PROPOSAL FOR
Public Works Agency Cost Recovery Analysis
No. 24-051
Offered by:
Government Consulting Partners, Inc. (GCP)
April 23, 2024
EXHIBIT 2
Government Consulting Partners City of Santa Ana PW Proposal 2 City of Santa Ana, California April 23, 2024
Attn: Rudy Rosas
Deputy Public Works Director/City Engineer
20 Civic Center Plaza
Santa Ana, CA 92701
Dear Proposal Committee:
Government Consulting Partners, Inc. (GCP) is pleased to submit this proposal for a public works agency cost recovery analysis. Every aspect of our proposal revolves around our team. Our team is uniquely suited for this project. It was built for this project. No other team will be like it. “Our team” not only includes the four individuals below, but it also includes the city team who will participate in this effort. Without the dedicated city staff who are enthusiastically jumping in on this project, the effort would fail. We recognize this.
Project Team:
Our team includes:
J Bradley Wilkes
40 years of experience – Focused solely on the full cost analysis of local government.
Jeff Wakefield
30 years of experience – Focused solely on the full cost analysis of local government with an emphasis on development services.
Cindy Sconce
23 years of experience – Focused solely on the full cost analysis of local government with an emphasis on meeting state and federal requirements to recover those costs.
Bill Busath
30 years of engineering experience - with state and local government.
If our team is selected to partner with city staff on this important project, we look forward to putting our best effort into producing an outstanding study result.
Sincerely,
J Bradley Wilkes
J Bradley Wilkes
President
5016 Brower Ct
Granite Bay, CA 95746
Government Consulting Partners City of Santa Ana PW Proposal 3
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION PAGE
Cover Letter 2
Executive Summary 4
______________________________________________________________________
I. Services Provided 6
2. Agreement Statement 10
3. Firm and Team Experience 11
4. Proposed Work Plan 13
5. Cost Proposal 20
ATTACHMENTS:
A Certificate and Proposal Pricing
B References
C Proposer’s Statement
D Non-Collusion Affidavit
E Non-Lobbying Certification
F Non-Discrimination Certification
______________________________________________________________________
Government Consulting Partners City of Santa Ana PW Proposal 4
Executive Summary
cost recovery study has been a staple for California cities for the past 40 years, and typically, it is at this point in the proposal, we talk about the “art” and the “science” of the study. Because these studies operate in the world of allocation and indirect costs – which by definition are built on estimations - they do not reach a “CPA” level of accounting accuracy. They are more art than science. While this is true, too often consultants use this as an excuse to lower expectation for the study as a whole. In this proposal, GCP is throwing out this disclaimer. We are aiming for perfection, and we are confident we can get it.
There are two key reasons for this confidence:
First, the strength of our project team and second, our strategy to jump any hurdles and hit the project targets. The targets are very clear and the hurdles to hit those targets are not a mystery.
Project Team: The targets we need to hit for success, and the potential hurdles in front of us blocking those targets, can all be conquered through teamwork. Our project team includes:
Brad Wilkes. Brad has been working exclusively with local governments for the past 40 years.
He has built a number of successful consulting firms and has worked his way up from a front- line consultant to the highest levels of management for a number of national firms. Specific to this proposal, he has also participated in at least a dozen cost recovery projects for development-related services for the city of Santa Ana.
Jeff Wakefield. Jeff is one of the state’s most qualified cost analysts. His 30-year career has been focused on development-related services in city and county government. His comfort zone is in the world of building, planning, traffic, engineering, and all things development.
During his career, Jeff has also completed several cost recovery studies for the city of Santa Ana.
Cindy Sconce. Cindy’s 23-year career has also been focused on cost analysis of local government. While she and Jeff have somewhat parallel interests in the development functions of city government, she is one of only a few consultants in the state that pairs this experience with the second important step of a project like this – the actual experience in navigating the confusing and complex web of state and federal requirements that must be met to obtain reimbursement of many of those costs.
Bill Busath. Bill’s key role as a team member is a linchpin for the success of our effort. He will view this effort through the lens of a city staff member. Too often, as consultants to government, we make assumptions and plans based on our experience – just assuming these A
Government Consulting Partners City of Santa Ana PW Proposal 5 plans and assumptions fit the city we are working with. This fundamental error can be a nagging, sometimes unseen, fatal error. Bill’s assignment in this study is to navigate and guide our team through this hurdle. Bill ended his career in local government as the Director of Utilities in the city of Sacramento. He worked his way up from being a front-line Caltrans engineer and junior staff member in Sacramento, to working in the highest levels of city government. He brings an extensive resume to our team.
