Approve Actions Relative to the Execution of a Professional Services Agreement with HNTB Corporation Relative to Request for Proposals No. 2006-B-2, Golden Gate Bridge Seismic Retrofit Phase III, Construction Management and Inspection Support Services

In a report to Committee, Deputy District Engineer Ewa Bauer, District Engineer Denis Mulligan and General Manager Celia Kupersmith presented staff’s recommendation to approve actions relative to Request for Proposals (RFP) No. 2006-B-2, Golden Gate Bridge Seismic Retrofit Phase III, Construction Management and Inspection Support Services, including executing a Professional Services Agreement (PSA) with HNTB Corporation.

The report stated that the Golden Gate Bridge Seismic Retrofit Phase IIIA Project (Phase IIIA Project) involves construction of the seismic retrofit of the North Anchorage Housing and the North Pylon, including: (1) strengthening the North Anchorage Housing and North Pylon foundations and external walls; (2) strengthening the North Anchorage Housing internal concrete frame system; (3) replacing, under continuous traffic, the Anchorage Housing concrete roof that serves also as a bridge roadway and sidewalks; and, (4) performing various modifications to utilities. Since the Phase IIIA Project is federally funded, the District will be following the rules and procedures set forth in the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) Local Assistance Procedures Manual for federally-assisted projects. The District has received approval from the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and Caltrans for the Phase IIIA Construction Contract Administration Plan (Plan). The Plan states that administration and management of the Phase IIIA construction project by the District will require engagement of consultants for the following services: (1) Construction Management and Inspection Support; (2) Engineering (Design) Support; (3) Environmental Compliance Monitoring; and, (4) Materials Quality Assurance Sampling and Testing.

The report also stated that the Board of Directors, by Resolution No. 2008-023 at its March 28, 2008 meeting, awarded Contract No. 2006-B-1, Golden Gate Bridge Seismic Retrofit Phase IIIA, North Anchorage Housing/North Pylon, to Shimmick Construction Company, Inc./Obayashi Corporation, Joint Venture (Shimmick/Obayashi), and approved a total budget for the Phase IIIA Project in the amount of $119,231,219, which amount includes the cost of construction, as well as the estimated cost of consultant services. The report stated that on March 10, 2008, the District issued RFP No. 2006-B-2, which consists of the following scope of services: (1) supplementing District’s staff to perform administration and inspection of construction activities on the Phase III Project; (2) ensuring compliance with the construction contract documents of the Phase III Project; (3) providing personnel to serve as deputy resident engineers and project inspectors; and, (4) performing construction field inspections, cost estimating, schedule review, hazardous materials monitoring, surveying and traffic control oversight, as well as construction claim mitigation and defense.

The report explained that through RFP No. 2006-B-2, the District will be selecting the consultant that will provide construction management and inspection support services for Phases IIIA and IIIB of the Golden Gate Bridge Seismic Retrofit Project to maintain continuity of the construction management and inspection staff through the completion of entire Seismic Retrofit project. At this time, only the scope and cost of Phase IIIA services has been finalized and will be covered by the proposed professional services agreement. Since the scope of the Phase IIIB of the Golden Gate Bridge Seismic Retrofit Project has not yet been finalized, the District anticipates negotiating the terms and conditions of the construction management and inspection support services with the consultant when the Phase IIIB construction contract is awarded, through a written supplement to the proposed professional services agreement.

The report further stated that by the due date of April 10, 2008, the Office of the District Secretary received proposals from two engineering teams: HNTB Corporation and Lim and Nascimento Engineering Corporation. The District’s Evaluation Panel, consisting of District engineering staff, one representative of FHWA and one representative of Caltrans, interviewed the two teams on April 14, 2008. The Evaluation Panel evaluated and ranked the consultants based on the submitted proposals and the interview presentations.

The selection criteria included the following: (1) qualifications of the firms and the individual consultant team members; (2) the firms’ track records on previously completed similar projects; and, (3) the firms’ understanding and methodology of providing construction management and inspection services for the Phase III Project construction. The Evaluation Panel unanimously agreed that HNTB Corporation is best qualified to perform these services, and the District Engineer concurred with this determination. Staff has negotiated with HNTB Corporation a not-to-exceed cost of $6,110,000 for RFP No. 2006-B-2, a cost which is considered fair and reasonable, based on the historic scope of work and cost data for similar services provided by consultants for Phase II of the Seismic Retrofit Project, as well as Caltrans’ seismic retrofit projects on other toll bridges.

