HomeMy WebLinkAbout3.1 Contract Engineering Services City of DUBUfi°
AGENDA STATEMENT
Meeting Date: December 7 , 1982 (od -3o
SUBJECT : Contract Engineering Services
•
EXHIBITS ATTACHED : Proposals submitted by: Harris & Associates
George S . Nolte & Associates
Santina & Thompson/TJKM
Memo from City Manager dated December 3, 1982
Interview Schedule !''��
RECOMMENDATION : Selection of City Engineer -7
FINANCIAL STATEMENT: None
•
DESCRIPTION : On December 1, 1982 the City Manager and a panel
consisting of Paul Causey, Assistant City Engineer
with the City of Milpitas, and Paul Ove, Public
Works Director with the City' of Union City interviewed
6 engineering firms. These firms' were selected from
a group of 11 proposals received in response to our
Request for Proposal.
According to City Council direction, it is now appropriate
for the Council to interview the 3 firms receiving the
• highest ratings from the review panel, to provide engin-
eering services to the City of Dublin.
COPIES TO:
ITEM NO. �'
CC Meeting: December 7, 1982
Item 3. 1
Attachment 1 Harris & Associates Proposal
Attachment 2 George S. Nolte & Associates
Proposal
Attachment 3 Santina & Thompson/TJKM
Proposal
THE CITY OF DUBLIN
P.O. Box 2340
Dublin, CA 94568 (415) 829-4600
M E M O R A N D U M
DATE: December 3, 1982
TO: City Council
FROM: City Manager
SUBJECT: City Engineering Services
In response to a Request for Proposal prepared by Staff, the City
received eleven proposals from engineering firms to provide
Dublin with City Engineering Services. Those firms which submitted
proposals are identified below:
1. Boone, Cooke & Associates
2. Consulting City Engineers
3. Creegan & D'Angelo
4 . Wallace B. Duncan & Associates/TJKM
5 . Harris & Associates
6 . Roy Jorgensen Associates, Inc.
7 . KCA Engineers
8 . George S. Nolte & Associates
9. PRC Toups
10 . Santina & Thompson/TJKM
11. Waste Water International
During the initial screening, five of the eleven firms were eliminated
from the selection process based on the following criteria:
1. The inability of the firm to meet the conditions set forth in
the Request for Proposal.
2 . The inexperience of the primary contact person(s) identified in
the proposal.
3 . The adequacy of staffing within the firm to provide varied
engineering services to the City.
4 . Continuity of personnel.
An interview panel consisting of the City Manager, the Director of
Public Works from Union City, and the Assistant City Engineer from
Milpitas reviewed the proposals and interviewed the following firms:
1. Roy Jorgensen Associates, Inc.
2 . George S. Nolte & Associates
3 . Wallace B. Duncan & Associates/TJKM
4 . Santina & Thompson/TJKM
5. KCA Engineers
6 . Harris & Associates
- 2 -
The interview panel judged each firm' s proposal on the basis of
its technical qualifications in the areas of traffic engineering,
development review, design engineering, public facility inspection,
survey, mapping, annexation, assessment districts, drainage, the
California Environmental Quality Act review and utilities. The
panel also judged the firm's experience in administering projects
funded by grants, the adequacy of the firm' s support staff, the
ability of the firm' s primary contact people to work with Staff,
Commission, Council and the public.
It was the consensus of the panel that the proposals from Santina
& Thompson/TJKM, Harris & Associates, and George S. Nolte & Associates
best meet the needs of the City of Dublin. After the interviews by
the review panel, numerous references were called by Staff for each
of the primary contact people in each of the three firms. These
references not only indicated that quality work was provided, but
further, that these individuals were effective in working with the
public and City Councils.
With respect to cost, Santina & Thompson and George S. Nolte & Assoc-
iates both propose hourly rates based on time and material. The
hourly rates are fairly comparable. Harris & Associates ' hourly
rates are similar, but indicate they are negotiable. In the case of
all three firms, those engineering services which would be provided
on the City' s capital project, would be subject to negotiation. All
three firms indicated that they would expect to do all design work
for the City, unless a special expertise was required which they did
not possess or they did not have sufficient staff due to a heavy
workload.
Staff has arranged for the City Council to interview each of the
firms. After those interviews, it is appropriate for the City
Council to discuss the qualifications of each firm in closed session.
If the City Council can come to a decision during that time, it is
recommended that the City Council authorize the City Manager to
negotiate a contract with the firm selected for City Council approval.
I N T E R V I E W S C H E D U L E
Tuesday, December 7 , 1982
7 : 00 p.m. - Harris & Associates
Mr. Robert Mimiaga
8: 00 p.m. - George S. Nolte & Associates
Mr. John Poore
9: 00 p.m. - Santina & Thompson
Mr. Peter Santina
TJKM
Mr. Chris Kinzel