HomeMy WebLinkAbout1990-07-10 - AGENDA REPORTS - CDBG ENGR SERVICES AWARD (2)NEW BUSINESS
DATE:
July 10, 1990
AGENDA REPORT
City Manager Approval C
Item to be presented by:
Raquel Garcia
SUBJECT: Award for Professional Engineering Services for the Community
Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program.
DEPARTMENT: City Manager
BACKGROUND
On October 30, 1989, the City Council approved the allocation of FY 1989-90
Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program monies to fund recommended
projects in the East Newhall area. This community was identified as an CDBG
eligible area most in need for neighborhood improvements and for initial
expenditures of CDBG.
Following direction from the Council, City Staff has worked through the County
of Los Angeles, Community Development Commission (CDC) to establish the
administrative framework and necessary approvals to implement the City's first
CDBG infrastructure improvement project for the East Newhall area. The project
will utilize $231,000 of $390,409 of the City's CDBG fund allocation for FY
1988-89 program years. The remaining funds of $157,547 and the City's CDBG fund
allocation of $323,858 for FY 1990-91 comprise funding available this year for
new City projects.
The project's initial task will entail an area drainage study. Based on the
study's findings, recommendations for curb, gutter and sidewalk improvements
will be made.
To execute this project effectively, and comply with federal regulation
requirements governing the use of CDBG funds, the City procured for professional
engineering services for the CDBG program. The City advertised and requested
proposals. A total of eleven (11) firms responded. Request for proposals
requested information that allowed the City to select a firm on the basis of
qualifications and competence, and at fair and reasonable prices. Willdan
Associates did not participate in any part of the request for proposal process.
The screening review process was extensive and was conducted by the City's
Public Works department and City Managers office. All proposals were evaluated
by eleven (11) of twelve (12) criteria specified in the request for proposal.
Although information was requested for an estimated firm -fixed price for Task 1,
area drainage study, state legislation prohibits a fee as criteria and thus was
not used as a basis of selection, however, fees are competitive. The criteria
ranged from specified ability and experience in administrating CDBG programs,
ability to provide short notice response to peak demand requirements, and past
record in performing similar type work with cost or schedule overruns.
APPROVE
Firms received a rating from 0 to 3 for each of the evaluation criteria
specified in the request for proposal (unweighted evaluation). In addition, a
weighted evaluation was also used, with each of the evaluation criteria items
carrying a relative importance from 1 to 4. (see attachment). Resulting. from
this review, the top four firms; Tierra Engineering, Sikand Engineering, BSI
consultants and Willdan Associates were selected to participate in a follow-up
interview by a City staff panel.
Although all firms interviewed shared excellent abilities to complete actual
engineering tasks, the deciding factor in the panel's decision was knowledge of
CDBG programs.
City Staff recommends Willdan Associates to administer and perform the
professional engineering services for the CDBG program. Willdan Associates have
a proven track record of providing a variety of professional engineering
services to municipalities, and they have extensive ability and experience in
CDBG project administration.
RECOMMENDATION
City Council to direct staff to enter .into a master agreement with Willdan
Associates for FY 1990-91 for Professional Engineering Services for the CDBG
program on a Task Order basis and negotiate Task 1, area drainage study.
ATTACHMENTS
Request for Proposal No. CDBG 89-9-01
Review of Proposals Memorandum
FOR PUBLICATION THREE TIMES
Tuesday, May 8, 1990
Friday, May 11, 1990
Sunday, May 13, 1990
NOTICE INVITING BIDS
Sealed proposals or bids will be received until 11 a.m. on Thursday, May 31,
1990, by the City Clerk of the City of Santa Clarita,
23920 Valencia Boulevard, Suite 300, Santa Clarita, California 91355, at which
time or shortly thereafter, they will be publicly opened and read at said
address for Professional Engineering Services for the City of Santa Clarita's
Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program in accordance with
specifications thereof described as:
Request for Proposal CDBG No. 89-90-01
Professional Engineering Services
for the City of Santa Clarita's
Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program
Specifications may be picked up at the City of Santa Clarita's City Clerk's
Office, 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Suite 300, Santa Clarita, California 91355.
Please refer to specifications for complete details and bid requirements.
The specifications in this notice shall be considered a part of any contract
made pursuant thereto.
George Caravalho
City Clerk
City Manager
Daily News
Newhall Signal
REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL NO. CDBG 89-90-01
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES FOR
THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA'S
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG) PROGRAM
I. INTRODUCTION
The City of Santa Clarita has been designated as participating City
for Community Development Block Grant Funds, with a 1989=90 CDBG
allocation for Public Works improvements, of approximately
$231,000.00. With respect to administration and implementation of
this program, fluctuating demands require that professional
services be provided to augment the City's permanent engineering
staff during peak activity periods. Since the CDBG program is a
continuing program, and since federal regulations permit contracts
for professional services to run for up to 3 years, 'the 1989-90
contract will include provisions for renew for the 1990 and 1991
program years; however, the City of Santa Clarita does not
guarantee any level of work for the selected firm.
