Justification for Utilizing a Piggyback/Cooperative Contract December 1, 2023
Pi
ggyback or Lead Agency: __City of Pacifica____________________________________________ Contract No./Description: September 8, 2020, Stakeholder Engagement Plan Vendor(s) Name(s): Kearns and West
Per Chapter 2.52 of the Municipal Code of the City of Richmond, w e have reviewed and completed due diligence on the aforementioned piggyback /cooperative contract. As part of the due diligence review, we have confirmed that the contract complies with our procurement rules and practices. We have further confirmed that all purchases will comply with the terms and prices in the contract. It has been determined that it is in the best interests of the City to utilize this contract for the reasons cited below:
Item Issue Comments
1 Is there a Piggyback Purchase Agreement allowing use of the contract? If “Yes”, please attach to this form.
Yes.
2. Are there local suppliers or contractors who could provide the product or service at competitive rates?
Yes.
3. A copy of the solicitation has been obtained from the originating agency and reviewed for compliance with the City’s purchasing ordinance. Please attach to this form.
Yes.
4. A written documentation has been made of a thorough investigation of the current market and determination that the originating agency's' solicitation is the most advantageous Yes. Rates attached.
5. Does the cooperative contract provide the most advantageous solution? Why?
Factors may include advantageous terms, conditions, prices, quality, performance, timing, experience & ability to perform etc.
Yes.
The City requires a Consultant
capable of providing public outreach
for a sensitive project. The City of
Pacifica has a similar project with the
Beach Blvd Restoration Resiliency
Project.
6. The specifications of the item or service required by the City are not materially different from those originally specified in the originating agency's solicitation
No, they are not materially different
Both the City of Pacifica and the City
Richmond projects are in sensitive
areas, and would/will require public
outreach and meetings with skilled
moderators.
7. The price of the purchase is lower than that estimated for the purchase if made directly by the City pursuant to the purchasing ordinance
No. The rates are not lower
compared to the City of Pacifica.
8. The price of the purchase is within fifteen percent (15%) or $2,500 of the originating agency’s solicitation
Yes. The consultant’s rates are
comparable to the rates for
Richmond.
9. The contract resulting from the original solicitation is current or the solicitation is within thirty-six (36) months from the date of the City’s order, or written justification is provided justifying use of an older solicitation
The Pacifica project was a multi-year effort
requiring extensive public outreach, similar to the
Keller Beach Sanitary Sewer Project. While the
Pacifica procurement occurred more than three
years ago, Kearns & West’s ongoing work in
similar projects provides a relevant cost
benchmark. Additionally, consultant fees typically
increase annually due to inflation and market
conditions, so referencing established pricing from
an active engagement aligns with the intent of
using a current project for comparison.
2/13/2025
CITY OF PACIFICA
COUNTY OF SAN MATEO
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. PROJECT AREA ........................................................................................................................ 1
2. PURPOSE ................................................................................................................................... 1
3. DEADLINE FOR SUBMITTING RFP RESPONSE ................................................................. 2
4. CONTACT PERSON(S) ............................................................................................................ 3
5. INSTRUCTIONS TO PROPOSER ............................................................................................ 3
6. PROPOSED RFP TIMELINE .................................................................................................... 4
7. INFORMATION TO BE SUBMITTED .................................................................................... 5
8. AGREEMENT TYPE AND METHOD OF PAYMENT ........................................................... 6
9. REVIEW AND SELECTION PROCESS .................................................................................. 7
10. ORAL INTERVIEWS ................................................................................................................ 7
11. PUBLIC NATURE OF PROPOSAL MATERIAL .................................................................... 7
12. SCOPE OF WORK ..................................................................................................................... 9 PHASE 1- PRELIMINARY PLANNING & FEASABILITY ...................................................... 9 PHASE 2 - DESIGN, ENGINEERING & ENVIRONMENTAL (OPTIONAL) ...................... 14 ATTACHMENT 1- SAMPLE AGREEMENT FOR CONSULTANT SERVICES ............................ 18
REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS
BEACH BOULEVARD SEAWALL REPLACEMENT PROJECT
1 REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS (“RFP”)
CITY OF PACIFICA
BEACH BOULEVARD SEAWALL REPLACEMENT PROJECT
1. PROJECT
The City of Pacifica is seeking seeking professional services to perform a comprehensive feasibility study with optional post-feasability design & engineering on the Beach Boulevard Seawall and Promenande. The Project area is located in northern Pacifica, in the West Sharp Park distict, running parralel with Beach Boulevard just west of the Palmetto Shopping District. The project entails assessing the entire span of the current seawall which includes three different structures; the north wall, the pier sheet pile wall, and the south wall. The project location can be more particularly seen in the below aerial below:
2. PURPOSE
The purpose of the Beach Boulevard Seawall Replacement Project (Project) is to ensure public health and safety in the general vicinity of Beach Boulevard including the West Sharp Park neighborhood. The West Sharp Park neighborhood is considered the downtown area of Pacifica and is home to a thriving community that includes a school, library, shopping district, golf course and City Hall.
