Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 8.2 Engineering Services Contract Review r CITY OF DUBLIN 600,3o AGENDA STATEMENT CITY COUNCIL MEETING :DATE: October 14, 1985 SUBJECT Engineering Services Contract Review EXHIBITS ATTACHED 1 ) Memorandum from City Manager dated October 11 , 1985 2) Letter from Lee Thompson dated August 19 , 1985 3 ) Letter from City Attorney dated June 18 , 1985 4) Letter from Lee Thompson dated June 4, 1985 5 ) Revised Agreements 6) Evaluation form RECOMMENDATION 1 ) Review Evaluation 2) Approve City payment of hourly rate surcharge to increase Santina & Thompsons Error and Admissions coverage to $500, 000 3 ) Approve rate changes and authorize Mayor to execute revised agreements 4) Give conceptual approval to hiring an employee to perform Public Works inspection and direct Staff to take the necessary steps to hire and to equip that employee FINANCIAL STATEMENT: 1984-85 Contract Cost - $591 , 023 Estimated Increase in hourly rates 5 . 1% to 6.4% (Exclusive of insurance surcharge ) Insurance surcharge $2 .90 per hour up to $23 , 524 Proposed costs savings resulting from the hiring of a full-time employee to perfrom Public Works Inspection services - $16,644 (First year: $25 , 844 each subsequent year) DESCRIPTION The City Manager has undertaken an evaluation of the Engineering Services provided by Santina & Thompson and TJKM. (See attached Memorandum) The key issues identified in the evaluation are as follows : 1 ) Increase in hourly rates to cover inflationary costs . As shown in Exhibit A of each agreement , various rates are being proposed by Santina & Thompson and TJKM for services to the City of Dublin for the upcoming year. Lee Thompson has indicated that the average rate increase is approximately 5 .1% for those positions historically utilized by the City. For TJKM the proposed rate increase is approximately 6.4/ It ' s important to note that Santina & Thompson has proposed rates that were effective for all of their other clients on January 1 , 1985 , while TJKM has proposed rates that were effective for their clients on March 1 , 1985 • This year Santina & Thompson has proposed the rate structure be changed such that the City would be charged 75/ rather than 80% of their standard rate for general engineering services. Santina & Thompson have further proposed that their standard rates would apply toward work that is reimbursable by private developers . No change is proposed in the method of changing rates by TJKM other than the overall rate increase . It is further proposed that the proposed rate schedules become effective from October 1 , 1985 to June 30, 1986. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- COPIES TO : Santina & Thompson TJKM ITEM NO . 8-Z w Page 2 Agenda Statement - Engineering Services Contract Review 2 ) Santina & Thompson have indicated that they would be unable to bear the cost of Errors and Admissions coverage necessary to meet the $1 million provision of the engineering contract . The City Attorney has indicated that the City should require at least $500,000 in Errors and Admissions coverage. This coverage can be obtained if the City is willing to pay the additional cost of the coverage . The cost is $23 , 524 and will result in an additional surcharge of $2.90 per hour over the standard rates quoted. 3 ) Staff has idenified a means by which the City could restructure its existing agreement with Santina & Thompson inorder to achieve greater cost savings in the provision of engineering service. This cost savings could be achieved through the hiring of an employee to perform Public Works Inspection services . 4) Santina & Thompson have recommended that separate agreements be entered into between the City and TJKM inorder to reduce the cost of liability insurance . It is recommended that the City Council evaluate the services provided by Santina & Thompson. An evaluation form has been provided with this packet for that purpose . It is further recommended that the City Council take those actions identified in the recommendation section above . M E M O R A N D U M TO: City Council FROM e0lcity Manager SUBJECT: Engineering Services Contract Review DATE: October 11 , 1985 On May 21 , 1984, the City Council reviewed and evaluated the contract engineering services provided by Santina & Thompson and TJKM. The City Council also amended the City' s agreement with Santina & Thompson revising the rates for Santina & Thompson and TJKM, effective June 1, 1984. In accordance with previously established practice, Staff has prepared an evaluation of the services provided by Santina & Thompson and TJKM during Fiscal Year 1984-85. 1. CONTRACT COMPLIANCE A. Administrative Duties - Santina & Thompson have fulfilled those areas of responsibility identified in their contract in an above average manner during 1984-85. As indicated in Exhibit C, Santina & Thompson participated in the formation of three assessment districts and two underground utility districts, as well as handling numerous other special projects. B. Traffic Engineering - During Fiscal Year 1984-85, three major non-capital traffic studies were performed at the request of the City Council. Other minor studies were performed at the request of other City Departments and the general public. The Traffic Engineer also undertook four studies at the request of private developers. The Traffic Engineer contributed to the design of several capital projects during the year. It is Staff ' s opinion that the terms of the contract in this area have been met. C. Development Review - During 1984-85 a total of 49 private development projects were reviewed by Santina & Thompson. This is indicative of the high level of construction activity in the City. The City Manager' s Office has received few complaints with respect to processing time by Santina & Thompson. _Most complaints received have been related to control exercised by the City over construction activity in the western hills; i.e. , K & B and Hatfield. These complaints stem