HomeMy WebLinkAbout09/03/2002, C11 - WATER REUSE PROJECT - AWARD CONTRACT FOR CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT SERVICES. 1
Mas1�Dur
council 9/3 /02
j Agcn6A nEpont ,«mNum6�
C I TY OF SAN L U IS O B I S P 0
FROM: John Moss,Utilities Director
Prepared By: David Pierce, tr Projects Manager
SUBJECT: WATER REUSE PROJECT — AWARD CONTRACT FOR CONSTRUCTION
MANAGEMENT SERVICES.
CAO RECOMMENDATION
1. Approve contract with Tetra Tech in the amount of $768,402 for Construction
Management Services for the Water Reuse Project and authorize the Mayor to execute the
contract.
2. Approve the transfer of$168,402 from the Water Reuse Project Construction Account to
the Construction Management Account.
DISCUSSION
On May 7, 2002 the City Council approved the RFP seeking proposals for the construction
management for the Water Reuse Project. Proposals were received from four firms (Summary
attached). The Proposals were reviewed by a team consisting of Jay Walter (City Engineer), Dan
Gilmore (Utilities Engineer), Richard Fisher (Public Works Construction Manager), and David
Pierce (Water Projects Manager). Tetra Tech was selected as the firm that proposed a team that
could best manage the project.
Tetra Tech proposed to use a team with experience in very similar projects of building concrete
storage tanks, pump stations, and pipeline for water and recycled water distribution. They
demonstrated that they have the tools to monitor the progress of a large construction contract and
work with the contractor to assure that the project proceeds on time.
The fees shown on the attached proposal summary show considerable differences in cost.
However, if the fee schedules are adjusted to provide the same amount of inspection and the same
length of contract, the costs are within 10%and Tetra Tech is at or near the low end.
FISCAL IMPACT
Construction Management Cost $768,402
The Water Reuse Project CIP budget provides $600,000 in FY 2001-02 for Construction
Management. The construction account currently has a balance of $10,917,500 and the cost
estimate does not currently exceed that amount. (FY 2001-2003 Financial Plan Appendix B page
106).
\\879_MORRO\SYS\GROUPS\UTIL\Council Agenda Reports)\WRP_CONST_MGMT_AWARD_CAR.doc C���/
Water Reuse Project—Award Contract For Construction Management services
Paget
A Budget Amendment Request will be processed by the Utilities Department upon approval of this
transfer.
Attachments:
1. Proposal Summary
2. Fee Schedule
3. Agreement
A copy of the contract including the Proposal is available for review in the Council Office
ell L
- — Attachment 1
Proposal Summary
Construction Management Services
for the Water Reuse Project
Four firms submitted proposals. Consultants are selected based on qualifications with price being a
secondary factor. The proposed fees vary significantly because the consultant's interpretation of the
construction schedule and inspection needs. When adjusted to the same length of project and a
similar number of field inspectors,the fees are within 10%and Tetra Tech is at or near the low end.
Tetra Tech
This was the only firm that listed experience with reuse projects and listed, as references,
projects which had been managed by the proposed team members. Tetra Tech demonstrated a
good understanding of the project and the related issues that are essential to producing a good
project in a highly visible environment. The Tetra Tech team will be using some outside
inspectors but the resident engineer and management people are all individuals who have
completed successful projects while working for Tetra Tech.
Proposed Fee $759,518
Based on construction taking 14 months
The contract price of$768,402 includes added services during bidding and award.
Dudek& Associates with MENS Engineers.
Dudek submitted an excellent proposal that addressed in detail all the major issues and talked
about the control procedures that would be in place to manage these issues. They understood the
job and described the tools that are needed to get it done. However, the team consisted of
individuals from two firms working at all levels on the team. There was reference to past
experience with such a joint venture. Referenced projects did not reflect the performance of the
proposed team.
Proposed Fee $1,079,800
Based on construction taking 18 months
Harris &Associates
The proposal addressed several issues but did not discuss the management processes that would
be used to control these potential problem areas. The proposal seemed to assume that the City
would base its review on its past positive experience with Harris. The deciding factor in
evaluating this firm low was the shuffling of the team during the review of the proposal. The fee
reflects the use of only one inspector.
Proposed Fee $841,080
Based on construction taking 18 months
John L. Wallace& Associates(JLWA)with Montgomery Watson Harza(MWH)
The projects listed as references by both firms are small compared to the Water Reuse Project.
The Resident Engineer, the key manager,was from MWH and there was not reference to
successful projects completed with such a joint venture. The low fee proposal is the result of a
very short construction time estimate for the treatment plant modifications.
