Manteca City Council
September 20, 2022

ATTACHMENT 2
ATTACHMENT 2
ATTACHMENT 2
ATTACHMENT 2
ATTACHMENT 2
ATTACHMENT 2
ATTACHMENT 2
ATTACHMENT 2
ATTACHMENT 2
ATTACHMENT 2

CITY OF MANTECA
Request for Proposals (RFP)
for
Professional Engineering Services
for the
Local Roadway Safety Plan
LRSPL 5242 (037)
Issued: June 15, 2022
Due: July 13, 2022
ATTACHMENT 2
Request For Proposals
Local Roadway Safety Plan
2 I. INTRODUCTION
The City of Manteca (City) is soliciting proposals from qualified firms for Professional Engineering Services. The purpose of this Request for Proposals (RFP) is to select a consultant to assist the City with the development of the Local Roadway Safety Plan.

II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION & BACKGROUND
A. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The corridors and arterial roadways of the City of Manteca has been experiencing a significant deterioration since the number of neighborhoods, local streets, traffic volumes, and residents have all increased as the City grew in a short period of time.

Staff resources have been a historic limitation that has limited the responsiveness to the community demands and the success of further roadway safety improvement/ rehabilitation.

As such, a success of further efforts to implement roadway safety improvement/ rehabilitation projects, especially fast-deteriorating corridors and arterial roadways, will depend upon a citywide roadway assessment and development of a Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP) to prioritize the Roadway Improvement/rehabilitation projects throughout the future HSIP, SB1, State Funding, Local Development Fees, Measure K funding, Gas Tax, Local Transportation Funding (LTF), etc.

The process of preparing a LRSP creates a framework to systematically identify and analyze safety problems and recommend safety improvements. Preparation of the City’s LRSP will be accomplished through acquiring and analyzing data, conducting citywide roadway conditions, identifying partners to review data, selecting emphasis areas, developing safety strategies and countermeasures, and adopting the final plan.

The LRSP will play a critical role in addressing traffic collisions within the City. The LRSP will provide the City the opportunity to proactively correct high collision or problem locations and prevent local road fatalities and injuries. The final plan will recommend proven countermeasures, provide a structure and realistic set of responses that implement changes over time, will integrate the “4 E’s” approach (Education, Enforcement, Emergency Service, and Engineering) in its proposed solution strategies, and identify road safety partners that could sustain a long-term effort.

B. FUNDING
Caltrans has announced that a Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP) or its equivalent will be required for an agency to apply for federal Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) funding beginning in the HSIP Cycle 11. Following the submission of an LRSP Funding Request, Caltrans has allocated the City with State-only funds to develop the LRSP in January 23, 2020. The City is required to have a completed LRSP within thirty six (36) months from the January 23, 2020 allocation date, which sets the deadline on January 23, 2023.

ATTACHMENT 2
Request For Proposals
Local Roadway Safety Plan
3 C. TIMING
Consultant shall complete the development of the LRSP in a period of 18 weeks.

III. SCOPE OF SERVICES
The City is seeking proposals from licensed professional engineering firms to provide professional engineering services for the development of the Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP).

Services are anticipated to generally include, but are not limited to, the development of LRSP and all of the supporting studies required for the LRSP. The Consultant shall develop the LRSP in strict conformance to Caltrans Local Assistance Procedures Manual (LAPM), Local Assistance Program Guidelines (LAPG), and all other applicable State and Federal requirements.

The following summary of scope of services is not inclusive and is only intended to be used as an indication of minimum services to be provided. It is the City’s expectation that the Consultant shall include in their proposal all work necessary for the completion of the Local Roadway Safety Plan, and no future amendments to a contract would be required.

Task 1.0 – Project Management
The Consultant shall provide overall Project management for the Project.

Task 1.1 – Project Management
Consultant shall furnish a Project Manager to coordinate all Consultant operations with City, including but not limited to, tracking progress of the work and administering subcontracts. Consultant’s Project Manager shall provide overall Project management, coordination, and supervision of Project staff to facilitate the performance of the work in accordance with the standards and requirements of the City, Caltrans, and other applicable agencies. Consultant’s Project Manager shall prepare and submit monthly Project progress reports to City’s Project Manager.

Task 1.2 – Coordination and Meetings
Consultant’s Project Manager shall conduct regular meetings with City, and shall conduct meetings and oversee coordination with other stakeholders, including Caltrans, City, and other agencies, in Project Development Team (PDT) meetings or technical workshops as necessary. The Consultant shall attend and organize a project kick-off meeting to discuss goals, objectives, tasks, timelines, the City’s expectations and Caltrans’s grant requirements. The Project kick-off meeting shall outline the plan for completing all tasks.

Consultant’s Project Manager will be responsible for preparation of agendas and meeting minutes, communication and distribution of Project records and information, and responses to all internal requests for information about the Project.

ATTACHMENT 2
Request For Proposals
Local Roadway Safety Plan
4 Task 1.3 – Administration
Consultant’s Project Manager shall prepare and update the Project schedule on a monthly basis or as needed. Project schedule shall be logical, complete, and shall consider City and stakeholder reviews. Consultant’s Project Manager shall provide regular reporting on the Project status, including, but not limited to, schedule, contract budget, general progress on Project tasks, and Project issues and concerns. Consultant’s Project Manager shall maintain Project master files using the Caltrans Uniform File System in hard copies and electronic format. Consultant’s Project Manager shall prepare and implement a Quality Assurance /Quality Control (QA/QC) Plan, and a Communication Management Plan. Consultant’s Project Manager will be responsible for adherence to all applicable City and Caltrans administrative policies and procedures.

Task 1 Deliverables:
• Monthly Progress Reports
• PDT meeting notices, agendas, handouts/exhibits, and minutes. • Project Schedule and revisions as changes are made
• Project Master Files
• Communication Management Plan
• Work Plan
• QA/QC Plan
• QA/QC Certifications for all submittals
Task 2.0 – Local Roadway Safety Plan Initiation
Consultant shall assist the City in formalizing vision, goals and objectives, and to facilitate stakeholder involvement for the LRSP.

Task 2.1 – Develop Plan Goals and Objectives
Consultant shall work with City staff and the project team to formalize the Plan goals and objectives with respect to collision reduction, partnerships, outreach, and funding in order to safely and equitably serve multi-modal mobility in the City. Determination will also take place with regards to the frequency of future plan updates and possible reporting elements.

Task 2.2 – Stakeholder Involvement
Consultant shall work with City staff to identify potential stakeholders to participate in the development of the LRSP, including elected officials, management, traffic safety partners, advocacy groups, transit operators, schools, and others. Consultant to coordinate and lead stakeholder meetings as needed to identify high need areas and stakeholder priorities, establish LRSP vision and goals, and review potential solutions/countermeasures. Stakeholders shall also be engaged to help identify prioritization plans and to review and comment on the draft and final LRSP.

ATTACHMENT 2
Request For Proposals
Local Roadway Safety Plan
5 Task 3.0 – Data Collection & Analysis
Consultant shall collect and analyze safety data and conduct a citywide roadway assessment for the LRSP. The City’s main corridors include, but not limited to, Airport Way, Union Road, Main Street, Lathrop Road, Louise Avenue, Yosemite Avenue, and Woodward Avenue.

Task 3.1 – Review of Existing Planning Documents
Consultant shall review the City’s related planning documents, policies, plans, programs, resources, etc. The Consultant shall produce an inventory of opportunity areas to facilitate safety improvements.

Task 3.2 – Data Collection
Consultant shall collect and review collision traffic data, traffic patterns, and citywide roadway conditions. Collision data shall be for the most recent 5-year period.

Task 3.3 – Data Analysis
Consultant shall analyze and assess traffic data and citywide roadway conditions collected. Consultant shall document findings, including patterns in crash type, driver factors, roadway features, vehicle factors, and environmental conditions.

Consultant shall identify characteristics present in severe crashes, and identify where else on the City’s roadway network the similar characteristics exists. Characteristics can include roadway features such as roadway cross sections, lane width, shoulder width, curvature, speed limit, traffic volume, intersection control, street lights, and other features that may impact safety. Consultant shall provide any necessary tables, charts, maps, and tree diagrams showing severe crash locations and summary of crash data.

Task 4.0 – Emphasis Areas, Evaluation, and Implementation Consultant shall evaluate traffic safety data, identify emphasis areas, develop countermeasures and implementation program and provide recommendations.

Task 4.1 – Emphasis Areas Identification
Consultant shall evaluate the locations identified in Task 3 to identify emphasis areas.

Emphasis area descriptions include what information led to the identification of the issue.

Emphasis areas have three parts: a description, a goal, and strategies. The City anticipates the LRSP will have multiple emphasis areas.

Task 4.2 – Countermeasure Development
Consultant shall identify opportunity areas and factors to build a safety mitigation toolbox that includes proven, cost-effective measures that will best address the most prevalent challenges in the City identified from previous tasks. Consultant shall recommend specific mitigations for high crash locations and locations in need of specific detailed analysis. Consultant shall develop a programmatic approach to implement safety mitigations and roadway improvement/ rehabilitation projects citywide.

ATTACHMENT 2
Request For Proposals
Local Roadway Safety Plan
6 Task 4.3 – Implementation Program
Consultant shall develop a strategy for implementing safety features included in the toolbox and a means to monitor safety outcomes to evaluate which measures are most effective. This prioritization plan strategy shall include identifying potential projects for future grant applications, measures that can be included in regular maintenance cycles, and potential updates to City design standards to better align with safety best practices.

Task 4.4 – Recommendations
The Consultant shall make recommendations for City staff and City Council consideration for fiscal and employee resources necessary for a continued, sustained effort to achieve traffic safety vision goals after LRSP adoption.

Task 5.0 – Local Roadway Safety Plan Development
This task shall deliver the Final Local Roadway Safety Plan.

Task 5.1 – Draft LRSP Report
Consultant shall prepare and submit to the City a draft LRSP incorporating all the data and findings obtained from previous tasks. The draft LRSP shall also be circulated to all identified stakeholders for reviews and comments. The LRSP shall be prepared in strict conformance to all applicable Caltrans and FHWA standard requirements.

Task 5.2 – Final LRSP Report
Consultant shall prepare the final LRSP. Comments received from City and stakeholders shall be addressed and incorporated into the final LRSP. The LRSP final report will be considered completed when it has been approved and accepted by the City and the State.

The signature and seal of the professional engineer responsible for the development of the LRSP must be included.

Task 5 Deliverables:
• Draft LRSP (electronic PDF format)
• Final LRSP (electronic PDF format)
IV. MATERIALS FURNISHED BY CITY
The following list of documents are available on the City website:
• City of Manteca Standard Plans and Specifications
(https://www.ci.manteca.ca.us/Engineering/Pages/default.aspx) • City of Manteca Active Transportation Plan
(https://www.ci.manteca.ca.us/CommunityDevelopment/Planning%20Division/Pages /Active-Transportation-Plan.aspx)
ATTACHMENT 2
Request For Proposals
Local Roadway Safety Plan
7 • City of Manteca Bicycle Master Plan
(https://www.ci.manteca.ca.us/Engineering/Pages/Transportation-Engineering.aspx) • City of Manteca Traffic Calming Program
(https://www.ci.manteca.ca.us/Engineering/Pages/Transportation-Engineering.aspx) All software, data, reports, surveys, drawings, and other documents furnished to the Consultant by City for the Consultant's use in the performance of services shall be made available only for use in performing the assignment and shall remain the property of City.

All such materials shall be returned to City upon completion of services, termination of the Agreement, or other such time as City may determine.

V. CONTRACT TYPE
An “Actual Cost plus Not to Exceed Fee” agreement is expected be issued for the project.

Any services provided by the Consultant, which are not specifically covered by the Contract, will not be reimbursed. It is the Consultant’s responsibility to recognize and notify City when services not covered under the Contract have been requested.

VI. PROPOSAL INSTRUCTIONS
Proposals will be accepted until 4:00 p.m., Pacific Time, on the due date. Four (4) hard copies with an electronic copy on flash drive shall be sent to the following:

Koosun Kim, PE
Deputy Director
City of Manteca – Engineering Department
1001 West Center Street, Suite E
Manteca, CA 95337
[email protected]
Proposers shall include the following information in their proposals:

A. Cover Letter & Memoranda
Provide the following information:
• A statement requesting City to evaluate the submitted proposal based upon the Scope of Services for the Local Roadway Safety Plan.
• Identification of all proposed subconsultants including a description of the work to be performed by the Consultant’s firm and each subconsultant’s firm. • An estimate of the percentage of work to be performed by each firm. • Indicate the location of the office from which the majority of work (>75%) will be performed by the Consultant and subconsultants.
• A statement acknowledging any and all addenda to the RFP issued by City.

ATTACHMENT 2
Request For Proposals
Local Roadway Safety Plan
8 • A signed statement by an officer of the firm attesting that all information in the proposal is true and correct (the signed statement is only required for the Prime Consultant). • A memorandum from a principal from each subconsultant firm indicating the specific portion of services the subconsultant will be performing. • Contact information for proposed Project Manager and alternate contact in the event the Project Manager is not available.

The cover letter is not included in the total page count.

B. Contract Termination and Circumstances
Provide a response to the following question: Has your firm been terminated from a Contract / Professional Services Agreement within the past five years? If Consultant has been terminated from a Contract / Professional Services Agreement within the past five years, describe the facts and circumstances in detail leading to the termination on a separate sheet (this question only applies to the Prime Consultant; the response to this question is not included in the total page count and should be included in the appendix).

C. Litigation and Circumstances
Provide a response to the following question: Is your firm currently involved in, or been involved in, litigation arising under professional liability issues or contractual issues, within the past five years?
If Consultant has been involved in litigation within the past five years, for each professional liability occurrence or contractual occurrence, list the plaintiff, defendant, and project on a separate sheet (this question only applies to the Prime Consultant; the response to this question is not included in the total page count and should be included in the appendix).

VII. TECHNICAL PROPOSAL CONTENT:

A. Qualifications, Related Experience, and References
This section of the proposal should establish the ability of the proposed team to satisfactorily perform the required work by reasons of: (1) the consultant firm’s offered services, business structure, size, and location; (2) financial strength and stability; (3) experience in performing work of the same or similar nature and key personnel; (4) demonstrated experience working with local agencies and nearby cities directly involved in this Project; (5) the Project team’s past experience working together; (6) recent Contract Amendment history; and (7) supportive client references. Specifically:

ATTACHMENT 2
Request For Proposals
Local Roadway Safety Plan
9 a. Provide a brief profile of the firm, including the types of services offered; the year founded; form of the organization (corporation, partnership, sole proprietorship); number, size and location of offices; number of employees. b. Provide a general description of the firm's current financial condition; identify any conditions (e.g., bankruptcy, planned office closures, impending merger) that may impede ability to complete the Project.
c. Describe the firm's experience in performing work of a similar nature to that solicited in this RFP, and the participation in such work by the key personnel proposed for assignment to this Project. Highlight the firm’s key personnel and experience with preparation and delivery of Local Roadway Safety Plan or similar document report. d. Describe experience in working with the various government agencies that typically have jurisdiction over the approval of the work specified in this RFP. Please include specialized experience and professional competence in areas directly related to this RFP.
e. Provide a list of past joint work by the consultant and each subconsultant, if applicable. The list should clearly identify the project and provide a summary of the roles and responsibilities of each party.
f. For the two or three most recent consultant prepared Local Roadway Safety Plan or similar document report, provide the following: (a) Initial engineering services contract amount, (b) Final engineering services contract amount. g. Provide a minimum of three (3) client references. Furnish the name, title, address, and telephone number of the person(s) at the client organization who is most knowledgeable about the work performed (references are intended to be for the Prime Consultant). References may also be supplied from other work not cited in this section as related experience.

B. Proposed Staffing and Project Organization
This section of the proposal should establish the method that will be used to manage the Project as well as identify key personnel assigned. Specifically:

1. Identify the person who is a registered Professional Engineer (PE) in the State of California who will approve and stamp the Local Roadway Safety Plan. Include education, experience and applicable professional credentials.

2. Furnish brief resumes [not more than two (2) pages each] for the proposed Project Manager and other key personnel (resumes are included in the total page count).

3. Identify key personnel proposed to perform the work in the specified tasks and include major areas of subcontract work. Include the person's name, current location, proposed position for this Project, current assignment, level of commitment to that assignment, availability for this assignment, and how long each person has been with the firm.

4. Include a Project organization chart that clearly delineates communication / reporting relationships among the Project staff, including subconsultants.

ATTACHMENT 2
Request For Proposals
Local Roadway Safety Plan
10 5. Include a statement that key personnel will be available to the extent proposed for the duration of the Project, acknowledging that no person designated as "key" to the Project shall be removed or replaced without the prior written concurrence of City.

C. Work Plan
This section of the proposal shall provide a narrative that addresses the Scope of Services and shows understanding of the Project needs and requirements.

Specifically:

1. Describe the approach and work plan recommended for completing Scope of Services drafted in Section III. Includes any additions, deletions, or alterations that the Consultant recommends. The work plan shall be of such detail to demonstrate ability to accomplish the Project objectives and overall schedule.

2. Outline sequentially the Work Breakdown Structure (WBS) activities / tasks that would be undertaken in completing the required work and specify who in the firm would perform them.

3. Furnish a Project schedule for each WBS activity / task and subtask in terms of elapsed weeks from the Project commencement date (this may be combined with item 2). Include appropriate time for City and stakeholders to review.

4. Identify methods that will be used to ensure quality control as well as budget and schedule control for the Project.

5. Identify any special issues or problems that are likely to be encountered during this Project and how they will be addressed.

Consultants are encouraged to propose enhancements, procedural, or technical innovations to the Scope of Services that do not materially deviate from the objectives or required content of the Project.

D. Cost Proposal Requirements
The cost proposal shall be submitted in a separate sealed envelope. An electronic copy shall be included as a separate flash drive included with the hard-bound cost proposal sheets in the sealed envelope. The Consultant services are State-funded, which necessitates compliance with State requirements. Special attention is directed to the Caltrans Local Assistance Procedures Manual (LAPM) exhibits and LAPM Chapter 10.3:

Non-A&E Contracts.

The Consultant’s cost proposal shall contain the following:
a. The fee proposal shall be submitted for the consultant services outlined in the proposed scope of work. The payment for the services provided under this agreement shall be an actual cost plus fixed fee with a maximum Not-To-Exceed Amount. The fee proposal shall be identified for each task of work.

