!
"
#$
%&'()*+),-+./-.0(,0(10223.(4567/8+%9:
;<
"$
= >?@
<
A
BB;?
<
C
!@
=
D
B
<B
?B;
B
?
;
;
;?E
B
?
;
?
;
E
B
<
<
;=
?
F
;=
?
F
;=
?
;
D
?
G
?
?
<?
?
;
=
??
?
D
H
B!I;
=
D
B
<B
;
;
;
;?
E
B
?
;
?
;
E
B
<
=
??
?
D
?
B
J=
KAAA?LM
=
A
BB;N
<
H
!
O
B
<
B<
B
?B?
?
?
D
!
B
;
;H
<
<
<
<
HJB
O
F
B;J
$#?
$ ?
PHJH
H;
<
O
B
BQ
D
;
R ?
R ?
H
%S'T(.80+U+)10/V-.0(V,,.,-V(/)V(W+)V1X+0X)+-3
V/YT.,.-.0(X01./.),V/-08%Z[\5T+V:56]T,/6S\%^_`^abc
!
P
P!?"PHJH
H"d efgehi?
?
O
O
Q
B;
?B
?
Hj
;
O
;
;
<
?
<
;L
?N
PH
B!
<
D
?
O
;
?
P
O
B
;
<B
D
;
H=
?<
O
;?
B
?
G
B
?B;
O
"PHJH
H"d# H
!
"#
$#
!%&
'"(
)"
!
'
*
&
+
*
,
-
.*
/
012
.*
/
1
*
*
&
/
3
"(
)"0
3!
!
!4
*!0
!)
/-
5
3/
*
+3
*
/
-
/3/
+
3 &
-
"(
)"
6
!
*
,
,
,
-
/
*
3
+0
!
,
,
,
3
*
3
5
*
/
!
*
,
7-
0
*
*
,/
,
*
,
-
'
"(
)"0 "02
*
,
/3
3/
8
9:;<=>?=@ABCC=D>ADEF<=G>H<AI>=<H;?=D;<
J
0
*
,
/+
,
/
*
*
,0
KLMNONPQRSTUVWVUXRVYVZQRQYPVYX[Y\]QUNV^\XQYP\S\QU
UQ_[\UQRQYPN`abSUacdVeeQYX\fVg
0
-
2/
,h
'
/
&
-
)$0 +/
2h0
/
4
*
,
3
+,
/
*
3
,
)
)
,
/
+
3
+/
3
-
)
,
*
/
+,
*
0
-
/
*
,
!
""
#$
%
&
'
%
'
(%
%
)
*
+
,+
'
'
%
-%
.
/
(*
*&%
0
+1
%
(
%
*
!
%
2
(*
%
%
2
'
%
%
+
+1%
/
(*
%
%
2
3'
4%
-
%
+5(
'
(2
51
(
(3'
4%-
+
+6
)
*
0 +5%
*1
51!
)
%
*
%
2
'
(
+
(
%(
51-
%
0 ***+
+
2!+
+3'
%
'
51
'
%
%(
+
$+4%&
*
&
*&
)
#&(
0 +7
2
.
&*
5
&
2
&
-
(
8 (+
(
%8
+
.
8
+
9
.
8
+)
%&(
%(
*
(*
9)
%+
"+5(*
2
)+ +
#+5(
2
)+ +
:;<=>?@ABACA?D?DCEFCGEHHIJADJIDKLHADJEMENC>?DAN
EOLA=GEDCHL==MAEKBPC@EJ?QE>DGEDCR@AMEK>AQADJ
4S
2
T
$# $&UVWVXYZ[VYWVX\]^_`abVWcd^aefVghiV\\Ye^aej]^ZVkX^l^ae&*
(%
,/T(
T
(
&m
0
0
/
+
+
+
2 m
4m9"$+
!+
4S
2
T
)
7
2
9*
(
S
*
2
!
"#
#$
%
&
'
(
)
*
+
%
&%
+,
-
.%
/
&
(
.)
&
(
-
(
)
&
(
-
&
(
(
.
&
(
&
(
%
&
.&
0
%
(
+
1234567489:;<=>?@?4A<?:A5B5C=89D5C7E65:<?897:
FGCH41IJ?665:A9B?K
,+
L%&M/
(
+
+
)
%&+
+
%.+N
.
/
(
+
&
-
.
*
/
O$-P
%&
)P
.
P
.
+
&
!+
+
&
+
+
)P
.
P
.
%
%
+ +
&
Q &&&++
(+
+P
%&
-
&
&
%
&
+
P
/
-
%
&
R
(
%
- -
%
%
%.
S
%
$ - +!
$+
+T
%
%
%
Q &&&++
(
.+
%+
/
(
)P
+
+
%.&
+T
.
(
.
/
(
.
-U +
P
V
P
&
*
/
O$-
P +$W
+
.
-.
(
U
!X
.
(
P
%
!P
%Y
.-
P +$
%&!-
Z!O#--
(
P
%
!P
%Y
.-
P +$
%&!W-
+
%
(
%
/
(
$
!
#
!
!
"#
$%
&
'(
)%"
$*+&+
+,
!-,
!!
# "
.
/
),#+
0
-
*+&+&
1'(
2 333+
+
/ 3
(
+
+!
