Authorize Execution of a Professional Services Agreement with HDR Engineering, Inc., Relative to Request for Proposals No. 2010-B-1, Golden Gate Bridge Seismic Retrofit Phase IIIB Design Services; and, Approve a Revised Golden Gate Bridge Seismic Retrofit Phase III Design Project Budget

In a memorandum to Committee, Deputy District Engineer Ewa Bauer, District Engineer Denis Mulligan and General Manager Celia Kupersmith reported on staff’s recommendation to approve actions relative to the execution of a Professional Services Agreement with HDR Engineering, Inc., relative to Request for Proposals No. 2010-B-1, Golden Gate Bridge Seismic Retrofit Phase IIIB Design Services, including approval of a revised Golden Gate Bridge Seismic Retrofit Project Phase III Design Project Budget. The report described the details regarding the phases of the Golden Gate Bridge Seismic and Wind Retrofit Project, stating that Phase I and Phase II have been completed and that Phase III will be subdivided into Phase IIIA and Phase IIIB (Phase IIIB Design Services). The report noted that the District assessed the vulnerability of the Bridge and determined that hardening of the Seismic Retrofit Phase III Project structures was needed in order to protect the Bridge against major earthquakes and manmade threats.

The report outlined the scope of work, and stated that the scope of work requires that the District retain specialty consultants with expertise in structural design, environmental, engineering experts of the Project Peer Review Panel and Value Engineering. The report also stated that the District anticipates that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers will negotiate an Interagency Agreement to perform analysis, proof testing and expert consultation regarding structural hardening. The report noted that additional agreements will be presented to the Board at future meetings for approval. The report also stated that the District issued the Request for Statements of Qualification and Proposals (RFQ/RFP) for Phase IIIB Design Services on June 2, 2009, and received proposals from four firms by the deadline date of June 30, 2009. The Evaluation Panel unanimously determined that HDR Engineering, Inc. (HDR), is the best qualified consultant to perform these services.

The report also stated that the District analyzed and established a 3.3% Underutilized Disadvantage Business Enterprise (UDBE) contract-specific goal for the Phase IIIB Design Services, in accordance with Federal guidelines. The District’s DBE Program Administrator has determined that HDR, has complied with the UDBE requirements applicable to the specifications. HDR reported an anticipated 30% UDBE utilization. Staff negotiated the services with HDR, resulting in a not-to-exceed cost in the amount of $18,260,000.00. Staff recommends that a contingency fund in the amount of $1,740,000.00 be established.

The report also explained that consultants’ proposals must be audited prior to execution of a Professional Services Agreement to verify that the consultants’ accounting systems, rates, knowledge of FHWA’s cost eligibility, documentation requirements and proposed contract language are satisfactory. The District has requested that Caltrans’ Office of External Audits and Investigations perform the pre-award audit of the HDR proposal. Since the District will be waiting for the audit results, it is proposed that the Board authorize the General Manager to execute the contract to HDR, immediately upon receiving FHWA/Caltrans approval.

The report further stated that a budget increase in the Bridge Division Capital Budget, in the amount of $35,725,913.00, is required, to be funded with $34,518,203.00 (Federal funds) and $1,207,710.00 (District funds), and that a revised Phase III Design Project budget be established in the amount of $40,725,91.00 (97% Federal funds/3% District).

At the meeting, Mr. Mulligan summarized the staff report providing information about this last final phase of the retrofit project. Mr. Mulligan stated that the Phase III Seismic Retrofit is part of a $260,000,000.00 effort to protect the suspension Bridge from earthquakes, wind and manmade threats.

Discussion ensued, including the following inquires:

• Director Grosboll made the following inquiries:

  • He inquired as to whether the recommended consultant, HDR, had worked on either Phase I or Phase II of the seismic retrofit project. In response, Mr. Mulligan stated that HDR was not involved with Phase I or Phase 2; however, some of the engineers that are now working at HDR previously worked on Phase II while employed at a different firm.
  • He inquired as to whether any of the firms expressed concerns regarding the recommendation for award. In response, Mr. Mulligan stated that the District sent the staff’s recommendation to all firms in accordance with protest procedures, but none of the firms submitted a protest letter. Mr. Mulligan noted that all of the firms acknowledged receipt of the staff recommendation letter.
  • He inquired as to whether the District is required to establish a contingency fund of 10% of the bid. In response, Mr. Mulligan stated that the contingency fund gives the District flexibility to manage any changes that may arise. Mr. Mulligan also stated that without a contingency fund, it would be necessary to obtain Board approval for each change before proceeding on the project. Mr. Mulligan noted that oftentimes funds are returned to the General Fund at the conclusion of District’s projects.
  • He inquired as to the target date for completion of this project. In response, Mr. Mulligan stated that staff anticipates advertising the construction project in late 2011 and that the construction will take approximately three years.

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 actions relative to the execution of a Professional Services Agreement regarding the Golden Gate Bridge Seismic Retrofit Phase III Design Services, as follows:

to be funded with $34,518,203.00 federal funds and $1,207,710.00 District funds, as concurred with by the Finance-Auditing Committee at its meeting of August 13, 2009.

Action by the Board at its meeting of August 14, 2009 – Resolution
NON-CONSENT CALENDAR

AYES (11): Directors Cochran, Elsbernd, Grosboll, Moylan, Newhouse Segal, Pahre, Sobel and Stroeh; Second Vice President Eddie; First Vice President Reilly; President Boro
NOES (0): None

Authorize Rejection of Bids Relative to Contract No. 2010-FT-2, Installation of New Propulsion System for Re-Powering and Dry-Docking of the M.V. Del Norte

In a memorandum to Committee, Marine Projects Manager, Ferry Division, Christian Stark, Deputy General Manager, Ferry Division/James Swindler, and General Manager Celia Kupersmith reported on staff’s recommendation to authorize rejection of bids relative to Contract No. 2010-FT-2, Installation of New Propulsion System for Re-Powering and Dry-Docking of the M.V. Del Norte.