primarily from the proximity of new development to existing residential neighborhoods. In my opinion, the public works inspection staff has responded in a reasonable manner to correct violations within the City' s control. This response has not always satisfied neighboring residents, who desire restrictions placed on construction sites which would effectively require construction activity to cease altogether. D. Capital Projects - During Fiscal Year 1984-85, Santina & Thompson continued to play a key role in the City' s planning and completion of capital projects. Last year, Santina & Thompson performed design and/or inspections on twenty seven ( 27) capital projects which are in various stages of completion. It is evident that these projects have been received well by the community. E. Liability Coverage - In June 1985, Santina & Thompson indicated that they could obtain $1,000, 000 in general liability coverage, but could no longer afford to provide the $1, 000, 000 errors and omissions coverage required by their contract with the City due to significant increases in their insurance premium ( see attached letter) . Since June, Staff, the City Attorney, the City' s Insurance Broker and Santina & Thompson have atempted to identify alternatives. The City Attorney has indicated that Santina & Thompson should carry at least $500,000 in errors and omissions coverage. Page 1 The annual additional cost to increase Santina & Thompson' s coverage from $250, 000 to $500, 000 would be $23, 524. To increase the coverage from $250,000 to $1, 000,000 would be $33 , 165. Staff has identified the following options available to the City: ( 1. ) Allow Santina & Thompson to retain only $250, 000 in errors and omissions coverage. (2. ) Pay for the additional cost to raise their coverage from $250,000-$500, 000 or $1,000,000 through higher rates. ( 3. ) Do away with contract engineering service and create a full service engineering department staffed by City employees. The City' s insurance broker has indicated that as employees, the City would have coverage. ( 4. ) Terminate Santina & Thompson' s contract and attempt to find another engineering firm who could provide the City with the coverage once their insurance company recognized the extent of the services they were providing to the City. It is Staff' s position that to select Option 1 at this time would be fiscally unsound. Option 3 would involve completely changing the method of providing engineering services based upon the present insurance market. This would not be cost effective at this time and further, there is no guarantee that the City would be able to maintain its own errors and omissions coverage next year. With Option 4, other consulting engineers are probably experiencing the same insurance problems. Even with a change, Santina & Thompson have so many capital projects under design, the transition would be difficult. It is Staff ' s position that the City agree to pay the additional hourly rate to receive $500, 000 coverage. Based on 1984-85 hours worked, this would result in an increase of $2. 90/hour. It is further recommended that the City track this additional charge up to $23, 524, at which time the additional charge would be dropped. 2 . AVAILABILITY The established Engineering Office hours are 10: 00 a.m. - 5: 00 p.m. During Fiscal Year 1984-85, these hours were modified when necessary at the request of the City Manager. These hours were also supplemented by a full time Public Works Inspector provided by Santina & Thompson when the inspector is not in the field. The City. Engineer & Traffic Engineer have also attended Council, Commission, Committee and community meetings when so requested. The demand for engineering services more than justifies the office hours presently provided by Santina & Thompson. 3. RESPONSIVENESS In my opinion, the Engineering Staff has been responsive and sensitive to the public, developers and Staff.. (See comments in 1.C. above. ) 4. COST EFFECTIVENESS A. Adequacy of control exercised over project costs - Cost overruns on capital projects during Fiscal Year 1984-85 were minimized and usually occurred when the City was able to take advantage of a particularly low bid price. B. Ability to obtain grants to offset General Fund expenditures - During Fiscal Year 1984-85, the City Engineer was successful in obtaining additional grant funding. The City received a $37, 400 Office of Traffic Safety Grant. The City Engineer also negotiated a trade with the City of Madera which brought an additional $153 ,500 in Federal Aid Urban Funds. During Fiscal Year 1984-85, the City Engineer also successfully negotiated a 10 year advance of PG&E underground utility funds. Page 2 C. Are the services provided by the Contractor cost efective or could they be provided at a lesser cost? - As shown in Exhibit A, the total cost of the contract for 1984-85 with Santina & Thompson and TJKM was $591, 023. Fifty-six percent ( 56%) of the cost was for engineering work related to capital projects, twenty-six percent (26% ) of the cost was reimbursed by private developers or assessment district fees; and the remaining eighteen percent ( 18% ) was financed by the General Fund for General Engineering activities. The average hourly rate for Santina & Thompson dropped $3. 28 during Fiscal Year 1984-85. This is primarily due to the utilization of a Senior Engineer in the. City offices on Wednesday of each week. This individual is paid at a lower hourly rate than the City Engineer, while providing engineering services which do not require the expertise of the City Engineer. The average hourly rate for TJKM increased $10. 