FROM: James D. Herberg, General Manager
Originator: Kathy Millea, Director of Engineering
SUBJECT:
title
ANNUAL PROFESSIONAL DESIGN SERVICES AGREEMENTS, CONTRACT NO. FE21-00-XX
end
GENERAL MANAGER'S RECOMMENDATION
recommendation
RECOMMENDATION: Recommend to the Board of Directors to:
A. Approve Annual Professional Design Services Agreements (PDSA) with the following firms for professional engineering design and construction support services commencing July 1, 2021 with a maximum annual fiscal year contract limitation not to exceed $600,000 for each Annual Professional Design Services Agreement; and
FIRM CONTRACT NO.
1 AECOM Technical Services, Inc. (AECOM) FE21-00-01
2 Arcadis U.S., Inc. (Arcadis) FE21-00-02
3 Black & Veatch Corporation (Black & Veatch) FE21-00-03
4 Brown & Caldwell FE21-00-04
5 CDM Smith, Inc. (CDM Smith) FE21-00-05
6 CIVILTEC Engineering, Inc. (CIVILTEC) FE21-00-06
7 Dudek FE21-00-07
8 GHD, Inc. (GHD) FE21-00-08
9 HDR Engineering, Inc. (HDR) FE21-00-09
10 Infrastructure Engineering Corporation (IEC) FE21-00-10
11 Kennedy Jenks Consultants, Inc. (Kennedy Jenks) FE21-00-11
12 Kleinfelder, Inc. (Kleinfelder) FE21-00-12
13 Michael Baker International, Inc. (Michael Baker) FE21-00-13
14 ProjectLine Technical Services, Inc. (ProjectLine) FE21-00-14
15 SPEC Services, Inc. (SPEC Services) FE21-00-15
16 SVA Architects, Inc. (SVA Architects) FE21-00-16
17 Tetra Tech FE21-00-17
18 Woodard & Curran, Inc. (Woodard & Curran) FE21-00-18
B. Approve two additional one-year optional extensions for each PDSA.
body
BACKGROUND
Ordinance No. OCSD-52 (Purchasing Ordinance) authorizes procurement of professional design services less than $300,000 through task order-based Annual Professional Design Services Agreements (Annual PDSAs). The Purchasing Order, and the Annual PDSAs, limit task orders awarded to a single firm in a fiscal year to $600,000. There are currently three sets of Annual PDSAs for design services issued in 2012, 2015, and 2018. The sets for 2012 and 2015 have expired, and the set from 2018 expires on June 30, 2021. When an Annual PDSA expires, any existing and active task orders remain valid, but no new task orders can be issued.
When the need for professional design services for a specific project are identified, and the anticipated value of the services is less than the $300,000 task order limit, staff issues a request for task order proposal to at least two, but typically three, of the prequalified firms. The proposals are scored and ranked per the selection criteria included in the request for task order proposal, and negotiations are conducted with the selected firm. The process of procuring design services through task orders is significantly quicker and more cost effective for both the Orange County Sanitation District (OC San) and the competing consultants than for stand-alone agreements.
RELEVANT STANDARDS
• Sound engineering and accounting practices, complying with local, state, and federal laws
• California Government Code §4526: Select the “best qualified firm” and “negotiate fair and equitable fees”
PROBLEM
The process of soliciting and selecting consultants for individual professional design service agreements on smaller projects is slower and costlier for both OC San and the consultants competing for projects.
PROPOSED SOLUTION
Approve Annual PDSAs with a prequalified list of design consultants per the Purchasing Ordinance. The following table lists project types for which each of the consultants are prequalified.
