HomeMy WebLinkAboutRDA CONST ENGR SVCS 06-21-82DATE: JUNE 16, 1982 In er-Com
TO:
FROH:
SUBJECT:
WILLIAM HUSTON, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,
TUSTIN COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
DALE WICK, ASSISTANT CITY ENGINEER
SELECTION OF AGENT TO PROVIDE CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING SERVICES
FOR EL CAMINO REAL/MAIN ST. IMPROVEMENTS
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that the Tustin Community Redevelopment Agency, at their meeting
of June 21, 1982, award the contract for subject construction engineering services
to the firm of Berryman & Stephenson Inc.
BACKGROUND:
The complete construction engineering package for this project has been divided
into four separate tasks as follows:
TASK I .... CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION
TASK II . . . CONSTRUCTION INSPECTION
TASK III . . · CONSTRUCTION SURVEYS
TASK IV . . . MISC. RIGHT OF WAY SERVICES
Staff has contacted both the City of Irvine and Berryman & Stephenson Inc. to
obtain estimated costs for providing this service.
The City of Irvine's proposal would be to assign to the project an inspector with
vehicle for the duration of the work (estimated at 83 working days) at an hourly
rate of $18.55 per hour for a total estimated cost of $12,320.00. This proposal
would only encompass Task II and the City would either have to perform the
remaining three tasks via consultant or "in-house". In addition, it appears that
under the Irvine proposal landscape inspection would have to be done "in-house".
Berryman & Stephenson Inc. has 'submitted a comprehensive proposal to perform all
phases of the four tasks involved at an estimated not to exceed cost based on
estimated manhours and out-of-pocket expenses as follows:
TASK I ..... $11,600.
TASK II . . . 30,341.
TASK III . . . 33,836.
TASK IV . . . 3,840.
TOTAL $79,617.
W~ have analyzed B.S.I.'s proposal and it appears that their estimate of manhours
involved for Task I is excessive. However, under the B.S.I. proposal, the City
would only pay for actual manhours expended on each task and it is probable that
the total cost would be somewhat less than the $79,617 figure, since this is meant
to be a "not to exceed" amount. Under the City of Irvine proposal, it appears
that we would be paying for an inspector for the duration of the project whether
needed or not. For example, there are certain construction operations which do
not necessarily require 100% observation by the inspector.
SELECTION OF AGENT TO PROVIDE CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING SERVICES
JUNE 16, 1982
PAGE TWO
Based on B.S.I.'s comprehensive proposal, their cost for Task II would be $23,661
if the landscape inspection costs are deducted out. This compares with the Irvine
proposal of $12,320,000 for a resultant savings of $11,341.00.
Because of the very complex nature of this project and the many specialty items
involved, the Engineering staff feels that the relative savings involved is a
minor consideration compared to the problems which may be encountered if we do not
make the right decision now regarding selection of inspection services. Our major
concerns over utilization of a City of Irvine inspector are:
(1) We have no guarantee as to the quality of the individual assigned to the
project. The hourly rate quoted indicates inexperience.
(2)
Our previous experience with utilization of other public agency
personnel for inspection services has left much to be desired; probably
due to the fact that the inspector had no perma~eQ~ stake in the project
and it was just fill-in work.
(3)
A public agency inspector would probably not have the credibility
necessary for the public relations which is going to be required for
this project.
(4)
By utilization of inspection services other than that provided by the
design engineer, City staff will certainly become more involved in
solving design problems which are sure to develop during construction of
this project.
(5) We could possibly sacrafice the integrity and end result of this very
important project by utilizing someone with no vested interest.
(6) If problems do develop, the door is open for the design engineer to place
the blame on improper construction supervision.
We feel the advantages of Having B.S.I. provide inspection services for
this project are:
(1) We have been assured by B.S.I. that their most qualified person is to be
utilized for this project.
(2) The inspector would have a vested interest in the project because it is
his company's reputation he has to uphold.
(3) A consultant "resident engineer" should have much more credibility in
dealing with the public.
(4)
We believe B.S.I. wants this project to go smoothly with a resulting end
product that can be used by them as a "showpiece". They cannot
accomplish this if they do not have complete control over all facets of
the project.
SELECTION OF AGENT TO PROVIDE CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING SERVICES
JUNE 16, 1982
PAGE THREE
(5) Coordination of all four tasks involved can be accomplished much more
easily if all of the tasks are handled by one organization.
DALE A. WICK
ASSISTANT CITY ENGINEER
db