City Staff Members: It would be a huge oversight to minimize the effort and contribution of city staff in this effort. Without their knowledge, determination and enthusiasm, this project will fail. We look forward to working hand in hand with city staff, managers, and directors.
Project Targets: While the targets for success and the
hurdles in front of those targets are many, they can be summarized in five key areas:
Development related services in Santa Ana account for
almost $12 million of cost. This is our main target. The calculation and recovery of those costs. These services employ a number of costing and charging permit fee
charging mechanisms. These fees are designed to
address the unique nature of each permit. Many
services lend themselves to a fixed fee. These services are more often routine in nature, each similar to the next, and the effort by staff members can be estimated fairly accurately. These services are then charged using a fixed fee based on an assumed number of hours.
Fees charged on a variable basis – valuation, and square footage – represent several challenges not found when analyzing services charged by fixed fees. The complexity of valuation tables and the estimation of project size represent unique challenges – both positive and negative. The experience of our project team makes sense of this complexity and brings order to what can be a confusing process.
A third, very key target in Santa Ana public works, are services that are charged using hourly rates. When done correctly, this is the most accurate method of charging for services. But it is complex – because there are a hundred moving parts – and therefore, a daunting challenge for local governments to harness accurately. Because this is a methodology that many state and federal government reimbursing agencies require, it represents the biggest challenge for local governments to meet. Many give up and forfeit any chance of recovery for these related services.
Our project team understands the mechanics of doing these studies – fees based on fixed and variable fees, and the calculation of hourly rates. Notably, what sets our team apart is our experience in obtaining reimbursement of costs through each of these charging mechanisms.
It is not our goal, or the city’s goal, to employ a consultant year after year to manage this effort.
One important aspect of our work is to set a foundation of systems that define repeatable steps that city staff can follow to obtain long term reimbursement of city costs. $12 Million
Government Consulting Partners City of Santa Ana PW Proposal 6 -These are our targets, and the hurdles we need to jump to hit these targets are clear. Our team is confident and ready to go. The remaining sections of our proposal will examine in detail options, ideas, processes, and experiences we have developed over our careers. We are looking forward to combining these experiences with the ideas and experiences of city staff and managers as we explore the best practices found across the country.
Services Provided
overnment Consulting Partners (GCP ) is a firm focused on the analysis of the full cost of governmental services. This includes the development of federal 2CFR 200 and full cost allocation plans, indirect cost rates, the full cost of providing user fee and SB 90 claiming services and other related cost and revenue enhancement consulting services. The city’s RFP requested the following services:
I. Data collection, review of current fees, structure, and cost analysis.
Our GCP team has years of experience working in the city. We want to capitalize on this experience, while also, listening to staff and
understanding their goals and objective for the
project. This experience gives us a head start in
every aspect of what is outlined in the RFPs
scope of services. However, as we think
about the first few weeks of this study, we
know we will quickly realize we don’t know
everything. We will approach the kickoff
meeting and the interactions of our team
with city staff with this in mind. Using this
graphic as an example, we want to listen
first, act second. While our GCP team
certainly has preconceived ideas and
plans, we will not discount the input and
direction from the city team who have years of
actual real-life experiences with the services the
study is focused upon. We will take notes, share
ideas, then put all the ideas together and finalize a
plan of attack.
In parallel with these beginning meetings, in
the background, our team members will hit
the ground running and waste no time
learning or asking about what basic data is
needed and how to get it. We understand exactly
G
Government Consulting Partners City of Santa Ana PW Proposal 7 what data is needed and we can quickly match what is needed with how to find it. Brad and Jeff first began working with Santa Ana in the late 1990s and Brad has been involved with city projects on an annual basis since 2015. We understand the city organizational structure, we feel comfortable communicating with the city’s finance and administrative departments, and we know the pluses and minuses of city reports – such as those produced by the Lawson system and the centralized accounting systems. We know the citywide account structure and the budget unit codes of funds, departments, divisions, etc. We feel at home reading technical data and can quickly communicate with city staff using the same “language” as we gather the documents and reports that will be the foundation of our calculations.