|
|
Firm |
Type 1: Building and Safety |
Type 2: Linear |
Type 3: Process |
Type 4: Electrical and I&C |
|
1 |
AECOM |
X |
|
X |
X |
|
2 |
Arcadis |
X |
|
|
|
|
3 |
Black & Veatch |
|
X |
X |
|
|
4 |
Brown & Caldwell |
|
X |
X |
X |
|
5 |
CDM Smith |
|
X |
X |
X |
|
6 |
Civiltec |
|
X |
X |
|
|
7 |
Dudek |
|
X |
X |
|
|
8 |
GHD |
|
X |
X |
|
|
9 |
HDR |
X |
|
X |
X |
|
10 |
Infrastructure Engineering |
|
X |
|
|
|
11 |
Kennedy Jenks |
|
|
X |
|
|
12 |
Kleinfelder |
|
X |
|
|
|
13 |
Michael Baker |
|
|
X |
|
|
14 |
ProjectLine |
X |
|
|
|
|
15 |
SPEC Services |
|
|
X |
X |
|
16 |
SVA Architects |
X |
|
|
|
|
17 |
Tetra Tech |
|
|
X |
X |
|
18 |
Woodard & Curran |
|
X |
X |
|
TIMING CONCERNS
The current Annual PDSAs expire on June 30, 2021. If new Annual PDSAs are not issued, staff will not be able to issue task orders to procure design services for small projects.
RAMIFICATIONS OF NOT TAKING ACTION
Without these Annual PDSAs, OC San would need to conduct full solicitations for the design of each small project, delaying completion of those projects, and increasing administrative costs. The relatively high proposal costs versus the potential project profit tends to limit the number of proposers for these smaller projects.
PRIOR COMMITTEE/BOARD ACTIONS
N/A
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
Consultant Selection:
On December 17, 2020, OC San issued a request for qualifications (RFQs) for Annual PDSAs, Contract No. FE21-00, and a notice was sent to multiple categories of firms registered in OC San’s purchasing database. The RFQs defined four categories of projects and invited interested consultants to pursue qualifications for any or all of those categories.
The following evaluation criterion were described in the RFQ and used to determine the most qualified consultants.
|
CRITERION |
Weighting |
|
Consultant Team Resources |
20% |
|
Delivery Capabilities |
20% |
|
Related Project Experience |
30% |
|
Staff Qualifications |
30% |
On February 10, 2021, 28 statements of qualifications (SOQs) were received. The following table lists the firms that submitted SOQs and for which of the four project types they submitted qualifications.
|
Firm |
Type 1: Building and Safety |
Type 2: Linear |
Type 3: Process |
Type 4: Electrical and I&C |
|
AECOM Technical Services, Inc. (AECOM) |
X |
X |
X |
X |
|
Arcadis U.S., Inc. (Arcadis) |
X |
|
X |
X |
|
Austin Design & Building, Inc. (Austin) |
X |
|
|
|
|
Black & Veatch Corporation (Black & Veatch) |
|
X |
X |
|
|
Brown & Caldwell |
|
X |
X |
X |
|
Cannon Corporation (Cannon) |
|
X |
X |
X |
|
CDM Smith, Inc. (CDM Smith) |
|
X |
X |
X |
|
Civiltec Engineering, Inc. (Civiltec) |
|
X |
X |
|
|
Commonwealth Associates, Inc. (Commonwealth) |
|
|
X |
X |
|
D R Consultants & Designers, Inc. (D R Consultants) |
|
|
X |
X |
|
Dahl, Taylor & Associates, Inc. (Dahl Taylor) |
X |
X |
X |
X |
|
Dudek |
|
X |
X |
|
|
Fluor Enterprises, Inc. (Fluor) |
|
|
X |
X |
|
Gekko Engineering (Gekko) |
|
|
X |
X |
|
GHD, Inc. (GHD) |
|
X |
X |
|
|
HDR Engineering, Inc. (HDR) |
X |
X |
X |
X |
|
IDS Group, Inc. (IDS Group) |
X |
|
X |
X |
|
Infrastructure Engineering Corporation (IEC) |
|
X |
|
|
|
Kennedy Jenks Consultants, Inc. (Kennedy Jenks) |
|
X |
X |
X |
|
Kleinfelder, Inc. (Kleinfelder) |
|
X |
X |
|
|
Michael Baker International, Inc. (Michael Baker) |
X |
X |
X |
X |
|
ProjectLine Technical Services, Inc. (ProjectLine) |
X |
|
|
X |
|
RTM Engineering Consultants (RTM) |
X |
X |
|
|
|
SPEC Services, Inc. (SPEC Services) |
|
|
X |
X |
|
SVA Architects, Inc. (SVA Architects) |
X |
|
|
|
|
Tetra Tech |
|
X |
X |
X |
|
Wood Environment & Infrastructure Solutions, Inc. (Wood Environment) |
X |
X |
X |
X |
|
Woodard & Curran, Inc. (Woodard & Curran) |
|
X |
X |
|
|
Total SOQs Submitted |
11 |
18 |
23 |
18 |
The SOQs were evaluated in accordance with the process set forth in the Purchasing Ordinance by a preselected Evaluation Committee consisting of one Engineering Manager and four Engineering Supervisors. The Evaluation Committee also included two non-voting representatives from the Contracts Administration Division.