The report stated that Contract No. 2010-FT-2 was advertised on May 26, 2009. On July 28, 2009, three bids were received, opened and publicly read by the Secretary of the District. District staff reviewed the bids and determined that all three bids contained irregularities that could not be waived as minor irregularities. Under the statutory rules governing competitive bidding, staff recommends rejection of all bids and re-bid of this contract.

At the meeting, Mr. Swindler provided details of the staff report, noting that staff anticipates presenting a recommendation to the Board of Directors for award of the re-bid in September.

Discussion ensued, including the following comments:

• Director Grosboll expressed his concerns about rejecting the bids, since one of the bids was from a Bay Area company. In response, Mr. Miller stated that bids must meet minimum qualifications. Further, Mr. Miller emphasized that the bid specifications for Contract No. 2010-FT-2 will be revised to provide clarity to all bidders.

Staff recommended and the Committee concurred by motion made and seconded by Directors STROEH/COCHRAN 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 authorize rejection of bids relative to Contract No. 2010-FT-2, Installation of New Propulsion System for Re-Powering and Dry-Docking of the M.V. Del Norte.

Action by the Board at its meeting of August 14, 2009 – Resolution
NON-CONSENT CALENDAR

AYES (11): Directors Cochran, Elsbernd, Grosboll, Moylan, Newhouse Segal, Pahre, Sobel and Stroeh; Second Vice President Eddie; First Vice President Reilly; President Boro
NOES (0): None

Presentation from Staff

Deputy General Manager/Ferry Division James Swindler presented a PowerPoint presentation regarding the status of the purchase, renovation and deployment of the Golden Gate Transit ferries. He described the following:

• Statistics of each of the ferries in the fleet;
• Schedule of the renovation and repair work for each of the ferries in the fleet; and,
• A chronicle of the work performed and to be performed on each of the ferries in the fleet, including budget information.

Ms. Kupersmith stated that the funds used to purchase the two high-speed ferries from Washington State Ferries were originally secured to purchase a new high-speed ferry for the replacement of the M.S. Sonoma. However, Ms. Kupersmith stated that the Spaulding ferries carry more passengers, and it would benefit the region to have Spaulding ferries in working condition available in the event of an emergency. Ms. Kupersmith noted that a refurbished M.S. Sonoma could be used for any future expansion of the District’s ferry service. She further stated that the District is talking to the Water Emergency Transportation Authority (WETA) about potential funding to maintain the basic operating condition of the Spauldings in case of future emergencies.

Discussion by the Board

Discussion ensued, including the following comments and inquiries:

• Director Pahre expressed her concerns regarding the timing of the re-powering of the M.S. Marin slated for 2012, and inquired as to whether the District is committed to purchasing Tier 2 engines. In response, Mr. Swindler stated that when the ferry goes to the shipyard for re-powering, the cleanest engines available at that time will be purchased.

• Director Reilly inquired as to whether the ferries purchased by the WETA are equipped with better than Tier 2 engines. In response, Mr. Swindler stated that WETA’s ferries have Tier 2 engines; however, WETA’s ferries have after-treatment equipment that cleans the exhaust as it leaves the engines. Mr. Swindler noted that this equipment requires significant space that is not available on the District’s ferries. President Boro commented that the WETA ferries carry only 149 passengers.

• Director Newhouse Segal made the following inquiries:

  • In response to an inquiry from Director Newhouse Segal, Ms. Kupersmith stated that the District is pushing the industry by pushing manufacturers to make Tier 2, minus 20 engines, which calculate to be 20% better than just Tier 2 engines.
  • She inquired as to whether the District would qualify for stimulus funds for research and development (R&D) as a result of its efforts to acquire the cleanest engines possible. In response, Ms. Kupersmith responded in the negative. However, Ms. Kupersmith stated that the Bus Transit Division has been involved in an R&D project with AC Transit for the Zero Emission Bus. She further stated that AC Transit is the lead agency and all of the grant funding is handled by them. She further reported that the District has been very aggressive in seeking stimulus funds and has been successful in obtaining $12 to $14 million for ferry capital projects.
  • She inquired as to the possibility of standardizing the look of all buses and ferries with specific colors and logos so that these vehicles are easily identifiable to the passengers. In addition, Ms. Kupersmith stated that staff will present a recommendation to the Governmental Affairs and Public Information Committee on the “branding” issue for the District’s buses and ferries. She commented on the positive aspects of “branding,” stating that it could encourage new ridership by creating a uniform identity. In conclusion, Ms. Kupersmith stated that “branding” could also be an expensive endeavor.

• Director Moylan inquired as to when the District will rename the M.V. Chinook. In response, Ms. Kupersmith stated that she will consult with the Board President.

• Director Sobel made the following comments and inquiries:

  • He asked how the District’s ferry fleet compares to other passenger ferry agencies on the West Coast. In response, Mr. Swindler stated that the District operates the largest passenger ferry fleet in the Bay Area, including the State of California. Mr. Swindler also stated that Washington State Ferries is the largest on the West Coast.
  • He commended Mr. Swindler on the well thought-out and detailed report on the state of the Golden Gate Ferry Fleet.

Action by the Board– None Required

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

The Committee was provided with a copy of the agendas for the July 15, 2009, 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), stated that there were no new items to report.

Action by the Board – None Required

Status Report on Engineering Projects

In a memorandum to Committee, Deputy District Engineer Ewa 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 11:05 a.m.