TO: AC Transit Board of Directors
FROM: Salvador Llamas, General Manager/Chief Executive Officer
SUBJECT: Contract Award of On-Call PM/CM Contracts
ACTION ITEM
AGENDA PLANNING REQUEST: ☐
RECOMMENDED ACTION(S):
Title
Consider the award of on-call Project Management/Construction Management (PM/CM) Contracts to Acumen Building Enterprise. Inc., Auriga Corporation, Chow Engineering, Inc., Dabri, Inc., GHD, Inc., Parsons Transportation Group, Inc., and VSCE, Inc.
Staff Contact:
Ramakrishna Pochiraju, Executive Director of Planning & Engineering
Body
STRATEGIC IMPORTANCE:
Goal - Safe and Secure Operations
Initiative - Infrastructure Modernization
On-call project management and construction management (PM/CM) contracts support the execution of the District’s Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) by having specialized resources available to address specific and often short-term project needs. Having these resources on-call and readily available saves several months of procurement time.
BUDGETARY/FISCAL IMPACT:
There is no immediate fiscal impact from the award of these contracts. Only when a task order is issued under one of the five on-call contracts will there be an impact. The maximum value of each individual tasking will be equal to the unused portion of the annual allocation for that specific contractor. The minimum value of each task order is $2,500.
CONTRACT AWARD SUMMARY:
|
Vendor Outreach Summary: |
|
|
No. DBE/SBEs: |
49 |
|
No. Registered Vendors: |
19,271 (Contacts) |
|
|
|
|
Contract Summary: |
|
|
# Proposals/Bids Received: |
8 SOQs Received of which 7 were deemed responsive |
|
Award Type: |
Best Qualified |
|
Independent Cost Estimate Range: |
$115.00 per hour - $500.00 per hour |
|
Recommended for Award: |
Seven firms are recommended for on-call contract awards: 1) Acumen Building Enterprise. Inc. 2) Auriga Corporation 3) Chow Engineering, Inc. 4) Dabri, Inc. 5) GHD, Inc. 6) Parsons Transportation Group, Inc. 7) VSCE, Inc. |
|
Small Business Type: |
Not Applicable* |
|
DBE/SBE Utilization %:** |
Actual utilization will depend on specific taskings awarded. Each proposer represents a significant SBE/DBE utilization. |
* Neither SBE, nor DBE
** The District sets Small Business Enterprise (SBE) goals on contracting opportunities. The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) may authorize a Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) goal; however, SBE goals may result in DBE awards and utilization.
Levine Act Disclosure
California Government Code § 84308, commonly referred to as the “Levine Act,” precludes an Officer of a local government agency from participating in the award of a contract if he or she receives any political contributions totaling more than $500 in the 12 months preceding the pendency of the contract award, and for three months following the final decision, from the person or company awarded the contract. This prohibition applies to contributions to the Officer, or received by the Officer on behalf of any other Officer, or on behalf of any candidate for office or on behalf of any committee. The Levine Act also requires disclosure of such contributions by a party to be awarded a specified contract. Disclosure is not required for contracts that are competitively bid, contracts under $50,000; contracts between two or more government agencies; contracts where no party receives financial compensation; and periodic review or renewal of development agreements or competitively bid contracts with non-material modifications.
BACKGROUND/RATIONALE:
On-Call PM/CM contracts will provide the District with access to specialized Project Management and Construction Management services as well as short-term staff augmentation to accommodate the capital project’s program needs. These needs cover a variety of PM/CM areas, which include, but are not limited Project Management Services, Construction Management Services, Special Inspections, Special Testing, Surveying, Quality Assurance / Quality Control monitoring. Many of these specialties are only needed for a limited time ranging from days to weeks to months, depending on the specific project need.
Procurement Timeline
1. Solicitation issued 02-07-2025
2. Solicitation closed 03-07-2025
3. Evaluations finalized 04-30-2025
The evaluation panel was comprised of six (6) evaluators all with detailed experience in delivering the scope of work anticipated for these on-call PM/CM taskings. The panel evaluated the statements of qualifications for each proposer with respect to each of the five evaluation criteria listed in the solicitation and shown below.
Qualifications Evaluation Criteria
1. Technical Specialized Experience of the Firm - 30%
2. Professional Qualifications and Competence of Team / Depth of Firm - 20%
3. Firm’s Relevant Past Performance - 25%
4. Capacity of Firm to Accomplish the Work in the Required Time - 20%
5. Quality Control Program - 5%
The evaluation results indicate that all seven (7) firms that submitted responsive statements of qualifications scored in the competitive range (70% and above).
Staff is proposing seven (7) on-call PM/CM contracts, each valued at a maximum of $2,000,000 per year during an initial three-year offering period when work can be tasked and started. Each contract will have a five-year period of performance for completion of the work authorized during the offering period. This is to ensure that all taskings issued during the three-year tasking period will be complete prior to the final expiration of the contract term. These contracts are on-call, task order-based contracts. When the need for services under these contracts is identified, the District will order the services by issuing a task order to the best qualified firm followed by a purchase order. Of the seven proposed awards, the execution of these agreements are contingent upon negotiating a mutually beneficial agreement.
The procurement approach used was a qualifications-based, price not determinative, “Brooks Act,” as defined by Federal Transit Administration Circular 4220.1G (BP 465 IV,C,2,a). It utilized a Request for Qualifications (RFQ) procurement approach. Actual tasking will be made by applying a mini-Brooks evaluation to determine the best qualified firm for that specific tasking.
ADVANTAGES/DISADVANTAGES:
There are a number of advantages associated with continuing the use of on-call PM/CM contracts, including:
1. Relatively quick access to specialized skills when necessary;
2. Pay as you go approach, so the District pays only for the services utilized; and
3. No cost to the District if the services are not required or used.
There are no immediate disadvantages to awarding these on-call contracts.
ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS:
Staff considered three (3) alternative approaches to providing the District with the kinds of services envisioned for these contracts; however, it is important to note that having these contracts in place would not preclude the District from using any of these alternative methods:
1. Hire employees. Adding staff to handle the wide range of specialties and paying them full-time wages and benefits when they are only needed part of the time. Staff does not recommend this alternative because it is not a prudent use of District funds.
2. Individual Procurements. The District could opt to solicit proposals for PM/CM services as the need arises. Staff does not recommend this alternative because it would result in lengthened implementation schedules and increased workload for project managers and contract specialists with no corresponding benefit.
3. Temporary Employees. The District could use temporary employees, perhaps hired through a placement agency, for the duration of a particular project. Staff does not recommend this approach because a project typically requires a specialty for a limited number of hours per month over a several month duration.
PRIOR RELEVANT BOARD ACTION/POLICIES:
SR 20-360a, Award of On-Call PM-CM Contracts, October 13, 2021
SR 17-233a, Award of On-Call PM-CM Contracts, June 13, 2018
SR 15-030, Award of On-Call PM-CM Contracts, January 14, 2015
SR 13-045, Award of On-Call Contracts January 23, 2013
SR 09-296, Award of On-Call Contracts December 16, 2009
Board Policy 465
ATTACHMENTS:
1. None
Prepared by:
Joe Callaway, Director of Capital Projects
Approved/Reviewed by:
Phillip Halley, Interim Director, Civil Rights and Compliance
Fred Walls, Director of Procurement & Materials Management
Aimee L. Steele, General Counsel/Chief Legal Officer
Chris Andrichak, Chief Financial Officer
Ramakrishna Pochiraju, Executive Director of Planning & Engineering