96 in Fiscal Year 1984-85. This is primarily due to the increased utilization of Chris Kinzel on special projects and at special meetings and because of the increased percentage of capital projects undertaken by TJKM, which are performed at 100% of TJKM' s standard hourly rate. This year, the City Engineer and I have reviewed in detail the various types of work performed under the contract during the last year in order to determine' if the work could be performed more cost effectively. It is our collective conclusion that the City could realize significant savings by reducing certain contract services and adding additional City Staff. This is particularly true in the area of public works inspection. During 1984-85, the City was provided with 1941. 5 hours of public works inspection. Nineteen percent ( 19%) of the hours were spent in the area of General Engineering handling complaints, and other small projects; fifty- one percent ( 51% ) of the hours were spent inspecting private development and were reimbursed by fees; and thirty percent ( 30%) of the hours were spent inspecting City capital projects. It is quite apparent that the City will always have the need for a full time public works inspector in the future, because of the variety of tasks performed by the inspector and the level of work that will consistently be generated. If the City hires a City employee to perform the public works inspector function and the level of activity increases beyond the available hours of one person, Santina & Thompson can supplement those services necessary under the contract. With a City employee, the City would have to purchase a vehicle and small tools. The anticipated cost savings to the City is shown below: Santina & Thompson Contract Inspector Proposed Hourly Rate $ 42. 00/hour Annual Work Hours x 1832 $76, 944/year * Includes vehicle and small tools. City Inspector Estimated Salary $ 37, 200 Fringe Benefits 6, 660 Annual Vehicle operating Cost 6, 900 ** Communications Device 340 $ 51, 100 First Year Expense Truck Purchase $ 8, 500 Small Tools 700 $ 9, 200 First Year Savings $ 16, 644 Annual Savings After First Year $ 25,844 ** Includes amortization for replacement value of truck operating 15, 000 miles per year. Page 3 If the City Council concurred with Staff that this position should be added, it is anticipated that the necessary personnel tasks and recruitment could be completed by March 1, 1985. In addition to the Public Works Inspector position an additional staff engineer position may result in additional savings to the City. The City Engineer and I are still reviewing the scope of duties of this position as they relate to the future provision of engineering services and will present a more detailed report to the City Council at a future date. 5. PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT & IMPLEMENTATION A. Does Contractor implement projects in a timely manner? - Given the volume of work,. yes. B. Does Contractor identify and develop projects that adequately address the City' s needs? - Yes C. Is the engineering information provided by the Contractor accurate and reliable? - With respect to the quality of engineering service provided for capital projects, the engineer ' s estimate was fairly accurate on the nine ( 9 ) contracts which were bid during 1984-85. As shown on Exhibit B, the Engineer' s estimate on the average was 10. 3% higher than the actual bid amount. Page 4 EXHIBIT A FISCAL YEAR 1984-85 ENGINEERING COST BREAKDOWN 1984/85 1983 AVE COST AVE COST SANTINA & THOMPSON COST HOURS PER HOUR PER HOUR General Engineering $ 78, 088 1373. 5 Assessment District Engineering 5, 255 71. 5 Engineering Paid for by Outside Fees 93 , 524 1599. 5 Inspection Paid for by Outside Fees 50, 058 1147. 5 Capital Projects - 292 ,255 5772. 5 Subtotal $519, 180 9964. 5 $52. 10 $55. 38 Materials & Other Contract Services 15, 692 TOTAL COST $534, 872 TJKM General Traffic Engineering $ 19, 454 473. 25 Major Studies 7, 413 178. 00 Traffic Enginering Paid for by Outside Fees 6, 991 142. 50 Capital Projects 22, 261 409. 42 Subtotal $ 56, 119 1203. 17 $46. 64 $35. 68 Materials 32 Total Cost $ 56, 151 GRAND TOTAL $591, 023 EXHIBIT B 1984-85 CAPITAL PROJECT COMPARISON OF ENGINEER' s ESTIMATE & ACTUAL BID % OVER ENGINEER' S BID ENGINEER' S PROJECT ESTIMATE AMOUNT ESTIMATE 1. 1984 Overlay Program $ 94,085 $ 96 , 419 + 2. 5% 2. 1984 Slurry Seal Program 39, 243 31,037 - 20. 9% 3. Major Street Rehabilitation 454, 903 487, 116 + 7. 1% 4. Major Arterial Landscaping 431, 496 370, 736 - 14. 1% 5. Handicap Ramps , Sidewalk Repair & Silvergate Drive Median Break 67, 034 43, 653 - 34. 9% 6. Village Parkway Sidewalk & Landscaping West Side 111,001 103 , 945 - 6. 4% 7. Dougherty Road Storm Drain 62 , 502 50,340 - 19. 5% 8. Village Parkway Wall 180, 000 250, 258 + 39% 9. Clark Avenue, Dublin Court & Stagecoach Rd Signals, Street Trees, Downtown Street Light Additions , Dublin Blvd/ Dougherty Rd Intersection Modifications 650, 100 441,234 - 32. 1% Overall Comparison $2 , 090,364 $1,874, 738 - 10.3% EXHIBIT C 1984-85 SPECIAL ENGINEERING PROJECTS School Safety Study San Ramon Road Specific Plan Improvement District Restriping Plan Regional Street & Amador Plaza Road San Ramon Road Underground Utility District Dublin Boulevard Underground Utility District Dougherty Road Traffic Study Amador Valley Boulevard Traffic Study Phase II Limited Parking Zone Requests ( 2 ) No Parking Zone Requests ( 3 ) Dublin Boulevard Median Closure Banner Installation Requests ( 5 ) Stagecoach Road Speed Study Banner Pole Installations Shell Oil Request Intersection Modifications Landscape Assessment District Street Light Assessment District Federal Aid Urban Fund Purchase from City of Madera SA DTI1 A & ENGINEERING l� AA�� l� THO MPS O N INC. CONSULTANTS 1040 Oak Grove Road, Concord, California 94518 (415) 827-3200 Telex 338563 Santina August 19 , 1985 Mr . Richard Ambrose, City Manager City of Dublin 6500 Dublin Blvd. Dublin, CA 94568 Subject: Annual Contract Review Dear Rich: In reviewing our contract language, I feel we, of Santina & Thompson, Inc., have performed all tasks both specifically within our contract and other tasks that we have been given in a timely and professional manner. As part of our work , Santina and Thompson Inc. has been actively pursuing outside funding to supplement the City's General Fund and Gas Tax monies used in the City's