ATTACHMENT 2
Request For Proposals
Local Roadway Safety Plan
11 b. The consultant shall submit a breakdown of the anticipated cost based on tasks outlined in the proposed Scope of Services. Indicate the anticipated number of staff hours and hourly rates. Include all anticipated materials and costs that will be necessary in completing this task. Tasks shown in the cost estimate shall be clearly correlated with the tasks in the proposed scope of services, and the work proposed clearly delineated.
c. LAPM Form Exhibit 10-H1 Cost Proposal
d. LAPM Form Exhibit 10-K Consultant Annual Certification of Indirect Costs and Financial Management System
E. Appendices
Information considered being pertinent to this Project and which has not been specifically solicited in any of the aforementioned sections may be placed in a separate appendix section. Consultants are cautioned, however, that this does not constitute an invitation to submit large amounts of extraneous materials; appendices should be relevant and brief.

F. Contract Comments
A sample contract is included and will be the basis for the contract between City and Consultant. Provide a written discussion of any proposed deviations to the sample contract. Please note that City reserves the right to disqualify any Consultant that does not provide a complete written discussion of its contractual objections or to disqualify any Consultant based on objections that City considers non-negotiable. City does not anticipate making substantive changes to its Terms and Conditions. The discussion of proposed deviations from the contract is included in the total page count.

G. Entire Proposal Package
The Consultant’s proposal package is limited to 16 (8 ½” x 11”) pages single-sided or 8 pages double-sided. Charts and schedules may be included in 11” x 17” format and will be counted as one (1) page. Proposals shall not include any unnecessarily elaborate or promotional material. Lengthy narratives are discouraged, and presentations should be brief and concise. Page limit does not include the outside cover, section dividers, cover letters and subconsultant commitment memorandum, or appendices. Proposals that do not contain the required information or submittals that do not contain the required number of copies may be rejected.

H. Changes
At any time during the procurement process, if a firm makes any changes to proposed key personnel or subconsultants, they must notify the City in writing of those proposed changes. The City reserves the right to accept or reject such proposed changes or to revise the evaluation scoring to reflect the proposed staffing changes.

ATTACHMENT 2
Request For Proposals
Local Roadway Safety Plan
12 VIII. ACCEPTANCE OF PROPOSALS
The City reserves the right to accept or reject any and all proposals, or any item or part thereof, or to waive any informalities or irregularities in proposals. The City reserves the right to withdraw or cancel this RFP at any time without prior notice and the City makes no representation that any contract will be awarded to any firm responding to this RFP.

The City reserves the right to re-issue a new RFP for the same or similar services. The City reserves the right to postpone proposal openings for its own convenience. Proposals received by the City are public information and must be made available to any person upon request. Submitted proposals are not to be copyrighted.

IX. CONSULTANT SELECTION
The primary objective of the City is to select a qualified firm to perform necessary services for the City at a fair and reasonable cost. To that end, the City has established the following criteria for the selection process:

A. Rejections
All proposals will be reviewed to determine conformance with the RFP requirements.

Any proposal that the City deems incomplete, conditional, or non-responsive to the requirements of the RFP may be rejected. As was stated above; the City reserves the right to reject any and all proposals as well.

B. The selection process shall be fair, open, and competitive.

C. The selection of the consultant firm will be based on clearly stated objectives.

D. Selection of consultants/firms shall be based upon demonstrated competence, professional qualifications, experience, and capabilities to perform the required services.

E. Selection Criteria
An evaluation committee will review and rank the proposals.

Scoring Criteria:

A. Quality of RFP. (1-10, Weighted 5% Max)
B. Understanding of good and/or services to be provided by the Proposer. (1-10, Weighted 25% Max)
C. Project understanding and effectiveness of approach. (1-10, Weighted 25% Max) D. Project manager/Firm Qualifications. Engagements on projects of similar scope and complexity, project performance following completion, quality of references. (1-10, Weighted 10% Max)
E. Project Team Qualifications. Staff experience, education and licensure as applicable on projects of similar scope and complexity, and relevant to this project scope. (1-10, Weighted 20% Max)
F. Proposer’s ability to perform the work within the specified time/schedule. (1-10, Weighted 5% Max)
ATTACHMENT 2
Request For Proposals
Local Roadway Safety Plan
13 G. Proposer’s prior record of performance with the City or others. (1-10, Weighted 10% Max)
X. NEGOTIATIONS AND ENGAGEMENT
Upon selection, City staff will enter into negotiations with the top-ranked firm to negotiate final Scope of Services and request formal cost proposal.

The final contract and Scope of Services will be negotiated. Consultants are encouraged to include in their proposal any comments relating to the Scope of Services and/or the terms and conditions of City’s sample contract. In addition, Consultants are reminded that any comments regarding the terms and conditions of City’s sample contract must be noted in the proposal. City reserves the right to disqualify any firm that does not provide written comments it has relative to City’s terms and conditions. City does not anticipate making any substantive changes to its terms and conditions.

In the event that contract negotiations with the top-ranked firm are unsuccessful, City shall begin negotiations with the second-ranked firm, and so on.

XI. CONFLICT OF INTEREST
The selected consultant will not be prevented from participating in future projects to the extent that no direct conflict of interest exists at the time. Consultants responsible for a Project’s design may not participate in construction management / construction inspection of the Project. The determination of a conflict of interest, direct or incidental, shall be at the sole discretion of City.

XII. SCHEDULE FOR CONSULTANT SELECTION
Issue Request for Proposals June 15, 2022
Written Questions (due by 4:00 p.m.) July 6, 2022
Proposals Due (due by 4:00 p.m.) July 13, 2022
Evaluate Proposals (week of) July 18, 2022
Select Consultant (week of) July 25, 2022
Negotiations (week of) July 25, 2022
Award Contract (City Council Approval) August 16, 2022
Notice to Proceed August 17, 2022
Dates are subject to change. Schedule updates will be posted on City’s internet website:
https://www.ci.manteca.ca.us/Pages/RequestForProposal.aspx ATTACHMENT 2
Request For Proposals
Local Roadway Safety Plan
14 XIII. ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS
Address questions via email to:

Koosun Kim, P.E.

Deputy Director of Engineering
(209) 456-8419
[email protected]
The City will post all related questions and answers on its web site at:
https://www.ci.manteca.ca.us/Pages/RequestForProposal.aspx ATTACHMENT 2
Request For Proposals
Local Roadway Safety Plan
ATTACHMENT “A”
Sample Contract
By and between
City of Manteca
And
Consultant (TBD)
For
Professional Engineering Services for the
Local Roadway Safety Plan
In the City of Manteca
San Joaquin County, California
ATTACHMENT 2
1 AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
This Agreement is made and entered into this ____ day of ________________, 20___, by and between the CITY OF MANTECA, a public body, corporate and politic ("City") and _____________, a ___________ corporation ("Consultant").

RECITALS
A. Consultant is specially trained, experienced, and competent to perform the professional services required by this Agreement.

B. Consultant possesses the skill, experience, ability, background, certification, and knowledge to provide the services described in this Agreement on the terms and conditions specified herein.

C. City desires to retain Consultant to render the professional services set forth in this Agreement.

AGREEMENT

1. Scope of Services. Consultant shall perform the __________ services described in the attached Attachment 1 that is incorporated by this reference, and pursuant to the Proposal submitted by Consultant dated ______, and attached hereto as Attachment 2.

Consultant shall provide these services at the time, place, and in the manner specified in Attachment 1, subject to the direction of the City through its staff that may be provided from time to time. Performance of the ______ services is sometimes referred to herein as “the Project.”

2. Work Through City Staff. Consultant shall perform its services pursuant to this Agreement solely through City staff. No communications, information or documentations shall be made directly to any applicant to the City without the prior written consent of the City. This shall not apply to the sole request of information or clarification of information by Consultant from the applicant. All requests shall be noted to City in an expeditious manner.

3. Time of Performance. Consultant’s services will commence upon execution of this Agreement and shall be completed in accordance with the Schedule of Activities, attached hereto as Attachment 3. All work shall be completed no later than _______________. Failure to submit work products in accordance with the Schedule of Activities may result in the City withholding progress payments. Repeated failure to complete work products in accordance with the Schedule of Activities may result in a reduction of the total compensation provided for in Section 4 herein.

4. Compensation. Without additional authorization from the City, compensation to be paid to Consultant shall not exceed _______________DOLLARS ($______). Payment by City under this Agreement shall not be deemed a waiver of any defects, even if those defects were known to the City at the time of payment.

ATTACHMENT ATTACHMENT A2
2 5. Method of Payment. Consultant shall submit monthly billings to City specifying and describing the work performed during the preceding month. Consultant's bills shall include a brief description of the services performed, the date the services were performed, the number of hours expended and by whom, and a description of any reimbursable expenditures. Full payment of each task will only be made at such time as each task is completed.

City shall pay Consultant no later than 30 days after approval of the monthly invoice by City staff. Payments may be delayed by City if Consultant fails to provide services in accordance with the Schedule of Activities, unless the City has provided prior written consent to any delay in the schedule.

6. Extra Work. At any time during the term of this Agreement, City may request that Consultant perform Extra Work. As used herein, the term "Extra Work" means any work that is determined by City to be necessary for the proper completion of the Project, but which the parties did not reasonably anticipate would be necessary at the time of execution of this Agreement. Consultant shall not perform, nor be compensated for, Extra Work without the City’s prior written authorization.

7. Termination. This Agreement may be terminated by the City immediately for cause, or by either party without cause upon 15 days’ prior written notice of termination. Upon termination, Consultant shall be entitled to compensation for services performed up to the effective date of termination upon submittal of an invoice for same.

8. Ownership of Documents; Confidentiality.

A. All plans, studies, documents, and other writings prepared by and for Consultant, its officers, employees, agents, and subcontractors in the course of implementing this Agreement, except working notes and internal documents, shall become the property of City upon payment to Consultant for such work. City shall have the sole right to use such materials in its discretion without further compensation to Consultant or to any other party. Consultant shall, at Consultant's expense, provide such reports, plans, studies, documents and other writings to City upon written request by City. Consultant shall not be responsible for any unauthorized modification or use of such information for other than its intended purpose.

B. All memoranda, specifications, plans, procedures, drawings, descriptions, computer program data, input record data, written information, and other documents and data, either created by or provided to Consultant in connection with the performance of this Agreement, shall be held confidential by Consultant. These materials shall not, without the City’s prior written consent, be used by Consultant for any purposes other than the performance of the services under this Agreement. Nor shall these materials be disclosed to any person or entity not connected with the performance of services under this Agreement. Nothing furnished to Consultant that is otherwise known to Consultant, or is generally known, or has become known to the related profession shall be deemed confidential. Consultant shall not use City's name or insignia, photographs relating to the Project for which Consultant's services are rendered, or any publicity pertaining to the Consultant's services under this Agreement in any magazine, trade paper, newspaper, television or radio production, or other similar medium without the City’s prior written consent.

ATTACHMENT ATTACHMENT A2
3 9. Consultant's Books and Records.

A. Consultant shall maintain all ledgers, books of account, invoices, vouchers, canceled checks, and other records or documents evidencing or relating to charges for services, or expenditures and disbursements charged to City, for a minimum period of three years, or for any longer period required by law, from the date of final payment to Consultant under this Agreement.

B. Consultant shall maintain all records that document performance under this Agreement for a minimum period of three years, or for any longer period required by law, from the date of termination or completion of this Agreement.

C. Any records or documents required to be maintained pursuant to this Agreement shall be made available for inspection or audit at any time during regular business hours, upon written request by the City Manager, City Attorney, City Auditor, or a designated representative of any of these officers. Copies of such documents shall be provided to City for inspection at City Hall when it is practical to do so. Otherwise, unless an alternative is mutually agreed upon, the records shall be available at Consultant's address specified in Section 16 of this Agreement.

D. Where City has reason to believe that records or documents may be lost or discarded due to the dissolution or termination of Consultant's business, City may, by written request, require that custody of the records be given to the City and that the records and documents be maintained in City Hall. Access to these records and documents shall be granted to any party authorized by Consultant, Consultant's representatives, or Consultant's successor-ininterest.

10. Independent Contractor. In the performance of the work and services required by this Agreement, Consultant shall act as and be an independent contractor and not an agent, or employee of the City. Consultant shall obtain no rights to retirement or other benefits that accrue to City's employees, and Consultant expressly waives any claim it may have to any such rights.

11. Interest of Consultant.

A. Consultant represents that neither it nor any employee has any investment or interest in real property, and shall not acquire any such interest, direct or indirect, within the area covered by this Agreement, or any other source of income, interest in real property, or investment that would be affected in any manner or degree by the performance of Consultant's services hereunder. Consultant further represents that, in the performance of its duties hereunder, no person having any such interest shall perform any services under this Agreement.

B. Consultant is not a designated employee within the meaning of the Political Reform Act because Consultant:
(1) will conduct research and arrive at conclusions with respect to its rendition of information, advice, recommendation, or counsel independent of the control and direction of the City, or of any City official, other than normal Agreement monitoring; and
ATTACHMENT ATTACHMENT A2
4 (2) possesses no authority with respect to any City decision beyond the rendition of information, advice, recommendation, or counsel. (FPPC Reg. 18700(a)(2).)

12. Professional Ability of Consultant.

A. City is relying upon the professional training and ability of Consultant to perform the services hereunder as a material inducement to enter into this Agreement.

Consultant shall therefore provide skilled professional and technical personnel to perform all services under this Agreement. All work performed by Consultant shall be in accordance with applicable legal requirements and shall meet the standard of quality ordinarily to be expected of competent professionals in Consultant's field of expertise.

B. The primary provider of the services required by this Agreement shall be ______________. A list of other individuals assigned to the Project will be provided to City for its review and approval, and these individuals shall not be replaced without the City’s prior written consent.

13. Compliance with Laws. Consultant shall use the customary standard of care in its profession to comply with all applicable federal, state, and local statutes, codes, ordinances, and regulations.

14. Licenses. Consultant represents and warrants to City that it has all licenses, permits, qualifications, insurance, and approvals that are legally required of Consultant to practice its profession. Consultant represents and warrants to City that Consultant shall, at its sole cost and expense, keep in effect or obtain at all times during the term of this Agreement, any licenses, permits, insurance, and approvals that are legally required of Consultant to practice its profession.

15. Indemnification and Hold Harmless. Consultant agrees to defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City, its officers, officials, agents, employees, and volunteers, from and against any and all claims, demands, actions, losses, damages, injuries, and liability, direct or indirect (including any and all costs and expenses in connection therewith), arising out of Consultant’s performance of this Agreement, or Consultant’s failure to comply with any of its obligations contained in this Agreement; excluding, however, any claim arising out of the active negligence or willful misconduct of the City, its officers, agents, employees, or volunteers.

16. Insurance Requirements.

A. Job specific insurance requirements can be found on the attached Attachment

4. Other insurance provisions can be found below:

B. Endorsements. Each general liability and automobile liability insurance policy shall be with insurers possessing an A.M. Best's rating of no less than A:VII and shall be endorsed with language substantially as follows:
(1) The City, its elected and appointed officers, officials, employees, agents and volunteers are to be covered as additional insureds with ATTACHMENT ATTACHMENT A2
5 respect to liability arising out of work performed by or on behalf of the Consultant, including materials, parts, or equipment furnished in connection with such work.
(2) The policy shall be considered primary insurance as respects the City, its elected and appointed officers, officials, employees, agents and volunteers. Any insurance maintained by the City, including any self-insured retention the City may have, shall be considered excess insurance only and shall not contribute with it. (3) The insurance shall apply to each insured and additional insured as though a separate policy had been written for each, except with respect to the limits of liability of the insuring company. (4) The insurer waives all rights of subrogation against the City, its elected and appointed officers, officials, employees, and agents. (5) Any failure to comply with reporting provisions of the policies shall not affect coverage provided to the City, its elected and appointed officers, officials, employees, agents, or volunteers. (6) The insurance provided by the policy shall not be suspended, voided, canceled, or reduced in coverage or in limits except after 30 days written notice has been received by the City.
(7) The City will not accept any endorsements that were issued in 2004. Acceptable endorsement forms are CG 20 10 11 85 or both CG 20 10 10 01 and CG 20 37 10 01.

C. Deductibles and Self-Insured Retentions. Any deductibles or self-insured retentions must be declared to and approved by the City. At the City's option, Consultant shall demonstrate financial capability for payment of those deductibles or self-insured retentions.

D. Certificates of Insurance. Consultant shall provide to City certificates of insurance with original endorsements as evidence of the required insurance coverage.

Certificates of insurance shall be filed with the City on or before commencement of performance of this Agreement. Current certification of insurance shall be kept on file with the City at all times during the term of this Agreement.

17. Notices. Any notice required to be given under this Agreement shall be in writing and either served personally or sent prepaid, first class mail. Any such notice shall be addressed to the other party at the address set forth below. Notice shall be deemed communicated within 48 hours from the time of mailing if mailed as provided in this section.

If to City: City of Manteca
1001 W. Center Street
Manteca, CA 95337
Attention: _______________
ATTACHMENT ATTACHMENT A2
6 If to Consultant: ________________________
________________________
________________________
Attention: _______________

18. Entire Agreement. This Agreement constitutes the complete and exclusive statement of Agreement between the City and Consultant. All prior written and oral communications, including correspondence, drafts, memoranda, and representations, are superseded in their entirety by this Agreement.

19. Amendments. This Agreement may be amended only by a written document executed by both Consultant and City and approved as to form by the City Attorney.

20. Assignment and Subcontracting. The parties recognize that a substantial inducement to City for entering into this Agreement is the professional reputation, experience, and competence of Consultant. Assignments of any or all rights, duties, or obligations of the Consultant under this Agreement will be permitted only with the express written consent of the City. Consultant shall not subcontract any portion of the work to be performed under this Agreement without the written authorization of the City. If City consents to such subcontract, Consultant shall be fully responsible to City for all acts or omissions of the subcontractor.

Nothing in this Agreement shall create any contractual relationship between City and subcontractor nor shall it create any obligation on the part of the City to pay any monies due to any such subcontractor other than as may be required by law.

21. Waiver. Waiver of any breach or default under this Agreement shall not constitute a continuing waiver of a subsequent breach or default of the same or any other provision under this Agreement.

22. Severability. If any provision of this Agreement is held to be invalid, illegal, or otherwise unenforceable by a court of competent jurisdiction, the remaining provisions of this Agreement shall continue in full force and effect.

