HomeMy WebLinkAbout8.2 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