Each member of the Evaluation Committee scored each SOQ for each project type submitted using the evaluation criterion listed above. The following four tables summarize the scoring and ranking for each project type.
PROJECT TYPE 1: BUILDING & SAFETY
Building and Safety projects are those where most of the work involves building, occupied spaces, or safety improvements. Of the 11 firms submitting qualifications for Building and Safety projects, the Evaluation Committee recommended five firms be awarded Annual PDSAs for those projects. Given the relatively small number of Building and Safety task orders that are typically issued, staff considers a pool of five firms appropriate.
|
Firm |
Consultant Team Resources (Max. 20) |
Delivery Capabilities (Max. 20) |
Related Project Experience (Max. 30) |
Staff Qualifications (Max. 30) |
Total Score (Max. 100) |
Rank |
|
AECOM |
16.3 |
14.0 |
22.5 |
21.8 |
74.6 |
1 |
|
HDR |
15.4 |
14.7 |
19.0 |
22.8 |
71.9 |
2 |
|
ProjectLine |
15.0 |
13.9 |
21.1 |
21.3 |
71.3 |
3 |
|
Arcadis |
15.4 |
14.6 |
21.0 |
19.9 |
70.9 |
4 |
|
SVA Architects |
14.6 |
14.1 |
19.8 |
21.5 |
70.0 |
5 |
|
Michael Baker |
15.0 |
15.6 |
15.1 |
21.3 |
67.0 |
6 |
|
IDS Group |
14.0 |
11.3 |
20.3 |
21.0 |
66.6 |
7 |
|
Wood Environment |
14.5 |
14.7 |
14.7 |
21.3 |
65.2 |
8 |
|
RTM |
13.9 |
12.7 |
15.8 |
18.6 |
61.0 |
9 |
|
Dahl Taylor |
14.6 |
12.1 |
15.4 |
16.6 |
58.7 |
10 |
|
Austin |
14.8 |
10.9 |
12.6 |
17.4 |
55.7 |
11 |
PROJECT TYPE 2: LINEAR
Linear projects are those where most of the work involves installation, rehabilitation, or repair of buried piping outside of the two treatment plants. Of the 18 firms submitting qualifications for linear projects, the Evaluation Committee recommended nine firms be awarded Annual PDSAs for those projects. Given the typical number of linear small projects, staff considers a pool of nine firms appropriate.