Proposed Fee $694,515
Based on construction taking 15 months
cii
Attachment 2
v
Z
O O m O m o Co op Co w m O O O m O m O O pp pp O V' pOj w N N
(A 7 fD Q O O O m O W m �O 69 69 N aa�� w Co w N fA N l�
�q O aa V (O w r O) t0 r Co LO �' 7 !7 r
6N9 f9 w W w H z 69 W p HM9 w 00OD W 0) A w fR w r
69 w
Ow l``
OE U9 O O O O OO O O O O O O O C p r
S m O O p
CD
w » � w w.w w
(2 1% �- ww N
M
a �
V. o a) w w CN w w u�. N N M a rn o. 4 n W
64 4 ww nwwp ww "� i N `2r 69 ►� ~
&+ w w
w
0 0 p 0p 0 0 0 0 o O opp 0 0 0 o O O o o O o 0 0 0 o O fop 0 a o p
N MCM N N N N O N m M n a Oa N N N V a0 M
F G N O t0 N A
= _ N N C-4IV fV < N ' fV N' O R Co ' N
u
p r N
s� o 0 o O p
U I m m 0
(��p m
C C q M 17
O U y c elf
0 0 0 C! p
-1 gmp V UO N
.. N N Go Co
lV Co
N
N
a Cn
O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 o O O O O c O c o 0 o p
M ccd 9 aD fV ao 0 aG 0 V fC N CD 'p N C C s Co
IG f0 CdCqN
0 � 7
O �1 S 0 w c c
acoo0 coccco o c q q o vOcq p
U Q G a m m v w N w w v w v W w c. o N co ao m
CoJ o r r r v v O ' C4
to
HLU v u
IL
IS m �
LLFCL
y hR d O
CC
n UCCC u = a ^ U a C y
tA LLEc c v
o u E E
mc m Co a C
vi
.0 EL
ffi a ?� o N
Y p t V m a .O ,5 O w w N d'
a OEM
EL
d ° c m z V n crn C S W a O c E �j
C m Cc m U o $ o a � m U $
4 ° H o H 8 w aU � aL) a3aiL
S ° Q U N N Q d'. Q C N O O Q F Or C
m Q Q d Q U 0. r fV' d U N C9 U d U d LL
9q� N e7
~ N
O
ao
Attachment 3
AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into in the City of San Luis Obispo on this
day of September 2002, by and between the CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, a municipal
corporation, hereinafter referred to as City; and TETRA TECH, INC., hereinafter referred to as .
Consultant.
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, on May 7, 2002, City requested proposals for the performance of consulting
services per Specification No. 99124.90554A.
WHEREAS,pursuant to said request, Consultant submitted a proposal which was accepted
by City for said services.
NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of their mutual promises, obligations, and covenants
hereinafter contained,the parties hereto agree as follows:
1. TERM. The term of this Agreement shall be from the date this Agreement is made
and entered, as fust written above,until acceptance or completion of said services. This Agreement
may be terminated by either party by providing to the other party, in writing, thirty (30) days
advance notice of said intent. Consultant shall be paid, in accordance with Paragraph 3 herein,only
for work completed by the consultant prior to the effective date of said termination. In this event,
all information, documents, maps, and materials shall be given to the City.
2. INCORPORATION BY REFERENCE. City Specification No. 99124.90554A,
Consultant's proposal dated May 30, 2002, and a revised Fee Schedule dated July 18, 2002, are
hereby incorporated in and made a part of this Agreement.
3. CITY'S OBLIGATIONS. For providing the services as specified in this
Agreement, City will pay and Consultant shall receive, therefor, compensation in a total sum not to
exceed 1769,40? 00
5. CONSULTANT'S OBLIGATIONS. For and in consideration of the payments
and agreements hereinbefore mentioned to be made and performed by City, Consultant agrees with
City to do everything required by this Agreement and the said specifications..
6. AMENDMENTS. Any amendment, modification, or variation from the terms of
this Agreement shall be in writing and shall be effective only upon approval by the City
Administrative Officer.
7. COMPLETE AGREEMENT. This written Agreement, including all writings
specifically incorporated herein by reference, shall constitute the complete agreement between the
parties hereto. No oral agreement, understanding, or representation not reduced to writing and
specifically incorporated herein shall be of any force or effect, nor shall any such oral agreement,
understanding,or representation be binding upon the parties hereto.
8. NOTICE. All written notices to the parties hereto shall be sent by United States
1 �
Attachment 3
mail, postage prepaid by registered or certified mail addressed as follows:
City Public Works Department
City of San Luis Obispo
955 Morro Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Consultant Tetra Tech Inc.
811 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
9. AUTHORITY TO EXECUTE AGREEMENT. Both City and Consultant do
covenant that each individual executing this agreement on behalf of each party is a person duly
authorized and empowered to execute Agreements for such party.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this instrument to be executed
the day and year first above written.
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO,
A Municipal Corporation:
ATTEST
By.
Mayor Allen Settle
By:
Lee Price,City Clerk
: CONSULTANT:
APPROVED AS TO FORM By.
Title:
By*G.
tg
� -
r Attornn ey
By:
Title:
611-G