23. Controlling Law; Venue. This Agreement and all matters relating to it shall be governed by the laws of the State of California, and any legal action relating to this Agreement shall take place in the Superior Court, County of San Joaquin.

24. Litigation Expenses and Attorneys' Fees. If either party to this Agreement commences any legal action against the other party arising out of this Agreement, the prevailing party shall be entitled to recover its reasonable litigation expenses, including court costs, expert witness fees, discovery expenses, and attorneys' fees.

25. Mediation. The parties agree to make a good faith attempt to resolve any disputes arising out of this Agreement through mediation prior to commencing litigation. The parties shall mutually agree upon the mediator and shall divide the costs of mediation equally. If the parties are unable to agree upon a mediator, the dispute shall be submitted to JAMS/ENDISPUTE ("JAMS") or its successor in interest. JAMS shall provide the parties with the names of five qualified mediators. Each party shall have the option to strike two of the five ATTACHMENT ATTACHMENT A2
7 mediators selected by JAMS, and thereafter the mediator remaining shall hear the dispute. If the dispute remains unresolved after mediation, either party may commence litigation.

26. Execution. This Agreement may be executed in several counterparts, each of which shall constitute one and the same instrument and shall become binding upon the parties when at least one copy has been signed by both parties.

27. Authority to Enter Agreement. Consultant warrants that it has all requisite power and authority to conduct its business and to execute, deliver, and perform this Agreement. Each party warrants to the other that the signatories to this Agreement have the legal power, right, and authority to enter into this Agreement and to bind each party.

28. Prohibited Interests.

A. Consultant warrants that it has not employed or retained any person, other than a bona fide employee working solely for Consultant, to solicit or secure this Agreement.

Further, Consultant warrants that it has neither paid nor agreed to pay any person, other than a bona fide employee working solely for Consultant, any fee, commission, percentage, brokerage fee, gift, or other consideration contingent upon or resulting from the award or making of this Agreement. For any breach or violation of this warranty, City shall have the right to rescind this Agreement without liability.

B. For the term of this Agreement, no member, officer, or employee of City, during the period of his or her service with City, shall have any direct interest in this Agreement, or obtain any present or anticipated material benefit arising therefrom.

29. Equal Opportunity Employment. Consultant represents that it is an equal opportunity employer, and it shall not discriminate against any subcontractor, employee, or applicant for employment because of race, religion, color, national origin, handicap, ancestry, sex, or age. Such non-discrimination shall include, but not be limited to, all activities related to initial employment, upgrading, demotion, transfer, recruitment or recruitment advertising, layoff or termination.

30. Precedence. In case of conflict between Consultant’s Proposal/Consultant’s attachments and the City’s Agreement/City’s attachments, the City’s Agreement and City’s attachments shall take precedence over Consultant’s proposal/Consultant’s attachments.

ATTACHMENT ATTACHMENT A2
8 This Space Purposely Left Blank
ATTACHMENT ATTACHMENT A2
9 TO EFFECTUATE THIS AGREEMENT, each of the parties has caused this Agreement to be executed by its duly authorized representative as of the date set forth in the introductory paragraph on page 1 above.

CITY OF MANTECA: CONSULTANT:
_________________________________ ___________________________________ Toni Lundgren (Type name of Consultant/form of organization)* Interim City Manager
ATTEST: By: ___________________________________
(Signature)
_________________________________ ___________________________________ Cassandra Candini-Tilton, (Type name and title)
Director of Legislative Services
COUNTERSIGNED: By: ___________________________________
(Signature)
_________________________________ ___________________________________ Bret Harmon, (Type name and title)
Director of Finance
COUNTERSIGNED: Address: ____________________________
_________________________________ ____________________________ Dawn Cortesi,
Acting Director of Human Resources Telephone: ____________________________ APPROVED AS TO FORM:

L. David Nefouse, City Attorney
By:_________________________________
Carrie Woolley, Assistant City Attorney
ATTACHMENT ATTACHMENT A2
10 ATTACHMENT 1

REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL
ATTACHMENT ATTACHMENT A2
11 ATTACHMENT 2
CONSULTANT’S PROPOSAL
ATTACHMENT ATTACHMENT A2
12 ATTACHMENT 3

SCHEDULE OF ACTIVITIES
ATTACHMENT ATTACHMENT A2
Request For Proposal
Retroreflective Traffic Sign Project
16 ATTACHMENT “B”
Insurance Requirements for Professional Services
By and between
City of Manteca
And
Consultant (TBD)
For
Professional Engineering Services for the
Local Roadway Safety Plan
In the City of Manteca
San Joaquin County, California
ATTACHMENT 2
05/14
EXHIBIT 1
Insurance Requirements for Professional Services

INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS
Consultants shall procure and maintain for the duration of the contract insurance against claims for injuries to persons or damages to property which may arise from or in connection with the performance of the work hereunder by the Consultant, his agents, representatives, employees or subcontractors.

Minimum Limits of Insurance: Coverage shall be at least as broad as:

Commercial General Liability
 Commercial General Liability Insurance with $2,000,000 minimum limit per occurrence.  If a general aggregate limit applies, either the general aggregate limit shall apply separately to this project/location or the general aggregate limit shall be twice the required occurrence limit.  Commercial General Liability Additional Insured Endorsement naming the following as insured on 2001 or earlier issued endorsement forms:
“City of Manteca, its officers, officials, employees, agents, and volunteers”.

Automobile Liability
If the vehicles are brought onto city facilities, covering any auto, or of Contractor has no owned autos, hired, and non-owned autos, the Contractor shall maintain automobile liability with limits no less than:
 Automobile Liability Insurance with $1,000,000 minimum limit per accident for bodily injury and property damage.
 Automobile Liability Additional Insured Endorsement naming the following as additional insured:
“City of Manteca, its officers, officials, employees, agents, and volunteers”.

Worker’s Compensation
As required by the State of California, with Statutory Limits, and Employer’s Liability Insurance with limit of no less than $1,000,000 per accident for bodily injury or disease.

Professional Liability (Errors and Omissions)
Insurance appropriates to the Contractor’s profession, with limit no less than $2,000,000 per occurrence or claim, $2,000,000 aggregate
Other Insurance Provisions:

The insurance policies are to contain, or be endorsed to contain, the following provisions:

1. The City of Manteca, its officers, officials, employees, agents and volunteers are to be covered as insured’s as respect to: liability arising out of work or operations performed by or on behalf of the Consultant including materials, parts, or equipment furnished in connection with such work operations. General liability coverage can be provided in the form of an endorsement to the Consultant’s insurance at least as broad as CG 20 10 and CG 20 37 if completed operations coverage is required.

2. For any claims related to this contract, the Consultant’s insurance coverage shall be primary insurance as respects the City, its officers, officials, employees, agents and volunteers. Any insurance or self-insurance maintained by the City, its officers, officials, employees, agents or volunteers, shall be excess of the Consultant’s insurance and shall not contribute with it.

ATTACHMENT ATTACHMENT B2
05/14

3. The applicant’s insurance shall apply separately to each insured against whom claim is made or suit is brought, except with respect to the limits of the insurer’s liability.

4. Each insurance policy required by this clause shall be endorsed to state that coverage shall not be suspended, voided, canceled by either party, reduced in coverage or in limits except after thirty (30) days prior written notice by certified mail, return receipt requested, has been given to the City of Manteca.

Verification of Coverage
Consultant shall furnish the City with original certificates and amendatory endorsements or copies of the applicable policy language effecting coverage required by this clause. All certificates and endorsements are to be received and approved by the Entity before work commences. However, failure to obtain the required documents prior to the work beginning shall not waive the Consultant’s obligation to provide them. The City of Manteca reserves the right to require complete, certified copes of all required insurance policies, including endorsements required by these specifications, at any time.

Notice of Cancellation
Each insurance policy required above shall provide that coverage shall not be canceled, except with notice to the Entity.

Acceptability of Insurers
Insurance is to be placed with insurers with a current A.M. Best’s rating of no less than A:VII, unless otherwise acceptable to the City of Manteca
Waiver of Subrogation
Consultant hereby grants to The City of Manteca a waiver of any right to subrogation which any insurer of said Consultant may acquire against the Entity by virtue of the payment of any loss under such insurance.

Consultant agrees to obtain any endorsement that may be necessary to affect this waiver of subrogation, but this provision applies regardless of whether or not the Entity has received a waiver of subrogation endorsement from the insurer.

Subcontractors
Consultant shall require and verify that all subcontractors maintain insurance meeting all the requirements stated herein, and Contractor shall ensure that The City of Manteca is an additional insured on insurance required from subcontractors.

SPECIAL RISKS OR CIRCUMSTANCES
The City of Manteca reserves the right to modify these requirements based on the nature of the risk, prior events, insurance coverage, or other special circumstances.

ATTACHMENT ATTACHMENT B2
Request For Proposals
Local Roadway Safety Plan
ATTACHMENT “C”
Caltrans Local Assistance Procedure Manual (LAPM) Exhibits By and between
City of Manteca
And
Consultant (TBD)
For
Professional Engineering Services for the
Local Roadway Safety Plan
In the City of Manteca
San Joaquin County, California
ATTACHMENT 2
Local Assistance Procedures Manual Exhibit 10-K
Consultant Annual Certification of Indirect Costs and Financial Management System EXHIBIT 10-KCONSULTANT ANNUAL CERTIFICATION OF

INDIRECT COSTS AND FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT SYSTEM
(Note: If a Safe Harbor Indirect Cost Rate is approved, this form is not required.) Consultant’s Full Legal Name:

Important: Consultant means the individual or consultant providing engineering and design related services as a party of a contract with a recipient or sub-recipient of Federal assistance. Therefore, the Indirect Cost Rate(s) shall not be combined with its parent company or subsidiaries.

Indirect Cost Rate:

Combined Rate % OR
Home Office Rate % and Field Office Rate (if applicable) % Facilities Capital Cost of Money % (if applicable)
Fiscal period *
* Fiscal period is annual one year applicable accounting period that the Indirect Cost Rate was developed (not the contract period). The Indirect Cost Rate is based on the consultant’s one-year applicable accounting period for which financial statements are regularly prepared by the consultant.

I have reviewed the proposal to establish an Indirect Cost Rate(s) for the fiscal period as specified above and have determined to the best of my knowledge and belief that:
• All costs included in the cost proposal to establish the indirect cost rate(s) are allowable in accordance with the cost principles of the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 48, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Chapter 1, Part 31 (48 CFR Part 31); • The cost proposal does not include any costs which are expressly unallowable under the cost principles of 48 CFR Part 31;
• The accounting treatment and billing of prevailing wage delta costs are consistent with our prevailing wage policy as either direct labor, indirect costs, or other direct costs on all federallyfunded A&E Consultant Contracts. • All known material transactions or events that have occurred subsequent to year-end affecting the consultant’s ownership, organization, and indirect cost rates have been disclosed as of the date of this certification.

I am providing the required and applicable documents as instructed on Exhibit 10-A.

Financial Management System:

Our labor charging, job costing, and accounting systems meet the standards for financial reporting, accounting records, and internal control adequate to demonstrate that costs claimed have been incurred, appropriately accounted for, are allocable to the contract, and comply with the federal requirements as set forth in Title 23 United States Code (U.S.C.) Section 112(b)(2); 48 CFR Part 31.201-2(d); 23 CFR, Chapter 1, Part 172.11(a)(2); and all applicable state and federal rules and regulations.

Our financial management system has the following attributes:
• Account numbers identifying allowable direct, indirect, and unallowable cost accounts; • Ability to accumulate and segregate allowable direct, indirect, and unallowable costs into separate cost

March 2018
ATTACHMENT 2
Local Assistance Procedures Manual Exhibit 10-K
Consultant Annual Certification of Indirect Costs and Financial Management System accounts;
• Ability to accumulate and segregate allowable direct costs by project, contract and type of cost; • Internal controls to maintain integrity of financial management system; • Ability to account and record costs consistently and to ensure costs billed are in compliance with FAR; • Ability to ensure and demonstrate costs billed reconcile to general ledgers and job costing system; and • Ability to ensure costs are in compliance with contract terms and federal and state requirement Cost Reimbursements on Contracts:

I also understand that failure to comply with 48 CFR Part 16.301-3 or knowingly charge unallowable costs to Federal-Aid Highway Program (FAHP) contracts may result in possible penalties and sanctions as provided by the following:
• Sanctions and Penalties - 23 CFR Part 172.11(c)(4)
• False Claims Act - Title 31 U.S.C. Sections 3729-3733 • Statements or entries generally - Title 18 U.S.C. Section 1001 • Major Fraud Act - Title 18 U.S.C. Section 1031
All A&E Contract Information:
• Total participation amount $___________________ on all State and FAHP contracts for Architectural & Engineering services that the consultant received in the last three fiscal periods. • The number of states in which the consultant does business is . • Years of consultant’s experience with 48 CFR Part 31 is . • Audit history of the consultant’s current and prior years (if applicable) ☐ Cognizant ICR Audit ☐ Local Gov’t ICR Audit □ Caltrans ICR Audit ☐ CPA ☐ Federal Gov’t ICR Audit ICR Audit
I, the undersigned, certify all of the above to the best of my knowledge and belief and that I have reviewed the Indirect Cost Rate Schedule to determine that any costs which are expressly unallowable under the Federal cost principles have been removed and comply with Title 23 U.S.C. Section 112(b)(2), 48 CFR Part 31, 23 CFR Part 172, and all applicable state and federal rules and regulations. I also certify that I understand that all documentation of compliance must be retained by the consultant. I hereby acknowledge that costs that are noncompliant with the federal and state requirements are not eligible for reimbursement and must be returned to Caltrans.

Name**: _ Title**:

Signature: Date of Certification (mm/dd/yyyy):

Email**: Phone Number**:
**An individual executive or financial officer of the consultant’s or subconsultant’s organization at a level no lower than a Vice President, a Chief Financial Officer, or equivalent, who has authority to represent the financial information used to establish the indirect cost rate.

Note: Both prime and subconsultants as parties of a contract must complete their own Exhibit 10-K forms.

Caltrans will not process local agency’s invoices until a complete Exhibit 10-K form is accepted and approved by Caltrans Audits and Investigations.

Distribution: 1) Original - Local Agency Project File
2) Copy - Consultant
3) Copy - Caltrans Audits and Investigations

March 2018
ATTACHMENT 2

Local Assistance Procedures Manual EXHIBIT 10-H1
Cost Proposal
EXHIBIT 10-H1 COST PROPOSAL Page 1 of 3

COST-PLUS-FIXED FEE OR LUMP SUM OR FIRM FIXED PRICE CONTRACTS (DESIGN, ENGINEERING AND ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES)
Note: Mark-ups are Not Allowed ☐ Prime Consultant ☐ Subconsultant ☐ 2nd Tier Subconsultant Consultant __________________________________________________________ Project No. _______________________ Contract No. ____________________ Date ____________________

DIRECT LABOR
Classification/Title Name Hours Actual Hourly Rate Total ____________________________
____________________________
____________________________
____________________________
________
________
________
________

LABOR COSTS
a) Subtotal Direct Labor Costs
b) Anticipated Salary Increases (see page 2 for calculation) _______________
_______________
c) TOTAL DIRECT LABOR COSTS [(a) + (b)] _______________

INDIRECT COSTS
d) Fringe Benefits (Rate: _____ )
f) Overhead (Rate: _____ )
e) Total Fringe Benefits [(c) x (d)] _______________
g) Overhead [(c) x (f)] _______________
h) General and Administrative (Rate: ___ __ ) i) Gen & Admin [(c) x (h)] _______________

FIXED FEE
j) TOTAL INDIRECT COSTS [(e) + (g) + (i)] _______________ k) TOTAL FIXED FEE [(c) + (j)] x fixed fee ______ ] ______________ l) CONSULTANT’S OTHER DIRECT COSTS (ODC) – ITEMIZE (Add additional pages if necessary) Description of Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Total
l) TOTAL OTHER DIRECT COSTS
m) SUBCONSULTANTS’ COSTS (Add additional pages if necessary) Subconsultant 1:

Subconsultant 2:

Subconsultant 3:

Subconsultant 4:
m) TOTAL SUBCONSULTANTS’ COSTS
n) TOTAL OTHER DIRECT COSTS INCLUDING SUBCONSULTANTS [(l)+(m)] ___________________ TOTAL COST [(c) + (j) + (k) + (n)] _____________________ NOTES:

1. Key personnel must be marked with an asterisk (*) and employees that are subject to prevailing wage requirements must be marked with two asterisks (**). All costs must comply with the Federal cost principles. Subconsultants will provide their own cost proposals.

2. The cost proposal format shall not be amended. Indirect cost rates shall be updated on an annual basis in accordance with the consultant’s annual accounting period and established by a cognizant agency or accepted by Caltrans.

3. Anticipated salary increases calculation (page 2) must accompany.

January 2020
ATTACHMENT 2
Local Assistance Procedures Manual EXHIBIT 1 0-H1
Cost Proposal
EXHIBIT 10-H 1 COST PROPOSAL Page 2 of 3

COST-PLUS-FIXED FEE OR LUMP SUM OR FIRM FIXED PRICE CONTRACTS (CALCULATIONS FOR ANTICIPATED SALARY INCREASES)

1. Calculate Average Hourly Rate for 1st year of the contract (Direct Labor Subtotal divided by total hours) Direct Labor Total Hours per Avg 5Year
Subtotal per Cost Cost Proposal Hourly Contract
Proposal Rate Duration
$250,000.00 500 = $50.00 Year 1 Avg
Hourly Rate

2. Calculate hourly rate for all years (Increase the Average Hourly Rate for a year by proposed escalation%) Avg Hourly Rate Proposed Escalation
Year 1 $50.00 + 2% = $51.00 Year 2 Avg Hourly Rate
Year 2 $51.00 + 2% = $52.02 Year 3 Avg Hourly Rate
Year 3 $52.02 + 2% = $53.06 Year 4 Avg Hourly Rate
Year 4 $53.06 + 2% = $54.12 Year 5 Avg Hourly Rate

3. Calculate estimated hours per year (Multiply estimate% each year by total hours) Estimated % Completed Total Hours per Cost Total Hours per Each Year Proposal Year
Year 1 20.0% 5000 = 1000 Estimated Hours Year 1
Year 2 400% 5000 = 2000 Estimated Hours Year 2
Year 3 15.0% 5000 = 750 Estimated Hours Year 3
Year 4 15.0% 5000 = 750 Estimated Hours Year 4
Years 100% 5000 = 500 Estimated Hours Year 5
Total 100% Total = 5000

4. Calculate Total Costs including Escalation (Multiply Average Hourly Rate by the number of hours) Avg Hourly Rate Estimated hours Cost per
(calculated above) (calculated above) Year
Year 1 $50.00 1000 = $50,000.00 Estimated Hours Year 1
Year 2 $51.00 2000 = $102,000.00 Estimated Hours Year 2 Year 3 $52.02 750 = $39,015.00 Estimated Hours Year 3
Year 4 $53.06 750 = $39,795.30 Estimated Hours Year 4
Years $54.12 500 = $27,060.80 Estimated Hours Year 5
Total Direct Labor Cost with Escalation = $257,871.10
Direct Labor Subtotal before Escalation = $250,000.00
Estimated total of Direct Labor Salary = Transfer to Page 1 Increase $7,871.10
NOTES:

1. This is not the only way to estimate salary increases. Other methods will be accepted if they clearly indicate the % increase, the# of years of the contract, and a breakdown of the labor to be performed each year.