The report also stated that no contract-specific DBE goal was established for RFP No. 2006-B-2. However, consultants were strongly encouraged to obtain DBE participation. The DBE Program Administrator has determined that HNTB Corporation has complied with the DBE requirements applicable to RFP No. 2006-B-2. At this time, a 9.2% DBE participation is anticipated during the performance of these services.

The report explained that in accordance with the FHWA’s and Caltrans’ requirements for Federal aid fund participation, consultants’ proposals must be audited prior to execution of professional services agreements to verify that the consultants’ accounting systems, rates, knowledge of FHWA’s cost eligibility, documentation requirements and proposed contract language are satisfactory. The audits and resolution of audit findings are prerequisites for FHWA’s/Caltrans’ approval of consultant services professional services agreements. The District has requested that Caltrans’ Office of External Audits and Investigations perform a pre-award audit of the HNTB proposal. It is anticipated that the Notice to Proceed for Phase IIIA Project construction will be issued to the contractor, Shimmick/Obayashi in June 2008. It is also anticipated that the pre-award audit will be completed prior to the start of construction. Assistance of the Construction Management and Inspection Support consultant will be needed immediately upon the issuance of the Notice to Proceed to the contractor.

Staff recommends that the General Manager be authorized to execute a Professional Services Agreement be executed with HNTB, in an amount not to exceed $6,110,000, subject to the Golden Gate Bridge, Highway and Transportation District receiving approval of the agreement from the FHWA and Caltrans; and, a contingency reserve fund be established in the amount of $150,000. A copy of the report is available from the Office of the District Secretary and on the District’s web site.

At the meeting, Denis Mulligan summarized the staff report.

Discussion ensued, including the following:

• Director Reilly made the following inquiries:

  • She inquired as to how the HNTB consultants would undertake the work associated with the Phase IIIA Project. In response, Mr. Mulligan stated that the HNTB consultants will complement District Engineering staff as part of an integrated team, and will be working daily on the job site in modular offices located near the Golden Gate Bridge Toll Plaza Administration Building. In addition, the Phase IIIA Project team will also be able to draw upon specific expertise from HNTB’s home office.
  • She inquired as to why the contingency fund was relatively low for such a large project. In response, Mr. Mulligan explained that typically there is no need for large contingency funds for professional services agreements.

• Director Stroeh inquired as to how the costs for RFP No. 2006-B-2 compare with the total costs for the Phase IIIA Seismic Retrofit Project. In response, Mr. Mulligan stated that the PSA with HNTB represents less than 10 percent of the total project budget of approximately $119 million.

Staff recommended and the Committee concurred by motion made and seconded by Directors STROEH/MOYLAN to forward the following recommendation to the Board of Directors for its consideration:

RECOMMENDATION

The Building and Operating Committee recommends that the Board of Directors approve the following actions relative to Request for Proposals No. 2006-B-2, Golden Gate Bridge Seismic Retrofit Phase III, Construction Management and Inspection Support Services:

Establish a contingency reserve fund in the amount of $150,000.

Action by the Board at its meeting of May 23, 2008 – Resolution
NON-CONSENT CALENDAR

Approve Actions Relative to the Execution of a Professional Services Agreement with HDR Engineering, Inc., Relative to Request for Proposals No. 2006-B-3, Golden Gate Bridge Seismic Retrofit Phase IIIA, Engineering Support Services

In a report to Committee, Deputy District Engineer Ewa Bauer, District Engineer Denis Mulligan and General Manager Celia Kupersmith presented staff’s recommendation to approve actions relative to Request for Proposals (RFP) No. 2006-B-3, Golden Gate Bridge Seismic Retrofit Phase IIIA, Engineering Support Services, including executing a Professional Services Agreement (PSA) with HDR Engineering, Inc. (HDR).

The report stated that the Golden Gate Bridge Seismic Retrofit Phase IIIA Project (Phase IIIA Project) is federally funded, and that the District is required to follow the rules and procedures set forth in the Caltrans Local Assistance Procedures Manual for federally-assisted projects. The District’s Phase IIIA Construction Contract Administration Plan (Plan) states that administration and management of the Phase IIIA construction by the District will require, consistent with Caltrans’ practice, engagement of the Phase IIIA design consultant to provide the following engineering support services: (1) review, check and indicate approval status for Contractor’s technical submittals, working drawings, structural steel shop drawings, and requests for substitution and alternative construction schemes; (2) provide written responses to Contractor Requests for Information regarding the design; (3) provide recommendations for the resolution of structural detail issues during construction; and, if required, (4) prepare plans and specifications for construction contract change orders covering changes to the structural details.