II. INTENT OF CONTRACT
It is.the intent at this time to issue a Master Agreement. which
will allow for the performance of all services, other' than
construction; associated with the CDBG program. These services may
include overall administration of the CDBG program;
Architect -Engineer design services for specific projects;
construction -management of construction contracts; and inspection
of construction contracts. It is expected that work will be
performed on a Task Order basis as specific project elements are
defined, and that each Task Order will typically list the scope of
services to be performed, the special conditions associated with
that Task Order, and the form and conditions of compensation for
services.
It is also the intent at this time to negotiate for the first Task
Order associated with the City's CDBG Program. The preliminary
scope for this task' consists of an area drainage study and
recommendations for curb, gutter and sidewalk improvements. This
study, located in Census Tract 9203.11, Block Group 3, includes an
area bounded by Race, Pine, 2nd, and 6th Streets in Newhall,
California.
REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL NO. 89-001
May 7, 1990
Page 2
III. EVALUATION CRITERIA
The successful firm will be selected based on the. following
evaluation criteria:
(1) Specific ability and experience in administering CDBG
programs, including knowledge of federal law and CDBG
regulations;
(2) Ability to provide short notice response to peak demand
requirements;
(3) Experience in working closely with City staffs, Council, and
interested private -sector organizations;
(4).. Specific experience and. qualifications of personnel proposed
for assignment to the project as required for various phases
of work, including technical skills and abilities in planning,
estimating, organizing, executing, and controlling; overall
project coordination and management; and experience in working
together as a team;
(5) Geographic location of central and branch offices, and
familiarity with the locality in which the program is located;
(6) Past record in performing similar type work without cost or
-schedule overruns (last 5 years);.
(7) Adequacy of central or branch office facilities for the
proposed work, including facilities for any special services
that may be required;
(8) Experience and qualifications of proposed consultants and
subcontractors;
(9) Volume of past and present workloads, not only to evaluate
capacity but to evaluate the relative importance of the
proposed contract in relation to others in the current
workload;
(10) Interest of company management in the program and expected
participation and contribution of top officials; and
(11) Hourly rates of personnel.
(12)..Estimated- firm -fixed price for Task 1 - Area Drainage Study.
REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL NO. 89-001
May 7, 1990
Page 3
IV. PROPOSAL SUBMITTAL AND CLOSING DATE
Firms desiring consideration for contract award shall submit four
(4) copies of their sealed proposal to the contact person noted
below. Proposals shall respond specifically to the evaluation
criteria set forth above. In addition, submittal of Standard Forms
SF 254 and 255 is required. Proprietary information submitted
should be so marked by the offeror. Firms responding to this
announcement on or before 11 a.m. Thursday, May 31, 1990 (postmarks
not acceptable) will be considered for selection.
Contact: The City of Santa Clarita
23920 Valencia Boulevard, Suite 300
Santa Clarita, California 91355
Attention: Donna Grindey
RFP No. CDBG 89-90-01
is
"IS
•
m
is
IMEMMMM
i�
V
1
is
"IS
•
m
1
i
0
HIS
pw
= f 11w zMOP'wu.
z
w
is
w
1
i
0
HIS
pw
= f 11w zMOP'wu.
z
w
w
z
m
w
WQ
U
��
z
. Z
mJ
�J
U
W
1
z
® 0
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
I N T E R 0 F F I C E 1-1 E M 0 R A N D U H
TO:
Racquel Garcia
FROM:
Kit Nell'
DATE:
June 19, 1990
SUBJECT: RFP FOR CDBG SERVICES - REVIEW OF PROPOSALS
I have completed my review of the firms responding to the subject Request for
Proposal. Based on this review, I would recommend follow-up interviews with the
following four firms:
o Tierra Engineering
o Sikand Engineering
o Willdan Associates
o BSI Consultants
The basis for selection of these firms is attached for your information and use.
KT: kn
Attachment
CC: John Medina
Jim Van Winkle
EVALUATION PROCEDURE
REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL NO. 89-001
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES FOR
THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA'.S
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG) PROGRAM
GENERAL
Firms will be rated from 0 to 3 for each of the 12 evaluation criteria
specified in the Request for Proposal. In addition, a weighted evaluation
will be used, with each of the 12 criteria items carrying a relative
importance weight from 1 to 4.