Since this RFP has gone out, our team has spent hours online reviewing fee structures and noting areas of strength and areas that may be open for improvement. We will not only provide a cost analysis, but we will listen to staff about what is working well and what is not in terms of structure, management, process, etc. We look forward to talking about streamlining fee schedules, discussing pros and cons of valuation-based structures, square footage-based fee structures, and the convenience of fixed fee charges and balancing the accuracy vs. the administrative work required for accurate hourly rate charged fees.
The second step of this study is after the costs have been reviewed and calculated – how does the city recover these costs? Cost recovery can be made in a number of ways, including user fee charges, grant funding, state and federal reimbursement (SB 90, Caltrans, etc.) GCP team members have experience guiding city governments through each potential aspect of cost reimbursement. This effort of cost calculation and the corresponding reimbursement of those costs is multidimensional. Each avenue of potential reimbursement has its own requirements. How are indirect costs calculated and are these calculations supported by substantial backup, do they follow the unique guidelines of each reimbursement option? Our project team has prepared hundreds of citywide cost allocation plans (both full cost and federal/state (2 CFR Part 200) cost plans), departmental cost plans and our team has submitted and navigated more calculations to approving authorities than has any other team of four members in the state. This gives us confidence that this section of the study will be successful.
II. Billing Hours.
The operations and services that public works is responsible for span across fund and department lines. Each operation and service has a profile. This profile – what is done, who is the customer, who does the work, how long does it take, etc. – will drive how the cost is calculated and how it is then charged and reimbursed. This profile also drives the requirements that shape how costs are calculated. For many user fee services the state code provides direction, for example, it is generally accepted by California agencies that user fee charges cannot recover more than reasonable estimates of the cost to provide the service. This generally applies to most of the services we will review in the city. This RFP is different than most city user fee RFPs. The services included in this study have profiles that dramatically vary. Understanding each service and how it will be charged and recovered is key to success. This section of the RFP – hourly rates – points directly to the reimbursement of Caltrans funded projects. Understanding how to calculate and then get reimbursement of those project costs requires an in-depth understanding of Caltrans rules and requirements. A major part of those requirements is the correct development and use of hourly rates. Hourly rates calculated for the estimation of fixed fee-based user fees in the general fund – can be exactly that – estimates. For Caltrans reimbursements, they cannot. The foundation of solid
Government Consulting Partners City of Santa Ana PW Proposal 8 hourly rate calculations comes directly from time sheets and time keeping systems. These systems are more than the transactional effort of entering hours per project into time sheets. To have a defendable hour rate study, the following steps need to be built:
Starting with the end in mind – for a department in the city to recover maximum costs for services they provide – a process must be developed to track and then charge for each step that was taken to provide that service. This process, for many services provided by the city, is directly tied to how many hours each service is required. There are specific rules and requirements that dictate how these hours are tracked and then charged.
Through analysis and interviews, we will determine the number of annual billable hours each staff position can reasonably do. This will be dependent on the type of work each person is responsible for. Administrative, clerical, supervision related positions will have fewer billable hours than a front- line engineer or
inspector. Each
position will be
reviewed, and a
“target” number
of billable hours
will be
developed.
Once those
targets are
established, that
process must
merge with the
systems used by
the city to input
and then track
those hours.
Each month, the
system will
report back how the targets are begin met and adjustments can be made to fine tune those targets. At the end of 12 months, reliable data that meets Caltrans requirement will become the basis for the full cost recovery of Caltrans funded projects.
This is a key step - one that will drive the entire success of cost recovery for a major section of the city’s cost recovery goals. We are confident that we have technical skill to make these calculations and that we have the management skills to develop processes that define repeatable steps that city staff can follow to obtain long term reimbursement of city costs and coach and guide city staff through any challenges that may arise.
III. User Fees.
A dominant part of the study will be the review of the “traditional” development related user fee service provided by most California cities. The cost of these services are recovered by permit fees that may be fixed in nature – based on an average estimate of time and the full cost of that time – or recovered by a variable measure – based on size, either valuation or square footage. We are
Government Consulting Partners City of Santa Ana PW Proposal 9 looking forward to listening to city staff and learning from them what is working and what could be improved. We can bring examples from the hundreds of cities we have worked with and can help guide this discussion to something more than just a rudimentary calculation of cost.
The graphic below illustrates some of the innovative concepts our staff has developed:
BEST PRACTICES – PERMITTING AND FEE CHARGING
METHODOLOGIES DEVELOPED BY GCP TEAM MEMBERS
Government Consulting Partners City of Santa Ana PW Proposal 10 IV. Findings.