Continued seawall failure along the northern portion of the seawall has been
REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS
BEACH BOULEVARD SEAWALL REPLACEMENT PROJECT
2 recorded since the wall’s construction in 1984-85. Waves crash over the seawall onto the road several times a year creating a hazardous area for the general public and causes road closures along the northern portion of Beach Boulevard. This project aims to assess the need and feasibility of reconstruction of both the northern and southern section of the Beach Boulevard seawall and promenade along with the pier sheet pile system.
The City seeks competitive proposals for planning, engineering, and environmental services for the Project. The proposal will be for the Feasibility Study phase with a City optional extension for Design & Permitting services.
3. DEADLINE FOR SUBMITTING RFP RESPONSE
Interested proposers responding to this RFP shall submit one (1) original, three (3) paper copies, and one (1) digital copy of their RFP response.
All RFP responses shall be clearly marked “PLANNING, ENGINEERING, & ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES FOR BEACH BOULEVARD
SEAWALL REPLACEMENT PROJECT” and shall be delivered no later than 5:00 pm on Tuesday, March 31, 2020 to:
City of Pacifica
ATTN: Ryan Marquez, Associate Civil Engineer
170 Santa Maria Avenue
Pacifica, CA 94044
ANY LATE RFP RESPONSES WILL BE SUBJECT TO OUTRIGHT
REJECTION
REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS
BEACH BOULEVARD SEAWALL REPLACEMENT PROJECT
3 4. CONTACT PERSON(S)
Technical questions or comments concerning this RFP may be directed to the following individual:
Ryan Marquez, Associate Civil Engineer
Office Phone: (650) 738-3769
Email: [email protected]
5. INSTRUCTIONS TO PROPOSER
5.1 Examination of Proposal Documents
The submission of a proposal shall be deemed a representation and certification by the Proposer that they:
5.1.1 Have carefully read and fully understand the information herein provided by the City to serve as the basis for submission of their proposal.
5.1.2 Have the capability and qualifications to successfully undertake and complete the responsibilities and obligations of the proposal being submitted.
5.1.3 Represent that all information contained in their proposal is true and correct.
5.1.3 Acknowledge that the City has the right to make any inquiry it deems appropriate to substantiate or supplement information supplied by Proposer and Proposer hereby grants the City permission to make these inquiries, and will provide any and all related documentation in a timely manner.
While there is no mandatory site visit, it is highly encouraged to understand the complexities and constraints of the project area. No request for modification of the proposal shall be considered after its submission on grounds that Proposer was not fully informed to any fact or condition.
5.2 Addenda/Clarifications
Should discrepancies or omissions be found in this RFP or should there be a need to clarify this RFP, questions or comments regarding this RFP must be put in writing and received by the City no later than 5:00 p.m. Wednesday, March 18, 2020.
Correspondence shall be addressed to: Ryan Marquez, Associate Civil Engineer, 170 Santa Maria Avenue, Pacifica, CA 94044 or emailed to [email protected].
Responses from the City will be posted on the City website with the RFP document or can be requested by emailing the contact person. Inquiries received after the date and time stated will not be accepted and will be returned to senders without a response. All addenda shall become a part of this RFP and shall be acknowledged on the Proposer’s Form.
REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS
BEACH BOULEVARD SEAWALL REPLACEMENT PROJECT
4 The City shall not be responsible for nor be bound by any oral instructions, interpretations or explanations issued by the City or its representatives.
5.3 Withdrawal of Proposals
Proposer may withdraw its proposal at any time before the deadline for submission of proposals as provided in the RFP by delivering a written request for withdrawal signed by, or on behalf of, the Proposer.