2. An estimation that is based on direct labor multiplied by salary increase % multiplied by the# of years is not acceptable.
(i e. $250,000 x 2% x 5 yrs= $25,000 is not an acceptable methodology)

3. This assumes that one year will be worked at the rate on the cost proposal before salary increases are granted.

4. Calculations for anticipated salary escalation must be provided.

January 2020
ATTACHMENT 2

Local Assistance Procedures Manual EXHIBIT 10-H1
Cost Proposal
EXHIBIT 10-H 1 COST PROPOSAL Page 3 of 3
Certification of Direct Costs:

I, the undersigned, certify to the best of my knowledge and belief that all direct costs identified on the cost proposal{s) in this contract are actual, reasonable, allowable, and allocable to the contract in accordance with the contract terms and the following requirements:

1. Generally Accepted Accounting Principles {GAAP)

2. Terms and conditions of the contract

3. Title 23 United States Code Section 112 - Letting of Contracts

4. 48 Code of Federal Regulations Part 31 - Contract Cost Principles and Procedures

5. 23 Code of Federal Regulations Part 172 - Procurement, Management, and Administration of Engineering and Design Related Service

6. 48 Code of Federal Regulations Part 9904 - Cost Accounting Standards Board {when applicable)
All costs must be applied consistently and fairly to all contracts. All documentation of compliance must be retained in the project files and be in compliance with applicable federal and state requirements.

Costs that are noncom pliant with the federal and state requirements are not eligible for reimbursement.

Local governments are responsible for applying only cognizant agency approved or Caltrans accepted Indirect Cost Rate{s).

Prime Consultant or Subconsultant Certifying:

Name: ______________ _ Title*:

Signature: ______ _____ _ _ Date of Certification {mm/dd/yyyy): ____ _ Email: _____ _______ _ Phone Number:

Address: ________________________________ _
*An individual executive or financial officer of the consultant's or subconsultant's organization at a level no lower than a Vice President or a Chief Financial Officer, or equivalent, who has authority to represent the financial information utilized to establish the cost proposal for the contract.

List services the consultant is providinq under the proposed contract:

January 2020
ATTACHMENT 2
ATTACHMENT 2

FOR THE LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN
LRSPL 5242 (037)

PROPOSAL FOR
PREPARED FOR:

Professional Engineering Services
PREPARED BY:

ATTACHMENT 2
City of Manteca | TRTP86020.2022 i
Table of Contents
Cover Letter and Memoranda
A. Qualifications, Related Experience, and References ............................................................................................................. 1

1. Firm Profile............................................................................................................................................................................................... 1

2. Firm’s Financial Condition......................................................................................................................................................................... 1

3. Experience in Performing Work of a Similar Nature ................................................................................................................................... 1

4. Experience Working with Various Government Agencies ........................................................................................................................... 2

5. List of Past Joint Work by Kimley-Horn and Subconsultants...................................................................................................................... 2

6. Three Most Recent Consultant Prepared Local Roadway Safety Plan ......................................................................................................... 2

7. Client References ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 4 B. Proposed Staffing and Project Organization .......................................................................................................................... 5

1. Identification of the Registered Professional Engineer (PE) in the State of California .................................................................................. 5

2. Project Manager and Other Key Personnel Resumes ................................................................................................................................. 5

3. Key Personnel Location, Position, Current Assignment, Level of Commitment, and Availability ................................................................ 11

4. Project Organization Chart ...................................................................................................................................................................... 11 C. Work Plan...............................................................................................................................................................................12

1. Approach and Work Plan / 2. Work Breakdown Structure (WBS) Activities and Tasks .............................................................................. 12

3. Project Schedule..................................................................................................................................................................................... 16

4. Quality Control Methods, Budget and Schedule Control........................................................................................................................... 16 D. Cost Proposal Requirements
E. Appendices
Contract Termination and Circumstances
Litigation and Circumstances
F. Contract Comments
ATTACHMENT 2
City of Manteca | TRTP86020.2022 ii

COVER LETTER AND MEMORANDA
July 13, 2022
Mr. Koosun Kim, PE
Deputy Director
City of Manteca – Engineering Department
1001 West Center Street, Suite E
Manteca, CA 95337
RE: Proposal for Professional Engineering Services for the Local Roadway Safety Plan, LRSPL 5242 (037) Dear Mr. Kim and Members of the Selection Committee:

As an industry leader in safety, Kimley-Horn is qualified and committed to providing comprehensive safety consulting services for the City of Manteca’s Local Road Safety Plan (LRSP). As the City proactively prioritizes safety for all road users, our team brings unparalleled technical knowledge of LRSPs and an ideal blend of local and national safety experience to support the City in this endeavor.

Our proposed project team combines data-driven and community-oriented methods to successfully reduce fatal and serious injury crashes and deliver comprehensive LRSPs. The Kimley-Horn team offers you the following unique benefits:

Scalable Safety Expertise. Kimley-Horn is committed to implementing safety improvements for transportation systems and roadways from every vantage point. We continue to support local agencies, including the cities of Tracy, Santa Cruz, Rancho Cordova, Roseville, Rocklin, Citrus Heights, Lincoln, and South San Francisco; counties of San Joaquin, Sutter, El Dorado, Mono, and San Benito; as well as multiple Departments of Transportation (DOTs) with the development of tailored and future minded LRSPs and Systematic Safety Analysis Reports (SSARs). At the state level, Kimley-Horn is the lead consultant on Caltrans’ Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP) and Safety Performance Measure Targeting, which largely shapes the guidelines and procedures for LRSPs. Members of our team have also advised the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) in defining best practices for LRSP implementation.

A Collaborative Team. Our project team is comprised of technical professionals with extensive experience collaborating on safety plans across the state and nationally. A certified Road Safety Professional (RSP), Robert Paderna, P.E., RSP1, will serve as your project manager and day-to-day point-of-contact. Robert has led and supported transportation and traffic engineering projects for nearly two decades throughout California and is also supporting California’s SHSP and Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) Implementation Plan. Robert will be supported by Frederik Venter, P.E. as principal-in-charge and Molly O’Brien, P.E., PTOE, RSP1, RSP2I as quality control manager, who will both utilize decades of experience in professional transportation planning and traffic engineering and frequent involvement in projects within the City and nearby agencies to enrich our project team with local and technical knowledge.

Access to a National Team and Resources. We have completed LRSPs, SSARPs, Bicycle and/or Pedestrian Safety Action Plans (BSAPs/PSAPs), SHSPs, Road Safety Audits (RSAs), Roadway Safety Sign Audits (RSSAs), Safety Management Plans (SMPs), data collection and crash analysis, and design of safety countermeasures throughout the country. Through our previous experience and lessons learned, we have acquired the knowledge to develop effective and cost-effective LRSPs. With the Kimley-Horn team, your project is in capable hands.

Thank you for considering our qualifications for this important project. Should you have any questions about our proposal or require any additional information, please contact our project manager, Robert Paderna, P.E., RSP1 at 916.859.3610, [email protected], or at the address listed above.

Sincerely,
KIMLEY-HORN AND ASSOCIATES, INC.

Robert Paderna, P.E., RSP1 Frederik Venter, P.E.

Project Manager/Associate Principal-in-Charge/Senior Associate » 555 Capitol Mall
Suite 300,
Sacramento, CA
95814
TEL 916.858.5800
ATTACHMENT 2
City of Manteca | TRTP86020.2022 iii
Required Information
» Kimley-Horn requests the City to evaluate the submitted proposal based upon the Scope of Services for the Local Roadway Safety Plan.
» Kimley-Horn is teaming with subconsultant Crossroads Software for data collection. We have included their commitment memorandum below.
» An estimate of the percentage of work to be performed by each firm: Kimley-Horn – 94%; Crossroads – 6% » The location of the office from which the majority of work (>75%) will be performed by Kimley-Horn and the subconsultant is at 555 Capitol Mall, Suite 300, Sacramento, CA 95814.
» Kimley-Horn acknowledges any and all addenda to the RFP issued by the City, including Questions & Answers #1 dated 6/30/2022. » As Vice President of Kimley-Horn, Frederik Venter can attest that all information in the proposal is true and correct. » Kimley-Horn will not be using subconsultants in the performance of this contract. All services in our proposal will be performed inhouse by Kimley-Horn personnel. » Robert Paderna will be the project manager and he can be contacted at 916.859.3610 or [email protected]. Frederik Venter will be the alternate contact in the event Robert is not available, and he can be contacted at 669.800.4146 or [email protected]. Both Robert and Frederik can also be reached at 555 Capitol Mall, Suite 300, Sacramento, CA 95814.

In accordance with the RFP requirements, we have provided our response to the following in the Appendix section:
» Contract Termination and Circumstances
» Litigation and Circumstances
ATTACHMENT 2
City of Manteca | TRTP86020.2022 1
A. QUALIFICATIONS, RELATED EXPERIENCE, AND REFERENCES

1. Firm Profile
Kimley-Horn and Associates, a corporation, is a full-service engineering, planning, and environmental consulting firm providing a comprehensive range of services to public and private clients throughout the United States. Founded in 1967, our company has grown from a small group of traffic engineers and transportation planners to a multidisciplinary firm of more than 5,500 in 100+ offices nationwide. Our 11 California offices, including a local office in Sacramento, have more than 600 engineers, planners, designers, and technicians—affording us the depth of resources (finances, equipment, labor, and capacity) reasonably necessary to staff and execute virtually any assignment in response to the City’s needs for this LRSP. We provide our clients with the local knowledge and responsiveness of a small organization, backed by the depth of resources only a national firm could offer.

Our organizational structure is composed of our local office practice leaders, technical and project support staff, a regional leader, production managers, and business, human resource, and marketing managers. This structure has led to financial stability within the firm. In addition, we uphold a disciplined focus on business fundamentals to operate the firm conservatively, and our internal controls and business standards—promoted by our leadership team—are intended to keep our foundation strong. Kimley-Horn’s continued growth and stability over the past 55 years is the direct result of our firm’s commitment to integrity and devotion to providing quality services. According to Engineering News-Record, Kimley-Horn ranks 10th in transportation among the nation’s top 500 design firms. The Kimley-Horn team is committed to providing the City with high-quality solutions that will surpass your expectations.

2. Firm’s Financial Condition
Kimley-Horn is a full-service engineering and consulting firm with more than 5,600 employees and 103 offices in 29 states and Puerto Rico. The Company had 2021 revenues of $1.5 billion. Kimley-Horn has been in business since 1967. We are financially strong, and we are committed to our continued financial health. As of December 31, 2021, the Company had total assets of $803 million and stockholder’s equity of approximately $217 million. In addition to the financial resources noted, Kimley-Horn also has an untapped $10 million operating line of credit available for short-term cash flow needs. The Company’s cash flow continues to be very strong. We maintain a disciplined focus on business fundamentals, operate the firm conservatively, and our internal controls and business standards are designed to keep our foundation strong. Kimley-Horn does not have any conditions (e.g., bankruptcy, planned office closures, impending merger) that may impede our ability to complete the project.

3. Experience in Performing Work of a Similar Nature
Our proposed project team brings technical knowledge and partners that will enhance the progress of an accurate and effective LRSP. In summary, the Kimley-Horn team offers specialists for the following service areas to support you in this endeavor.

Local Road Safety Plans (LRSP) Kimley-Horn understands that an LRSP is a proactive approach to safety analysis. Existing crash patterns show part of the safety picture, but only show us where crashes have occurred, not necessarily where conditions that elevate the risk of crashes exist. An LRSP is intended to identify high crash locations within a city or county and diagnose what conditions might contribute to that elevated crash activity. The LRSP then identifies countermeasures that can be applied systemically throughout the city or county where those conditions exist to remove those higher risk conditions before crashes occur. We recognize that an LRSP is not fixed in its scope or breadth and that each jurisdiction faces unique safety challenges, driver behavior patterns, and historical roadway development. Our approach is to explore what is normal within the City of Manteca. In an effort to provide completeness and to set safety benchmarks customized for the City, our approach will be to perform the following:
 Refine the work plan with City staff
 Conduct a citywide network screening to establish crash rate benchmarks for intersections and roadway segments
 Identify locations with the highest crash frequency and highest risk factors based on network screening (from the designated corridors and intersections)
 Map crash patterns at higher crash locations
 Conduct field review of higher crash locations
 Identify safety countermeasures that would likely reduce crashes  Establish template projects and benefit/cost assessments to produce short, medium, and long-term projects that the City can pursue funding for
 Actively engage with stakeholders to gain input on safety issues/concerns
 Focus on driver behavior factors as well as roadway engineering Traffic Engineering
Our team brings comprehensive traffic engineering experience in traffic engineering and operations and traffic studies and analyses, including the evaluation of operational characteristics, safety, capacity, circulation, flow, and access. Our traffic engineers are highly trained and capable in using traffic analysis software including Synchro/SimTraffic to evaluate the operating conditions for existing or proposed roadway configurations.

ATTACHMENT 2
City of Manteca | TRTP86020.2022 2
In addition, our staff has the ability to translate these analyses into easy-to-understand content for the general public as well as public officials and other stakeholders. Detailed services we provide include:
 Safety studies
 High accident location studies
 Access-Egress and internal circulation
studies
 Speed, classification, and volume studies
 Origin-Destination studies
 Traffic calming studies and cutthrough analysis
 Data collection
 Collision analysis
 Freeway, arterial, and intersection
capacity analysis
 Interchange justification/modification
reports
 Traffic simulation/animation
 Sidewalk needs studies
 Asset inventory
 Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) studies
 Roundabout feasibility studies
 Median modification studies
 Maintenance of traffic plans
 Expert testimony

Bicycle and Pedestrian Planning We prioritize implementable solutions that enable safe and comfortable access for multimodal users, accounting for bicyclists and pedestrians of various ages and abilities. Our bicycle and pedestrian planning experience includes municipal, regional, and statewide plans, corridors, and wayfinding studies. We have successfully actualized countless on-street bikeway, sidewalk, and greenway designs as well as innovative operational studies for a variety of systems, such as in-road bicycle detection systems. We are frequently asked to take our bicycle and pedestrian planning projects from design to construction administration, demonstrating our clients’ trust in the quality of our project delivery and resulting product.

Traffic Data Collection
Our team members are skilled at using manual and advanced technology to collect traffic data. Based on the need, our team can capture field data with basic methods or through use of portable GPS devices that allow digital photo linking capabilities and direct importation into GIS mapping and software such as ESRI ArcGIS. We take care to obtain accurate data because it is the basis for a traffic study. Often, some data (such as accident reports or recent traffic counts) can be obtained from existing sources. However, if new data is needed, Kimley-Horn knows the criteria for data collection, documentation, and compilation.

Grant Writing Our planning studies are geared toward practical, community-based solutions that meet the objectives of many grant programs. We have a consistent record of winning grants from the Active Transportation Program (ATP), Smart Growth Program, and HSIP. With our recent experience completing the statewide HSIP implementation plan, we have the most direct pipeline to obtaining funding. In the past few years alone, Kimley-Horn has helped clients secure more than $200 million for the implementation of various projects. We can harness our experience to assist the City with understanding deadlines, application processes, and scoring criteria associated with grant funding. Identifying projects through the LRSP is an important first step; getting them funded and built is key to actualizing change.

4. Experience Working with Various Government Agencies
Kimley-Horn has an exceptional track record of successfully completing projects in partnership with public agencies in California and throughout the U.S. Our knowledge of local requirements, and exception agency relationships with Caltrans District 10 and stakeholders enables us to prepare detailed submittals and obtain necessary approvals. Our professionals are highly experienced in solving challenges that are unique to safety projects.

5. List of Past Joint Work by Kimley-Horn and Subconsultants Kimley-Horn will be complementing our in-house team with our subconsultant Crossroads Software, who was selected based on their experience with the City of Manteca and their ability to provide high value to our project team and the City. Crossroads is a California-based software development company specializing in software for traffic divisions of police departments and traffic engineering departments.

Their systems produce and track traffic citations, traffic collisions, and DUI arrest documents, Crossroads is a privately held California “S” Corporation and has been specializing in the same field for more than 30 years. Their software is installed at over 350 agency traffic engineering departments in California including Alameda County, Los Angeles, San Francisco, and San Diego, among many others. They will assist with data collection for this project using the SWITRS database. Crossroads can provide the project team direct access to updated collision records from CHPs central database, avoiding the need to have County staff pull data and potentially not get the latest data available. The last five years of collision data will be gathered to allow insight into trends and to better mitigate the natural year-over-year fluctuation caused by natural randomness in collision activity.

6. Three Most Recent Consultant Prepared Local Roadway Safety Plan As shown in the Project Experience map, Kimley-Horn has completed/is completing numerous LRSP projects across California. The following three examples are the most recent consultant prepared LRSPs, most relevant to the City of Manteca’s LRSP. We have also included other relevant LRSPs.

These projects demonstrate Kimley-Horn’s past record in controlling fees, delivering projects within the project cost estimate, our quality of work, and meeting established schedules.

Kimley-Horn and Crossroads have partnered on dozens
of LRSPs including for the cities of Santa Cruz, Perris, San Clemente, and Sutter County; and SSARPs (Systemic Safety Analysis Report Programs) including for the cities of Goleta, Lancaster, La Quinta, Santa Clarita, Ventura, and Imperial County.