Capital Improvement Program. Included in this year's grants are one hundred and fifty thousand dollars in FAU monies through a purchase from the City of Madera and it appears that Dublin will be getting $500 ,000.00 in FAU funds for San Ramon Rd. Phase III within our local 3 City area. We would ask that our professional liability requirement be reduced to $250,000.00 from the present $1,000,000.00. Please see our letter attached regarding this tremendous change in the rates that we are having to pay and that seems to be an industry wide problem. A second area that we propose as a contract revision relates to our annual hourly rate increase based on inflationary costs. Attached is a copy of Santina & Thompson's proposed rate schedule and that of TJKM' s. These schedules were effective for our other clients on January 1st and March 1st respectively and represent an average increase of 5.2% for Santina & Thompson Inc. and average of 6.4% for TJKM. Last year, Santina & Thompson's rates changed both up and down for various positions with a very small overall increase. Offices in Concord and Los Angeles Mr. Richard Ambrose August 19 , 1985 Page Two The final Contract revision that we are requesting is that of a change in the 80% rate for work done at Dublin City off ices. As this 800 of printed rates effectively subsidizes the inspection of private developments, we would ask that we be allowed a full rate for private development work and that the work we do on City projects and general engineering work performed at City offices be reduced to a fee of 75% of printed rates for a net savings to the City. Your consideration of these proposals and a continuation of our services would be greatly appreciated. Very truly It Lee S. Thompson ENGINEERING SURVEYING SANTINA & THOMPSON INC. CONSULTANTS PLANNING HOURLY CHARGE RATES January 1 , 1985 PRINCIPAL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 90 ENGINEERING: Project Manager . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81 Project Engineer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73 Senior Engineer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64 Associate Engineer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54 Junior Engineer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 Public Works Inspector . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56 Senior Inspector . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60 PLANNING: Director of Planning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66 Senior Planner . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62 Associate Planner . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 Junior Planner . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 DRAFTING/GRAPHICS: Senior Draftsman . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 Associate Draftsman . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 Junior Draftsman . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 Graphic Artist . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 CLERICAL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 SURVEY: No. Calif. So. Calif. Survey Manager . . . . . . . . . .' $ 66 65 Survey Supervisor . . . . . . . . 60 60 Office Surveyor . . . . . . . . . 56 51 Associate Office Surveyor . . . . 44 44 Junior Office Surveyor . . . . . . 31 29 3-Man Party . . . . . . . . . . . 154 140 2-Man Party . . . . . . . . . . . 112 105 1-Man Party . . . . . . . . . . . 62 55 Electronic Measuring Device: HP 3810 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 10 HP 3820 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 15 TJKM HOURLY RATE SCHEDULE Principal $98 Principal Associate 82 Senior Associate 76 Associate 72 Senior Traffic Engineer 68 Senior Transportation Engineer 68 Traffic Engineer 60 Transportation Engineer 60 Assistant Traffic Engineer 49 Traffic Engineering Assistant 42 Technician II 34 Technician 1 22 Graphics Supervisor 42 Draftsman 34 Secretarial 35 Computer 30 Above rates include standard overhead items. Travel costs are billed at 30 cents/mile. Outside services are billed at cost plus 10 percent for handling. Invoices are due and payable within 30 days. Invoices paid after 30 days will be subject to separate billings of 1-1/2 percent per month of unpaid balance. Late charges are not included in any agreement for maximum charges. Expert witness charges available on request. Effective March 1, 1985 MICHAEL R. NAVE ATTORNEY AT LAW 1220 HOWARD AVENUE. SUITE 250 BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA MAILING ADDRESS 94010-4211 P. 0. BOX 208 (415) 348-7130 BURLINGAME. CA 94011-0208 June 18, 1985 Mr. Richard Ambrose City Manager CITY OF DUBLIN P. 0. Box 2340 Dublin, CA 94566 Dear Rich: You have asked me to review the request of Lee Thompson to reduce the limits of his errors and omissions coverage. It is obvious that Lee' s profession is feeling the effect of the large verdict rendered in design defect cases. The over 1 million dollar verdict against Alameda County for a street design defect on Silvergate Avenue is an example of the exposure of engineers. Unfortunately, the size and cost of a public works project bears no relationship to the severity of an injury and the size of a settlement or verdict. Fractured knee caps resulting from a fall caused by a hole in a sidewalk have a settlement range close to $100 ,000 .00 .. I have mentioned this to illustrate the inadequacy of the $250 ,000 .00 limit proposed by Lee. There may be several solutions to the dilemma. The most obvious is to have Lee' s insurance broker see if he can obtain excess insurance naming the City as a beneficiary. Such a policy would not provide coverage until the $250 ,000 .00 primary errors and omissions policy was exhausted. If such a policy is not available, Lee may agree, in his contract, to personally indemnify the City for any loss above the sum of $250 ,000 .00 for which the City is held liable, and which is proximately caused by an improvement designed, inspected or