The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About13- Development Department LdVELOPMENT DEPARTMi T OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO I I REQUEST FOR COMMISSION/COUNCIL ACTION FROM: KENNETH J. HENDERSON SUBJECT: CIVIL ENGINEERING Executive Director SERVICES - STATE CONSOLIDATED DATE: December 15, 1993 OFFICES& CALTRANS BUILDING ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Synopsis of Previous Commission/Council/Committee Action(s): On August 2, 1993, the Community Development Commission established the State Consolidated Offices and Caltrans Building Request for Qualifications Review Committee to begin the process of selecting qualified professional consulting services. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Recommended Motion(s): (Community Development Commission) MOTION: That the Community Development Commission authorize the Executive Director to draft and execute a contract with Ludwig Engineering in an amount not to exceed $120,000 for civil engineering services for the design of the State Consolidated Offices and Caltrans Building on the Government Center site,that the Agency's FY93/94 adopted budget be increased by $120,000 for such services and, further, that the Executive Director be authorized to execute such other documents as are required to carry out the terms of said contract. V&6�4 — Administrator KENNETH J. HE ERSON Executive Director ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Contact Person(s): . Kenneth J. Henderson/David J. Norman Phone: 5081 Project Area(s): Central City North Ward(s): Qne (1) Supporting Data Attached: Staff Report FUNDING REQUIREMENTS: Amount: $120,000 Source: Bond Proceeds Budget Authority: Requested --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Commission/Council Notes: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- KJH:DJN:nml:civilen2.cdc COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA MEETING DATE: 12/20/1993 Agenda Item Number: �3 DE � t� LOPMENT DEPARTI NT STAFF REPORT -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Civil Engineering Services - State Consolidated Offices and Caltrans Building This report seeks Community Development Commission authorization for the Executive Director to execute a contract not to exceed $120,000 with Ludwig Engineering for civil engineering services for the design of State Consolidated Offices and Caltrans Building on the Superblock. BACKGROUND INFORMATION The development of the Government Center Towers and parking garage requires the services of an experienced firm which can provide civil engineering services. The primary purpose of civil engineering is to survey and map the construction site, provide location for various utilities, and develop base drawings for construction documents. The State Consolidated Offices and Caltrans Building Qualifications Review Committee met on November 8, 1993 for the purpose of selecting the most qualified civil engineering firm among those who submitted qualifications (see Attachment "A"). Among the ten firms which submitted qualifications, the firm of Ludwig Engineering was selected by the Committee as the most qualified for this project. Ludwig Engineering, a downtown San Bernardino firm, has extensive experience with the City of San Bernardino Public Works Department and a good working relationship with its staff. The Qualifications Committee declined to interview the short list of firms and requested that staff commence negotiation of a contract beginning with Ludwig Engineering. Staff has negotiated an acceptable contract and finds Ludwig's proposed fee to fall within accepted industry standards. Ludwig has contracted with the San Bernardino firm of Hernandez, Kroone&Associates in order to fulfill its minority business goal of eighteen percent participation in the contract, exceeding the State mandated fifteen percent goal. Ludwig has also exceeded women business enterprises and disabled business enterprise goals by one and one-half percent and one percent, respectively. It should be noted that the cost of this contract, as well as all other professional consulting contracts and the cost of construction of the site will be reimbursed to the Agency by the State as part of its lease of the buildings and the parking garage. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- KJH:DJN:mn1:civilen2.cdc COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA MEETING DATE: 12/20/19933 Agenda Item Number: > DEVELOPMENT DEPA�,.MENT STAFF REPORT Civil Engineering Services - State Consolidated Offices and Caltrans Building December 13, 1993 Page 2 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- RECOMMENDATION It is, therefore,the recommendation of staff that the Executive Director be authorized to draft and execute a contract for an amount not to exceed $120,000 with Ludwig Engineering for civil engineering services for the design of the State Consolidated Offices and Caltrans Building on the Superblock site. Staff recommends adoption of the form MU60,4 KENNETH J. H NDERSON, Executive Director Development Department ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- KJH:DJN:nm1:civi1en2.cdc COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA MEETING DATE: 12/20/1993 i � Agenda Item Number: _ t REQUEST FOR QUALIFICATIONS REVIEW COMMITTEE STATE CONSOLIDATED OFFICES AND CALTRANS BUILDING Minutes November 8, 1993, 8:00 a.m. j A meeting of the State Consolidated Offices and Caltrans Building Request for Qualifications Review Committee was called to order at 8:00 a.m. on Monday, November 8, 1993, in the Board Room of the Economic Development Agency, 201 North "E" Street, San Bernardino, California, by Chairman and Councilmember Edward V. Negrete. MEMBERS PRESENT The Honorable Edward V. Negrete The Honorable Norine Miller Judy Cady Roger Hardgrave Richard Mayo Susan Morales Jim Robbins STAFF PRESENT Lorraine Velarde, Executive Assistant to the Mayor, Mayor's Office David J. Norman, Development Specialist, Economic Development Agency David Padrutt, Project Administrator, The Staubach Company SELECTION OF CIVIL ENGINEERING FIRM Mr. Hardgrave presented a brief overview of all of the civil engineering firms for the benefit of the Committee. It was noted by the Committee that there were five (5) local firms, and one (1) firm in Redlands employing a San Bernardino surveyor. After a lengthy discussion about all of the (inns with input from Mr. Hardgrave, Mr. Padrutt and Mr. Norman, Mr. Robbins made a motion that the Committee shorten the list of the ten (10) civil engineering firms which submitted a response to the RFQ to a list of five (5) firms consisting of: CM Engineering Hernandez/Kroone & Associates NB S/Lowry Ludwig Engineering John Egan & Associates The motion was seconded by Chairman Negrete, and the Committee unanimously approved the motion. The Members of the Committee rated the firms based on criteria presented in the RFQ, but did not assign any weight to the firms based on locality. It was agreed by the Committee that no weighting would be given to locality based on the fact that all of the firms on the short list ATTACHMENT "A" i ; AWk fell within the definition of local as determined by the Committee in their meeting of November 2, 1993. John Egan & Associates, a Redlands firm, with its association with Sigland & Associates, a local surveying and engineering firm, was found by the Committee to meet the definition. The Committee performed two (2) different numerical ratings for each of the firms which responded to the Request for Qualifications. The first rating was a strict numerical rating based on the cumulative total of all seven (7) voting Committee members. The cumulative totals of the firms are presented in descending order: Firm Total Ludwig Engineering 108 CM Engineering 102 NB S/Lowry 100 John Egan & Associates 97 Hernandez/Kroone & Associates 89 As is the Committee's practice, the Committee took the raw scores from the seven (7) members and threw out the lowest and highest of the seven (7) scores to eliminate any skewing from either end. These scores essentially confirmed the previous scores, and they are presented in descending order: Firm Total Ludwig Engineering 79 CM Engineering 74 NB S Lowry 73 John Egan & Associates 71 Hernandez/Kroone & Associates 63 The Members of the Committee declined to interview the top three (3) finalists and unanimously decided to send the top three (3) firms to staff to negotiate a contract, beginning with the top-rated.firm. SOILS ENQINEERIN r The Committee decided to review the responses to the RFQ for soils engineering for the purpose of recommending the top three (3) firms for contract negotiation by staff. The Committee was concerned about the financial stability of the soils firm, and Mr. Padrutt and Mr. Norman informed the Committee that adequate insurance would be required for the awarding of a contract. The Committee reviewed the qualification statements of the eight (8) firms which submitted responses to the RFQ. After discussion and input from Mr. Hardgrave, Mr. Padrutt and Mr. Norman, the Committee ranked the firms as follows: r� Firm Total CHJ 115 GPI 113 Converse Consultants 107 PSI 105 Leighton & Associates 103 Huntingdon 102 Ninyo & Moore 75 Byerly & Associates 71 As is the practice of the Committee, the high and low scores were thrown out to avoid skewing from either end, and these scores essentially confirmed the raw scores above: Firm Total CHJ 83 GPI 81 Converse Consultants 76 PSI 76 Leighton & Associates 74 Ninyo & Moore 54 Byerly & Associates 51 The Committee unanimously declined to interview a short list for firms and decided to send forward to staff the to three p (3) firms for the negotiation of a contract, beginning negotiations with the top-rated firm. ADJOURNMENT The Review Committee adjourned its s meetin g at 9:38 a.m. Respectfully submitted, DAVID J. NORMAN, Development Specialist Development Department Reviewed and Approved: EDWARD V. NEGRETE, C 1airman Councilman, Ward I Mmm1m inutes.118 I