ATTACHMENT 2
City of Manteca | TRTP86020.2022 3
County of Sutter, LRSP │ Sutter County, CA. Kimley-Horn is assisting Sutter County with development of their LRSP. The County is largely comprised of two-lane rural roadways with all intersections being unsignalized. The top challenge areas where the County has experienced a higher rate of fatal and serious injury crashes as compared to the statewide average include lane departure crashes, aging drivers, and commercial vehicles. We have completed the safety data analysis and have identified several priority locations including four unsignalized intersections and 10 roadway segments for further evaluation and development of safety countermeasures. As part of the next phase of the project, we will be conducting field review meetings with the stakeholder group to review field conditions and identifying specific countermeasures for the priority locations identified.

City of Rancho Cordova, LRSP │ Rancho Cordova, CA. Kimley-Horn assisted the City of Rancho Cordova in developing an LRSP to identify and prioritize the most effective ways to improve traffic safety for all users, as part of a statewide goal to reduce traffic injuries and fatalities. The LRSP addresses safety through roadway improvements, measures to modify driver behavior, and improved education, enforcement, and emergency response best practices. The LRSP has resulted in a set of data driven recommendations, coupled with input from key stakeholders representing the Safety Es included in the Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP): engineering, enforcement, education, and emergency services. Detailed project sheets were prepared for priority, high-crash locations to assist with the preparation of HSIP applications.

City of Tracy, LRSP │ Tracy, CA. Kimley-Horn was selected by the City of Tracy to help identify factors contributing most to local traffic collisions and will better position the City for safety funding from state and federal grant programs. This project will develop countermeasures to be systemically implemented to reduce the risk of collisions on City streets. Kimley-Horn’s approach builds that toolbox using three separate processes:
identify Citywide emphasis areas such as impaired driving or active transportation that represent a large proportion of traffic injuries; identify site specific case studies that are representative of other locations in the City for a more detailed audit and focused countermeasures; and review citywide policies, programs, resources, and practices that may have an impact of traffic safety, and then the identification of opportunities to align with safety best practices. The LRSP will identify the factors associated with the most vehicle crashes particular to the City and will identify matching countermeasures to reduce or eliminate those crashes.

Other Relevant Projects
City of Santa Cruz, LRSP │ Santa Cruz, CA. Kimley-Horn developed an LRSP for the City of Santa Cruz. The plan included an evaluation of best safety practices and common safety challenges in the City. Our efforts included a field tour with key stakeholders while applying the necessary social distancing and safety measures. We accompanied the field investigation with successful virtual stakeholder meetings to gather additional stakeholder input. We have also included a customized toolbox of countermeasures that address the most common local challenges that align with statewide funding priorities.

City of Citrus Heights, LRSP │ Citrus Heights, CA. Kimley-Horn assisted the City of Citrus Heights develop an LRSP to help the City identify and prioritize the most effective ways to improve traffic safety for all users, as part of a statewide goal to reduce traffic injuries and fatalities. The LRSP addressed safety through roadway improvements, measures to modify driver behavior, and improved education, enforcement, and emergency response best practices. The LRSP resulted in a set of data driven recommendations, coupled with input from key stakeholders representing the Safety Es included in the SHSP. Detailed project sheets were prepared for priority, high-crash locations to assist with the preparation of HSIP applications.

County of San Joaquin, SSAR │ San Joaquin County, CA. Kimley-Horn supported San Joaquin County with preparation of a Countywide SSAR which included a countywide traffic collision analysis identifying safety issues throughout its road network. The overall goal of this project was to provide a detailed understanding of high-risk locations for collisions and identify engineering-focused countermeasures that allows the county to plan for future safety improvements for the immediate, mid-range, and long-term. Specifically, the SSAR document provides guidance on selecting projects that would be well defined for future grant cycles. The project involved partnership with Crossroads and detailed crash data analysis to identify the number of collision risk factors and rates, collision types and severity, crash rates and various environmental variables. The SSAR included development of county emphasis areas, a review of traffic safety efforts performed by the county to date, and development of recommended strategies for improving traffic safety for specific locations, systemic applications, and non-infrastructure considerations. Robert led the development of recommended strategies for improving traffic safety at intersections throughout the County.

City of Roseville, LRSP │ Roseville, CA. The City of Roseville experiences a considerable multimodal mix of trips across its transportation network that serves a variety of needs and purposes, including high levels of bicycle and pedestrian activity. The City’s top three primary collision factors include unsafe speed, automobile right-of-way, and traffic signal/sign violations. Our team is working with the City on the use of a data-driven analysis to further categorize collisions by intersection and roadway size and type, while working directly with local law enforcement to identify critical issues occurring on Roseville’s roadways. Our scope of services includes the preparation of a public outreach plan as well as the completion of a focused countermeasure evaluation and project sheet development for five specific priority locations to assist with HSIP applications. » Initial engineering services contract amount
(original cost estimate): $79,990
» Final engineering services contract amount
(actual cost): $79,990
» Initial engineering services contract amount
(original cost estimate): $79,996
» Final engineering services contract amount
(actual cost): $75,887
Kimley-Horn prepared our Local Road Safety Plan (LRSP) for us recently. Their team was well organized, collaborative, responsive to our staff and stakeholder’s needs, provided quality deliverables, and was well qualified. Robert and the Kimley-Horn team was a pleasure to work with and I would highly recommend you consider providing Kimley-Horn with an opportunity to assist you as well. - Byron Tang, City of Rancho Cordova
» Initial engineering services contract amount
(original cost estimate): $74,729
» Final engineering services contract amount
(actual cost): Ongoing
ATTACHMENT 2
City of Manteca | TRTP86020.2022 4

7. Client References
Kimley-Horn is proud of the relationships we have developed with our clients, and much of our success over the last five decades is directly related to our efforts to perform high quality, timely services for all our clients. The client references provided in this section are for similar projects performed within the past three years. We invite you to contact our references; these individuals will tell you that we listened to their needs, met their schedules, accomplished their missions, and delivered results.

City of Santa Cruz, LRSP
Claire Gallogly, AICP, Transportation Planner
809 Center Street, Room 9, Santa Cruz, CA 95060
831.420.5030
City of Tracy, LRSP
Anju Pillai, Senior Civil Engineer
520 Tracy Boulevard, Tracy, CA 95376
209.831.6455 LRSP
City of Lincoln, LRSP
Edgar Garcia, Senior Civil Engineer
City Hall Offices, 600 Sixth Street, Lincoln, CA 95648
916.434.2419
Team Experience As seen below, Kimley-Horn team has supported our clients with safety projects across the state. These projects demonstrate our successful track record performing similar types of services.

ATTACHMENT 2
City of Manteca | TRTP86020.2022 5
B. PROPOSED STAFFING AND PROJECT ORGANIZATION

1. Identification of the Registered Professional Engineer (PE) in the State of California Robert Paderna, P.E., RSP1 is the registered professional engineer (PE) in the state of California who will approve and stamp the Local Roadway Safety Plan. Robert has nearly two decades of experience in transportation and traffic engineering. As a planning professional who specializes in safety plans, reports, and visioning, Robert will drive the safety planning process and development of the LRSP. He will be supported by a team of qualified RSPs, engineers, planners, and analysts who share an extensive history of collaborating as well as supporting LRSPs, SSARs, and other safety projects throughout California.

2. Project Manager and Other Key Personnel Resumes
ROBERT PADERNA, P.E., RSP1
Project Manager; Stakeholder Outreach
Robert has 17 years of experience in transportation and traffic engineering projects throughout Northern California. He has managed several safety projects including LRSPs, RSSAs, RSAs, and multimodal planning and design projects. He has also led projects involving signal timing and coordination, engineering and traffic surveys, preparation of PS&E for traffic signals (new and modified),signing and striping,street and highway lighting, traffic operations systems/ITS, and traffic control. As project manager, Robert will lead all aspects of project delivery.

Relevant Experience
• County of Sutter, LRSP, Sutter County, CA – Project Manager. Kimley-Horn is currently assisting Sutter County with development of their LRSP. The County is largely comprised of two-lane rural roadways with all intersections being unsignalized. The top challenge areas where the County has experienced a higher rate of fatal and serious injury crashes as compared to the statewide average include lane departure crashes, aging drivers, and commercial vehicles. We have completed the safety data analysis and have identified several priority locations including four unsignalized intersections and ten roadway segments for further evaluation and development of safety countermeasures. As part of the next phase of the project, we will be conducting field review meetings with the stakeholder group to review field conditions and identifying specific countermeasures for the priority locations identified.
• City of Lincoln, LRSP, Lincoln, CA – Project Manager. Kimley-Horn assisted the City of Lincoln with development of their LRSP. Several challenge areas were identified where the City has experienced a higher rate of fatal and serious injury crashes as compared to the statewide average, including intersection crashes,young drivers, work zones, lane departures, bicyclists, aggressive and distracted driving. Our team has completed a data-driven analysis of crash data from 2015 to 2019 and has identified several priority locations comprised of three signalized intersections and two unsignalized intersections for further evaluation and development of engineering-focused safety countermeasures.

Additionally, we facilitated workshops and field review meetings with the stakeholder group to solicit input on safety issues across the City’s transportation network. We developed the safety countermeasures toolbox and identified specific countermeasures for five priority locations. • County of San Joaquin, Systemic Safety Analysis Report (SSAR), San Joaquin County, CA – Project Engineer. Kimley-Horn supported San Joaquin County with preparation of a Countywide SSAR which included a countywide traffic collision analysis identifying safety issues throughout its road network. The overall goal of this project was to provide a detailed understanding of high-risk locations for collisions and identify engineering-focused countermeasures that allows the county to plan for future safety improvements for the immediate, mid-range, and long-term. Specifically, the SSAR document provides guidance on selecting projects that would be well defined for future grant cycles. The project involved partnership with Crossroads and detailed crash data analysis to identify the number of collision risk factors and rates, collision types and severity, crash rates and various environmental variables. The SSAR included development of county emphasis areas, a review of traffic safety efforts performed by the county to date, and development of recommended strategies for improving traffic safety for specific locations, systemic applications, and non-infrastructure considerations. Robert led the development of recommended strategies for improving traffic safety at intersections throughout the County.
• City of Citrus Heights, LRSP, Citrus Heights, CA – Project Manager. Robert managed the development of an LRSP that helped identify and prioritize the most effective ways to improve traffic safety for all users, as part of a statewide goal to reduce traffic injuries and fatalities. The LRSP addressed safety through identification of roadway improvements, measures to modify driver behavior, and improved education, enforcement, and emergency response best practices. The LRSP resulted in a set of data driven recommendations as well as detailed project sheets for priority, high-crash locations to assist with the preparation of HSIP applications. • City of Roseville, LRSP, Roseville, CA – Deputy Project Manager. Robert assisted the City of Roseville with acquiring increased funding for its LRSP and continues to oversee that the project team’s compliance with quality control, communication with Roseville’s law enforcement and other stakeholders as well as traffic-related needs for data analysis. Scope of services includes the preparation of a public outreach plan and completion of a focused countermeasure evaluation and project sheet development for five specific priority locations to assist with HSIP applications.

Professional Credentials
• Bachelor of Science, Civil
Engineering, San Jose State
University
• Professional Engineer in CA
#73262
• Road Safety Professional 1
#553
ATTACHMENT 2
City of Manteca | TRTP86020.2022 6
FREDERIK VENTER, P.E.

Principal-in-Charge; Stakeholder Outreach
Frederik has more than 31 years of experience as a transportation planner, civil engineer, and traffic engineer. He has been involved in numerous major transportation and traffic engineering studies throughout the United States. Frederik also has extensive experience in the development of transportation infrastructure needs for the long-term based on future development of the cities and counties as well as development impact studies. Frederik has managed transportation planning survey studies, including comprehensive origin/destination surveys and parking survey demand, mitigation proposal, pedestrian and bike facility planning, and concept designs.

He has performed strategic planning of roads-related infrastructure, while remaining cognizant of applicable Caltrans standards, fiscal and socioeconomic constraints, and community needs.

Relevant Experience
• City of Tracy, Citywide Roadway and Transportation Master Plan (TMP) Update, Tracy, CA – Project Manager. Kimley-Horn is working with the City of Tracy as a part of the City’s update to their Transportation Masterplan to develop VMT thresholds for specific land uses for the City. Kimley-Horn is updating the City’s travel demand model and using it to complete the VMT analysis and threshold development. The VMT analysis will use both tour- and trip-based approaches to comprehensively evaluate trips completed with and without the City. Of particular concern is the context of the City as a bedroom community for the Bay Area and the particularly long commute trips its citizens take each day. The City also has a large number of manufacturing and distribution centers that will also require custom VMT analysis techniques for threshold development. • County of Santa Cruz, Travel Demand Modeling and Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Analysis for General Plan Update, Santa Cruz County, CA – Project Manager. Kimley-Horn worked with the County of Santa Cruz to build on Kimley-Horn’s previous effort of updating County’s travel demand model to a base year of 2015 and future year of 2035. As a part of the County’s General Plan Update, Kimley-Horn worked with the County to update the travel demand to a base year of 2019 and a future year of 2040. In addition, Kimley-Horn completed a VMT analysis for the County and Cities of Capitola, Santa Cruz, Scotts Valley, and Watsonville as a part of the SB 743 threshold development process.
• Santa Cruz RTC, SR 9 Multimodal Corridor Study, Santa Cruz, CA – Project Manager. Kimley-Horn partnered with the Santa Cruz County Regional Transportation Commission (RTC) to lead a complete street implementation plan along the scenic State Route 9 corridor in Santa Cruz County. The goal of the project was to plan and prioritize projects to improve pedestrian, transit, and bicycle circulation within and between the communities of Felton, Ben Lomond, Brookdale, and Boulder Creek, connecting these communities with schools, businesses, and recreational opportunities along the route. Public and stakeholder engagement included focus group meetings and public workshops with RTC staff. The corridor evaluation plan established a list of prioritized short- and mid-term projects and coordinated potential improvements with Caltrans, County of Santa Cruz, and Santa Cruz METRO to identify preliminary cost and grant funding opportunities. • City of Monterey, North Fremont Street Bike and Pedestrian Access and Safety Improvements, Monterey, CA – QC/QA Reviewer; Project Manager. Kimley-Horn provided preliminary engineering, right-of-way acquisition, and final design services for this project which promotes multimodal transport in a sustainable manner along North Fremont Street, with the intent that it be a catalyst towards redevelopment along the corridor. Improvements included bulb-outs at intersections with new curb ramps, new decorative traffic signals, Class IV bike lanes located within the median, a shared bus/transit lane, transit signal priority, bus stop improvements, and a retaining wall to avoid impact to an environmentally sensitive area. Our team provided design and right-of-way acquisition services, along with public outreach, environmental support, and Caltrans coordination. The project, funded by an Active Transportation Program (ATP) grant, required a Caltrans encroachment permit for improvements at the intersection of North Fremont and Canyon Del Rey Boulevard. As part of the 35% design process, we worked through and analyzed a number of alternatives with the City, including parking-protected cycle tracks, buffered bike lanes, and sharrows across intersections to highlight areas that have a greater risk of vehicular conflict. Since opening in 2019, the project has been recognized locally as Monterey Bay APWA Chapter’s 2020 Transportation Project of the Year, statewide as a 2020 Caltrans Excellence in Transportation Award recipient, and nationally as ITE’s Pedestrian & Bicycle Standing Committee Best Project.

Professional Credentials
• Master of Science, Urban
Engineering, University of
Pretoria, South Africa
• Bachelor of Science,
Transportation Engineering,
University of Pretoria, South
Africa
• Bachelor of Science, Civil
Engineering, University of
Pretoria, South Africa
• Professional Engineer in CA
#64621
ATTACHMENT 2
City of Manteca | TRTP86020.2022 7
MOLLY O’BRIEN, P.E., PTOE, RSP1, RSP2I
QC/QA Manager
Molly has more than 21 years of safety, traffic, and transportation planning and design experience, which includes providing transportation safety consulting services to public agencies throughout the country. Her experience includes LRSPs, SSARs, RSAs, pedestrian/bicycle studies, and complete streets studies. Additionally, she has completed formal training on RSAs and the HSM IHSDM. She is experienced in conducting stakeholder workshops and prioritizing improvements to help maximize resources. As Senior Technical Advisor, Molly will draw on her extensive experience coordinating multifaceted projects with collaborators and clients dispersed throughout the country to complete your project on schedule and within budget. Additionally, Molly was named Nevada Transportation Engineer of the Year in 2011.

Relevant Experience
• County of Sutter, LRSP, Sutter County, CA – QC/QA Manager. Kimley-Horn is assisting Sutter County with development of their LRSP. The County is largely comprised of two-lane rural roadways with all intersections being unsignalized. The top challenge areas where the County has experienced a higher rate of fatal and serious injury crashes as compared to the statewide average include lane departure crashes, aging drivers, and commercial vehicles. We have completed the safety data analysis and have identified several priority locations including four unsignalized intersections and ten roadway segments for further evaluation and development of safety countermeasures. As part of the next phase of the project, we will be conducting field review meetings with the stakeholder group to review field conditions and identifying specific countermeasures for the priority locations identified.
• County of Mono, SSAR Program for Mono County Roads, Mono County, CA – Principal-in-Charge. Kimley-Horn prepared an SSARP roadway safety report for Mono County’s roadway network. Based on analyses of traffic accident data and a systemic safety evaluation of Mono County’s roadway network, applicable countermeasures were identified in the Mono County SSARP Report and developed into construction projects to increase traffic safety on Mono County roads. • City of Roseville, LRSP, Roseville, CA – Project Manager. Kimley-Horn is assisting the City of Roseville on their LRSP. The City experiences considerable multimodal mix of trips across its transportation network that serves a variety of needs and purposes, including high levels of bicycle and pedestrian activity. Our team is working with the City on the use of a data-driven analysis to further categorize collisions by intersection and roadway size and type, while working directly with local law enforcement to identify critical issues occurring on Roseville’s roadways. Our scope of services includes the preparation of a public outreach plan as well as the completion of a focused countermeasure evaluation and project sheet development for five specific priority locations to assist with HSIP applications. • Caltrans, California Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP) Update and Implementation, Statewide, CA – Project Engineer.

Kimley-Horn is leading California’s 2020 to 2024 SHSP Update and Implementation, a multi-agency collaborative effort for a safe and sustainable transportation system for all motorized and nonmotorized users on all state public roads.Molly has been involved in this project for approximately two years, conducting several statistical crash analyses and facilitating meetings for both the Pedestrian and Bicycle Challenge Areas. Molly oversees providing data request deliverables for the 16 challenge areas within the SHSP for California. She is also in charge of preparing data-driven deliverables,such as technical memorandums that provide statistical analysis of fatal and serious injury crashes throughout the state.
• City of Citrus Heights, LRSP, Citrus Heights, CA – Senior Technical Advisor. Kimley-Horn assisted the City of Citrus Heights develop an LRSP to help the City identify and prioritize the most effective ways to improve traffic safety for all users, as part of a statewide goal to reduce traffic injuries and fatalities. The LRSP addressed safety through roadway improvements, measures to modify driver behavior, and improved education, enforcement, and emergency response best practices. The LRSP resulted in a set of data driven recommendations, coupled with input from key stakeholders representing the Safety Es included in the SHSP. Detailed project sheets were prepared for priority, high-crash locations to assist with the preparation of HSIP applications.

Professional Credentials
• Master of Science, Civil
Engineering, Iowa State
University
• Bachelor of Science, Civil
Engineering, Iowa State
University
• Professional Engineer in NV
#017702
• Professional Traffic Operations
Engineer #2534
• Road Safety Professional 1 #28
• Road Safety Professional 2
Infrastructure #8
ATTACHMENT 2
City of Manteca | TRTP86020.2022 8
DARRYL DEPENCIER, AICP, GISP, RSP2
Safety and Collision Data Analysis; Behavioral and NonEngineering Countermeasures Development Darryl has been engaged in transportation safety planning for more than 14 years. He has developed tools to root out the spatial relationships between crash events to determine the factors and conditions that increase the probability of vehicle crashes. His experience ranges from establishing safety policy language to network screening, crash site engineering reviews and developing countermeasure toolboxes. Darryl also conducts statistical analyses of crash activity using methods presented in the Highway Safety Manual, the Local Roadway Safety Manual, and customized analyses for unusual locations or conditions. He has worked on studies at the statewide, regional, local, and site-specific levels that include guidance documents, LRSPs, safety thresholds and audits, and local countermeasure recommendations.

Relevant Experience
• County of San Benito, LRSP, San Benito County, CA – Project Manager. Darryl is leading a multijurisdictional LRSP with San Benito County, the City of Hollister, and the City of San Juan Bautista. The plan is leveraging existing safety data and stakeholder/public input to identify factors that contribute most to traffic injuries in the County. The plan will identify countermeasures and best practices to reduce traffic injuries.
• City of Tracy, LRSP, Tracy, CA – Project Manager. Darryl is working with the City of Tracy to identify collision trends and hot spots both in terms of roadway characteristics, and in terms of driver behavior to develop a suite of countermeasures that the City can implement for roadway improvement, enforcement strategies, educational initiatives, and better emergency response. The project includes extensive stakeholder engagement and collaboration. • City of Citrus Heights, LRSP, Citrus Heights, CA – Project Planner. Kimley-Horn assisted the City of Citrus Heights develop an LRSP to help the City identify and prioritize the most effective ways to improve traffic safety for all users, as part of a statewide goal to reduce traffic injuries and fatalities. The LRSP addressed safety through roadway improvements, measures to modify driver behavior, and improved education, enforcement, and emergency response best practices. The LRSP resulted in a set of data driven recommendations, coupled with input from key stakeholders representing the Safety Es included in the SHSP. Detailed project sheets were prepared for priority, high-crash locations to assist with the preparation of HSIP applications.
• City of Roseville, LRSP, Roseville, CA – Project Planner. Kimley-Horn is assisting the City of Roseville on their LRSP. The City experiences a considerable multimodal mix of trips across its transportation network that serves a variety of needs and purposes, including high levels of bicycle and pedestrian activity. Our team is working with the City on the use of a data-driven analysis to further categorize collisions by intersection and roadway size and type, while working directly with local law enforcement to identify critical issues occurring on Roseville’s roadways. Our scope of services includes the preparation of a public outreach plan as well as the completion of a focused countermeasure evaluation and project sheet development for five specific priority locations to assist with HSIP applications. • City of Rocklin, LRSP, Rocklin, CA – Project Planner. Kimley-Horn supported the City of Rocklin with identifying and prioritizing the most effective ways to improve traffic safety for all users, as part of a statewide goal to reduce traffic injuries and fatalities. The City’s LRSP addressed safety through roadway improvements, measures to modify driver behavior, and improve education, enforcement, and emergency response best practices. The LRSP resulted in a set of data driven recommendations, coupled with input from key stakeholders representing the Safety Es included in the SHSP.
• City of Santa Cruz, LRSP, Santa Cruz, CA – Project Manager. Darryl completed an LRSP for the City of Santa Cruz that uses local crash histories to identify citywide trends and patterns. The resulting countermeasure toolbox will emphasize bicycle and pedestrian safety as the City has a high active transportation mode share.

Professional Credentials
• Master of Science, Urban
Spatial Analysis, University of
Pennsylvania
• Bachelor of Science,
Geography, Carleton University,
Ottawa
• Certificate, Geographic
Information Systems, Algonquin
College, Ottawa
• American Institute of Certified
Planners #026552
• Geographic Information Systems
Professional #59317
• Road Safety Professional 1
#273
• Road Safety Professional 2B
#17
ATTACHMENT 2
City of Manteca | TRTP86020.2022 9
MIKE COLETY, P.E., PTOE, RSP1, RSP2I, RSP2B
Behavioral and Non-Engineering Countermeasures
Development
Mike has over 26 years of experience with the evaluation, planning, and design of transportation facilities that address the safety and mobility of all road users. He is currently leading the Update and Implementation of the SHSPs for both California and Nevada and has also has extensive experience with local and regional transportation safety planning. Mike led the Highway Safety Manual (HSM) Implementation for the Nevada Department of Transportation (NDOT) as well as assisted with the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Scale and Scope of HSM Guidebook and the Guide for Scalable Risk Assessment Methods for Pedestrians and Bicyclists. Mike has worked on over 10 LRSPs and has facilitated over 30 RSAs. He uses his experience and lessons learned to work with agencies to complete a data driven analysis, select cost effective solutions and identify funding for implementation.

Relevant Experience
• Caltrans, California SHSP Update and Implementation, Statewide, CA – Project Manager.

Kimley-Horn is leading California’s 2020 to 2024 SHSP Update and Implementation, a multi-agency collaborative effort. The SHSP’s mission is to provide a safe and sustainable transportation system for all motorized and nonmotorized users on all public roads in California. Kimley-Horn’s role is to assist with SHSP development, action plans, and compliance with federal requirements. The final SHSP will provide guidance about areas of emphasis, make recommendations for improvement, and note responsible agencies and individuals for each action. Kimley-Horn will support Caltrans with overseeing implementation for the next several years. This project has required extensive coordination with a steering committee, executive committee, and several working groups. These groups meet at regular intervals, and a rigid deliverable schedule is required to get meaningful input from each of these groups. Kimley- Horn has successfully worked with Caltrans staff to keep the project on schedule and on budget, while remaining versatile enough to respond to feedback that occasionally shifts project priorities and objectives. • City of Santa Clarita, LRSP, Santa Clarita, CA – Principal-in-Charge. Kimley-Horn is developing an LRSP focused on all roadway users. This plan uses a statistical evaluation of citywide crash data to identify emphasis areas that the City can focus safety resources on to reduced traffic injuries. The plan includes a broader countermeasure toolbox of engineering, policy, program, and enforcement measures that the City can draw from.
• City of Goleta, Traffic Safety Study for the SSARP/LRSP, Goleta, CA – Principal-in-Charge. The City of Goleta was awarded a SSARP subsidiary grant in 2016, and selected Kimley-Horn to prepare a SSARP in 2018. The SSAR focused on selected major corridors within the City and was informed by citywide safety performance to determine what crash patterns stand out and lend themselves to cost-effective countermeasures. The selected crash locations will be used to develop template projects that will be part of a toolbox that the City can use to simplify the process of identifying higher risk locations and appropriate treatments citywide. • City of Santa Cruz, LRSP, Santa Cruz, CA – QC/QA Manager. Kimley-Horn developed an LRSP for the City of Santa Cruz. The plan included an evaluation of best safety practices and common safety challenges in the City. Our efforts included a field tour with key stakeholders while applying the necessary social distancing and safety measures. We accompanied the field investigation with successful virtual stakeholder meetings to gather additional stakeholder input. We have also included a customized toolbox of countermeasures that address the most common local challenges that align with statewide funding priorities. • County of Ventura, LRSP, Ventura County, CA – QC/QA Manager. Kimley-Horn is developing a LRSP for Ventura County which will include an evaluation of best safety practices and common safety challenges in the County. It will also include a customized toolbox of countermeasures that address the most common local engineering, enforcement, education, and emerging technology challenges that align with statewide funding priorities.

Professional Credentials
• Master of Science, Civil
Engineering, California
Polytechnic University, San Luis
Obispo
• Bachelor of Science, Civil
Engineering, California
Polytechnic University, San Luis
Obispo
• Professional Engineer in CA
#60858, NV #014482, AZ
#38506, CO #40628, and UT
#7513249-2202
• Professional Traffic Operations
Engineer #1601
• Road Safety Professional 1 #22
• Road Safety Professional 2I #7
• Road Safety Professional 2B
#16
ATTACHMENT 2
City of Manteca | TRTP86020.2022 10

MOLLY TREMBLAY, EIT
Grant Preparation
Molly is an analyst with more than seven years of experience in various ITS, traffic engineering, and planning projects. She has contributed to the development of systems engineering plans for a variety of projects, with emphasis on active traffic management, managed lanes, traveler information, and congestion pricing. Molly is experienced in data collection, technical research, writing technical documentation, and writing reports to support the systems engineering process. She also has experience in communications design, ITS equipment specifications, and legislative analysis on safety improvement projects.

Relevant Experience
• City of Roseville, Washington Boulevard at All America City Boulevard Roundabout Project, Roseville, CA – Project Analyst.

Kimley-Horn was selected by the City of Roseville to prepare final design and construction documents for this important intersection improvement project. This intersection, located just north of downtown, serves as the gateway to the downtown core, and has critical interaction with Woodbridge Elementary, @ the Grounds, the Los Cerritos Neighborhood, and Washington Square. The Washington Boulevard corridor, Lincoln Street, and the adjacent Catalyst Site complete the diverse picture of challenges and opportunities. Kimley-Horn is preparing the design for a modern, multi-lane roundabout that is anticipated to reduce vehicle and pedestrian delay and improve safety. This project includes additional Kimley-Horn services to assist with obtaining environmental clearance, developing streetscape concepts for application at this and the adjacent Oak Street roundabout, and inclusion of street lighting and ITS infrastructure for future use. • City of Lincoln, Engineering Design Services on the East Joiner Parkway Widening Project (CIP Project 329), Lincoln, CA – Project Analyst. This project involved engineering design and traffic analysis services for the widening of East Joiner Parkway between Twelve Bridges Drive and the Lincoln/Rocklin border, in which the total length will be 0.9 miles. In working with the City and in anticipation of the new high school scheduled to open in 2021, we evaluated the long-term cost-effectiveness of implementing traffic signals or roundabouts at two intersection locations.

Based on the future volumes and need to lengthen an existing culvert if a signal was installed at Fieldstone Drive, it was determined a roundabout would be a more appropriate choice for intersection control. The final project design includes widening, a new signal installation at Westview Drive, an emergency vehicle signal at the fire station, cold plane and overlay of the existing northbound lanes, and a roundabout at Fieldstone Drive. • City of National City, Euclid Avenue Pedestrian & Bicycle Enhancements, National City, CA – Project Analyst. Kimley-Horn worked with National City to conduct public outreach, environmental processing, grant writing, conceptual design and preliminary engineering, and final design of nearly two miles of protected bikeway in National City. The project included pavement dig outs, full-depth replacement, and bus pad installations, protected bike lanes, bend-outs, reverse angle parking, and signal enhancements including two HAWK systems. Kimley-Horn prepared the Active Transportation Program (ATP) grant applicationsfor which led to the award of more than $3.5M in funding to design and construct the project.

ALI MUSTAFA, EIT, PTP
Engineering Countermeasures Development; LRSP
Development
Ali has a professional background in engineering consulting that spans a wide array of projects for public agencies and private developers in California. With more than 20 years of transportation planning and traffic engineering experience, Ali has worked extensively on traffic impact studies/environmental impact reports (EIRs), general plans,specific plans, parking studies, transportation management plans, neighborhood traffic management plans, and planning/design of major sports facilities.

Relevant Experience
• County of San Benito, LRSP, San Benito County, CA* – Project Engineer • County of Santa Cruz, GP Intersection Analysis, CA* – Project Engineer • County of Santa Cruz, Engineering and Traffic Survey for Speed Limits, Santa Cruz County, CA* – Project Manager
• County of Santa Cruz, Countywide Traffic Data Collection Program, Santa Cruz County, CA* – Project Manager • City of Hollister, Speed Cushion Policy and Procedure, Hollister, CA* – Analyst • City of San Ramon, North Camino Ramon Specific Plan, San Ramon, CA – Analyst • City of Azusa, General Plan, Azusa, CA* – Project Engineer * All projects prior to Kimley-Horn
Professional Credentials
• Bachelor of Science, Structural
Engineering, University of
California, San Diego
• Engineer-in-Training (EIT) in CA
#153898
Professional Credentials
• Master of Science,
Transportation Engineering,
Illinois Institute of Technology
• Master of Science,
Transportation Engineering,
Regional Engineering College,
India
• Bachelor of Engineering, Civil
Engineering, Osmania
University, A.P., India
• Professional Transportation
Planner #762
• Engineer-in-Training
ATTACHMENT 2
City of Manteca | TRTP86020.2022 11

3. Key Personnel Location, Position, Current Assignment, Level of Commitment, and Availability Name │ Location │ Position
Current Assignments │Level of Commitment
Availability
for this
Assignment
Name │ Location │ Position
Current Assignments │Level of Commitment
Availability
for this
Assignment
Robert Paderna, P.E., RSP1 │Sacramento, CA │Project Manager Glenn County LRSP, El Dorado County LRSP, Sacramento Valley Hi-La Mancha Safety Improvements │Commitment: 60%
40% Mike Colety, P.E., PTOE, RSP1, RSP21, RSP2B │Las Vegas, NV │Behavioral and Non-Engineering Countermeasures Development
Nevada SHSP, Caltrans SHSP │Commitment: 20%
80%
Frederik Venter, P.E. │San Jose, CA │Principal-in-Charge Tracy LRSP, North Fremont Sidewalk, Hollister Union Road │Commitment: 70% 30% Molly Tremblay, EIT │Sacramento, CA │Grant Preparation Bardin SRTS DSDC; Hollister Wesy Gateway RAB; King City Bulb Outs; Folsom Mangini Ranch; City of Sacramento - Lampasas │Commitment: 75% 25%
Molly O’Brien, P.E., PTOE, RSP1, RSP2I │Reno, NV │QC/QA Manager Roseville LRSP, El Dorado County LRSP │Commitment: 70%
30% Ali Mustafa, EIT, PTP │San Jose, CA │Engineering Countermeasures Development; LRSP Development
Pinkberry TIA, Manteca; Buena Vista Traffic Analysis, Santa Cruz County; San Bernardino; Strada Verde TIA, San Benito County│Commitment: 65% 35%
Darryl DePencier, AICP, GISP, RSP2 │Los Angeles, CA │Safety and Collision Data Analysis; Behavioral and Non-Engineering Countermeasures Development Menifee LRSP and HSIP; Maywood LRSP; SGV Transit Feasibility Study │Commitment: 65% 35%

4. Project Organization Chart
The proposed Kimley-Horn team has a history of providing high-quality solutions while addressing state and federal procedures during the completion of similar safety projects for local agencies across California. The organization chart below highlights the responsibilities of our proposed team members. Robert Paderna, P.E., RSP1, has over 17 years of experience working on safety plans and will serve as project manager. Robert will be supported by Frederik Venter, P.E., and Molly O’Brien, P.E., PTOE, RSP1, RSP2I,
both of whom have extensive
experience providing similar
services in California.

Key personnel will be available to the extent proposed for the duration of the project. Kimley-Horn acknowledges that no person designated as "key" to the project shall be removed or replaced without the prior written concurrence of City.

ATTACHMENT 2
City of Manteca | TRTP86020.2022 12
C. WORK PLAN

1. Approach and Work Plan / 2. Work Breakdown Structure (WBS) Activities and Tasks Project Approach The City of Manteca has received grant funding administered by Caltrans to develop a Local Road Safety Plan (LRSP) to support the City in identifying and prioritizing the most effective ways to improve traffic safety for all users, as part of a statewide goal to reduce traffic injuries and fatalities. The LRSP will address traffic safety through roadway improvements, measures to modify driver behavior, and improve education, enforcement, and emergency response best practices. The LRSP will result in a set of data driven recommendations, coupled with input from key stakeholders representing the Safety Es included in the Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP): engineering, enforcement, education, and emergency services.

Based on crash data obtained from the Transportation Injury Mapping System (TIMS) for the most recent five-year period between 2016-2020, the three primary crash types for the City of Manteca are broadside (37%), rear end (24%), and vehicle/pedestrian crashes (10%). Further, the top three primary collision factors are unsafe speed (28%), automobile right-of-way violation (23%), and improper turning (10%).

From our experience working in the City and surrounding areas within San Joaquin County, we understand the City’s unique and varying safety challenges and crash trends. This experience and working knowledge of the City’s safety challenges and concerns, priorities, and overall transportation system gives us a solid starting point from which to develop your LRSP.

As shown in Figure 1, the highest concentration of fatal and injury-related collisions occurred at intersections throughout the City. The Center Street/Union Road intersection was atop the list with 21 crashes. More than two-thirds of the crashes (14) were broadside crashes, which is suggestive of traffic signal violations (i.e., red light running). Based on our preliminary assessment, recommended safety countermeasures include increased all-red time, signal timing, retroreflective backplates, replacement of 8-inch signal heads with 12-inch heads, and signing and striping enhancements. These types of Projects that help to address the above-mentioned challenge areas, which align with the statewide challenge areas, and that also respond to local conditions are likely to score higher in the Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) applications.