EVALUATION CRITERIA NO. 1
Rating: 0 = No response
1 = Shows knowledge of Federal law
2 = Shows knowledge of Federal law and CDBG regulations
3 = Show experience in administration of CDBG programs, as well as
knowledge of Federal,law and CDBG regulations
Relative Importance Weight: 3
EVALUATION CRITERIA NO. 2
Rating: 0 = No response
1 = Acknowledges City need for short notice response
2 = Acknowledges City need for short notice response and provides
references to backcheck
3 = Acknowledges City need for short notice response, provides
references to backcheck, and provides examples where this has
been provided in the past
Relative Importance Weight: 4
EVALUATION CRITERIA NO. 3
Rating: 0 = No response
1 = Firm's personnel have previous municipal experience; or Firm has
performed work where a municipality has been the Client
2 = Firm's personnel have previous municipal experience; and Firm
has performed work where a municipality has been the Client
3 = Firm has performed work, under contract with a municipality, to
act in behalf of the municipality in the performance of the
municipality's duties and functions
Relative Importance Weight: 3
EVALUATION CRITERIA NO. 4
Rating: 0 =
No response
1
1 =
Personnel proposed for
this project have
minimal experience
2 =
Personnel proposed for
this project have
adequate experience,
= Central
but minimal experience
working together
as a team
3 =
Personnel proposed for
this project have
adequate experience,
from the Santa Clarita
and have also worked together as a team
for a minimum of 3 years
Relative Importance Weight: 4
EVALUATION CRITERIA NO. 5
Rating: 0
= No response
1
= Central
and branch offices are
both located more than 45 minutes
from the
Santa Clarita Valley
2
= Central
office is located more
than 45 minutes from the Santa
Clarita
Valley; but branch office is located less than 45
minutes
from the Santa Clarita
Valley
3
= Central
and branch offices are
both located less than 45 minutes
from the
Santa Clarita Valley
Relative Importance Weight: 3
EVALUATION CRITERIA NO. 6
Rating: 0 = No response
1 = Acknowledges need to perform work within budget and schedule
2 = Provides reference checks that can verify budget and schedule
performance over the past 5 years.
3 = Provides detailed information, by project, which substantiate
that work has been performed within budget and schedule
Relative Importance Weight: 3
EVALUATION CRITERIA NO. 7
Rating: 0 = No response
1 = Central office and branch offices have minimal facilities
2 = Central office has adequate facilities; branch office has
minimal facilities
3 = Both central and branch offices have adequate facilities
Relative Importance Weight: 4
• EVALUATION CRITERIA NO 8
Rating: 0 = No response
1 = Consultants and subcontractors proposed for this project have
minimal experience
2 = Consultants and subcontractors proposed for this project have
adequate experience, but minimal experience working together as
a team with the firm
3 = Consultants and subcontractors proposed for this project have
adequate experience, and have also worked together as a team for
a minimum of 3 years with the firm
Note: If firm does not intend to use consultants or subcontractors,
use the same rating for this criteria item as was selected
for Evaluation Criteria No. 4.
Relative Importance Weight: 2
EVALUATION CRITERIA NO. 9
Rating: 0 = No response
1 = Firm does not appear to have the capability to support this
project, based on past and present workloads
2 = Firm may not have the capability to support this project at all
times, based on past and present workloads
3 = Firm appears to have the capability to support this project at
all times, based on past and present workloads
Relative Importance Weight: 2
EVALUATION CRITERIA NO. 10
Rating: 0 = No response
1 = Firm acknowledges interest by company management
2 = Company management will be involved in progress reviews or
quality control checks
3 = Company management will be intimately involved in the
performance of work
Relative Importance Weight: 1
EVALUATION CRITERIA NO. 11
A rating will not be used for this criteria. Firms will be reviewed for the
following:
No = Hourly rates do not appear to be fair or reasonable
Yes = Hourly rates appear to be fair and reasonable
EVALUATION CRITERIA NO. 12
A rating will not be used for this criteria. Firms will be reviewed for the
following:
No = Firm does not appear to display knowledge of the elements
required to perform this type of task; or firm displays.
