging the work and holding up payments.

As for the higher-than-expected cost, “material costs have risen dramatically in recent years,” Tutor said.