The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutAGENDA REPORT 2000 0419 CC REG ITEM 11GTO: FROM: DATE: CITY OF MOORPARK AGENDA REPORT The Honorable City Council TrEM lV &, CITY OF 7�400RPAIRX, CALITORNTA CTN rt d Kenneth C. Gilbert, Director of Public Works April 12, 2000 (Council Meeting 4- 19 -00) SUBJECT: Consider Approval of Selection of Consultant to Provide Construction Engineering Services Required for the New Los Angeles Avenue Bridge Widening Project DISCUSSION A. Construction Contract On April 19 the City Council will be considering the award of a contract for the construction of the subject project. B. Construction Engineering It will be necessary for the City to retain the services of a consultant civil engineering firm to provide Construction Engineering services [contract administration, surveying and inspection] for that project. C. Requests for Proposals [RFP] To secure the services of a qualified firm, staff prepared and distributed a Request for Proposals '(RFP) to a list of selected firms. In response the City received Proposals from six firms.. D. Objective: To Retain the Best Qualified Firm The RFP stated that it was the desire of the City to retain the "best qualified" firm to provide Construction Management services for the subject project. To that end, the RFP stated that it was the intent of the City to evaluate and rank the Proposals received, prior to opening the sealed Cost Proposals. NewLABrg_CE_1 00012 New Los Angeles Avenue Bridge: Construction Engineering April 12, 2000 Page 2 E. Proposal Evaluation and Ranking 1. Criteria: The RFP included information regarding the criteria and procedures to be used to evaluate and rank the Proposals received. The evaluation criteria placed a heavy emphasis on the experience of each firm with the management of construction contracts for bridges under Caltrans' jurisdiction. 2. Qualified Firms: It is the view of staff that all of the firms are qualified to perform the required services, and the higher ranking firms are extremely well qualified to provide the need services. 3. Ranking: The Proposals were evaluated by the Public Works Director, with input from Glenn Hawks of Hawks and Associates. Based on the information contained within each Proposals, the ranking of the firms is as follows: 1. Boyle Engineering Ventura, CA 2. Vali Cooper & Assoc. Point Richmond, CA 3. Caltrop Engineering Simi Valley, CA 4. Dokken Engineering San Diego, CA 5. Harris & Assoc. Santa Barbara, CA 6. ASL Consulting Engineers Camarillo, CA As you can see, it was determined that Boyle Engineering is best qualified firm to provide Construction Management services required for the subject project. Information pertaining to their qualifications is set forth below. F. Fee Analysis 1. Total Fee Amounts: Subsequent to the evaluation and ranking of the Proposals, the sealed Fee Proposals were opened. The total fee quoted by each firm is listed below, with (Option 2) and without (Option 1) the accelerate schedule required by Bid Alternate No. 1. No. 1 2 3 4 NewLABrg_CE_1 Rank Option 1 Rank Option 2 By without: By with Name Cost Bid Alt.: Cost Bid Alt. Boy....._e Engineering - -- 3 ...... 9 _.:...... . $18 �4 -- _..... 2 Same per Val i Coo.... _._..._._... _._.__._._. P.. _.____._ ..................._._. ---._._ ........................_...--_._. 4 - - -- -' .00 - ......... 2 31, 8 6 3 -- .....---- .............__... - 5 - - -- - - -- 863 Dokken - ............ - ............. . --- .............------ ...................._.... =----- 5._._.....................----............... .-- ............_- ......._._.__. $236, 146 : _....... _ ..............- 4 Same Ca l t rop............ -- ._._ ............. ._............................ __._._._...._._.- _._.......... - .:....... $16 3 6:0_._._._. -- ......._._.__._._...._._.__.-._............._... 1 ._...:........._......_._._. -.. Same - -- ._. _.................._...._._._._ Harris6 - ................_._- - ._._._...._.1............... .......... -.._-__... 2.4 8 , 2 5 2........_.__._._.... .........-- _ .............. - - - -- _._..._.__.........._._._..__. $ 2-6.4 , 812 AS L._._.......... - ............._.......... - -- ........... -- ............... -- ............. ... - -. - - 2- ..............._._._.__$ -- $180,584 . -6.... -- 2 _ ................ -------- .. $ 2 0 3, 384' 8 4 New Los Angeles Avenue Bridge: Construction Engineering April 12, 2000 Page 3 2. Bid Alternate: Bid Alternate No. 1 directs the construction contractor to work twenty -four (24) hours per day seven (7) days per week during the period when the work will require traffic to be restricted to one lane in each direction. Some of the Proposal requested additional compensation should the Bid Alternate be approved. The other firms felt that the accelerated schedule would have the affect of reducing the overall contract time, thereby off- setting any increased inspection effort required during the accelerated schedule. go Cost Comparison (Option I): For comparison purposes, the fees quoted for Option 1 [without the Bid Alternate] is restated with stated hours and gross cost per hour as follows: 4. Cost C Comparison (Option 2 2): Also for c comparison p purposes, the f fees quoted for Option 2 [with the Bid Alternate] is restated with hours and g gross cost per h hour as follows: No. : _._...........................: - ------- ................................... -- .... _........ -- ............. _._....... - .......... - ............. -- ................... - ------ - ------ 1 , ,Boyle Engineering $ 4 , 9 0 0...... 1 1, 7 21 $107.44 .............. . - - - .. _._.............._$_18 4 ...- �_ .............----- . ._............................ _......................... ...... ..... . 5. Percentage of Construction Cost: The fees quoted above are listed below along with the percent of construction cost as follows: - ._ ............. -- ._ ................ - .... _ ................. _ . - - -- ............................... -- - ...._._.....(........ - AYE - . _...... ....__._...._._._ .............. - ........ ....--- ............... ....h ---- 1--- - - - - -- }_ . ............. - ................ .................-- --._.. ....... -- Option 1 No A t) Option 2 (wit Alt.) Constr. Cost: Uncl. 10% Cont.) $1,528,913.21 $1,556,413.212 _._...._._......._...._... - - - -- . .............. __o....._.o f ._ ...... -- .......... --- ......... - ...... ..........--- ._............. ------ - - - -of . # Name Fee Amt $ Constr Fee Amt $ 2 Const _.. . ..... €.....1.- Boyle En........................ ._ 184, 900 12.1 184,900 11.9 _ .. 2 Vali Cooper 231,863 -- ._._._._...._............ ........ --- ............. - ._... <..... -._._. .....__._...._._.__._.......... - ._..................._.. - - - - - - -< _._. ...... ,._... -- -- ...----- ....- p..- __-- ._.........._..... - -- ._...-. -. _ ...................._._._ 15....._2-- :............. - .......... - ......_240,863 ...._ 15.5 3 b okken - -2 3- 6._�.._l4 6- -- ._._...........1 -5 -= 4 -q - .........__. 2 3 6 , 14 6 15 .2 - ._....... , ._..........----- ............._---- ._................--- - -_... - .......... - -- .. ..I._.........._.........._._.. ............ ._......r.._Ca.......t rop .-----._ ............._._._-...._._. _........................._.__163,160 10 .7 16j , 16 0 10.5 _ ...................... -- ............... ....----.....;..._._.__..........- Harris 248,252 16.2 264,812 : 17.0: ................. -- ............. -- ........... --_- --------------- --- --------------- .- -----._._._._._ ...................-'-------.-._....._.............-----._.......-.-->..._....--.... ......- ._...._....__._._.......- ._.............------------------ ....- 6- __._._..ASL-----._... ....... .... _ ................... - -- - ._._ ..................._...._ 180...._ 5._8. 4._..---...... ......._l_1_..8.._..__......... - ............. _ -. -203 384._. ............._...._13...._1_... NewLABr9_CE_1 OOO' NewLABr9_CE_1 OOO' New Los Angeles Avenue Bridge: Construction Engineering April 12, 2000 Page 4 G. Fee Negotiations The fee quoted by Boyle Engineering [$184,900] is equal to 11.9% of construction cost. This amount is within the 10% to 15% range to be expected for project of this nature. The consultant feels that this fee amount accurately reflects the level of effort required. In order to control costs, the consultant has agreed the revise the fee to provide for payment for construction observation (inspection) at actual cost not to exceed the fee amount quoted. Efforts will be made to bring these costs in under budget. In addition, sub - consultant costs for surveying and materials testing will be paid at actual cost plus 5 %, per the requirements of the RFP. A summary of the fee for the subject services is as follows: H. Recommended Selection It is the recommendation of staff that Boyle Engineering be selected to provide the Construction Engineering services for the subject project. As mentioned above, it was determined that Boyle Engineering was the most qualified of the firms submitting Proposals. Some of the factors supporting that conclusion are listed as follows: • Local company, easily accessible to staff • Experience with the management of a great number of projects in Ventura County and elsewhere • Personnel assigned to the project have a great deal of experience with projects of a similar nature • Extensive experience in managing bridge construction projects • Extensive experience in managing projects on a State Highway requiring Caltrans oversight New7,ABr9_CE_1 0001 New Los Angeles Avenue Bridge: Construction Engineering April 12, 2000 Page 5 • Recently provided Construction Management services to the City of Ventura for the Victoria /101 Interchange Project a) the contractor for the project was the firm which is the apparent low bidder for the subject project [Security Paving] b) the project was on a State Highway requiring Caltrans oversight • The level of resources to be applied to the various elements of the work (Management, Inspection, etc.) appeared to be appropriate for the job requirements. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Approve the selection of Boyle Engineering to provide Construction Engineering services for the subject project, for the fee amount described in this report, and authorize the City Manager to execute related contract documents. NewLABrg_CE_1 0001-31