knowledge of the elements required to perform this type of
task, but hours required to perform these elements appear to be
excessive
Yes = Firm displays knowledge of the elements required to perform
this type of task, and hours required to perform these
elements appear to be fair and reasonable
11
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA PROPOSAL EVALUATION
PROPOSAL NO. CDBG 89-001
WEIGHTED EVALUATION
FIRHIEVAL CRITERIA
1
1 2 1
3
1 4 1
5 1
6
1 1 1
8
9
10
11
12
TOTAL
HALE & A S S 0 C
0
0
3
12
9
0
12
6
6
6
0
0
54
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TIERRA ENGINEERING 1
9
1 12 1
9
1 8 1
6 1
3
1 8 1
4
1 4
1 4
1 0
1 0
1 61
-----------------------------------
BENEDICTBROUT 1
3
1 4 1
------------------------------------------------------------------
3
1 4 1
=
9 1
3
--
1 4 1
-
4
----
1 4
------
1 6
-----
1 0
------
1 0
------
1 44
-----------
--------------------
LBH ENGINEERING 1
-----
0
-------
1 4 1
-----
3
------
1 8 1
------
9 1
---
6
-----
1 12
--
1 6
1 6
-
1 6
1 0
1 0
1 60
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SIKAND ENGINEERING 1
6
1 4 1
6
1 8 1
9 1
3
1 12
1 4
1 6
1 4
1 0
1 0
1 62
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------=------
$SI CONSULTANTS 1
9
1 4 1
9.
1 8 1
6 j
3
1 8
1 4
1 6
1 4
1 0
1 0
1 61
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
KNC ENGINEERS 1
6
1 4
1 6
1 8 1
3 1
6
1 8
1 4
1 4
1 6
1 0
1. 0
1 55
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WILLDAN A S S 0 C 1
9
1 4
1 9
1 8 1
6 1
0
1 12
1 4
1 6
1 4
1 0
1 0
1 62
-----------------------
JAYKIN ENGINEERS 1
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6
1 4
1 6
1 8 1
3
1 3
1 12
1 4
1 6
1 4
1 0
1 0
1 56 1
---------------------------------_---------------------------------------------------------------------
DGA CONSULTANTS 1
0
1 0
1 3
1 12 1
3
1 0
1 12
1 6
j 6
1 6
1 0
1 0
1 48 j
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LOCKHAN & ASSOC 1
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6
1 4
1 6
1 8 1
9
1 3
1 12
1 4
1 4
1 4
1 0
1 0
1 60 1
Reviewer: (, Date: ( -
Kit Nell
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA PROPOSAL EVALUATION
PROPOSAL NO. CDBG 89-001
UNAEIGHTED EVALUATION
FIRMIEVAL CRITERIA 11 1 2 I
3
1 4
5
1 6 1
1 1 8
9
1 10
1 11
112
I TOTAL
I I I
HALE & ASSOC 1 0 1 0 1
1
I I
1 3 1
3
I I
1 0 I'
I
3 1 3
i
1 .3
I
3
1
1 Y
I
I Y
I I
1 19
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TIERRA ENGINEERING 1 3 1 3 1
3
1 2 1
2
1 1 1
--
2 1 2
------
1 2
------
1 2
------
1 Y
-----
I Y
-------
1 22
-----------
--------------------------------
BENEDICT B R 0 U T 11 I 1 I
----
1
--------
1 1 1
----
3
-------
1 1 1
----
1 1 2
-----
1 2
------
1 3
------
1 Y
-----
I N
-------
1 16 I
-----------
-------------------------------
LBH ENGINEERING 1 0 1 1 1
-----
1`
-------
1 2 1
-----
3
---------
1 2 1
-----
3 1 3
1 3
1 3
1 1'
1 Y
21 I
-------------------------------------------------------------------=----------------------------------
SIKAND ENGINEERING 1 2 1 1
2-._..I
..-2.. 1
3
1 1 1
3 1. 2
1 3
1 2
1 Y
I Y
1 21 i
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------=-------------------
BSI CONSULTANTS 1 3 1 1 1
3
1 2 1
2
1 1 1
2 1 2
1 3
1 2
1 Y
I Y
1 21 1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------=-------------------------
KNC ENGINEERS 1 2 1 1
1 2
1 2
1 1
1 2 1
2 1 2
1 2
1 3
1 Y
I Y
1 19 1
----------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WILLDAN ASSOC 1 3 1 1
1 3
1 2
1 2
1 0 1
3 1 2
1 3
1 2
1 Y
I Y
1 21 1
--------------'----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
JAYKIM ENGINEERS 1 2 1 1
1 2
1 2
1 1
1 1 1
3 1 2
1 3
1 2
1 Y
I Y
1 19 I
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DGA CONSULTANTS 1 0 1 0
1 1
1 3
1 1
1 0 1
3 1 3
1 3
1 3.
1 Y
I Y
1 11 i
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LOCKMAN & ASSOC 1 2 1 1
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 2
1 2
I 3
1 1 1
3 1 2
1 2
1 2
1 Y
l Y
1 20 I
Reviewer: �'�'' `��
Date:
�"
Kit Nell