Desk ItemCOUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
DATE: FEBRUARY 16, 2016
TO: MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
FROM: LAUREL PREVETTI, TOWN MANAGER
MEETING DATE: 02/16/16
ITEM NO: 8
DESK ITEM
SUBJECT: PPW JOB NO. 13 -31 — ALMOND GROVE STREET REHABILITATION PROJECT
411- 811 -0003
AUTHORIZE THE TOWN MANAGER TO NEGOTIATE AND EXECUTE AN
AGREEMENT FOR DESIGN PROFESSIONAL SERVICES (ATTACHMENT 1) TO
COMPLETE THE DESIGN FOR THE REMAINING EIGHT STREETS IN THE
ALMOND GROVE PROJECT TO NICHOLS CONSULTING ENGINEERS (NCE) IN
AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $762,190, WHICH INCLUDES A 10%
CONTINGENCY
REMARKS:
After the Staff Report was released on February 16, 2016, staff received a request to provide all of the
RFP submittals for the project. These are available at the following link:
httv:// www. losgatosca .gov /almondgrovgproiect Scroll to the "Proposals Received" section. All cost
proposals are provided at the end of each submittal document.
Please also reference the desk item for Item 7 on this Council Agenda for additional information.
Attachments 1 -4 (Previously received with staff report on February 11, 2010:
1. Draft Consultant Services Agreement including Nichols Consulting Engineers RFP Submittal (Scope
of Services).
2. RFP Scoring Criteria.
3. RFP Ranking Summary.
4. Public Comment received through 11:00 a.m. Thursday, February 11, 2016.
Attachment(s) (Received with this Desk Item
5. Public Comment received through 11:00 a.m. Tuesday, February 16, 2016.
PREPARED BY: MATT MORLEY
DIRECTOR OF PARKS AND PUBLIC WORKS
Reviewed by: Assistant Town Manager Town Attorney Finance
N:\MGR\AdmmWorkFiIes\20I6 Council Reports \02- 16 -16 \08 Almond Grove Award Consultant Contract\Desk Item. AG Consultant Award Memo.docx
From:
Angelia Doerner <saveourhood @yahoo.com>
Sent:
Tuesday, February 16, 2016 10:37 AM
To:
Council; BSpector; Marico Sayoc; Marcia Jensen; Steven Leonardis; Rob Rennie
Cc:
Laurel Prevetti; Janette Judd
Subject:
DESK ITEM FOR 021616 AGENDA ITEM #8 - DESIGN RFP
Attachments:
021616 Question on RFP.pdf
Please include the attached as a Desk Item to Agenda Item 8 - Agreement With Nichols
And Design RFP
Thank you!
Angelia Doerner
Live Simply, Laugh Often
1
ATTACHMENTS
Angelia M. Doerner
SaveO u rHood @ya hoo.com
Feb 16, 2016 Council Meeting— Agenda Item 8
NO GO on Nichols ConsultingM
I was disappointed — actually shocked —that Town Staff would only disclose proposal information and cost submittals
from their "Firm of Choice' — but was not shocked at all that the Firm would be Nichols Consulting!
I strongly disagree with hiring Nichols for any other work associated with this Project!
Whenever Staff responds to a question with "the Consultant says" —that is simply a "cop -out" — presumably making
Staff immune to taking responsibility for the work product. This is the first sign of TROUBLE with Consultant
arrangements — especially when we purportedly have someone on Staff who has the appropriate expertise! We have
heard that line way too many times on this Project. The following two pages walks you through the "Paying it
Forward" loops we've experienced with Nichols since 2011.
All Design Issues have been resolved (pavement type to be decided today) —the remaining Project is simply to design
streets "AS IS ". All working papers, memos, programs, files, etc., produced by Nichols are the Town's work product!!
We need an independent, fresh set of eyes and skills to utilize that work product, complete the designs and,
hopefully, offer constructive cost - savings ideas. Most of all — to achieve a true Consultant relationship vs glorified
staff. They are too costly for that.
There are two major elements of Project costs: Consultant Hours and Subcontractors (Surveyors, Etc). In both the
"$300k" proposal and in Nichols' current proposal, the distribution is the same: 78% Labor and 22% Subs. Don't you
think the Labor component should be LESS with Nichols as they have prior experience — and as the Design
parameters are established "AS IS " ? ?? I would like to compare and contrast the components of the various
Consultant Cost sheets — but Staff has not given the public — or you — the benefit of that information.
Also, even though the design was "ready to bid" in March '15 — significant changes to quantities, scope of work, etc.,
have occurred to obtain the bids at hand. Most glaring is the design specs of Asphalt. Through Oct '15, the Asphalt
design was for 4.5" Asphalt over 8 "Aggregate Base. Since then — the specs have changed to 8" Full -depth Asphalt
w/o any Aggregate Base!!! The bid results for Asphalt are not comparative to anything you have seen before!