The report also stated that FHWA’s regulations allow award of a non-competitively procured, negotiated PSA after a finding of public interest determines that at least one of the following three special conditions exists: (1) one firm being the only qualified firm; (2) emergencies of such magnitude that do not permit delay; or, (3) inadequate competition. The District’s Procurement Manual also allows the competitive procurement requirements to be waived when the Board determines it is in the best interests of the District. In June 2004, the District commissioned HDR Engineering, Inc., to prepare the structural analyses, design plans and technical specifications for the Golden Gate Bridge Seismic Retrofit Phase IIIA Project, after an extensive competitive consultant selection process. The consultant staff is uniquely qualified, as the engineers who performed the structural analyses and calculations and developed the structural details and specifications for Phase IIIA, to assure that contractor’s submittals conform to the design and are consistent with the supporting structural calculations so that the contractor does not violate the overall structural integrity of the design.

The report further stated that staff recommends that the Board approve a finding of public interest to award the PSA for the Phase IIIA Engineering Support Services to the Phase IIIA design consultant, HDR Engineering, Inc., as the only firm uniquely qualified and capable to perform the scope of work and find that it is in the best interests of the District to waive a competitive procurement of these services.

The report explained that relative to RFP No. 2006-B-3, staff negotiated with HDR a not-to-exceed $3,300,000 cost of the services for the engineering support services described above, a cost which is considered fair and reasonable, based on the historic scope of work and cost data for similar services provided by consultants for Phase II of the Seismic Retrofit Project, as well as Caltrans’ seismic retrofit projects on other toll bridges. The report also stated that no contract-specific DBE goal was established for RFP No. 2006-B-3. However, consultants were strongly encouraged to obtain DBE participation. The DBE Program Administrator has determined that HDR has complied with the DBE requirements applicable to RFP No. 2006-B-3. At this time, a 44% DBE participation is anticipated during the performance of these services.

The report explained that in a similar fashion to RFP No. 2006-B-2, as described above in Agenda Item No. 1, the District has requested that Caltrans’ Office of External Audits and Investigations perform a pre-award audit of the HDR proposal. It is anticipated that the Notice to Proceed for Phase IIIA Project construction will be issued to the contractor, Shimmick/Obayashi in June 2008. It is also anticipated that the pre-award audit will be completed prior to the start of construction. Assistance of the Engineering Support consultant will be needed immediately upon the issuance of the Notice to Proceed to the contractor.

Staff recommends that the General Manager be authorized to execute a Professional Services Agreement be executed with HDR Engineering, Inc., in an amount not to exceed $3,300,000, subject to the Golden Gate Bridge, Highway and Transportation District receiving approval from the FHWA and Caltrans; and, establish a contingency reserve fund in the amount of $400,000. A copy of the report is available from the Office of the District Secretary and on the District’s web site.

At the meeting, Denis Mulligan summarized the staff report, noting that a best interest determination is required for RFP No. 2006-B-3 because it is necessary to obtain the services of HDR, as the Engineer of Record for the Phase IIIA Project and the consultant most knowledgeable with the seismic retrofit design and supporting calculations, to respond to submittals from the contractor once the Phase IIIA Project construction is underway.

Staff recommended and the Committee concurred by motion made and seconded by Directors STROEH/MOYLAN to forward the following recommendation to the Board of Directors for its consideration:

RECOMMENDATION

The Building and Operating Committee recommends that the Board of Directors approve the following actions relative to Request for Proposals No. 2006-B-3, Golden Gate Bridge Seismic Retrofit Phase IIIA, Engineering Support Services:

Establish a contingency reserve fund in the amount of $400,000.