GCP is committed to accomplishing all the reporting and presentations listed as, a – i, in this section of the RFP. Our reports will be pointed toward both a technical audience (Caltrans reviewers and accountants) and to policy and decision makers. Our team is skilled and enjoys the opportunity to share and explain, both in detail and at a high level, our work. Our team is designed for opportunities like this. A summary of the strength or our team is illustrated below:
Agreement Statement
GCP concurs with the provisions outlined in the city’s Sample Agreement.
Government Consulting Partners City of Santa Ana PW Proposal 11
FIRM AND TEAM EXPERIENCE
overnment Consulting Partners (GCP ) offers a team handpicked to address the challenges of California local government. Our firm consists of four professionals, all top in their fields.
We are based in the Sacramento area, but our work has always been dominated by southern California cities and counties. We move seamlessly up and down the state. The city will find that the ease of working together will make it look like our office is next door!
Each member of our team could conduct all phases of this project, so it has been difficult to make the traditional assignments or project work by team member. Instead, we would like to slot each team member into focus groups, knowing that we will slide in and out of all phases of the work. Our graphic below shows these focus groups:
We are pleased to introduce the best-selling point of our “firm” – our people.
G
Government Consulting Partners City of Santa Ana PW Proposal 12 J Bradley Wilkes
40 years of experience – Focused solely on the full cost analysis of local government. • Founder and President of Government Consulting Partners (GCP) • Senior Manager working with MGT Consulting
• Founder and President of Public Resource Management Group (PRM) • Division President of Maximus
• Executive Vice President with David Griffith and Assoc. (DMG)
Brad started his career in local government consulting in 1982. He was trained in the preparation of county cost allocation plans and state mandated cost claiming. This set a foundation of understanding the strict requirements of recovering indirect and direct costs from reimbursing federal and state agencies. Later, when city governments began to use the same tools to calculate costs and seek reimbursement via the same agencies and through user fee charges, Brad moved quickly into city consulting as well. During his career, Brad rose to the top levels of corporate management with a number of different national consulting firms – all focused on managing the reimbursement of the full cost of local government services. He has also founded two regional boutique consulting firms, again, focused on local government management of cost and revenue.
Jeff Wakefield
30 years of experience – Focused solely on the full cost analysis of local government with a focus on development services.
• Senior Member of the Government Consulting Partners
• Senior Manager with MGT Consulting
• Senior Manager with Wilden Consulting Group
• Project Manager with Maximus
• Senior consultant with David Griffith and Associates (DMG) • Consultant with Vertex consulting
Jeff and Brad have worked together several times over their careers. Jeff is a leading expert in the state as it related to user fee services in the develop areas. He has completed hundreds of building, planning, engineering, traffic, CIP and other development related studies focused on the calculation of the full cost of services and the best ways to recover those costs. Jeff has worked for cities as large as San Diego and Sacramento and as small as Laguna Hills.
Bill Busath
30 years of engineering experience with state and local government. • Senior member of Government Consulting Partners
• Director of Utilities – City of Sacramento
• Registered Civil Engineer – City of Sacramento
• Junior engineer with CalTrans
Bill brings our team a specific skill no other consulting firm has – 30 years of experience in state and city government. Working his way from a front-line engineer to the highest levels of city government, Bill’s experience brings a unique skill set to this project.
Government Consulting Partners City of Santa Ana PW Proposal 13 Cindy Sconce
• Senior Member of the Government Consulting Partners
• Senior Manager with MGT Consulting
• Senior Manager with Nimbus Consulting Group
• Principal Consultant with Maximus
• Manager with Centration
Cindy has recently joined GCP and brings a much-needed skill set to our team. In addition to her vast user fee experience working with cities and counties – both large and small – she brings hands on experience completing hourly billing rate studies, then guiding the calculations through the approval process at Caltrans. Her experience will be vital to the success of this project.
To explore a complete list resumes, projects and clients by team member please follow the links below:
GCP Experience
Proposed Work Plan
I. Approach.
he GCP approach is designed to provide the City with a solid foundation of innovative, yet functional user fee practices, processes and fees. Because we don’t assume we know it all, this foundation will be built upon methodologies the city has developed over the past number of years married with best practice options that, after consulting with City representatives, clearly fit the needs of Santa Ana.
We respect the efforts of the staff, consultants and Council who developed the existing master fee schedule and accompanying fee structures and policies. GCP only recommends changes that accomplish one of several things:
• Increase fee equity across the spectrum of applicants. • Increase user-friendliness for customers.