5.4 Rights of the City of Pacifica
This RFP does not commit the City to enter in a contract, nor does it obligate the City to pay for any costs incurred in preparation and submission of proposals or in anticipation of a contract. The City reserves the right to:
• Make the selection based on its sole discretion;
• Reject any and all proposals;
• Issue subsequent Requests for Proposals;
• Postpone opening for its own convenience;
• Remedy technical errors in the Request for Proposals process; • Approve or disapprove the use of particular sub consultants; • Negotiate with any, all or none of the Proposers;
• Accept other than the lowest offer;
• Waive informalities and irregularities in the Proposals; and/or • Enter into an agreement with another Proposer in the event the originally selected Proposer defaults or fails to execute an agreement with the City.
6. PROPOSED RFP TIMELINE
The RFP Timeline is as follows:
Begin RFP Process February 6, 2020
RFP Advertisement Period February 6-March 31, 2020
at 5:00 PM
Deadline to Submit Questions Related to the RFP March 18 at 5:00 PM Deadline for Submittal of Proposals March 31 at 5:00 PM Review by City Staff April 1 –April 17, 2020
Interview Top 2 or 3 Proposers April 27- April 30, 2020 Notify Selected Consultant May 4, 2020
Negotiate Contract May 4- May 15, 2020
REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS
BEACH BOULEVARD SEAWALL REPLACEMENT PROJECT
5 City Council Approval May 26, 2020
7. INFORMATION TO BE SUBMITTED
These instructions outline the guidelines governing the format and content of the proposal and the approach to be used in its development and presentation. The intent of the RFP is to encourage responses that clearly communicate the Proposer’s understanding of the City’s requirements and its approach to successfully provide the products and/or services on time and within budget. Only that information which is essential to an understanding and evaluation of the proposal should be submitted.
Items not specifically and explicitly related to the RFP and proposal, e.g. brochures, marketing material, etc. will not be considered in the evaluation.
The Proposer shall complete and furnish the following items with their proposals:
7.1 Proposal Overview & Summary
This section/paragraph shall clearly convey the Proposer’s understanding of the work and project approach. Proposer should address the overall approach to the project, the reports and deliverables that are to be presented, and a work plan that outlines Proposer’s approach and methodology. Should the proposer have additional proposed scope they feel would be beneficial to the project, they are encouraged to submit this in addition to what is listed in this RFP.
7.2 Project Schedule
Include a table or written description indicating the anticipated duration and start and completion dates for tasks.
7.3 Cost Proposal
The Consultant shall provide an estimate of the required personnel hours by task and job title per proposed schedule in a separate sealed envelope. This hourly rate shall include labor, reporting, travel, technical supervision, equipment, taxes, insurance, and all other incidental charges. There should be separate hourly rate and mileage charged for travel time.
7.4 Consultant Qualifications
Experience: Provide a general overview of the Consultant’s experience at design and environmental documentation services that relate to this project. Please provide name and contact information for the owner or reference of related project submitted with this section.
Project Team: Describe the Consultant’s Project Team. Include the key individuals, including sub consultants that will actually be responsible for the project’s technical activities and for management of the project. Include a percent-time availability table for the project manager and key staff. An organization chart should be provided showing the inter-relation of all the project team members, both City and Consultants.
REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS
BEACH BOULEVARD SEAWALL REPLACEMENT PROJECT
6 References: Provide at least three (3) references for the key individuals on the project team that include reference name, title, organization, phone number and email. For each reference, provide the name of the client and a short description of the project, and describe the role and activities of the individual on that project. The selection team will be focusing on project performance and will be requesting input as to conformance with schedules and budgets.
7.5 Contractor Billing Rates
PLEASE NOTE: The City of Pacifica does not pay for services before it receives them. Therefore, do not propose contract terms that call for upfront payments or deposits. Please provide straight-time hourly billing rates for each individual on the project team, hour billing rates for any sub consultants, list of proposed expenses for outside services or vendors and a breakdown of anticipated incidental expenses, as well as any mark-ups.
8. AGREEMENT TYPE AND METHOD OF PAYMENT
It is anticipated that the agreement resulting from this solicitation if awarded will be a “time and not to exceed” contract.
Proposer shall be prepared to accept the terms and conditions of the Agreement, including Insurance Requirements in Exhibit 1 – Agreement for Consultant Services.
If a Proposer desires to take exceptions to the Agreement, Proposer shall include the following in their submittal package: