Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07/21/1992, 6C - REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL (RFP) FOR PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING PROJECT FOR REGIONAL MULTI-MODAL TRANSFER CENTER lll11l1ll1llll�l TIN MEETING DATE: Ii c� o san--Lis OBISPO 7i21/92 COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT ITEM NUMBER / col FROM: Ken Hampian, Assistant City Administrative Officer (G Prepared by: Ken Hampian, Assistant City Admi 'strative Officer�.,� Harry Watson, Transit Manager,A� SUBJECT: Request for Proposal (RFP) for Preliminary Engineering Project for Regional Multi-Modal Transfer Center CAO RECOMMENDATION: By motion, approve the issuing of an RFP for the completion of Preliminary Engineering project for a Regional Multi-Modal Transit Transfer Center, and authorize the City Administration Officer to sign a contract with the most responsive vendor if the contract amount is less than the project estimate. DISCUSSION: Background This project represents the second step in a multi-phased project designed to establish a new multi-modal timed transfer point in the City of San Luis Obispo. The need for a new transfer point was identified in our 1991-1996 Short Range Transit Plan, which was adopted by the City Council in 1991. That plan, and the Multi-Modal Center Feasibility Study approved at the same time, showed that the current on-site operation on Osos Street would not accommodate planned system expansion, and would not be desirable from a safety and traffic engineering perspective. These studies have identified as the block bounded by Santa Rosa, Monterey, Toro and Higuera Streets as the best general location for a multi-modal transfer facility. In an independent planning effort, the Downtown Physical Plan Committee has identified the same location as being optimal for a transfer center and new parking structure to support County office expansion. This preliminary engineering project seeks to determine the approach to combining these needs into a single facility. Additional uses may be combined with the parking and transit facilities if it can be determined that such a combination will result in improved economics. Study Objectives This study is intended to include two phases. Phase I is currently funded and will determine the optimal location for the multi-modal center/parking facility. This phase includes the following general objectives: 1. Program Development 2. Site Selection 3. Functional Layout 4. General Impacts Assessment 5. Joint Development Potential Assessment 6. Engineering Cost Estimate The second phase of the study is not yet funded, but is intended as an extension of the Phase I contract. In this phase of the study, more detailed design and financial work will be completed along with an environmental assessment. The attached RFP outlines in 6C-1 city Of San JS OBISPO Hii% COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT Page 2 detail the requirements of both phases of work. However, Phase II will only be pursued if the project continues to be feasible after Phase I analysis, and with the continued support of the City Council and Regional Transit Authority. A single contractor will be selected for both work phases through this RFP process. Project Management This project will be managed and directed by the Transit Manager for the City of San Luis Obispo. It is planned that a Technical Advisory Committee, involving City and County representatives will be developed for this joint project effort to assist the Transit Manager. The bid period will conclude on September 11, 1992, with the Phase I work estimated to be performed from November 1992 through May 1993. Proposals will be evaluated by a review team composed of City and Regional Transit staff. i CONCURRENCES: This project has been previously supported by the Mass Transportation Committee as part of the Short Range Transit Plan adoption. The RFP has also been reviewed and approved by the County Engineering Department,the City's Community Development and Public Works Departments, and the Regional Transit Authority. It has also been reviewed by the staff of the San Luis Obispo Area Coordinating Council, and by the County Space Needs Task Force, which includes representatives from the City, County, BIA, and Chamber of Commerce. FISCAL IMPACTS: i The total estimated cost of the Phase I study is$40,000. Staff solicited funding assistance from the Area Coordinating Council through the State Transit Capital Improvement j Program and received a grant in the amount of $20,000. Because this is a regional project, the 50% grant match is made up of Transportation Development Act (TDA) contributions of$10,000 from the Regional transit system and $10,000 from SLO Transit. Funds have been previously budgeted by the Council to support the $10,000 City contribution. Cost and funding for Phase II will be determined at the conclusion of the first phase. With regard to construction funds, in a separate action staff will be asking the Council to approve a Proposition 116 grant application and support the transfer center as the City's top priority for this State funding. ATTACHMENT: Multi-Modal Transfer Center RFP hw\engin.rpt JUNE 1992 REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS: PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING PROJECT REGIONAL MULTI-MODAL TRANSFER CENTER SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA CONTACT PERSON: Harry Watson, Transit Manager (805)781-7121 To be completed under the direction of the City of San Luis Obispo, with the support and assistance of the San Luis Obispo Regional Transit Authority SUBMITTAL DEADLINE: SEPTEMBER 11, 1992 (3:00 P.M.) 6c-3 BACKGROUND INFORMATION The "Prelminary Engineering Project - Regional Multi-Modal Transfer Center" is being jointly pursued by the City of San Luis Obispo and the San Luis Obispo Regional Transit Authority (SLORTA). The first phase of the engineering study has been jointly funded by the City, SLORTA, and a State Transit Capital Improvement (TCI) grant. The City of San' Luis Obispo operates a four route transit system within the City of San Luis Obispo, and serving the University of California Polytechnic facility, located just outside of the City limits. The system has long been recognized as one of the leading transit properties in California. Benefiting from a large university community provided with free transit passes, per capita ridership in San Luis Obispo is one of the highest in the State. The system carried over 650,000 riders in FY 1990-91, with approximately 2/3 of those riders traveling either to or from the University. In the current system design, four City buses "meet" or "pulse" every half hour in an on-street operation on Osos and Palm Streets adjacent to City Hall. Across Osos Street, regional transit buses, operated by the County, also meet. The Regional Transit System (SLORTA) operates a South Bay Los Osos/Morro Bay route, four CCAT routes serving South Bay and Cuesta College, Paso Robles and the five cities area in the south end of the County. In addition SLORTA operates a dial-a-ride system called Runabout which has five vans. This project represents the second step in a multi-phased project designed to establish a new multi-modal timed transfer point in the City of San Luis Obispo. The need for a new transfer point was identified in our 1991-1996 Short Range Transit Plan, done for the City by Nelson\Nygaard. That plan, and the Multi-modal Center Feasibility study, which was done at the same time, showed that the current on-site operation would not accommodate planned system expansion, and would not be desireable from a safety and traffic engineering perspective. Those studies have identified as the block bounded by Santa Rosa, Monterey, Toro and Higuera Streets as the best general location for a multi-modal transfer facility. This general location was subsequently endorsed by the San Luis Obispo City Council. In an independent planning effort, the Downtown Physical Plan Committee has identified the same location as being optimal for a new parking structure supporting County office expansion. This project seeks to combine these needs into a single facility. Additional uses may be combined with the parking and transit facilities if it can be determined that such a combination will result in improved economics. 1 STUDY OBJECTIVES This study is intended to include two phases: Phase 1 - This phase is currently funded and will determine the optimal location for the multi-modal center, assuming that the multi-modal center is combined with a parking facility for County employees. This phase includes the following general objectives: 1. Program Development 2. Site Selection 3. Functional Layout 4. General Impacts Assessment 5. Joint Development Potential Assessment 6. Engineering Cost Estimate This phase of the project is budgeted up to $40,000, and is expected to take approximately 4 months from the date of contract to the administrative draft report. Up to 4 more weeks will be allowed for final report preparation. A more detailed preliminary schedule is provided on page 18 of this RFP. Phase II The second phase of the study is not yet funded, but is intended as an extension of the Phase I contract. In this phase of the study, more detailed design work will be completed and an environmental assessment will be completed. This phase of the contract is expected to be budgeted at between $50,000 and $75,000 and will require approximately 6 months to prepare a draft report. The primary objectives of the second phase include: 1. Scaled Site Plan drawings 2. Other drawings including elevations and sections for up to two alternatives 3. Environmental Analysis 4. Mitigation Plans, including traffic mitigation 5. Financial and Management Plans for the remainder of the phases required through construction. A single contractor will be selected for the Phase I and Phase II.work. The precise scope and budget for Phase II will be negotiated between the City and the Consultant at the conclusion of Phase 1. The Consultant is requested to assemble the complete study team for both phases as conceived at this time, to aid in selection. 2 The City retains the right to cancel the second Phase if the project is determined to be infeasible or undesirable after the first phase effort, or if funding is not obtained. Consultants are asked to provide work statements and price proposals on both phases, showing_clearly the distinction between Phase I and Phase II work. Some flexibility of task assignment between the phases is possible, and consultants are asked to provide their best proposal for logical sequencing of tasks in each phase. PROJECT MANAGEMENT This project will be managed and directed by Harry Watson, Transit Manager for the City of San Luis Obispo. It is expected that a Technical Advisory Committee, involving City and County representatives will be developed for this project, and routine meetings with that committee, as described in the scope of work will be required. AVAILABLE DATA All information available to the City of San Luis Obispo will be made available to the contractor. This includes: 1. The 1991/1996 Short Range Transit Plan Update (City) 2. The 1990-1995 Short Range Transit Plan (SLORTA) 3. Multi-Modal Center.Feasibility Study 4. Downtown Physical Plan Study 5. Circulation and Land Use Plans 6. Traffic Counts (as available) 7. Flood Plain Data (as available) 8. Transit Ridership 9. Transportation Management Association Plan (TMA) when completed. In addition, the consultant will obtain from the County all relevant data relating to their plans for downtown office expansion and parking requirements. WORK SCOPE The following outlines the tasks required for completion of this study. The consultant may choose to add or delete tasks, or reorder tasks provided that the project objectives are adequately addressed. 3 6� - 6 PHASE I TASKS Task 1 - Program Development_ This task develops a functional analysis for the multi-modal transfer center and the associated County parking- facility. The basic multi modal center site program was developed as part of the Multi Modal Center Feasibility Study recently completed for the City by Nelson\Nygaard. This task will review and confirm that site program, develop the site program for the privately owned vehicle parking required to support County office expansion, and will identify other potential uses for a joint use project. 1.1 Transit Center Functional Analysis This program is expected to build on work already completed on the Transit Center Site Selection Project. The consultant will use the initial functional analysis and confirm the space needs described in that document. In addition, the consultant will evaluate several remaining transit operations questions: a. Should inter-City over the road buses, such as Greyhound be accommodated at the transit center? Note than inter-City services were not considered in the earlier study and Greyhound has not been contacted. b. Does the current functional analysis adequately allow for growth of both the local and regional systems? C. How could linkage to the AMTRAK station be handled and how would buses used by AMTRAK be handled on the site? d. How could an airport shuttle service be integrated into the design, and is such.a service desireable as a City. transit operation? e. Is there a need for paratransit transfers to be accommodated, and if so, how should this be accommodated? All facilities must conform to the mandates of the Americans with Disabilities Act. f. Is there a need for park and ride, kiss and ride, or other types of auto access which are not included in the original concept, and what are the space requirements of these facilities? g. What is the extent of demand for parking space that will be reserved for the County Rideshare Program? Since County parking needs were not considered in the earlier study, this will be developed in conjunction with the County Engineering Department and County General Services Department. h. Is there a need for transit support services such as fueling or light duty maintenance on site? 4 6 �- 7 i. Is there a need for transit information and management services, such as pass sales, dispatching and potentially transit management offices on site? What are the space impacts of-such an addition? 1.2 County Parking and Office Complex Functional Analysis Some work on this portion of the project has been completed by the City's Downtown Physical Plan Committee, working with City and County staff. The consultant will review this work and then will develop a functional analysis for the uses described by the Downtown Physical Plan that could impact the multi-modal center site. These uses will include a multi-level parking facility developed to support County office expansion. This is the only additional use that will definitely be accommodated on the site. Other potential uses include office space, and support facilities for County office expansion plans. These uses will be accommodated only to the extent that they are economically viable, or enhance the overall viability of the project. 1.3 Identify Other Potential Uses Should a larger joint development project prove economically feasible, additional uses may be required on the site. Potential uses include: 1. Additional office space 2. Retail service supporting downtown employees 3. Restaurant or other food service facility These uses are not seen as required by the project, but may be pursued if the joint development option improves the economic outlook for the project. 1.4 Space Program Based on the information collected in earlier subtasks, this effort will determine how the various functions are related - ie. which things must be close together and which must not be close together, and how various spaces should relate to each other. Consideration of vertical separation should be included - ie. which things can be put on which levels of the building. 1.5 Develop a Comprehensive Functional Analysis This task combines the findings of earlier subtasks into a comprehensive space plan. The deliverable from this task is a complete listing of functional requirements and space program. 'Bubble diagrams", showing space requirements and relationships will be included in this deliverable, although scale design drawings are not anticipated. Task 2 - Site Selection Based on the earlier study completed by Nelson\Nygaard, the City Council has identified the block bounded by Santa Rosa, Monterey, Toro, and Higuera Streets as the primary 5 study area. Secondary sites include those in the block bounded by Santa Rosa Street, Monterey and Higuera Streets and the Fremont Theater. These study areas include sites held in both private and public ownership. The earlier analysis was completed using site selection criteria.established for the study. In this task, the consultant will refine and possibly expand on those criteria, based on the results of Task 1, and will identify and quantify the advantages and disadvantages of various parcels within than bounded study area. 2.1 Review Site Selection Criteria Site selection criteria established in the Site Selection Study will be reviewed by the consultant team and refined based on the information collected in Task 1. The addition of the needs of the County facility may change some of the site needs. In addition, new criteria, relating to traffic congestion, and other environmental and aesthetic factors will be added. Site criteria should include a 'weighting" or "scoring" system that will allow for the proper emphasis to be given to each of the criteria. An evaluation system will be established so that each identified site can be ranked, both with regard to each criteria and overall. The list of criteria and site ranking system are required deliverables. They will be presented to the Technical Advisory Committee, tentatively consisting of the City Transit Manager, City Engineer, Principal Planner, a member of the Regional Transit staff, and a member of the County Administration or General Services staff. 2.2 Identify Candidate Sites Within the study area boundaries a limited number of parcels are expected to be identified. Parcels will be chosen based on their ability to meet space requirements and other basic criteria to be established in Task 2.1. The consultant, working with City staff, should identify at least four potential parcels to evaluate. The- City recognizes that this corridor is nearly fully developed and that the parcels identified may be currently occupied. It is also likely that both publicly and privately held parcels will be identified. The virtues of each site will be fully evaluated in subsequent tasks, and both publicly and privately held sites will be considered. The City's Community Development Department should be consulted in developing the site alternatives. 2.3 Incorporation of Existing Uses One of the key sites that has been identified is an existing Shell Service Station, which was identified as a highly desireable site by the previous study. This task will look at the potential for incorporating some or all of the service station functions into the ultimate design. This task should look both at the feasibility and desirability of such an option. 6 2.4 Evaluate Sites and Develop Ranked Site Recommendation The evaluation criteria developed in Task 2.1 should be applied to the sites developed in Task 2.2 to evaluate or rank the identified sites. This information will be presented in a Technical Memorandum and will be presented to a meeting of the Technical Advisory Committee. Up to two additional presentations of the study's recommendations to this point may be required. Following evaluation of the consultant's recommendations, the Technical Advisory Committee will determine which sites should receive further analysis. It is likely that up to 2 potential sites will be retained in the remaining tasks for further consideration. Task 3 - Functional Layout This task will take the information developed in tasks 1 and 2 and will result in design concepts matching the functional analysis with the best site(s). The functional layout includes scale drawings showing the general footprint of the facility, placement of all functions, and a circulation plan showing vehicular and pedestrian circulation around the facility. Special attention should be given to: a. The separation of pedestrian and vehicular traffic, both on and directly adjacent to the site (ie. crossing Santa Rosa) b. Separation of automobile and transit operations. C. Relationship of any office/retail uses to the transit uses. d. Relationship of City and regional transit systems and other operations. e. The potential integration of existing uses on the site, especially the Shell Station. This task should include a discussion of the alternatives available for the site plan - such as elevated vs. underground parking structure, and the potential impacts of such a decision including cost and design considerations. The deliverable from this tasks will be the functional layout drawings and text supporting the drawings as well as design options to be considered in subsequent tasks. It is probable that the consultant will want to develop more than one layout concept for each site. A total of no more than 6 concepts are expected at this stage of the analysis (3 per site). It is not expected that work at this stage will include detailed plans, or landscaping or other treatments. These concepts will be presented by the consultant to the Technical Advisory Committee, the City's Architectural Review Commission (ARC), the City and County Planning 7 � C —!O Commission, and potentially to the City Council, RTA Board and Board of Supervisors. Following these presentations, the City Council will limit the number of concepts to be further analyzed to no more than two. Task 4 - Impacts These tasks will evaluate the impacts expected from placing the conceptual design on the chosen site. At this stage in the analysis, only a general description of the potential impacts will be presented with a "ranking" of the level of impact on a scale ranging from "no impact" to "minor" to "severe". It is expected that this project will require a detailed environmental analysis, which will be included in the second phase scope. One of the outcomes of this task will be a recommendation as to the level of environmental analysis that will be required by this project. Impacts to be evaluated will include: 4.1 Aesthetics - Can a design alternative be developed with an aesthetic character that matches that of its surroundings. 4.2 Environment Included in this subtask will be a qualitative review of the most significant potential environmental impacts including: - air quality - water quality - noise - biological - historic structures - hazardous waste - flood plain - traffic circulation (pedestrian/bikes) 4.3 Transit Operations This section will include a discussion of how well each design alternative accomplishes the transit operations goals outlined in Task 1. 4.4 Traffic Operations This review will be largely qualitative, comparing the relative impacts of alternate sites on traffic operations, including: - impact on vehicular turning movements at key intersections - potential impact on congestion adjacent to the site - impacts on access and egress to the downtown. - impacts on pedestrians accessing site and at adjacent intersections 8 4.5 Safety and Security At this phase of the project, only a qualitative review of safety and security issues is anticipated. 4.6 Recommendation for Phase II Environmental Analysis This task will present the consultant's recommendation for future environmental work. Possible outcomes range from full EIR to Categorical exemption to negative declaration. The consultant will determine what level of analysis is required and will provide an . approximate budget for this effort. The cost estimate may impact Phase II budget, or may require an additional environmental review phase. Task 5 - Cost Estimation This task will provide both capital and operating cost estimates for each alternative facility. Cost estimates will be rough, "order of magnitude" estimates to be refined in Phase II. They will be broken down between transit and parking functions. 5.1 Capital Cost Estimates Capital cost estimates should be broken down into three areas: a. Land Acquisition, based on average land cost data available through the City, provided by a licensed appraiser, including relocation costs. b. Design Costs, which will include the costs for remaining design and engineering tasks. C. Construction Costs. Construction costs will include both on-site and off-site requirements. Construction cost estimates are assumed to vary greatly depending on the final design chosen, materials used, etc. At this stage, construction costs will be presented as a range, with major factors affecting the final construction costs described and documented, include demolition and any clean-up of potential hazardous materials. 5.2 Operating and Maintenance Costs This task will include development of the on-going operating and maintenance costs for this facility. Costs will be broken down by use, with the City and Regional transit operation and maintenance costs segregated from other cost factors. If there are factors to be decided later that will significantly impact operating and maintenance costs, these will be isolated for further study in Phase II. 9 C�leZ Task 6 - Economic Analysis This task is intended to provide a preliminary economic analysis to determine the potential fundability of the project. This task will review existing funding sources and joint development opportunities and will determine whether or not the project should be pursued in its present form. 6.1 Funding Sources In this subtask, the consultant will review the range of funding sources available for multi-use projects of this kind and will determine the potential applicability of that source to the project. Consultants are encouraged to recommend creative financing solutions in addition to those listed below: • State and Federal Funding Sources - Proposition 116 Rail Bonds - FTA Section 18 Discretionary Funding - FTA Section 9 Capital Funding - Transit Capital Improvement Program - Transit Development Act (City & Regional Systems) Local Sources - City Parking Fund - Assessment District or Local District Funding - Other City and County and RTA Sources • Private Sources - Joint Development potential - Rental income from joint uses The consultant should analyze the applicability of each source to projects of this type, the maximum potential to be generated from each source and the likelihood of receiving financing under each option. The deliverable from this task should include a determination as to whether or not this project is do-able. 6.2 Joint Use Options This task will outline the potential joint use options for the site, in addition to the multi-modal center and County parking facility, and will discuss the economic impacts of each potential use, and the impacts on design viability created by the joint use project. The recommended joint use options will be included in the design effort to be continued in Phase 11. 10 � C-/3 Joint use options will be evaluated in cooperation with the City's Community Development Department, who will provide input such as land costs, local rents and other economic baseline data required for this analysis. Task 7 - Phase I Final Report This task will present a draft and final report for the first phase of the study. The consultant will be expected to present the draft report to the Technical Advisory Committee, City Council, RTA, County Board of Supervisors, and up to two additional groups at the City's request. To reduce travel and meeting costs, these additional meetings will be scheduled together to the extent possible. 7.1 Administrative Draft The administrative draft will include all of the elements of the final report. It will be presented to the Technical Advisory Committee and SLORTA, who will make comments prior to developing the final draft report. Because the consultant will meet regularly with the TAC, it is not anticipated that major or significant changes will occur at this point. However, the TAC reserves the right to comment prior to releasing the draft to the policy boards. Ten copies of the administrative draft will be prepared and submitted by the consultant. 7.2 Final Draft Report The final draft report will incorporate the comments provided on the administrative draft. The final draft will be submitted to the policy boards, including the City Council, RTA and County Board of Supervisors, and will be distributed for public comment. The final draft report should be submitted in such a format that it could become the final report if no additional comments are generated by the policy boards, or the public during the hearing process. Twenty five copies of the final draft, and a reproducible original will be submitted by the Consultant. 7.3 Final Report The final report will incorporate any comments generated by the policy boards and the public during the review of the final draft report. Should these bodies not have substantive comments, the final report may be eliminated as a deliverable. Twenty five copies of the final report, and a reproducible original will be submitted by the Consultant as required by the City's Project Manager. 11 Gam- �y PHASE II TASKS Phase 11'will build on the work done in Phase I to complete the design process, develop scale drawings of the project, show aesthetic treatments, and develop consensus regarding the appearance of the project. Further, environmental and engineering studies will evaluate the quantitative impacts of the proposed project, and will recommend mitigations for environmental problems that might arise from the completion of the project. Finally, a detailed economic analysis will develop a potential funding program for the project, including developing consensus about joint use potentials. Task 1 - Conceptual Design This task will take the functional layouts developed in Phase I and will produce conceptual drawings for review by staff, ARC and the County Planning Commission who serve as the ARC for the County. The objective of this task is to determine the best design for the site. To accomplish this, a total of three concepts may be presented, showing variations in elevations, etc. which may impact both design aesthetics and costs. All drawings will be prepared using a 1 to 20 scale on reproducible format, and 11 X 17 reductions for report preparation. Between the drawings presented for each concept, it should be possible to determine the aesthetic presentation of the design, major features or amenities for passengers in the multi-modal facility, landscaping and lighting, and circulation for transit vehicles and for private autos. The following deliverables are to be prepared with each concept: 1.1 Site Plans Site plans will include site circulation, including ramp requirements for parking. Columns required for elevated structures will be included, and circulation around columns will be included. 1.2 Elevations Scale elevations will provide a picture of the aesthetic contribution of the site, including potential finish materials for exterior surfaces and landscaping plans. The relationship of this design to adjacent structures will also be indicated and discussed. 1.3 Cross Section One cross section through the facility will be provided for each design concept. The cross section will detail vertical relationships, including vertical circulation. Key elements, such as lighting will also be indicated. 1.4 Scale Model A model of the project will be provided to further define the 1 to 20 scale drawings. 12 GC- lS Task 2 - Impacts Analysis 2.1 Environmental Analysis Based on the results of Phase I, required environmental work will be completed in this phase of the study. It is expected that an EIR will be required. This phase of the study may or may not include a full EIR, depending on funding and costs. At a minimum an environmental assessment with quantitative review of all environmental factors will be included. The consultant will propose their approach to this task. Environmental factors which will definitely be evaluated in this phase. include: - air quality (including the potential additional impacts of alternative fueled vehicles) - water quality - noise - traffic - biological - historic structures - hazardous waste flood plain (including the need to relocate storm drain culverts etc.) safety and security The traffic impact section should include sufficient detail to determine the impact of additional vehicular and transit traffic on both traffic and pedestrian flow. The reduction in impacts at the current transfer location on Osos Street should also be taken into consideration. For each of the significant impacts, mitigation measures should be recommended which would mitigate the impact. This would include off site improvements as necessary to mitigate traffic and safety concerns. Task 3 - Economic Analysis This task includes refinements of the cost estimates completed in Phase I with consideration of the design elements presented in this Phase. In addition, more detailed analysis will evaluate the impact of this project on development in the Central Business District in general, including the potential for joint use on this site. 3.1 Capital Cost Estimates For each of the design concepts presented in Task 1 of Phase II, engineering cost estimates should be prepared. These cost estimates will isolate major design issues, such as the cost difference involved in elevating or undergrounding vehicle parking. The cost of constructing joint use options, or parking in excess of the county's need will also be isolated, to assist in decision making. Cost estimates shall be divided into three major 13 6 C /� categories: land, on-site costs, and off-site improvements, and should include line item estimates for each cost category, for ease of modification. All costs should be based on local construction and materials rates include demolition and hazardous materials costs. 3.2 Operations and Maintenance Costs For each of the design concepts presented in Task 1 of Phase II, the operations and maintenance costs will be prepared. These cost estimates should isolate major factors that may either increase or decrease the costs of maintenance and operations, such as the combination of functions found on the site. 3.3 Joint Use Potential This will expand upon the discussion in Phase I and will show the contribution of joint uses to the economic vitality of the site. A 20 year cost and revenue stream for potential joint uses will be prepared, allowing the policy boards to determine the viability and desirability of such options. 3.4 Funding Based on the information developed in Phase I, the Consultant will develop a funding plan for the project showing which sources or combination of funding sources could be used to finance the project. Alternatives may be presented, allowing for multiple funding options, since the viability of any one source may be less than certain. Included in this section will be an evaluation of impact of revenue generated by the project on funding and financing. This includes both potential parking revenues and other joint use revenues. The allocation of these revenues between City departments or other entities are to be discussed in Task 4. 3.5 Other Economic Impacts This task will evaluate the economic impacts of this project on the adjacent area and other parts of the CBD. The impact of this project on development in the immediate area should be thoroughly reviewed. Impacts on CBD development on Monterey Street should also be analyzed. If a finding of negative impact is made, mitigation measures should be discussed, to ensure that the multi-modal center does not have an overall negative impact on City revenues. Task 4 - Project Implementation and Management This task will define the scope of remaining tasks, including detailed design and construction, and will determine how the project should be managed both during and after construction. 14 � � -/7 4.1 Implementation Tasks This task will provide a timeline of remaining tasks prior to the opening of the new facility. The discussion will include: Scope of remaining tasks Timeline for completion of each tasks, including an indication of tasks that may overlap or be completed simultaneously. A cost estimate for each remaining task, as an aid in budgeting. Options and costs for construction management. An implementation plan for moving operations to the new site, detailing the tasks required to accomplish such a move. 4.2 Project Management Because the project will impact and potentially benefit more than one City department, the County, and private concerns, there is a question as to who should manage and control the project both during construction and after implementation. This task should recommend a strategy for on-going management, including an assessment of cost and revenue sharing between departments or entities as appropriate. Task 5 - Final Report This task will present a draft and final report for the second phase of the study. The consultant will be expected to present the draft report to the Technical Advisory Committee, City Council, County Board of Supervisors, RTA and up to two additional groups at the City's request. To reduce travel and meeting costs, these additional meetings will be scheduled.together to the extent possible. All drawings prepared in earlier tasks in this phase will be included in the final report in a size commonly reproducible, but retaining readability. 5.1 Administrative Draft The administrative draft will include all of the elements of the final report. It will be presented to the Technical Advisory Committee, who will make comments prior to developing the final draft report. Because the consultant will meet regularly with the TAC, it is not anticipated that major or significant changes will occur at this point, and no changes to design drawings will be required without additional compensation. However, the TAC reserves the right to comment prior to releasing the draft to the policy boards. Ten copies of the administrative draft will be prepared and submitted by the consultant. 15 (G -l8 5.2 Final Draft Report The final draft report will incorporate the comments provided on the administrative draft. The final draft will be submitted to the City's Architectural Review Commission, Planning Commission, and the policy boards, including the City Council and County Board of Supervisors. It will also be distributed for public comment. The final draft report should be submitted in such a format that it could become the final report if no additional comments are generated by the policy boards, or the public during the hearing process. Twenty five copies of the final draft, and a reproducible original will be submitted by the Consultant. 5.3 Final Report The final report will incorporate any comments generated by the policy boards and the public during the review of the final draft report. Should these bodies not have substantive comments, the final report may be eliminated as a deliverable. Twenty five copies of the final report, and a reproducible original will be submitted by the Consultant as required by the City's Project Manager. PROPOSAL CONTENT Proposal packages must contain the following information: 1. Statement of proposed workscope. A. A description of how both Phases I and II of the Preliminary Engineering Project will be completed. B. A description of how the consultant would plan to approach the study and work with the staffs, and elected Councils of the involved agencies. C. A proposed schedule for completing both phases of the study. D. A listing of the project manager and key personnel for completing the study (particularly, who would do the on-site interviewing and work). E. Separate project budgets for both phases of the work (it is recognized that final budgets will be subject to negotiation, and that in particular, the final Phase II budget will be dependent on concepts approved in Phase 1). 