|
Firm |
Consultant Team Resources (Max. 20) |
Delivery Capabilities (Max. 20) |
Related Project Experience (Max. 30) |
Staff Qualifications (Max. 30) |
Total Score (Max. 100) |
Rank |
|
Brown & Caldwell |
17.1 |
17.5 |
26.7 |
24.5 |
85.8 |
1 |
|
Woodard & Curran |
15.3 |
16.8 |
24.9 |
24.3 |
81.3 |
2 |
|
GHD |
15.9 |
15.9 |
24.6 |
24.1 |
80.5 |
3 |
|
IEC |
15.3 |
16.5 |
24.5 |
23.7 |
80.0 |
4 |
|
Dudek |
16.1 |
15.3 |
22.6 |
25.0 |
79.0 |
5 |
|
Civiltec |
15.7 |
14.3 |
25.7 |
22.9 |
78.6 |
6 |
|
Black & Veatch |
15.6 |
15.5 |
22.8 |
23.7 |
77.6 |
7 |
|
Kleinfelder |
15.0 |
15.6 |
23.3 |
23.1 |
77.0 |
8 |
|
CDM Smith |
15.7 |
16.1 |
21.4 |
22.5 |
75.7 |
9 |
|
Wood Environment |
14.9 |
14.7 |
21.0 |
23.1 |
73.7 |
10 |
|
Kennedy Jenks |
15.6 |
15.0 |
20.0 |
23.0 |
73.6 |
11 |
|
Michael Baker |
15.6 |
16.0 |
19.9 |
21.9 |
73.4 |
12 |
|
Tetra Tech |
15.4 |
14.0 |
22.4 |
21.1 |
72.9 |
13 |
|
HDR |
15.8 |
15.1 |
18.4 |
22.2 |
71.5 |
14 |
|
RTM |
13.9 |
12.7 |
21.2 |
21.0 |
68.8 |
15 |
|
Cannon |
13.7 |
13.9 |
19.3 |
19.6 |
66.5 |
16 |
|
AECOM |
15.9 |
13.6 |
17.7 |
18.2 |
65.4 |
17 |
|
Dahl Taylor |
14.6 |
12.0 |
13.0 |
16.7 |
56.3 |
18 |
PROJECT TYPE 3: PROCESS
Process projects are those that do not fit in the criteria for Building and Safety, Linear, or Electrical and Instrumentation & Control projects where most of the work involves pumping, wastewater treatment, odor control, chemical storage, associated power distribution, on-site central generation, or SCADA controls. Of the 23 firms submitting qualifications for Process projects, the Evaluation Committee recommended 13 firms be awarded Annual PDSAs for those projects. Most of the smaller projects fall into the Process category, and a larger pool of consultants is likely to be needed since no more than $600,000 in task orders can be awarded to a consultant in a fiscal year.
|
Firm |
Consultant Team Resources (Max. 20) |
Delivery Capabilities (Max. 20) |
Related Project Experience (Max. 30) |
Staff Qualifications (Max. 30) |
Total Score (Max. 100) |
Rank |
|
Brown & Caldwell |
17.5 |
17.5 |
24.3 |
25.1 |
84.4 |
1 |
|
Black & Veatch |
16.8 |
15.9 |
24.6 |
26.1 |
83.4 |
2 |
|
Dudek |
16.1 |
15.7 |
24.7 |
24.7 |
81.2 |
3 |
|
Tetra Tech |
15.8 |
14.8 |
24.8 |
23.8 |
79.2 |
4 |
|
GHD |
15.9 |
15.9 |
22.8 |
23.3 |
77.8 |
5 |
|
Civiltec |
15.3 |
14.3 |
25.1 |
22.6 |
77.3 |
6 |
|
Kennedy Jenks |
15.7 |
15.0 |
22.4 |
23.5 |
76.6 |
7 |
|
Woodard & Curran |
13.3 |
16.0 |
24.0 |
22.5 |
75.8 |
8 |
|
AECOM |
15.9 |
14.8 |
23.1 |
21.8 |
75.6 |
9 |
|
SPEC Services |
16.3 |
15.5 |
21.9 |
20.7 |
75.4 |
10 |
|
HDR |
15.7 |
15.1 |
21.1 |
22.9 |
74.8 |
11 |
|
CDM Smith |
15.3 |
16.1 |
21.1 |
21.9 |
74.4 |
12 |
|
Michael Baker |
15.4 |
15.6 |
20.5 |
22.5 |
74.0 |
13 |
|
Wood Environment |
14.3 |
14.7 |
20.4 |
23.1 |