supervised by him in his capacity as City Engineer. I believe that the City would be better protected if Lee obtained a $500 ,000 .00 policy, as a great number of design defect cases have a settlement value in excess of $250 ,000 .00 . Very truly yours, ZeMic ael R. N MRN/ m C C SANTINA & EN SURVEYING THOMPSON INC. CONSULTAA TS 1040 Oak Grove Road. Concord, California 94518 (415) 827-3200 Telex 338563 Santina June 4 , 1985 Mr. Richard Ambrose, City Manager y City of Dublin P.O. Box 2340 Dublin, CA. Subject: Contract Services Dear Rich: We at Santina & Thompson have run into an insurance problem that needs both of our mediate attention. About a - month ago, our errors and ommissions insurance company informed us that they were no longer going to write this type of insurance and that we would have to find another carrier. we immediately began shopping for . this coverage with the results that we could find only one company that would accept us as a new client, however, the cost would have increased almost six (6 ) times $31,600/yr to $172 , 000/yr for $2 million in coverage. As this would have—put us out of business we optioned for $250,000 in coverage at a cost of $73, 600 , over two times our previous cost. The problem is not that we have claims , but that the industry has apparently realized that they are losing money and are trying to make it up all at once. In talking to other professionals, they are also having the same problems. To put this limit in perspective, we certainly can be sued for more than that limit which would then come from the income and assets of our company. Also, most of the projects that we are working on, range from $200 , 000 to $600, 000 and are heavy on such things as asphalt, curb and sidewalk. It would take an unusual problem to make a $250,000 mistake. i l l The more important of our insurances is our liability insurance where personal injury cases are typically the high .claims and sometimes high awards. The problem is that our existing contract with the City designates our errors and ommissions insurance limit as one million dollars. we would ask that this limit be reduced to $250, 000 . Your consideration would be greatly appreciated. Very truly u Vee Thomps n Vice President LST/gh A G R E E M E N T This Agreement is made and entered into this day of 1985, by and between the City of Dublin (hereinafter referred to as "City" ) , and Santina and Thompson, Consulting Civil Engineers, Inc. , (hereinafter referred to as "Consultant" ) . WHEREAS, City is desirous of the services of a City Engineer and related engineering; and WHEREAS, Consultant is qualified to render said necessary services and desires to serve as City Engineer to City. NOW, THEREFORE, the parties hereto agree as follows: I. DUTIES OF CONSULTANT Consultant agrees to provide those engineering services that may be required by the City of Dublin during the term of this agreement in a prompt, professional and workmanlike manner in accordance with the standards of the engineering profession. All work shall be completed to the satisfaction of the City Manager. The City may, at its discretion, request performance by consultant of any of the following duties: A. Administrative Duties 1. Perform the statuatory responsibilities of City Engineer. 2. Analyze the City' s traffic engineering needs and recommend programs to the City Manager consistent with the economic capabilities of the City. 3. Attend meetings with City Staff, public officials, community leaders, developers, contractors, and the general public, as required by the City. 4. At the discretion of the City, review and comment on planning programs and land development projects which are not only locatd within the City, but also located outside the City and which may have a traffic impact on the City. 5. When directed, supervise the accounting of State Highway User Funds from the standpoint of meeting State requirements for the expenditure of such funds. 6. Advise the City Manager as to engineering and construction financing available from other governmental agencies and when so directed, prepare and initiate application for such fundings. 7. Recommend ordinances and regulations pertaining to engineering matters. Page 1 8. Establish working relationships and coordination with other public agencies and private utilities involving engineering matters affecting the City. 9. Provide special engineering reports as to such related matters as minor traffic studies, assessment district formation, annexation, etc. , when so requested. 10. Administer and review issuance of encroachment and grading permits. B. Traffic Engineering Duties 1. Give direction to and assist City Staff in performing minor traffic studies as necessary and/or required. 2. At the request of the City, recommend solutions to street design problems. 3. Provide general engineering consultation in connection with traffic circulation, street signs, noise impact, etc. C. Development Review Duties 1. Review proposed developments and make recommendations pertaining to engineering considerations. 2. Perform the statutory functions of City Engineer pertaining to the review and checking of subdivision maps. This includes, but is not limited to the following: a. Examine each tract map of each subdivision within the City, with respect to its conformity with the tentative map or maps, any approved alterations, and applicable City records and ordinances. The City Engineer would be required to certify the map. b. Examine each parcel map of each division of land within the City with respect to its conformity with the tentative map or maps, any approved alterations, and applicable City records and ordinances. The City Engineer would be required to certify the map. C. Provide detailed plan checking of tract and parcel maps. 3. Check improvement plans for facilities under the jurisdiction of the City that are prepared by private developers. 