• Eliminate a conflict with State or Federal law.
• Further policy goals of the City.
T
Government Consulting Partners City of Santa Ana PW Proposal 14 During interviews, GCP solicits opinions from Santa Ana’s staff regarding areas where the master fee schedule could be improved. These ideas often stem from complaints and feedback received at the front counter or over the phone. This is invaluable feedback that could improve customer experience and increase overall equity of the fee schedule.
WORKPLAN
The following work plan illustrates our step-by-step process and can be adjusted to meet the City’s specific needs once the contract is signed and the project starts.
Step one: Kickoff Meetings & Data Gathering Meetings:
1) Meet with the City management team and department heads to introduce study. Confirm City’s overall project lead. Confirm communication protocols.
2) Obtain budgets, staffing information, adopted fee policies, etc. to begin the project.
3) Initial meetings with individual departments:
▪ Explain the fee study process and goals.
▪ Review the department’s fee schedule and solicit feedback for improvement.
▪ Provide copies of regional best practice fee schedules ▪ Hear from staff any specific issues or challenges GCP should be aware of regarding their department.
4. Data gathering meetings: Conduct on-site or virtual meetings with each department under study. Strive to obtain 90% of time requirement data from these meetings to minimize staff homework assignments.
1) Identify personnel (within and outside the department) typically involved with each fee service and work with staff to develop reasonable time estimates.
2) Discuss ground rules and assumptions for time estimates. E.g., include driving time? Include required re-checks?
3) Discuss any proposed fee structure changes. These can stem from frequent customer complaints, City staff’s observations or best practice knowledge of the consultant.
4) Identify any significant materials costs (e.g. water meters) or contractor costs.
5) Request activity reports indicating how many times each fee was charged in the last fiscal year.
6) Discuss how time estimates for any fee services not covered during the meeting will be obtained.
Government Consulting Partners City of Santa Ana PW Proposal 15 Step two: Execute - Begin Cost Analysis:
1) Input data received from the data gathering meetings into GCP software.
2) GCP reviews for completeness and issues a request for any missing data.
3) Review overhead rate calculations and fully burdened hourly rate calculations with City representatives.
COST ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY
GCP employs three methods of analyzing costs for user fee study engagements: per-unit analysis, case-study analysis, and programmatic analysis. The particular method we use depends on available data, City’s goals and objectives and other considerations. Each method is designed to calculate estimated reasonable costs in compliance with the California State constitution. Each method incorporates the five elements of eligible cost as described below.
Per-unit analysis method – this is our primary method of user fee cost analysis. We interview the city’s subject matter experts to determine the average reasonable time required to complete each fee-related service. Time estimates are then applied against fully burdened hourly rates to produce full cost results. Fully burdened hourly rates incorporate all of the cost elements described above.
Cost Element Description
Direct Labor Costs
Salary and benefit costs of staff directly involved with service provision. Direct contractor costs.
Direct Materials Costs
Material costs that benefit a particular fee service.
Example: public noticing costs for planning entitlements.
Department/Divison Indirect Costs
Administrative staff (managers, clerical, analysts) within a department/division and line-item expenditures not
specific to one fee service.
Citywide Overhead
Central support department budgets (HR, Attorney,
Finance, etc.) are allocated to direct service departments based on auditable metrics.
Cross Support Costs
Instances where two or more departments contribute
direct labor for a particular fee service. Best practice is to consolidate these efforts rather than create two separate fees. Example: Attorney review of a specific plan
application.
Government Consulting Partners City of Santa Ana PW Proposal 16 We can use actual time records in place of time estimates if a city employs a time-tracking system.
We first review the data to determine if it is reliable enough for fee calculation purposes. We have found that time-tracked data often includes anomalous results caused by human error. If we can extract these anomalous results, this provides an excellent base for cost calculations. If the data is deemed insufficient in accordance with State guidelines, it still may be useful to spot check staff time estimates on a case-by-case basis, providing a higher comfort level for the city’s decision makers.
Case-study analysis method – some user fees aren’t easily analyzed via the per-unit analysis method described above. For example, Santa Ana currently charges a fee of $1.75 per square foot for Sidewalk Inspections. However, your staff likely don’t know how much time it takes to inspect only one square foot of newly constructed or repaired sidewalk. To overcome this, we work with your staff to identify: a) the typical project type/square footage for your city and 2) the reasonable time required to inspect a sidewalk project of this scope and size. Together, we can assess whether the current fee of $1.75 is too high or too low and the proper adjustment required to achieve full cost recovery. The results can then be extrapolated if decision-makers determine that a tiered structure is preferable due to economies of scale.