The LRSP will provide the City with an opportunity to seek opportunities for further improving roadway safety by providing a comprehensive overview of citywide crash trends and patterns leading to the identification of key safety emphasis areas particular to Manteca, and a customized toolbox of safety countermeasures that combine infrastructure strategies with policies, ordinances, programs, and other measures that also address the City’s approach to education,
enforcement, emergency
response, and safety culture.

Kimley-Horn’s project approach
is centered on applying our
national and local experience of
best practices to meet the
City’s objectives and support
the City in developing a plan
that addresses the concerns of
the community. Our approach is
focused on utilizing a datadriven analysis to categorize collisions by intersection and
roadway size and type, while
working with the City (including
local law enforcement) to
identify critical issues occurring
on City roadways. Following the
collision analysis, Kimley-Horn
will determine focus areas and
develop proactive
countermeasures that are
customized to the local context.

These countermeasures aim to
reduce the number and severity
of all crashes. After the
development of the safety
countermeasures, Kimley-Horn
will provide guidance to City
staff on the implementation of
the established countermeasures and the applicability for future HSIP grant funding opportunities.

Figure 1 – Manteca Citywide Crash Data
ATTACHMENT 2
City of Manteca | TRTP86020.2022 13
Kimley-Horn will apply the following three overarching themesto successfully complete the project:
 Define a data-driven, systemic analysis that will be effectively used by the City to secure HSIP and other funding to implement projects that reduce fatal and serious injury crashesinvolving active transportation users;  Engage City staff and local representatives of the Safety “Es” (engineering, education, enforcement, and emergency services) to gain holistic input on traffic safety issues and implement recommendations in the LRSPs; and  Provide proactive project management that delivers project ahead of schedule and within budget with high quality deliverables Scope of Services
TASK 1 – PROJECT MANAGEMENT AND ADMINISTRATION
Task 1.1 – Project Management and Administration
This task includes general project administration, including management of project staff, quality control, and project accounting. This scope of services is anticipated to be completed over a 5-month period.

Task 1.2 – Coordination and Meetings
Upon receiving Notice to Proceed (NTP), Kimley-Horn will coordinate a project kick-off meeting with City departments to discuss the goals of the project and role of the Kimley-Horn team and all stakeholders. Administrative items will be discussed, including communication protocol, meeting frequency, progress reporting,scheduling and invoicing, quality control/quality assurance (QC/QA) procedures, and other relevant project information such as key milestones throughout the project and what defines success for this project.

Kimley-Horn will conduct monthly Project Team (PT) coordination calls with the City to discuss project progress,schedule,stakeholder coordination, deliverables, and key milestones. Up to five (5) coordination calls are anticipated under this task.

Meeting agendas and notes with key action items will be developed and distributed by Kimley-Horn for all coordination meetings. ♦ Project kick-off meeting agenda and meeting notes
♦ Project coordination call agendas and meeting notes
♦ Monthly progress reports and invoices
♦ Project schedule
♦ Work Plan
♦ QC/QA Plan
TASK 2 – LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN INITIATION
Task 2.1 – Develop Plan Goals and Objectives
Kimley-Horn will work with City staff to formulate the City’s vision, goals, and objectives of the LRSP, with a focus on promoting safe, equitable, and multimodal mobility opportunities. Kimley-Horn will also develop a plan for the City to continually monitor collision data and monitor progress toward safety goals and objectives. This plan will identify recommended best practices in analyzing collision data annually to identify high collision and highrisk locations throughout the City’s roadway network.

Kimley-Horn will document the draft Vision, Goals, and Objectives in a brief technical memorandum. Comments on the draft Vision, Goals, and Objectives will be incorporated into the Draft LRSP report.

Task 2.2 – Stakeholder Involvement
Kimley-Horn will work with City staff to identify members of a multidisciplinary project stakeholder group that will participate in project decisionmaking and provide input into priority areas. The stakeholders group is anticipated to include representation from all member agencies and cover a variety of interests and knowledge areas to help in the development of a balanced and representative plan that addresses roadway safety from a broad perspective. This group will include City staff, management, police, emergency response, traffic safety partners, transit operators, schools, and other safety partners representing each of the Safety E’s – engineering, education, enforcement, and emergency services.

Kimley-Horn will coordinate and one workshop with City staff and project stakeholders. This stakeholder workshop is proposed to be scheduled at a strategic junction of the project to solicit feedback from the group on the results of the collision analysis and development of potential safety countermeasures in leading up to the development of the LRSP. The stakeholder workshop is envisioned to provide an introduction and overview of the LRSP, overview of collision data, present preliminary safety results/findings of the safety data analysis, present priority/emphasis areas, approach to countermeasure selection, and next steps. This scope of services assumes the workshop will be conducted in person but can be conducted virtually (MS Teams or Zoom) at the direction of the City.

Additionally, we will facilitate on-site field review meetings at up to five (5) priority, high crash locations to be identified in Task 4. We have a deep understanding and familiarity with the major intersections and roadway segments within the City which experience high crash rates and may be  Task 1 Deliverables:

ATTACHMENT 2
City of Manteca | TRTP86020.2022 14
identified as one of the priority locations. The site visits would provide an additional, unique opportunity to assess field conditions and observe driver behavior and conflicts along with City staff, representatives from the police department, and other select stakeholders. The intent of these field visits is to solicit input and develop customized safety measures for the conditions of each roadway segment/intersection, as opposed to developing a general list of potential countermeasures. The site visits will occur on a weekday with observation of traffic patterns and roadway characteristics that could highlight potential reasons for the observed crash patterns. ♦ Stakeholder matrix with contact information
♦ Stakeholder meeting agenda, presentation material, and meeting notes
♦ Field review meeting materials and meeting notes
TASK 3 – DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Task 3.1 – Review of Existing Planning Documents
Kimley-Horn will conduct a limited literature review of the City’s General Plan, Capital Improvement Program (CIP), Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan, and other reasonably applicable design and planning documents to identify programs, policies, and programmed projects within the City that might have safety impacts or impact mitigation options identified. Additionally, we will identify a reasonable number of opportunity areas to facilitate safety improvements in the various Safety Es. This effort includes identification of programs and policies within the City that are anticipated to be supportive of safety, which ones could be updated to better align with current best practices, and where there are opportunities for new initiatives that would likely support safer roads and better driving behaviors.

Findings of this literature review task will be presented in a summary matrix to be submitted to the City. Comments on the literature review matrix will be incorporated into the Draft LRSP.

Task 3.2 – Data Collection
Kimley-Horn will acquire available crash data from the past five years from the City’s collision database. Additionally, we will request available roadway data (i.e.,street names, road classification, lanes, traffic control) and recent or historical traffic counts (i.e., ADT, intersection turning movement counts, bike and pedestrian counts) from the City (in GIS format, if available) to establish a baseline roadway information database to help associate factors with crash characteristics.

Additionally, Kimley-Horn will obtain crash data from subconsultant Crossroads Software, who can provide mapped crash data from the Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System (SWITRS) database. This dataset would provide more comprehensive data in addition to just crashes that involved injuries as provided by TIMS.

Task 3.3 – Data Analysis
Kimley-Horn will conduct a citywide assessment of the most recent five years of crash data to identify high-crash locations, high-risk locations (Critical Crash Rate, impaired driving crashes,school-related crashes), and locations with unusual crash patterns (such as high severity, behavior outliers, road conditions, and crash geometry).

Kimley-Horn will provide an inventory of sites including all roadway segments and intersections with three or more collisions (needed for statistical evaluation) ranked by overall number of collisions per Local Roadway Safety Manual guidance. Kimley-Horn will then recommend up to fifteen locations for further evaluation and potential development based on the amount of collision activity, collision severity, unusual collision patterns, and site variability to maximize the potential number of systemic factors and mitigations identified.

Kimley-Horn will develop and submit a comprehensive list of intersections (signalized and unsignalized) and segments and resulting crash data. This list will include calculated critical crash rates (CCR) and equivalent property damage only (EPDO), in addition to the summary of the above-listed crash data. This list will be
used to not only identify
priority locations that
have experienced a high
number of crashes, but
also to identify other
locations with similar
risk factors.

Kimley-Horn will analyze
the collision data to
identify specific
focus/challenge areas to
guide crash reduction
countermeasure
 Task 2 Deliverables:

ATTACHMENT 2
City of Manteca | TRTP86020.2022 15
strategies. The focus/challenge areas will be compared to the California SHSP, prepared by Kimley-Horn. Our approach is to review all collision severity levels.

This provides a richer dataset to review and allows the team to determine factors where collision severity levels are high relative to overall collision numbers. ♦ Literature Review Matrix ♦ Countywide Crash Summary Tables and Exhibits TASK 4 – EMPHASIS AREAS, EVALUATION, AND IMPLEMENTATION Task 4.1 – Emphasis Areas Identification
Kimley-Horn will analyze the crash data to identify specific emphasis/challenge areas to guide crash reduction countermeasure strategies. The challenge areas will be compared to the California SHSP, prepared by Kimley-Horn. Our approach is to review all collision severity levels. This provides a richer dataset to review and allows the team to determine factors where collision severity levels are high relative to overall crash numbers.

Task 4.2 – Countermeasure Development
Based on the focus/challenge areas identified under Task 3, Kimley-Horn will identify countermeasures starting with those in the Caltrans Local Roadway Safety Manual, FHWA’s Proven Safety Countermeasures, Countermeasures that Work published by the U.S. Department of Transportation, and NCHRP Report 500: Guidance for Implementation of the AASHTO Strategic Highway Safety Plan, which have proven strategies to address safety issues seen on Manteca city roadways. Kimley-Horn will consider the use of temporary measures and technological implementations,such as crash avoidance technology and connected vehicles. These countermeasures will focus on the Safety Es. Measures that support safe and efficient active transportation use will also be strongly considered.

Kimley-Horn will develop a customized safety countermeasure toolbox comprised of engineering countermeasures that can be implemented at intersections and roadway segments. The toolbox will include the recommended countermeasures along with corresponding crash modification factor (CMF), crash reduction factor (CRF), funding eligibility, and implementation costs.

Task 4.3 – Implementation Program
Kimley-Horn will develop a strategy for implementation of safety countermeasures identified. Additionally, we will identify opportunities for potential funding and implementation of the safety countermeasures through existing City maintenance programs and grant funding programs. These grant programs may include, but are not limited to, SB1 programs, Caltrans Active Transportation Program (ATP) funds, Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP), Safe Streets and Roads for All (SS4A), and other state and federal grant programs. This also includes consideration of potential updates to City design standards to better align with safety best practices. ♦ List of emphasis areas
♦ List of priority locations (intersections and roadways) ♦ Citywide Countermeasure Toolbox
TASK 5 – LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN (LRSP) Development
Task 5.1 – Draft LRSP Report
The results of prior tasks will be incorporated into a Draft LRSP Report. The report will include the previous deliverables into a single seamless document that the City can use to pursue additional project funding. The Draft report will include the vision, goals, and objectives of the LRSP; project stakeholders; an outline of the process for developing the LRSP; review of existing City plans and policies relating to traffic safety; overview of collision and roadway data collected and utilized in the analysis; collision analysis findings; recommended safety countermeasures and their prioritization; implementation strategy including potential funding sources; and framework for future updates to the Plan.

Kimley-Horn will submit a Draft LRSP report to the City and project stakeholders for review and comment.

Task 5.2 – Final LRSP Report
Kimley-Horn will revise and update the LRSP based upon one consolidated set of comments from the City on the Draft report. Kimley-Horn will submit this final deliverable along with a response to the comments matrix on the Draft deliverable in electronic (.PDF) format.

The Final LRSP will be signed and stamped by a California-licensed professional engineer and submitted to the City for approval and adoption. ♦ Draft Local Roadway Safety Plan ♦ Final Local Roadway Safety Plan  Task 3 Deliverables:
 Task 4 Deliverables:
 Task 5 Deliverables:

ATTACHMENT 2
City of Manteca | TRTP86020.2022 16

3. Project Schedule
Establishing a reasonable schedule at the project’s beginning will lead to the highest potential for success. Schedule control begins with the preparation of a detailed schedule that includes milestone completion dates for specific tasks and the overall project. We will also develop a work plan that allocates staff-hour commitments by individual or classification for each task. Twice monthly, our system generates a Project Effort Report showing actual effort expended by task. This internal control allows us to make, on a timely basis, any adjustments that may be necessary to maintain the project’s schedule and stay within the budget. These tools enable us to control budgets and will keep city informed of the financial status of the project.

4. Quality Control Methods, Budget and Schedule Control Quality Control/Quality Assurance
As a recognized firm, Kimley-Horn has developed solid project management methodology founded upon our commitment to high-quality deliverables.

We see ourselves as an extension of your staff and place tremendous emphasis on developing and maintaining clear, continuous communication throughout a project to maintain high standards of quality from the inception of a task through completion. Quality starts with an experienced team of specialists who have learned where potential risks are and know how to implement effective Quality Management System (QMS) procedures. Key components of quality control during the planning process are field visits and site knowledge, understanding of regulatory and funding requirements, and technical knowledge.

Cost and Schedule Control
Kimley-Horn knows how important cost control is to federally funded projects and is well-suited to manage and administer your project. We are prepared to commit the necessary resources for successful implementation. Moreover, we also have the tools that tell us exactly how and when to implement these resources. While this can be perceived as an internal issue to Kimley-Horn, the tools we use to manage and administer a project are for the clients’ benefit, because a firm basis is established for on-time, within-budget delivery of all services. Cost and schedule are extremely important to Kimley-Horn, and our resources will allow us to meet the goals established for your project.

Budgeting Methodology
We recognize that budget control is critical to the success of your project. Budget control is inherently tied to people—their experiences, vision, management styles, and philosophies all affect significant components of a project approach and its execution. One of the important budget control mechanisms will be the team’s previous experiences and lessons learned. Identifying realistic goals, developing a focused action plan that addresses only those items necessary to accomplish the goals, anticipating the implications of decisions made in early phases to future phases, and preparing a mechanism for addressing unexpected challenges are important in establishing cost control. They build the framework for completing a successful project within budget. To assist our project managers in efficient administration of projects, Kimley-Horn maintains a detailed, integrated management information system (MIS). This system, designed primarily to focus on schedule adherence and cost control, has proved to be a valuable tool. We understand that the largest costs to our clients are those related to construction of projects, so we work hard to prepare thorough plans and specifications that accurately and completely define the project requirements. We then break down the project into discreet pay items with specific descriptions of what is included in them to avoid misunderstandings by the contractor during bidding and construction. We then carefully monitor the contractors’ progress during construction and assist them in interpreting the contract requirements whenever a question arises. We can also review proposals from the contractor to modify elements of construction that offer cost or schedule benefits to the client.

ATTACHMENT 2
City of Manteca | TRTP86020.2022 Sections D - F
D. COST PROPOSAL REQUIREMENTS
In accordance with the RFP requirements, we have submitted our cost proposal in a separate sealed envelope.

E. APPENDICES
Contract Termination and Circumstances
Kimley-Horn enters into thousands of contracts each year. An extremely small number of those contracts are concluded prior to the completion of the scope of services. Kimley-Horn has never been terminated for cause. We do not track terminations for convenience. One specific example of a recent early conclusion occurred when Kimley-Horn's project manager accepted a position at another firm and the client determined it was in their best interest to follow the project manager to the new consulting firm. In that case, Kimley-Horn proactively worked with the client and departing employee to ease the transition and at all times held the needs of the client above all other considerations. We have found that acting professionally and protecting the needs of the client's project leads to the best long term outcome for all parties.

Litigation and Circumstances
Kimley-Horn and its subsidiaries have provided services in all 50 states and numerous countries. Because of the many and varied projects we have completed, we are subject to various legal proceedings from time to time and in the ordinary course of business. It is not practical to provide a complete list as part of this proposal. None of the pending matters, if decided against Kimley-Horn, would have a material impact on our financial statements or impair in any way our ability to serve our clients. Generally, these matters are covered by insurance, and we consider them to be without merit. If you would like to discuss our legal matters in more detail, please contact Kimley-Horn’s General Counsel, Richard Cook, at 919.677.2058.

Legal proceedings in California within the last five (5) years are as follows:
29Twenty Maintenance Association v. Van Daele Development Corp., et al; Los Angeles County, Superior Court of the State of California; Case No. 19STCV13496; filed 2019; alleged economic loss; settled; closed 2020 Farhad Abad, individually and for the Estate of Mahin Ashki-Abad; Keemia Abad; and Arianna Abad v. U.S. Foods, Inc., et.al.; Alameda County Superior Court; Case No. RG17856272; filed 2017; traffic accident, wrongful death claim; settled; closed 2019.

Air Wing, LLC v. One Piper Ranch, LLC v. Cross-Complainants: San Diego County Superior Court; Case No. 37-2014-00009315; filed 2016; alleged economic loss; Kimley-Horn dismissed; closed 2017.

Rickey Fraley, Eileen Fraley v Live Nation Worldwide, Inc., et al: San Bernardino County Superior Court; Case No. CIVDS 1707090; filed 2017; wrongful death claim; Kimley-Horn dismissed; closed 2017.

Vicente Gomez, et al v. Pilot Travel Centers, LLC, et al; Case # CVRI2103878; Superior Court of California, County of Riverside; filed 2021; personal injuries; pending
Nancy Graham v. City of Santa Cruz, et al: Santa Cruz County Superior Court; Case No. 16CV02729; filed 2017; bicycle accident, personal injuries; settled; closed 2018.

Brenda Sherriffs v. Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc., et al: Santa Cruz County Superior Court; Case No. 16CV00335; filed 2016; bicycle accident, personal injuries; settled; closed 2019.

Kimberly Lynn Wright and Ty Juan Montanez v City of Concord; et al; Superior Court of California, County of Contra Costa; Case No. MSC20-01067; filed 2020; served 2022; traffic accident, wrongful death claimed; pending F. CONTRACT COMMENTS
Kimley-Horn has reviewed the sample Agreement for Professional Services and requests the following modifications to bring the indemnification terms in line with the limitations of CA Civil Code 2782.8.

15. Indemnification and Hold Harmless. Consultant agrees to defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City, its officers, officials, agents, employees, and volunteers, from and against any and all claims, demands, actions, losses, damages, injuries, and liability, direct or indirect (including any and all costs and expenses in connection therewith), to the extent arising out of Consultant’s negligence in the performance of this Agreement, or Consultant’s failure to comply with any of its obligations contained in this Agreement; excluding, however, any claim arising out of the active negligence or willful misconduct of the City, its officers, agents, employees, or volunteers.