Action by the Board at its meeting of May 23, 2008 – Resolution
NON-CONSENT CALENDAR

Approve Changes to the Change Order Authorization Limits for the Golden Gate Bridge Seismic Retrofit Phase IIIA Project

In a report to Committee, Deputy District Engineer Ewa Bauer, District Engineer Denis Mulligan and General Manager Celia Kupersmith presented staff’s recommendation to approve changes to the General Manager’s contract change order authorization limits for the Golden Gate Bridge Seismic Retrofit Phase IIIA Project (Phase IIIA Project). The report stated that currently, the General Manager has the authority to approve contract change orders up to a maximum of $50,000, as approved by the Board of Directors and specified in the District’s Procurement Manual. For the Seismic Retrofit Phase I and Phase II construction and professional services contracts, these limits were increased in recognition of the size and complexity of these contracts. Staff is proposing similar increases in the General Manager’s approval authority for the Phase IIIA Project contracts.

The report also stated that the Phase IIIA Project is technically complex and vital for the safety of the Golden Gate Bridge and its users, and as such, has a demanding construction schedule. Delays in receiving authorization for changes to any of the Phase IIIA contracts can expose the District to increased construction costs and delay claims. The ability to expeditiously process Phase II contract change orders under the increased level of the General Manager’s authority has contributed greatly to the efficient execution of the project within the approved budget.

The report further stated that staff recommends that, commensurate with the complexity and scale of the Phase IIIA construction contract, approval limits for the General Manager for construction change orders be increased to $100,000, and that change orders over $100,000 and up to a maximum of $250,000, be approved by the General Manager, with the concurrence of the President of the Board and Chair of the Building and Operating Committee. Additionally, staff recommends that the General Manager have the authority to approve amendments to professional service agreements for the Phase IIIA Project up to $100,000 per occurrence, and have the authority to delegate these approval limits to a designee in her absence. For each of these contracts, such changes will have to be within the financial limits of the Board approved contract budget. In keeping with District practice, contract change orders and amendments approved by the General Manager will be reported to the Finance-Auditing Committee on a regular basis. A copy of the report is available from the Office of the District Secretary and on the District’s web site.

At the meeting, Denis Mulligan summarized the staff report, noting that the proposed changes in the General Manager’s authorization limits for contract change orders is similar to what was approved by the Board of Directors for the Phases I and II of the Seismic Retrofit Project. He stated that the Phase IIIA Project involves quite a bit of foundation work, with the potential of discovering unforeseen conditions during the course of construction work; and, therefore, the proposed changes would give staff the flexibility to move quickly in executing any necessary change orders.

Staff recommended and the Committee concurred by motion made and seconded by Directors STROEH/MOYLAN to forward the following recommendation to the Board of Directors for its consideration:

RECOMMENDATION

The Building and Operating Committee recommends that the Board of Directors approve changes to the General Manager’s contract change order authorization limits for Golden Gate Bridge Seismic Retrofit Phase IIIA Project, as follows:

The General Manager will have the authority to delegate portions of these approval authorities to her designees.

Action by the Board at its meeting of May 23, 2008 – Resolution
NON-CONSENT CALENDAR

Approve Actions Relative to the Award of Contract No. 2008-BT-2, San Rafael District Administration Building HVAC Improvements, to Best Contracting Services, Inc.

In a report to Committee, Deputy District Engineer Ewa Bauer, District Engineer Denis Mulligan and General Manager Celia Kupersmith presented staff’s recommendation to approve actions relative to Contract No. 2008-BT-2, San Rafael District Administration Building HVAC Improvements, including award of the contract to Best Contracting Services, Inc.

The report stated that the San Rafael District Administration Building is a two-story building constructed in 1987 to provide administrative office space. The building currently has four original, twenty-year-old heating, ventilating and air conditioning (HVAC) units that provide two heating/cooling zones for each floor. Contract No. 2008-BT-2 will upgrade the HVAC system in the entire building by undertaking the following work: (1) removing the four existing HVAC rooftop units; (2) installing eight new energy efficient and environmentally-friendly rooftop HVAC units; (3) re-configuring and constructing the system ductwork to provide eight individual zones throughout the building; (4) replacing the existing 20-year-old roof; (5) providing fire detection for the offices in the building; and, (6) modifying portions of the interior partition walls on the second floor.

The report also stated that staff prepared the plans and specifications for Contract No. 2008-BT-2 and advertised for bids on April 8, 2008. On May 6, 2008, five bids were received and publicly read. The report further stated that the Engineering Department staff, the DBE Programs Administrator and the Attorney evaluated the bids and concluded that the apparent responsive, responsible low bidder is Best Contracting Services, Inc., with a bid price of $597,500. In addition, the DBE Program Administrator determined that Best Contracting Services, Inc., has complied with the DBE requirements applicable to this contract, although no specific DBE goal was established, a 3.6% DBE participation is anticipated during the performance of this contract.