4. Establish performance and labor and material bond amounts when required and require the posting of such securities and other development fees within the proper time sequence of such development review. Page 2 5. Provide field inspection during the construction of such improvements by private developers and at the proper time recommend notices of completion and acceptance of the work. 6. Provide such necessary and related functions that are the normal practice of the City in the City Engineering review of private developments. 7. Review engineering aspects of planning applications. 8. Recommend acceptance for maintenance of public improvements to the City Council. D. Capital Projects 1. Assist City Manager in development of a capital improvement program. 2. Provide assistance in preparation of contract documents for capital improvement projects. 3. Upon specific and separate authorization by the City, prepare plans and specifications for capital improvement projects. It is understood that Consultant will provide design services for most capital improvement projects. However, the City reserves the right to bid any project or bring in specialists when deemed necessary by the City or the Consultant. A capital improvement is defined as any project in which the construction is performed by someone other than the City forces or the City' s designated street maintenance contractor. 4. Provide plan checking of and construction observation during the course of construction of City undertaken projects. II. GENERAL CONDITIONS A. Consultant agrees to provide a toll free telephone number at consultant ' s office to be used by City of Dublin. B. Consultant agrees to establish regular office hours in the Dublin City Offices to the satisfaction of the City Manager. C. City will provide office space and clerical support for Contractor ' s representative designated as City Engineer. D. Consultant shall provide no services for any client other than the City within the corporate boundaries or sphere of influence of the City during the term of the agreement. Page 3 III. DESIGNATION AS CITY ENGINEER For the term of this agreement, the following employee of consultant is to be designated as City Engineer: Lee S. Thompson Registered Civil Engineer #19348 IV. COMPENSATION Consultant shall be compensated for work as follows: A. The following work shall be charged at 75 percent of the rates shown in Exhibit A: 1. Work which is performed in or from the Dublin City office for work not chargable to private developments. This includes work performed by the City Engineer and Public Works Inspector, and attendance at Commission and City Council meetings. 2. General Engineering work which is not related to a specific capital improvement project or private development and is performed in or from the Dublin City Office. - This includes attendance at Commission and City Council meetings. 3. Services related to the review, issuance and inspection of permits which are based on an established fee and the applicant is not charged the actual cost. B. The following work shall be charged at the rates shown in Exhibit A: 1. Capital improvement design work, which is billed on a time and material basis. Prior to proceeding with the work, a maximum estimated budget shall be established by City and shall not be exceeded without approval of the City Manager. 2. Engineering survey work. 3. Plan checking and other activities which are paid for by the private developer and are designated as actual cost on the fee schedule. This would not include work on projects where the application involved review, issuance or inspection based on an established fee. C. The City shall not pay for the cost of commuting from the Consultant' s office to Dublin City Office. V. COLLECTION OF FEES All fees to be collected from any private developer, engineer, or architect in connection with the carrying out of the functions set forth above, if collected by engineer shall be collected in the name of the City. Engineer shall employ record keeping measures acceptable to the City. If fees are collected by the City, engineer shall review the appropriate Page 4 ordinances and fee schedules in effect by City and shall provide to the persons designated by the City for collection of fees, the amount of such fees to be collected. VI. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR STATUS In the performance of the work undertaken pursuant to this agreement, consultant is deemed to be an independent contractor. Consultant ' s employees are not to be considered employees of the City of Dublin for any purpose. VII. ASSIGNABILITY This agreement shall not be assignable or transferable by the Consultant without the expressed written consent of the City Manager. VIII. OWNERSHIP OF WORK All documents, data studies, surveys, drawings, maps and reports furnished to the Consultant by the City, as well as reports and supportive data prepared by the Consultant under this contract shall be considered the property of the City of Dublin and upon request at the completion of the services to be performed, they will be turned over to the City of Dublin. IX. PERFORMANCE OF WORK Consultant agrees to perform work as stated in this agreement to the satisfaction of the City. X. LIABILITY COVERAGE A. City shall not be called upon to assume any liability for the direct payment of any salary, wage or other compensation to any person employed by the Consultant performing services for the City. B. Consultant firm shall hold harmless the City from damages, costs or expenses that may arise because of damage to property or injury to persons received or suffered by reason of the operation of engineering firm which may be occasioned by any negligent act or omission to act which amounts to negligence on the part of the Consultant or any of its agents, officers and employees and subcontractors. C. Consultant agrees to provide at its own expense general liability insurance in an amount not less than $1, 000, 000 and further name the City as an additional insured. D. Consultant shall provide the City with evidence that it has Worker ' s Compensation