WHY!!! ? ?? Why was an essential design specification changed at this stage in the process ? ?? Is it more costly? Are
there other implications?
Regardless of what Pavement Type you choose —this fundamental change in Asphalt design so late in the process is
highly questionable! If it was the "BEST ASPHALT SOLUTION" for these streets —WHY WASN'T IT USED IN THE FIRST
PLACE ? ? ?? Versus as an "Afterthought "M! Also, can you point to ONE, JUST ONE, cost - saving idea that has been
presented since the 2011 numbers? I can't!!! I firmly believe Nichols has not served in the best interest of the
Town.
WHY would we allow this to continue ?? — (IMHO) WHY REWARD them for their DISREGARD of best design options,
MANIPULATION of information, BLATANT overstatement of estimated costs (to ratchet up their %age of the
"game ") and their outright CAPITULATION to Staff. This is NOT a HEALTHY Consultant relationship!
Also, Nichols provided a HIGH LEVEL OF CONFIDENCE in the 2011 report as to quantities : +/- 10' on street lengths
and +/- 1,000 SgFt of Pavement Area. Yet Staff still touts "conceptual" in their estimated costs — unwilling to give
credence to their accuracy. Well, you can't have it both ways. Either Nichols lied about their confidence level in
2011 (which I don't believe) OR they should be utilized without hesitation by Staff in current -day cost estimates. If
Staff does not want to place reliance on those quantities (which have not changed since 18881!!), then WHY would
they want to hire Nichols AGAIN!!!!! ? ? ? ??
Please review the following — the progression of this costly and unhealthy Consultant relationship is obvious!!!
Angelia M. Doerner
SaveOurHood@yahoo.com
Feb 16, 2016 Council Meeting— Agenda Item 8
NO GO on Nichols Consultinglll
I strongly disagree with hiring Nichols for any other work associated with this Project!
2010/2011: At the March 2011 Council meeting, Town Staff said they had "solicited proposals and
entered into an agreement with Nichols" to do a complete Conceptual Design of essentially all Downtown
streets West of Santa Cruz — from Wilder up past Overlook — with Broadway thrown in to boot.
• Even though "the numbers" were verbally shared with Council at their January '11 "Retreat"
(meetings that were held in violation of the Brown Act) the "Nichols Report" was actually not
provided to Council until the onset of the topic being discussed at the March '11 Council meeting.
So starts the inability of Nichols to produce deliverables within an acceptable timeframe.
• When requested, it was determined that no proposals had EVER been solicited — and NO
agreement with Nichols had been executed. Nor had any notification /authorization been given by
Council for such services — only told "after the fact ".
• The following summarizes ALL invoices relating to that "agreement ". No other invoices were
submitted, or paid, until Jan '14M
Meetings (3)
Fi el d Review &
Assessment
Pavement Coring
Analysis &
Conceptual Design
Reports and
Cost Estimates
Council Presentation
(Optional)
Contract Sept 28 - Nov 20 - Dec 11 - Jan 22 -
Amount ( *) Nov 19 Dec 10 Jan 21 Mar 11
$
5,100
$
1,530
$ 2,040
$
1,530
$
7,800
$
3,900
$ 3,900
$
5,800
$
5,800
$
12,000
$
3,000
$ 7,800
$ 1,200
(A)
(B)
$
6,700
$
670
$ 3,350
$ 2,010
$
670
$
2,400
1
$
2,400
$ 39,800
$ 14,900
$ 15,050
1 $ 5,250
$
4,600
(A) - Information provided at Retreat Jan 22, 2011 included Preliminary Costs of $18 - $19mil,
General Discussion of Methods, Funding Sources and Phasing Requirements
(B) - Final Report Delivered to Council ATthe Mar 7,'11 meeting.
Really ? ?? A 40+ page report including over 20 coring samples, mapping, inventory of all street and
non - street features, report production, etc., — all for less than $40,00011111 IMHO — this
arrangement with Nichols was designed 1) to fly "under the radar" of internal control limits
requiring Council authorizations, 2) be amenable to what Staff wanted to report — glorified Staff vs
professional technical expertise, and 3) late, last- minute delivery of the report so no
Councilmember had an opportunity to review it! IMHO - So starts the "less than up- and -up"
relationship between the Town and Nichols on this Project. I have heard of "paying it forward" —
but not as it relates to an ETHICAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICE relationship of this magnitude!
Let's review Nichols' performance under the "$300,000 Design Contract ".
Angelia M. Doerner
SaveOurHood @yahoo.com
Feb 16, 2016 Council Meeting— Agenda Item 8
NO GO on Nichols Consulting111
• December'13: Staff Report requests approval of a Design Contract with Nichols for $300,000 to
produce complete plans and specifications for Bachman, Broadway and Tait. When the "analysis
and value engineering" for this Project "performed in Spring 2013" referenced in the memo was
requested, all I got was a "correction memo" stating it should have read "2011" — not "2013 "1 Had I
been a Council member, I would have relied on that "2013" representation when approving Staff's
request. IMHO — So starts the "paying forward" process.