Programmatic analysis method – some fee services do not lend themselves to either a per-unit or case-study method of analysis. An example includes a daily swim fee within a recreation department. Staff cannot tell us how much time they spend on one swimmer. Another example includes a general plan maintenance fee. Staff cannot quantify how their General Plan and related elements benefits specific proposed developments. For the latter fee, we calculate annual long- range program costs by amortizing staff and consultant fees associated with each element. Next we divide these total program costs by the annual fee revenue the surcharge will be applied against to calculate the appropriate surcharge amount.
Share cost analysis with department contacts – Provide project status reports.
1) Incorporate new data received and email second draft results with backup calculations to each division/fee-area lead. Significant gaps between service costs and the fee currently charged are highlighted.
2) Review the second draft results with each division/fee-area lead. Incorporate in real- time any time adjustments received during the meeting.
3) Establish a firm window for any additional time revisions.
Government Consulting Partners City of Santa Ana PW Proposal 17 Step Three: Deliver Draft Cost Analysis Results:
1) GCP prepares a draft report that identifies the full cost of each service analyzed, the fee currently charged, the resulting subsidy and proposed fee adjustments. The report also addresses significant findings, concerns and opportunities that come to our attention throughout the course of the study.
2) A market survey comparing fees charged by neighboring jurisdictions is included.
3) The draft report is circulated to management and department staff for comments.
4) A review timeframe is negotiated with the City’s project lead. This timeframe or window must be sufficient for proper staff review while staying within the overall project timeline.
5) Comments and corrections are incorporated along with any findings discovered through the course of study.
6) The draft final report is issued.
Presentations and fee implementation
1) GCP works with City management to customize a fee implementation strategy that works best for the city. Typically, this involves an outreach meeting to interested members of the community and a presentation to a finance committee. These meetings ensure that the community has a voice in the fee schedule structures and policies.
Step Four: Finalize Results:
1) Working with City staff, GCP incorporates all appropriate feedback and finalizes the project results and recommendations.
2) Deliver Excel-based fee model to City staff. Train staff in how to update the model for future changes such as adding or deleting staff, updating expenditures, and adding or deleting fee categories. Our model also incorporates a simple feature for updating results based on a CPI adjustment factor.
2) Prepare for and schedule City Council and other presentations.
Government Consulting Partners City of Santa Ana PW Proposal 18 Provide the information Council needs proactively – having conducted hundreds of successful user fee studies, GCP consultants know the information Councils typically need to feel comfortable with proposed fee adjustments. Examples include:
• Relevant comparison data
GCP provides data on real-life projects reflecting
the City’s overall construction mix, rather than
randomly selected fees from each department’s
schedule.
• A cohesive subsidization strategy
Increasingly, councils expect to see an overall strategy with respect to fees receiving General Fund subsidy.
We work with department staff to organize these fees
into categories reflective of Council priorities.
• Stakeholder feedback
GCP develops presentations explaining study goals, methodology and any proposed changes that might affect the development community. The development community appreciates these opportunities to provide feedback prior to study finalization. GCP staff have conducted outreach presentations to local BIA chapters, chambers of commerce and tax advocate watchdog groups. In every case, developers are supportive if they feel they’re being treated fairly. We prepare City staff for questions such as “What do we get from this study? Is the City adding more staff? Will we see faster turn-around times?”
Deliverables, implementation plans and schedules are shown below.
Water Heater Permits Life Safety
Appeals Customer Access
Solar Energy Permits Sustainability
NSF Check fees State set limits
Youth Sports Access and Community
Benefit
Rationale for Subsidized Fee Recommendations
Government Consulting Partners City of Santa Ana PW Proposal 19
Government Consulting Partners City of Santa Ana PW Proposal 20
COST PROPOSAL
Our goal is to be the best qualified and lowest cost proposal. The proposal is as follows:
Fixed Bid: $109,000
Proposed Hours: 558
Proposed Hourly Rate: $195.00
Our hourly rate reflects our “no overhead” firm. Every member of our firm works directly on projects. Team member hourly rates are not burdened with unproductive overhead. We strongly believe this is a key point to our success.
The fixed fee includes all travel and related expenses.