2. Resume of professional experience. 16 3. A listing of professional references, including names and telephone numbers, particularly for equivalent or similar studies. PROPOSAL EVALUATION AND SELECTION PROCEDURES Proposals must be sealed and submitted before 3:00 p.m., September 1191992 to the City of San Luis Obispo's Office of the City Clerk (please enclose five copies of the proposal). Although proposals may be opened and reviewed prior to the award date, proposals will not be disclosed to competing firms or to the public until after the award of the contract Proposals will be evaluated by a review team composed of City and Regional Transit staff. Consultant selection will not be based on cost alone, but upon a combination of the following factors: Proposal quality and responsiveness to RFP Understanding of the project Project approach and organization Demonstrated experience and credentials of staff to be assigned to project • Total Fee Personal interviews to screen and further evaluate the top two or three proposals is likely to be requested. Following proposal screening and personal interviews, the consultants will be ranked by staff. CONTRACT AWARD Based on the ranking noted above, the City anticipates negotiating a contract with the consultant obtaining the highest score. If the City and the first ranked consultant cannot reach an agreement regarding the terms of the contract, the City will negotiate with the second highest scoring consultant, and may proceed in succession to the third finalist on the same basis. 17 G G of p PRELIMINARY SCHEDULE FOR CONSULTANT SELECTION/PHASE 1 STUDY COMPLETION TASK DATE Issuance of RFP July 22, 1992 Proposal Submittal Deadline - 3:00 p.m. September 11, 1992 Staff Review of Consultant Proposals September 14-18, 1992 Consultant Interviews Week of September 28 Consultant Selection/Contract Negotiation October 20-27, 1992 Consultant Start Work November 2, 1992 Final Report Accepted by Staff March 1993 City Council and Regional Transit Review/Adoption of Recommendations April - May 1993 Decision on whether to proceed to Phase 11 April - May 1993 Phase II Schedule To be determined. SUBMISSION LOCATION AND DEADLINE In order to be considered, the City of San Luis Obispo will receive sealed proposals at the Office of the City Clerk, 990 Palm Street, P.O. Box 8100, San Luis Obispo, CA 93403- 8100, until September 11, 1992, at 3:00 p.m., Attention: Harry Watson, Transit Manager. hw\ascii - 18 �EETINGAGONu_ MM# San Luis Obispo Regional Transit Authority CCA County Govenunent Center Rm. 207 San Luis Obispo, CA 83408 541-CCAT 5494467 541-2544 �Dt16 A FWDR MEMORANDUM Famck M®d`G7fMM =OR TO: All SLORTA Delegates MADRU FROM: Clinton Milne, Regional Transit Manager 07PAW-r VIA: John S. Bates, Transit Systems. Coordinator 7l/9 DATE: July 6, 1992 SUBJECT: Request for Proposal (RFP) for Preliminary Engineering Project for Regional Multi-Modal Transfer Center On April 8, 1992, your B�°rd approved SLORTA"s $10, 000 funding portion for the Preliminary Engineering Project for Regional Multi- Modal Transfer Center, Phase I. Phase I of this project will determine the optimal location for the Multi-Modal Center /Parking facility. This phase includes the following general objectives: 1. Program Development 2. Site Selection - RECEIVED 3 . Functional Layout 4 . General Impacts Assessment JUL 1 4 1992 5. Joint Development Potential Assessment 6. Engineering Cost Estimate OFTi'O!-€RK The second phase of the study is not funded, but is intend6eeis� Pp'GA extension of the Phase I contract. In Phase II of the study, more detailed design and financial work will be completed along with an environmental assessment. The RFP outlines in detail the requirements of both phases of work. However, Phase II will only .be pursued if the project continues to be feasible after Phase I analysis, and with the continued support of the San Luis Obispo City Council and SLORTA. A single contractor will be selected for both work phases through this RFP process. Ken Hampian, San Luis Obispo Assistant City Administrative Officer (CAO) and Harry Watson, San Luis Obispo Transit Manager, are forwarding to the San Luis Obispo City Council on July 21, 1992, a recommendation to approve the issuing of an RFP for the completion of Preliminary Engineering Project for a Regional Multi-Modal Transit Transfer Center and to authorize the City Administrative Office to sign a contract with the most responsive vendor if the contract amount is less than the project estimate of $40,000. If a motion by the San Luis Obispo City Council is approved to issue an RFP, the San Luis Obispo CAO will begin advertising on July 22, 1992 for solicitations. It is the intention of SLORTA staff to provide delegates information of this action and a copy of the RFP if requested. Additionally, if any delegates wish to discuss this matter during • , our next SLORTA meeting on August 5, 1992 , please notify staff n • .prior to July 20, 1992 . Otherwise, staff will notify the San Luis Obispo• 'CAO to proceed with the advertising process for the RFP. If you.should have any questions, do not hesitate to contact me or John Bates at 549-4467 .