Insurance covering all its employees and professional liability insurance in the amount of $500, 000. E. Consultant shall assume liability for the wrongful or negligent acts, errors and omissions of its officers, agents and employees and subcontractors in regard to any functions or activity carried out by them on behalf of the City. Page 5 EXHIBIT A SANTINA & THOMPSON PROPOSED HOURLY CHARGE RATES ** 1984 Rates Proposed Rates Difference PRINCIPAL $ 84 $ 90 + $ 6 ENGINEERING Project Manager $ 72 $ 81 + $ 9 Project Engineer N C 73 N C Senior Engineer 60 64 + $ 4 Associate Engineer 48 54 + $ 6 Junior Engineer 38 41 + $ 3 Public Works Inspector 50 56 + $ 6 ( includes vehicle) PLANNING Director of Planning $ 62 $ 66 + $ 4 Senior Planner 57 62 + $ 5 Associate Planner 45 48 + $ 3 Junior Planner 38 38 0 DRAFTING/GRAPHICS Senior Draftsman $ 45 $ 48 + $ 3 Associate Draftsman 40 42 + $ 2 Junior Draftsman 35 37 + $ 2 Graphic Artist 30 32 + $ 2 CLERICAL $ 25 $ 25 0 SURVEY Survey Manager $ 62 $ 66 + $ 4 Survey Supervisor 60 60 0 Office Surveyor 56 56 0 (Research & Calcs. ) Associate Office Surveyor 44 44 0 Junior Office Surveyor 29 31 + $ 2 3-Man Party 150 154 + $ 4 2-Man Party 109 112 + $ 3 1-Man Party 62 62 0 * Effective October 1, 1985 - June 30, 1986 An additional surcharge of $2. 90/hour up to $23, 524 would be added to the above hourly rates. ** Fees are reduced by 25% for work done in the City offices, with the exception of work reimbursed by private development. a A G R E E M E N T This Agreement is made and entered into this day of , 1985, by and between the City of Dublin (hereinafter referred to as "City" ) , and TJKM Transportation Consultants, (hereinafter referred to as "Consultant" ) . WHEREAS, City is desirous of the services of a City Traffic Engineer and related engineering; and WHEREAS, Consultant is qualified to render said necessary services and desires to serve as City Traffic Engineer to City. NOW, THEREFORE, the parties hereto agree as follows: I. DUTIES OF CONSULTANT Consultant agrees to provide those engineering services that may be required by the City of Dublin during the term of this agreement in a prompt, professional and workmanlike manner in accordance with the standards of the engineering profession. All work shall be completed to the satisfaction of the City Manager. The City may, at its discretion, request performance by consultant of any of the following duties: A. Administrative Duties 1. Perform the statutory responsibilities of City Traffic Engineer. 2. Analyze the City' s traffic engineering needs and recommend programs to the City Manager consistent with the economic capabilities of the City. 3. Attend meetings with City Staff, public officials, community leaders , developers, contractors, and the general public, as required by the City. 4. At the discretion of the City, review and comment on planning programs and land development projects which are not only located within the City, but also located outside the City and which may have a traffic impact on the City. 5. Advise the City Manager as to engineering and construction financing available from other governmental agencies and when so directed, prepare and initiate application for such fundings. 6. Recommend ordinances and regulations pertaining to traffic engineering matters. 7. Establish working relationships and coordination with other public agencies and private utilities involving traffic engineering matters affecting the City. 8. Provide special engineering reports as to such related traffic studies. 9. Give direction to and assist City Staff in performing traffic studies as necessary and/or required. 10. At the request of the City, recommend solutions to street design problems. 11. Provide general engineering consultation in connection with traffic circulation, street signs, noise impact, etc. Page 1 C. Development Review Duties 1. Review proposed developments and make recommendations pertaining to traffic engineering considerations. 2. Review traffic engineering aspects of planning applications. D. Capital Projects 1. Assist City Manager in development of a capital improvement program that relates to traffic matters. 2. Upon specific and separate authorization by the City, prepare plans and specifications for traffic related capital improvement projects. It is understood that Consultant will provide design services for most traffic related capital improvement projects. However, the City reserves the right to bid any project or bring in specialists when deemed necessary by the City or the Consultant. A capital improvement is defined as any project in which the construction is performed by someone other than the City forces or the City' s designated street maintenance contractor. II. DESIGNATION AS CITY TRAFFIC ENGINEER For the term of this agreement, the following employee of consultant is to be designated as City Traffic Engineer: Chris Kinzel Registered Traffic Engineer III. COMPENSATION Consultant shall be compensated for work as follows: A. The following work shall be charged at 80 percent of the rates shown in Exhibit A: 1. General Traffic Engineering services and studies excluding capital improvement project design. B. The following work shall be charged at the rates shown in Exhibit A: 1. Capital improvement design work, which is billed on a time and material basis. Prior to proceeding with the work, a maximum estimated budget shall be established by City and shall not be exceeded without approval of the City Manager. C. The City shall not pay for the cost of commuting from the Consultant ' s office to Dublin City Office. Page 2 IV. COLLECTION OF FEES All fees to be collected from any private developer, engineer, or architect in connection with the carrying out of the functions set forth above, if collected by engineer shall be collected in the name of the City. Engineer shall employ record keeping measures acceptable to the City. If fees are collected by the City, engineer shall review the appropriate ordinances and fee schedules in effect by City and shall provide to the persons designated by the City for collection of fees, the amount of such fees to be collected. V. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR STATUS In the performance of the work undertaken pursuant to this agreement, consultant is deemed to be an independent contractor. Consultant ' s employees are not to be considered employees of the City of Dublin for any purpose. VI. ASSIGNABILITY This agreement shall not be assignable or transferable by the Consultant without the expressed written consent of the City Manager. VII. OWNERSHIP OF WORK All documents, data studies, surveys, drawings, maps and reports furnished to the Consultant by the City, as well as reports and supportive data prepared by the Consultant under this contract shall be considered the property of the City of Dublin and upon request at the completion of the services to be performed, they will be turned over to the City of Dublin. VIII. PERFORMANCE OF WORK Consultant agrees to perform work as stated in this agreement to the satisfaction of the City. IX. LIABILITY COVERAGE A. City shall not be called upon to assume any liability for the direct payment of any salary, wage or other compensation to any person employed by the Consultant performing services for the City. B. Consultant firm shall hold harmless the City from damages, costs or expenses that may arise because of damage to property or injury to persons received or suffered by reason of the operation of engineering firm which may be occasioned by any negligent act or omission to act which amounts to negligence on the part of the Consultant or any of its agents, officers and employees and subcontractors. C. Consultant agrees to provide at its own expense general liability insurance in an amount not less than $1, 000, 000 and further name the City as an additional insured. Page 3 D. Consultant shall provide the City with evidence that it has Worker' s Compensation Insurance covering all its employees and professional liability insurance in the amount of $500, 000. E. Consultant shall assume liability for the wrongful or negligent acts, errors and omissions of its officers, agents and employees and subcontractors in regard to any functions or activity carried out by them on behalf of the City. X. TERM OF AGREEMENT The term of this agreement shall be from the date first written above until terminated. The City may terminate the services of the engineering firm by providing the firm 30 days written notice. In the event of such termination, the engineering firm shall be compensated for such services up to the point of termination. Such compensation for work in progress would be prorated as to the percentage of progress completed at the date of termination. If the engineering firm terminates its services to the City, it must provide the City with written notice at least 90 days in advance of such termination. All notices to the City shall be addressed to: City Manager City of Dublin 6500 Dublin Boulevard, Suite 101 Dublin, CA 94568 All notices to Consultant shall be addressed to: TJKM 4637 Chabot Drive, Suite 214 Pleasanton, CA 94568 Notices, as referred to above, shall be -sent via Registered Mail. CITY OF DUBLIN By Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk TJKM By Chris Kinzel APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Attorney Page 4 EXHIBIT A TJKM PROPOSED HOURLY CHARGE RATES * 1984 Rates Proposed Rates Difference Principal $ 90 $ 98 + $ 8 Principal Associate 78 82 + $ 4 Senior Associate 74 76 + $ 2 Associate 69 72 + $ 3 Senior Traffic Engineer 65 68 + $ 3 Senior Transportation Engr 65 68 + $ 3 Traffic Engineer 55 60 + $ 5 Transportation Engineer NP 60 NC Assistant Traffic Engineer 44 49 + $ 5 Traffic Engineering Assistant39 42 + $ 3 Technician II 34 34 0 Technician I 22 22 0 Graphics Supervisor NP 42 NC Draftsman 29 34 + $ 5 Secretarial 32 35 + $ 3 Computer 30 30 0 Above rates include standard overhead items. Travel costs are billed at 30 cents/mile. Outside services are billed at cost plus 10 percent for handling. Invoices are due and payable within 30 days. Invoices paid after 30 days will be subject to separate billings of 1 1/2 percent per month of unpaid balance. Late charges are not included in any agreement for maximum charges. Expert witness charges available on request. * Fees are reduced by 20% for General Traffic Engineering services and studies excluding capital improvement project design. Effective March 1, 1985 ENGINEERING SERVICES CONTRACT EVALUATION FORM 1. CONTRACT COMPLIANCE (Has Contractor complied with the conditions set forth in the Contract agreement in the following areas? ) a. Administrative YES NO b . Traffic Engineering YES NO C . Development Review YES NO d. Capital Projects YES NO Comments 2 . AVAILABILITY (Has Contractor been available to answer questions , handle complaints and problems and meet those requiring engineering services? ) All of Most of Not Enough the Time the Time Time City Council Public Comments 3 . RESPONSIVENESS (Has contractor responded quickly to providing solutions to problems and to requests for information, and been willing to undertake special projects and presentations upon requests? ) Most of Yes the Time t':o City Council Public Comments 4 . COST EFFECTIVENESS a. Does Contractor exercise adequate control over project costs during construction? YES NO Comments b . Has Contractor demonstrated the ability to obtain grant funding for the. City? YES NO Comments C . Are the services provided by the Contractor cost effective or could they be provided at a lesser cost? Cost Effective Lesser Cost Comments 5 . PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT & IMPLEMENTATION a. Does Contractor implement projects in a timely manner? YES NO Comments b . Does Contractor identify and develop projects that adequately address the City ' s needs? YES NO Comments t r C . Is the engineering information provided by the Contractor accurate and reliable? YES NO Comments OVERALL EVALUATION COMMENTS