TO: AC Transit Board of Directors
FROM: Michael A. Hursh, General Manager
SUBJECT: On-Call Project Management/Construction Management Contracts
ACTION ITEM
RECOMMENDED ACTION(S):
Title
Consider award of five On-Call Project Management/Construction Management Contracts with five-year terms to Chow Engineering, Inc.; Dabri, Inc.; Parsons Transportation Group, Inc.; VSCE, Inc.; and WSP USA, Inc.
Body
STRATEGIC IMPORTANCE:
Goal - Safe and Secure Operations
Initiative - Infrastructure Modernization
These on-call Project Management / Construction Management (PM/CM) contracts ensure the District has access to the most up-to-date, professional and industry standard best practices when engaging outside services for construction management and project management support during the development of the District’s Capital Projects.
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 (5) on-call contracts will there be an impact.
Each selected firm will be limited to an annual amount of $1,000,000 with a maximum aggregate of $3.0 million for three years. 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.
BACKGROUND/RATIONALE:
On-Call PM/CM contracts provide the District with access to specialized construction management and project 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 to, construction observations, construction inspections, invoice review, contract change order review, cost analysis, scheduling, and safety management. Many of these specialties are only needed for a limited time ranging from weeks to months, depending on the specific project need.
The original “Permission to Solicit” authorized by the Board on October 14, 2020, provided for up to five contract awards. After evaluation of the six (6) Statements of Qualifications received in response to the Request for Qualifications, staff found all six (6) firms to be qualified so staff is requesting the award to the five most qualified firms.
Staff is proposing five (5) on-call A&E contracts, each valued at a maximum of $1,000,000 per year during an initial three-year offering period when work can be 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.
The procurement approach used was a qualifications-based, price not determinative, “Brooks Act”, as defined by Federal Transit Administration Circular 4220.1F Rev 3. It utilized a Request for Qualifications (RFQ) procurement approach.
The procurement followed the timeline in Table 1. The results of the solicitation are in Table 2.
Table 1. Procurement Timeline
|
Board authorization to issue solicitation |
10-14-2020 |
|
Solicitation issued |
06-16-2021 |
|
Solicitation closed |
07-27-2021 |
|
Evaluations complete |
08-20-2021 |
Table 2. Solicitation Results
|
Number of DBE firms solicited |
326 |
|
Number of firms responded to RFQ |
6 |
|
Number of firms determined to be responsive |
6 |
|
Number of firms evaluated |
6 |
The evaluation panel was comprised of five evaluators. Four evaluators were from AC Transit’s Planning and Engineering Department and one outside evaluator was from the City of Hayward Public Works Department. The panel evaluated the proposals in accordance with the evaluation criteria listed in the solicitation and shown below in Table 3.
Table 3. Qualifications Evaluation Criteria
|
Relevant Past Performance |
30% |
|
Technical Specialized Experience |
20% |
|
Professional Qualifications and Competence of Team / Depth of Firm |
25% |
|
Capacity of Firm to Accomplish the Work in the Required Time |
20% |
|
Quality Control Program |
5% |
The panel scored the six firms to determine the five (5) highest ranking firms. The highest scoring companies are the most qualified to undertake the scope of services and are deemed both responsive and responsible. The evaluation was conducted in a Brooks Act compliant manner using the criteria set forth in the RFQ (2021- 1533) while considering the kind of services that may be required, also as prescribed by the RFQ.
Staff recommends awarding five (5) on-call contracts for professional PM/CM contracts to Chow Engineering, Inc., Parsons Transportation Group, Inc., WSP USA, Inc., Dabri, Inc., and VSCE, Inc.
ADVANTAGES/DISADVANTAGES:
Award of these contracts will permit staff to utilize specialized skills required to support critical project activity. Staff is unable to identify any disadvantages in making these awards.
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 fulltime 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 A&E 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:
Staff Report 20-360, Permission to Solicit On-Call Project Management / Construction Management, October 14, 2020.
Board Policy 465 - Procurement Policy
ATTACHMENTS:
None
Prepared by:
Joe Callaway, Director of Capital Projects
Approved/Reviewed by:
Fred Walls, Director of Procurement and Materials
Ramakrishna Pochiraju, Executive Director of Planning & Engineering
Chris Andrichak, Chief Financial Officer
Jill A. Sprague, General Counsel