72.5 |
14 |
|
Kleinfelder |
15.0 |
15.6 |
18.5 |
22.5 |
71.6 |
15 |
|
Gekko |
15.3 |
14.9 |
19.6 |
21.5 |
71.3 |
16 |
|
Arcadis |
15.0 |
15.4 |
19.1 |
20.6 |
70.1 |
17 |
|
IDS Group |
15.2 |
11.7 |
17.3 |
21.0 |
65.2 |
18 |
|
D R Consultants |
13.9 |
13.9 |
15.8 |
18.7 |
62.3 |
19 |
|
Cannon |
12.5 |
13.5 |
14.5 |
20.2 |
60.7 |
20 |
|
Dahl Taylor |
14.6 |
12.5 |
13.6 |
16.6 |
57.3 |
21 |
|
Fluor |
15.7 |
13.0 |
10.3 |
16.1 |
55.1 |
22 |
|
Commonwealth |
9.6 |
10.3 |
12.6 |
12.0 |
44.5 |
23 |
PROJECT TYPE 4: Electrical and Instrumentation & Control
Electrical and Instrumentation & Control projects involve only those specific disciplines. Projects that would fall into this category include switch gear replacement, relay replacements or upgrades, and SCADA-only projects. Of the 18 firms submitting qualifications for Electrical and Instrumentation & Control, the Evaluation Committee recommended six firms be awarded Annual PDSAs for those projects. Given the relatively small number of Electrical and Instrumentation & Control task orders that are typically issued, staff considers a pool of six firms appropriate.
|
Firm |
Consultant Team Resources (Max. 20) |
Delivery Capabilities (Max. 20) |
Related Project Experience (Max. 30) |
Staff Qualifications (Max. 30) |
Total Score (Max. 100) |
Rank |
|
Brown & Caldwell |
17.5 |
17.5 |
24.9 |
25.1 |
85.0 |
1 |
|
Tetra Tech |
15.4 |
14.8 |
23.6 |
24.1 |
77.9 |
2 |
|
AECOM |
17.1 |
15.2 |
22.5 |
22.4 |
77.2 |
3 |
|
HDR |
15.7 |
15.9 |
22.1 |
23.4 |
77.1 |
4 |
|
SPEC Services |
17.1 |
16.9 |
21.3 |
21.3 |
76.6 |
5 |
|
CDM Smith |
15.3 |
16.1 |
22.9 |
21.9 |
76.2 |
6 |
|
Michael Baker |
15.4 |
15.3 |
21.5 |
22.5 |
74.7 |
7 |
|
Wood Environment |
14.1 |
14.7 |
22.2 |
23.1 |
74.1 |
8 |
|
Gekko |
15.3 |
14.9 |
19.6 |
22.1 |
71.9 |
9 |
|
Kennedy Jenks |
15.5 |
15.0 |
19.4 |
21.1 |
71.0 |
10 |
|
IDS Group |
15.2 |
11.7 |
20.9 |
22.2 |
70.0 |
11 |
|
ProjectLine |
14.7 |
13.0 |
19.3 |
22.5 |
69.5 |
12 |
|
Arcadis |
15.0 |
15.0 |
15.5 |
20.0 |
65.5 |
13 |
|
Cannon |
13.3 |
13.5 |
16.9 |
20.2 |
63.9 |
14 |
|
Dahl Taylor |
14.6 |
12.1 |
16.6 |
17.8 |
61.1 |
15 |
|
D R Consultants |
13.9 |
13.8 |
14.0 |
18.0 |
59.7 |
16 |
|
Fluor |
15.6 |
13.0 |
11.5 |
16.8 |
56.9 |
17 |
|
Commonwealth |
8.8 |
10.3 |
13.2 |
12.6 |
44.9 |
18 |
FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS
This request complies with authority levels of OC San’s Purchasing Ordinance. Budget for these task orders is included in the Small Construction Projects Program, Project No. M-FE (Adopted Budget, Fiscal Years 2020-21 and 2021-2022 Budget, Section 8, Page 48).
ATTACHMENT
The following attachment(s) may be viewed on-line at the OC San website (www.ocsan.gov) with the complete agenda package:
• Draft Professional Design Services Agreement
JM:dm:sa:gc