It is recommended that Contract No. 2008-BT-2 be awarded to Best Contracting Services, Inc., and that a contingency reserve fund be authorized in the amount of $59,750, equal to 10% of the contract amount. In addition, award of this contract will require a budget increase in the FY 07/08 Bus Transit Division Operating Budget in the amount of $380,000, to be financed from District reserves. The total project budget for Contract No. 2008-BT-2 is $880,000, and is 100% District funded. A copy of the report is available from the Office of the District Secretary and on the District’s web site.

At the meeting, Denis Mulligan summarized the staff report, noting that this project is necessary to replace the antiquated HVAC system at the San Rafael District Administration Building. He also stated that the low bidder, Best Contracting Services, Inc., is a large construction company that performs about $70 million worth of work per year throughout California.

Discussion ensued, including the following:

• Director Hernández made the following comments and inquiries:

  • She inquired as to why a budget increase was needed for Contract No. 2008-BT-2. In response, Mr. Mulligan explained that the project budget had to be increased due to the expanded scope of the project to include replacement of the entire roof and installation of a fire alarm system. In addition, part of the budget increase reflects implementation of the Indirect Cost Allocation Plan, in which budget line items such as project administrative overhead are shifted from the District’s operating budget to the capital budget.
  • She commented that she is familiar with the contractor, Best Contracting Services, Inc., and has serious concerns about their work, tending to not support the award of Contract No. 2008-BT-2 to this contractor. However, she stated that she will not oppose the award of Contract No. 2008-BT-2 to Best Contracting Services, Inc., because she is confident that with the due diligence on the part of the District Engineer and his staff, the bid from Best Contracting Services, Inc., has been thoroughly reviewed, all of their licenses have been found to be free of citations, and the appropriate subcontractors have been listed for the project work.

Staff recommended and the Committee concurred by motion made and seconded by Directors STROEH/REILLY to forward the following recommendation to the Board of Directors for its consideration:

RECOMMENDATION

The Building and Operating Committee recommends that the Board of Directors approve the following actions relative to the award of Contract No. 2008-BT-2, San Rafael District Administration Building HVAC Improvements:

Authorize a budget increase in the FY 07/08 Bus Transit Division Operating Budget in the amount of $380,000, to be financed from District reserves, subject to the concurrence of the Finance-Auditing Committee at its meeting of May 23, 2008.

Action by the Board at its meeting of May 23, 2008 – Resolution
NON-CONSENT CALENDAR

Status Report from District Appointees on Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit (SMART) Board

The Committee was provided with a copy of the agenda for the May 21, 2008, meeting and the minutes of the April 16, 2008, meeting of the Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit District (SMART). Copies of these items are available in the Office of the District Secretary, as well as on the District’s web site.

At the meeting, Chair Eddie, one of the members of the SMART Board of Directors (SMART Board), reported on items discussed at the May 21, 2008, meeting of the SMART Board, which included an update on SMART’s Financial Project Cost Report. He noted that the project cost analysis shows that the proceeds from the proposed one-quarter sales tax, to be placed on the November 2008 ballot, will be sufficient to construct and operate the SMART rail system. Director Boro, another member of the SMART Board, added that some SMART Board members expressed concerns that the Financial Project Cost Report projected costs only 20 years out instead of 25 years.

Discussion ensued, including the following:

• Director Stroeh inquired as to when the SMART Board will take formal action to place the one-quarter sales tax measure on the November 2008 ballot. In response, Director Boro stated that it is anticipated that the SMART Board will take such action in July 2008.

• Chair Eddie expressed concerns that due to the objections of the City of Larkspur, it appears that the SMART rail line will not terminate in Larkspur and that the train will not be connecting with the ferry service at the Larkspur Ferry Terminal.

Action by the Board – None Required

Status Report on Engineering Projects

In a memorandum to Committee, Deputy District Engineer Ewa Z. Bauer, District Engineer Denis Mulligan and General Manager Celia Kupersmith reported on current engineering projects. A copy of the report is available in the Office of the District Secretary and on the District’s web site.

Action by the Board – None Required

Public Comment

There was no public comment.

Adjournment

All business having been concluded, the meeting was declared adjourned at 10:20 a.m.