ATTACHMENT 2
The entirety of this proposal, including text and images, is the property of Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc., protected under U.S. copyright law.

Copyright © 2022 Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.

Robert Paderna, P.E., RSP1
[email protected]
916.859.3610
www.kimley-horn.com
Kimley-Horn
555 Capitol Mall
Suite 300
Sacramento, CA 95814
Contact
ATTACHMENT 2
194.54% Overhead% Name
Robert
Paderna
Frederik
Venter
Molly
O'Brien
Darryl
dePencier
Mike
Colety
Ali
Mustafa
194.38% Overhead% w/o FCCM Category/Title Project Manager Principal-in- Charge QC/QA Manager Sr. Professional I Sr. Professional II Sr. Professional I 10% Fee% Direct Rate $79.76 $124.04 $81.98 $66.12 $100.58 $78.86 $54.82 $39.24 $30.00 Billing Rate $258.40 $401.86 $265.60 $214.21 $325.86 $255.49 $177.60 $127.13 $97.19 Task 1 224 2 84 4 44 $ 10,966.66

1.1 10 2 12 $ 3,115.241.2 84 8 20 $ 5,718.601.3 4 44 12 $ 2,132.81 Task 2 12 6 8 6 8 40 $ 9,638.60

2.1 44 6 14 $ 3,121.202.2 86 4 8 26 $ 6,517.40
Task 3 84 8 16 50 86 $ 14,041.47

3.1 2 64 12 $ 2,090.953.2 2 68 $ 1,279.583.3 44 8 10 40 66 $ 10,670.93 Task 4 20 2 2 2 271822 93 $ 19,943.89

4.1 24 10 2 18 $ 3,569.074.2 6 584 23 $ 4,757.234.3 44 6 14 $ 2,818.354.4 8 2 2 2 14 10 38 $ 8,799.24 Task 5 16 4 6 2 162030 4 98 $ 19,829.79

5.1 12 2 4 2 101420 64 $ 13,202.625.2 422 6 610434 $ 6,627.16 78 16 12 10 4 59 64 110 8 361
$ 20,155.58 $ 6,429.80 $ 3,187.17 $ 2,142.14 $ 1,303.43 $ 15,073.85 $ 11,366.70 $ 13,984.19 $ 777.55 $ 74,420.40 $ 5,500.00
$ 500.00
$ 5,000.00
$ 79,920.40
Analyst
Local Roadway Safety Plan
City of Manteca
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.

Total Hours Total Cost
Project ManagementLocal Roadway Safety Plan Initiation
Project
Support
AdministrationDraft LRSP ReportCountermeasure DevelopmentImplementation Program Professional
Emphasis Areas, Evaluation, and Implementation

TOTAL HOURS
Subtotal Labor:

Emphasis Areas IdentificationOther Direct Costs
Mileage/Travel
Final LRSP ReportLocal Roadway Safety Plan Development
Data Collection (Crossroads)
TOTAL COST:

Project ManagementCoordination and MeetingsDevelop Plan Goals and ObjectivesStakeholder InvolvementReview of Existing Planning DocumentsData CollectionData AnalysisData Collection and AnalysisRecommendations

ATTACHMENT
2 Local Assistance Procedures Manual EXHBIT 10-H1
Cost Proposal
Note: Mark-ups are Not Allowed
Consultant
Project No. Contract No. Date 7/11/2022

DIRECT LABOR
Hours
78 16
12 10
4 59
64 110
8 LABOR COSTS
a) Subtotal Direct Labor Costs
b) Anticipated Salary Increases (see Anticpated Salary Increases page for calculation) c) TOTAL DIRECT LABOR COSTS [(a) + (b)] $ 22,970.82

INDIRECT COSTS
d) Fringe Benefits ( Rate: 0.00% ) e) Total Fringe Benefits [(c) x (d)] $ - f) FCCM ( Rate: 0.16% ) 36.75 $
h) Overhead ( Rate: 194.38% ) i) Overhead [(c) x (h)] $ 44,650.68 j) TOTAL INDIRET COSTS [(e) + (g) + (i)] $ 44,687.43
FIXED FEE k) TOTAL FIXED FEE [(c) + (e) + (i)* fixed fee 10% ] $ 6,762.15 Quatity Unit
l) TOTAL OTHER DIRECT COSTS $ 5,500.00
Subconsultant 1: $
Subconsultant 2: $
Subconsultant 3: $
Subconsultant 4: $
$ -
$ 5,500.00
$ 79,920.40
Exhibit 10-H1 Cost Proposal
Cost-Plus-Fixed Fee or Lump Sum or Firm Fixed Price Contracts (Design, Engineering and Environmental Studies)
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.

Project Manager Paderna, Robert $79.76 6,221.28 $
Principal-in-Charge Frederik Venter $124.04 1,984.64 $
Classification/Title Name Actual Hourly Rate Total
Sr. Professional II Colety, Michael $100.58 402.32 $
Sr. Professional I Syedali, Ali Mustafa $78.86 4,652.74 $ QC/QA Manager O'Brien, Molly $81.98 983.76 $
Sr. Professional I dePencier, Darryl $66.12 661.20 $
Project Support TBD $30.00 240.00 $
$0.00 - $
Professional TBD $54.82 3,508.48 $
Analyst TBD $39.24 4,316.40 $
g) FCCM [(c) x (f)
l) CONSULTANT'S OTHER DIRECT COSTS (ODC) - ITEMIZE
Description of Item Unit Cost Total
Mileage/Travel $0.00 500.00 $
$0.00 - $
$ 22,970.82
$ -
Data Collection (Crossroads) $0.00 5,000.00 $
m) SUBCONSULTANTS' COSTS
TOTAL COST [(c) + (j) + (k) + (n)]
(m) TOTAL SUBCONSULTANS' COSTS
(n) TOTAL OTHER DIRECT COSTS INCLUDING SUBCONSULTANTS [(l) + (m)] Prime Consultant Subconsultant 2nd Tier Subconsultant

January 2020
ATTACHMENT 2
Local Assistance Procedures Manual EXHBIT 10-H1
Cost Proposal

1. Calculate average hourly rate for 1st year of the contract (Direct Labor Subtotal divided by total hours) Direct Labor
Subtotal
per Cost
Proposal
Total Hours
per Cost
Proposal
Avg Hourly
Rate
$ 22,970.82 / 361 = $63.63 Year 1 Avg Hourly Rate

2. Calculate hourly rate for all periods (Increase the Average hourly rate for a period by proposed escalation %) Avg Hourly
Rate
Proposed
Escalation
Year 1 $63.63 + 5% = $66.81
Year 2 $66.81 + 5% = $70.15
Year 3 $70.15 + 5% = $73.66 Year 4 Avg Hourly Rate
Year 4 $73.66 + 5% = $77.34 Year 5 Avg Hourly Rate
Estimated %
Completed
Each Period
Total Hours
per Cost
Proposal
Total Hours
per Period
Year 1 100.00% * 361 = 361 Estimated Hours Year 1
Year 2 0.00% * 361 = 0 Estimated Hours Year 2
Year 3 0.00% * 361 = 0 Estimated Hours Year 3
Year 4 0.00% * 361 = 0 Estimated Hours Year 4
Year 5 0.00% * 361 = 0 Estimated Hours Year 5
Total 100% Total = 361

4. Calculate Total Costs including Escalation (Multiply average hourly rate by the number of hours) Avg Hourly
Rate
Estimated
Hours
(calculated
above)
(calculated
above)
Year 1 $63.63 * 361 = $22,970.82 Estimated Hours Year 1 Year 2 $66.81 * 0 = $0.00 Estimated Hours Year 2
Year 3 $70.15 * 0 = $0.00 Estimated Hours Year 3
Year 4 $73.66 * 0 = $0.00 Estimated Hours Year 4
Year 5 $77.34 * 0 = $0.00 Estimated Hours Year 5
= $22,970.82
= $22,970.82
= $0.00 Transfer to Page 1
Period 1 = Contract inception through 6/30/23 Period 2 = 7/1/23 through 6/30/24 Period 3 = 7/1/24 through 6/30/25 Period 4 = 7/1/25 through 6/30/26 Period 5 = 7/1/26 through 6/30/27 Exhibit 10-H1 Cost Proposal
Actual Cost-Plus-Fixed Fee or Lump Sum or Firm Fixed Price Contracts (Calculations for Anticipated Salary Increases)

3. Calculate estimated hours per year (Multiply estimate % each period by total ho Cost
Per Period
5 Year
Contract Duration
Year 2 Avg Hourly Rate
Year 3 Avg Hourly Rate
Total Direct Labor Cost with Escalation
Direct Labor Subtotal before escalation
Estimated total of Direct Labor Salary

January 2020
ATTACHMENT 2
Local Assistance Procedures Manual EXHBIT 10-H1
Cost Proposal
Name: Title*:

Signature: Date of Certification (mm/dd/yyyy): 7/11/2022 Email: Phone Number:

Address:

List services the consultant is providing under the proposed contract:

Certification of Direct Costs:

I, the undersigned, certify to the best of my knowledge and belief that all direct costs identified on the cost proposal(s) in

1. Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP)

2. Terms and conditions of the contract

3. Title 23 United States Code Section 112 - Letting of Contracts

4. 48 Code of Federal Regulations Part 31 - Contract Cost Principles and Procedures Exhibit 10-H1 Cost Proposal
[email protected] 916-858-5800
555 Capitol Mall, Suite 300, Sacramento, CA, 95814
*An individual executive or financial officer of the consultant’s or subconsultant’s organization at a level no lower than a Vice President or a Chief Financial Officer, or equivalent, who has authority to represent the financial information utilized to establish the cost proposal for the contract.

Engineering & Planning Services

5. 23 Code of Federal Regulations Part 172 - Procurement, Management, and Administration of

6. 48 Code of Federal Regulations Part 9904 - Cost Accounting Standards Board (when applicable) All costs must be applied consistently and fairly to all contracts. All documentation of compliance must be retained in the project files and be in compliance with applicable federal and state requirements. Costs that are noncompliant with the federal and state requirements are not eligible for reimbursement.

Local governments are responsible for applying only cognizant agency approved or Caltrans accepted Indirect Cost Prime Consultant or Subconsultant Certifying:

Anthony Podegracz Vice President

January 2020
ATTACHMENT 2
Local Assistance Procedures Manual Exhibit 10-K
Consultant Annual Certification of Indirect Costs and Financial Management System

March 2018
EXHIBIT10-K CONSULTANTANNUALCERTIFICATION OF

INDIRECTCOSTS AND FINANCIALMANAGEMENTSYSTEM
(Note: If a Safe Harbor Indirect Cost Rate is approved, this form is not required.) Consultant’s Full Legal Name:

Important: Consultant means the individual or consultant providing engineering and design related services as a party of a contract with a recipient or sub-recipient of Federal assistance. Therefore, the Indirect Cost Rate(s) shall not be combined with its parent company or subsidiaries.

Indirect Cost Rate:

Combined Rate % OR
Home Office Rate % and Field Office Rate (if applicable) % Facilities Capital Cost of Money % (if applicable)
Fiscal period *
* Fiscal period is annual one year applicable accounting period that the Indirect Cost Rate was developed (not the contract period). The Indirect Cost Rate is based on the consultant’s one-year applicable accounting period for which financial statements are regularly prepared by the consultant.

I have reviewed the proposal to establish an Indirect Cost Rate(s) for the fiscal period as specified above and have determined to the best of my knowledge and belief that:

All costs included in the cost proposal to establish the indirect cost rate(s) are allowable in accordance with the cost principles of the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 48, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Chapter 1, Part 31 (48 CFR Part 31); The cost proposal does not include any costs which are expressly unallowable under the cost principles of 48 CFR Part 31;
The accounting treatment and billing of prevailing wage delta costs are consistent with our prevailing wage policy as either direct labor, indirect costs, or other direct costs on all federallyfunded A&E Consultant Contracts.

All known material transactions or events that have occurred subsequent to year-end affecting the consultant’s ownership, organization, and indirect cost rates have been disclosed as of the date of this certification.

I am providing the required and applicable documents as instructed on Exhibit 10-A.

Financial Management System:

Our labor charging, job costing, and accounting systems meet the standards for financial reporting, accounting records, and internal control adequate to demonstrate that costs claimed have been incurred, appropriately accounted for, are allocable to the contract, and comply with the federal requirements as set forth in Title 23 United States Code (U.S.C.) Section 112(b)(2); 48 CFR Part 31.201-2(d); 23 CFR, Chapter 1, Part 172.11(a)(2); and all applicable state and federal rules and regulations.

Our financial management system has the following attributes:

Account numbers identifying allowable direct, indirect, and unallowable cost accounts; Ability to accumulate and segregate allowable direct, indirect, and unallowable costs into separate cost ATTACHMENT 2
Local Assistance Procedures Manual Exhibit 10-K
Consultant Annual Certification of Indirect Costs and Financial Management System

March 2018
accounts;
Ability to accumulate and segregate allowable direct costs by project, contract and type of cost; Internal controls to maintain integrity of financial management system; Ability to account and record costs consistently and to ensure costs billed are in compliance with FAR; Ability to ensure and demonstrate costs billed reconcile to general ledgers and job costing system; and Ability to ensure costs are in compliance with contract terms and federal and state requirement Cost Reimbursements on Contracts:

I also understand that failure to comply with 48 CFR Part 16.301-3 or knowingly charge unallowable costs to Federal-Aid Highway Program (FAHP) contracts may result in possible penalties and sanctions as provided by the following:

Sanctions and Penalties - 23 CFR Part 172.11(c)(4)
False Claims Act - Title 31 U.S.C. Sections 3729-3733
Statements or entries generally - Title 18 U.S.C. Section 1001 Major Fraud Act - Title 18 U.S.C. Section 1031
All A&E Contract Information:

Total participation amount $___________________ on all State and FAHP contracts for Architectural & Engineering services that the consultant received in the last three fiscal periods.

The number of states in which the consultant does business is .

Years of consultant’s experience with 48 CFR Part 31 is .

Audit history of the consultant’s current and prior years (if applicable) I, the undersigned, certify all of the above to the best of my knowledge and belief and that I have reviewed the Indirect Cost Rate Schedule to determine that any costs which are expressly unallowable under the Federal cost principles have been removed and comply with Title 23 U.S.C. Section 112(b)(2), 48 CFR Part 31, 23 CFR Part 172, and all applicable state and federal rules and regulations. I also certify that I understand that all documentation of compliance must be retained by the consultant. I hereby acknowledge that costs that are noncompliant with the federal and state requirements are not eligible for reimbursement and must be returned to Caltrans.

Name**: _ Title**:

Signature:

Email**:

Date of Certification (mm/dd/yyyy):

Phone Number**:
**An individual executive or financial officer of the consultant’s or subconsultant’s organization at a level no lower than a Vice President, a Chief Financial Officer, or equivalent, who has authority to represent the financial information used to establish the indirect cost rate.

Note: Both prime and subconsultants as parties of a contract must complete their own Exhibit 10-K forms.

Caltrans will not process local agency’s invoices until a complete Exhibit 10-K form is accepted and approved by Caltrans Audits and Investigations.

Distribution: 1) Original - Local Agency Project File
2) Copy - Consultant
3) Copy - Caltrans Audits and Investigations
Cognizant ICR Audit Local Gov’t ICR Audit Caltrans ICR Audit CPA ICR Audit Federal Gov’t ICR Audit
07/11/2022
ATTACHMENT 2
ATTACHMENT 2
City of Manteca | TRTP86020.2022 16

3. Project Schedule
Establishing a reasonable schedule at the project’s beginning will lead to the highest potential for success. Schedule control begins with the preparation of a detailed schedule that includes milestone completion dates for specific tasks and the overall project. We will also develop a work plan that allocates staff-hour commitments by individual or classification for each task. Twice monthly, our system generates a Project Effort Report showing actual effort expended by task. This internal control allows us to make, on a timely basis, any adjustments that may be necessary to maintain the project’s schedule and stay within the budget. These tools enable us to control budgets and will keep city informed of the financial status of the project.

4. Quality Control Methods, Budget and Schedule Control Quality Control/Quality Assurance
As a recognized firm, Kimley-Horn has developed solid project management methodology founded upon our commitment to high-quality deliverables.

We see ourselves as an extension of your staff and place tremendous emphasis on developing and maintaining clear, continuous communication throughout a project to maintain high standards of quality from the inception of a task through completion. Quality starts with an experienced team of specialists who have learned where potential risks are and know how to implement effective Quality Management System (QMS) procedures. Key components of quality control during the planning process are field visits and site knowledge, understanding of regulatory and funding requirements, and technical knowledge.

Cost and Schedule Control
Kimley-Horn knows how important cost control is to federally funded projects and is well-suited to manage and administer your project. We are prepared to commit the necessary resources for successful implementation. Moreover, we also have the tools that tell us exactly how and when to implement these resources. While this can be perceived as an internal issue to Kimley-Horn, the tools we use to manage and administer a project are for the clients’ benefit, because a firm basis is established for on-time, within-budget delivery of all services. Cost and schedule are extremely important to Kimley-Horn, and our resources will allow us to meet the goals established for your project.

Budgeting Methodology
We recognize that budget control is critical to the success of your project. Budget control is inherently tied to people—their experiences, vision, management styles, and philosophies all affect significant components of a project approach and its execution. One of the important budget control mechanisms will be the team’s previous experiences and lessons learned. Identifying realistic goals, developing a focused action plan that addresses only those items necessary to accomplish the goals, anticipating the implications of decisions made in early phases to future phases, and preparing a mechanism for addressing unexpected challenges are important in establishing cost control. They build the framework for completing a successful project within budget. To assist our project managers in efficient administration of projects, Kimley-Horn maintains a detailed, integrated management information system (MIS). This system, designed primarily to focus on schedule adherence and cost control, has proved to be a valuable tool. We understand that the largest costs to our clients are those related to construction of projects, so we work hard to prepare thorough plans and specifications that accurately and completely define the project requirements. We then break down the project into discreet pay items with specific descriptions of what is included in them to avoid misunderstandings by the contractor during bidding and construction. We then carefully monitor the contractors’ progress during construction and assist them in interpreting the contract requirements whenever a question arises. We can also review proposals from the contractor to modify elements of construction that offer cost or schedule benefits to the client.

ATTACHMENT 2