HomeMy WebLinkAboutS11-City Administrator
CI~ OF SAN BERNAR~O - REQU~T FOR COUNCIL A6/.0N
From: JAMES C. RICHARDSON
Deputy City Administrator/
Dept: Development
Subject: SELECTION 0];' CONSULTANT FOR
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN REVISION
D~~ June 25, 1987
(Jf t(?/
Synopsis of Previous Council action:
The Mayor and Common Council established a General Plan Task Force for
overall coordination of the revision to the City's Comprehensive Plan.
The interim guidelines approved by OPR for the General Plan included
a work program which includes the selection of a consultant.
Recommended motion:
That the recommendation of the General Plan Task Force for the selec~ion
of a consultant be approved and staff be directed to negotiate a
contract for professional services for approval by the Mayor and Common
Council.
Signature
Contact person:
Jim Ri chard son
Phone:
5122
Supporting data attached:
yes
Ward:
.
FUNDING REQUIREMENTS:
Amount: $600,000 est.
Source: 001-172-53150
/
Finance:
Planning General Plan
Council Notes:
"
...
"
Anpnrl::J Itpm I\.ln
S-II
o 0
CITV OF SAN BERNARDINO -
o 0
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
STAFF REPORT
The Planning Department prepared a detailed request for
proposal (RFP) for the solicitation of consultant services to
revise the General Plan. The General Plan Task Force
reviewed and approved the RFP for solicitation purposes.
There were eight formal RFP's received which were reviewed by
Planning staff and the General Plan Task Force. The
screening process resulted in five of eight consultants being
interviewed on June 20, 1987. Following staff check of
references, the General Plan Task Force met on June 23rd and
recommended a preferred consultant and an alternate, Staff
was then asked to negotiate with the preferred consultant to
make their fee more affordable. An oral report will be made
at the July 6th Council meeting on these preliminary
negotiations to facilitate the final selection of consultants
for the General Plan Revision.
Due to the time constraints and the complexity of the RFP's,
a regular agenda item could not be scheduled. Thus, there is
an urgency for considering the consultant selection as a
supplemental agenda item.
~~
C. RICHARDSON
City Administrator/Development
JCR/md
c'
o
o
.:>
BRUNICK &. PYLE
WlLLIAM ..J. B~uNICK
l:iAYM0ND O. PYLE
DONALD R. AL\tAi=lEZ
NAOMI S'LVCRGLEID
~AREN eO~GLER MCHUGH
MARG\JEl'<ITE: P. BATTERSBY
STEPHEN E. ANDLRSON
.JAME:5 W. ANDERSON
PROF'E.SSIONAL LAW CORPO,",ATIQN
1839 COMME>:1CENr::::R WEST
1=>05T OFFICE: BOX 6425
SAN BERNARDINO, CALIFORNIA 92.412
TELEPHONE AREA CODE 714
889-8301 824-0623
215 CAJON STF~EET
1=>. Q. BOX 1320
REOI.ANDS, CALIFORNIA 92313
TELEPHONE (714) 793-0818
PLEASE REFER TO
M E M 0 RAN DUM
TO:
Barbara Sky and Chris Saldecke
FROM:
BRUNICK & PYLE f\{1f~
RE:
General Plan
Bernardino:
$200,000 cut
July 3, 1987
Consultant Selection, City of San
Viability of Envicom bid assuming
DATE:
It is our understanding that Envicom is the
recommended bidder on the San Bernardino General Plan
Revision, but that in order to remain a viable bidder,
Envicom will have to bring its current bid into conformity
with the City's general plan revision budget. This will
entail a cut of approximately $200,000 from the bid.
Before a bid which is cut as much as 25% (or even
less than that) should be considered, the following
enquiries must be made and satisfactorily answered:
1. What elements of the proposal in response to
the RFP are such that they could have $200,000 cut from
them and remain viable? $200,000 represents at least
two man years of effort (depending on the profit margin
built into the contract), which must have significance
in terms of quality or ability to perform within the
<3-11
c
o
c>
:)
,
tiffle constraints of the contract.
2. In order to make a determination as to the
effect of the cuts, we must first know where
(sP~QifiQgllY) the cuts were made, and what is being
lost as a result of the revisions. In other words,
what is being sacrificed (for example, not as much
seismic evaluation, noise monitoring, road sampling for
the traffic study, etc.?)
3. Where cuts have been made, an evaluation must
be made as to whether the items cut will have to be
done eventually, anyway, in order to create a viable
general plan revision. This could be more costly in
the end, where two mobilizations of equipment will
result.
4. How will the cuts (with resulting loss of
manpower and perhaps duplication of efforts where
essentials have been overlooked at the expense of
completeness) affect time schedules and the city's
ability to complete the revision within the required
two year time frame?
To permit the kind of cuts apparently proposed from the
Envicom bid will certainly force a future compromise at
some level. If time is lost and the City is unable to
complete its general plan revision within the required tiw~
frame, developers will be hurt by the delays and the City
will again be placed in an exposed legal position by its
failure to have an adequate general plan.
,
c
o
')
-
It is our rcco~lli2~J~t:Ou that ~ bid c.hould net be
2::.::epted for the
~en~=~l pl~n r2vi~icn which h~s b0cn
'\
,_/
........'-
.....\,.l....
23 5ubstunti~11y a~ we unJcr3tund the Envicom biJ will hav2
tG
be Cut
-',,",""~""'+-r.o~
'-'l.........~i.......'-'-- ,
proposal
in order to
h~
~-
If this :':'iJ
......... .....-.~J... _~_1
u\-,""et-',-eu.
is to 0e
all dct~ils of where cuts are mude
1n
......1-.....
l..uO::
ro'h......111..:l
~.l.lV\"ol.........
writiii.S
be
and seriously considered
,~
~"
to their lllipact on the ~bovc i3ZU~S.
~~
'-~~