• Plans and specifications have only been completed on Bachman and Broadway! As to Tait, plans
were only completed (supposedly) to a 70% PS &E. If Nichols is hired again — we will never know
the state of completion of the Tait plans — they will be getting paid AGAIN for work they should
have already completed!
Staff kept trying to get Council to authorize additional payments to Nichols for "putting the curb
lines back where they belong ". All of a sudden, Staff says "we negotiated —so they are no longer
asking for those additional amounts.... ". BY HIRING NICHOLS AGAIN, ARE WE SIMPLY
CONTINUING TO "PAYING IT FORWARD " ? ? ??
Let's look at the current Nichol's Proposal.
• Pg 9 - "We carefully assessed and developed technical specifications with consideration of concrete mix
designs and construction staging to help minimize construction impacts to local residents and community."
Not only is this statement misplaced in the proposal — it has not been proven yet!
• Pg 10 — "Knowledge of Concrete Pavement" — How presumptuous of Nichols to expect that all
streets will be done in concrete! Isn't that something to be decided by our Council ? ? ?? Hasn't all
the materials, estimates, etc., provided by Nichols to date been skewed towards that decision?
Consider the life cycle costs in the 2011 report ($5 mil vs $24mil) — and reiterated by Staff over and
over again, until — finally — Staff is providing a more realistic (if still somewhat flawed) analysis.
• Pg 11— I have to laugh — Not only does Nichols claim they got "community input and collaboration"
— but everything discussed in "Aesthetics" was thrown in the trash!!! Actually— some of it was used
by Staff (Complete Streets, including slides, etc) — JUST NOT ON THIS PROJECT!
• Pg 12 — now I understand why the cock -eyed PCIs and related $ /SgYd inconsistencies have occurred
as presented to you in connection with the Town's Annual Street project — Nichols did the "study of
our streets" and determination of funding shortfalls. IMHO - If that was part of the basis for what
they presented to our Legislature — then our State representatives have no clue.
• Pg 14 —we got all this for less than $40,000!1!1!1
• Pg 15 — "Adherence to the Schedule and Budget"
• Project was only completed for Bachman and Broadway!!! Tait was NOT completed.
• What amendments to fees ? ? ? ? ? ??
• Have you noticed that the only "Relevant Experience" is what they have done in this Town? At the
November'14 Outreach Meeting, when asked if they could provide pictures of any existing
residential concrete streets, especially in the state of California — the response was "No" — they
were not aware if any existed!!!!
• The rest of the proposal is simply a rehash of what is in the RFP.....
STOP THE "OPEN BAR TAB" BY REJECTING NICHOLS CONSULTINGM
From: Angelia Doerner <saveourhood @yahoo.com>
Sent: Tuesday, February 16, 2016 10:37 AM
To: Council; BSpector; Marico Sayoc; Marcia Jensen; Steven Leonardis; Rob Rennie
Cc: Laurel Prevetti; Janette Judd
Subject: DESK ITEM FOR 021616 AGENDA ITEM #8 - DESIGN RFP
Attachments: 021616 Question on RFP.pdf
Please include the attached as a Desk Item to Agenda Item 8 - Agreement With Nichols
And Design RFP
Thank you!
Angelia Doerner
Live Simply, Laugh Often
1
Angelia M. Doerner
SaveOu rHood @yahoo.com
Feb 16, 2016 Council Meeting — Agenda Item 8 —RFP And Nichols
In responses to questions submitted by potential proposers:
Q: "Can you clarify the extent off the landscape areas that need to be replaced or rehabilitated if this is for
work other than he street trees ?"
A: ........ replacemenT of existing irrigation system to the landscape strip AND PLACEMENT OF FUTURE
UNCONNECTED IRRIGATION CONDUIT UNDER THE SIDEWALKS TO THE LANDSCAPE STRIPS....."
Could someone tell us what the heck PPW is planning to do ? ? ? ??
From: Angelia Doerner <saveourhood @yahoo.com>
Sent: Tuesday, February 16, 2016 10:54 AM
To: Council; BSpector; Marico Sayoc; Marcia Jensen; Steven Leonardis; Rob Rennie
Cc: Laurel Prevetti; Janette Judd
Subject: Desk Item for 021616 Agenda Item #8 - Almond Grove
Traffic Control is a hefty component of the bid costs. There are so many ways this
amount can be greatly mitigated based on the network of roads in the Almond Grove. I
sent an early detailed plan (Sept 15 meeting) that would serve the interests of the
Residents on each street when under construction, the needs of the Town, and reduce
associated costs tremendously.
I sure hope PPW at least considers such alternatives. Also, a new Design Consultant
would actually learn and understand the typical traffic flow of the
neighborhood and could devise such cost - effective routes!
Angelia Doerner
Live Simply, Laugh Often
i