+
3
+4
(
/
0
0+ +
3
2 +
1
2 333+
+
/+
+51
3
3
3
-
1
+
+
&0
'(
/
+
+
013
+*
1
(
/
+
3
-
6
67
10
3-
1
0
8/
1
(
/
0
8
1 -9 +
0
8
1
-
0
/
9
!,
/
7
0
!7
0:
1-
7 +%
03!-
5!;$--
/
7
0
!-7
0:
1
03!<
+
0
/
0
(
/
%
!
$
!
&
'(
)%"
$*+&+
+,
!-,
!!
# "
.
/
),#+
0
-
*+&+&
1'(
2 333+
+
/ 3
(
+
+!
+
3
+4
0
(
/
0
+ +
3
2 +
+
+51
3
3
1
=
03+7
(
-03
0
1
>
0
/
1
+
+-0
3
>
0 % !-1
1
?
0
01@
/
0 %
1 +
!
"
#$
%&'
%
()
*
'+
)+
)
)
,$))+
'
-
.
%/01)
%
*
+
'
*
+
0
%
%2
%3
1
.
%3
+
3
+
#4%/%
%##
!
0+#4%/%
%##
!%
%5
63
+
1)
3
#.
%7
*
8
)1
/
)
*
)
(
0
9 %
0
+9
%
8
9)
*%
6
8
$%&'
*
)
)
+
+
%
"%/01.
%
*
+
0*
:
1
+
*
1
+
1
0
0
%
%
+
+
*
+
:
'
)
3%$$ !%
%01
+0
*
+
)
+
0
%
#%/0
63
+
3
+
.
%
*
01
+
!
19
%(
0
+
3
*
0+
01%
;%
*
0+
'
*
<
0
<
+
1
3=%"
!
!!%
>?#3"=#;)% $)@
ABCDEFGHGEIJEKHLMNEEOPGQJLERLMOEDDGSPJQTIUDEVWGDEKEIJ
JMGIXMDKEKHLMNEEQMXOPGQJLERLMOEDDGSPJQYQEHABZ[\
!
"#
$%
!
&
'
&
(
&)
)*
&
)
&
&
'
&
)
&
)
" +,-,
," )'
##
.
/
0
12
%
),3, 4%5!,
)!
&
'
&6
&
(
6
'
&
)
&
" +,-,
" ,
!
&
)
6
!6)&
)
7
8
,
"#
1$,%4
"#
1%,5#45!,
9:;<=>?<@ABC?DEF@@=<G<=HF@=I@?<=JA>A=B@AB@=C<A@KFBI
>=<D?<EFBJ=LF>>=BIAMMAANO9JD<>PQN9RRS
,T
8
U
7
'
'7
6
7
6
1
&
V
W 66
'
1
&6
'
'
-'
&X
-X!
7)
'
'
'
1
&
U
'U
-'
1UU-!!)
76
6
7
)
&
,
'
8
#
)3& 4" 6
" +,-,
,% %!,
8
)'
%
)3& 4 6
'
'
$6 6
V
7
&
8
1
6&)
)'7)
,
,
)
2 X
-)
8
)
Y
,U
&
&
6
7
6
1
T
7
Z
),
7
4'
Z
,U
&Y
!
7
6
$
&
Z
!7
)'
'
'
6 '6
)
6
6
W$6
Z
%!
7
6
$,
&
6
)''
'
!
"#
$%
&
&
'$(
)
(
(
*
' (+
"!&
(,(
,
-
!.
,
)
//
!(
!(
%!
0
+
!.
,
)&
0
1
0
&
+
!
2
0
)
0
)
0
/
%/
3
453&5
45
2
)
)
0
/6
)
0
&
,
&
&
,
45)
&
0
2
7
&
0
0
/
"/
7
2
&
8&
0 &
)9
2
0
(&
45
,
&
(
0
)
&
!
&
,
,
&
0
/
,
7
((
,
00
,
,
' ((
&&
)
(,(
,
/
$/8
7
0
-
/
,
:9
9
&
1
)&
//(4
3*
,
(
,;
(
4
,
;
!/
7
4
,
)
&
0
7
/.
(
,(
,
(
,
)
/
)/
,
(
0
(
9
,
)&&
9
(0
,
(
,
/
!
"
"#
$
%
&%
'
%
'
(
!)&
*
&*
++
,
!
%
-
*
+
'
%
&
-
$
./*0## '1&' "'
/"*02"/'$ #'3
4456789:;6<=79;8<>?>=<
!
@&$
!
A*
&
B
%
@
+
*
$
!C
'
D
'
'
%
@&
@&@
'
A
A
%
*$# /
&$
@!
D
$
!E
A*
%
@
'&
@
D
F@&
%
'
&
'
@G
%
+
*
$
!C
&
@
&
&+
'
B
&
@
'+
@&
%
%
G
'
&
%
@
*
&
+
'
+
!&
'
&@&
%
'
+'
++
@
%
D
$
#!E
%
@
&
'
@'
A
@
%
'+'
+
@
%
*
&
&@
%
@
$
!E
$
!E
A*
'
+'
+&
H)C+
&
A
&
+
*$ '
C
$
!
@
'
'
&'
'
$
@
&
*
)
+
&
!
"
"#
$
%&
'
(
($(
)
!
*
(($)+
,-
$
(
'
(($'
'
.
/#
- 0# 12
#")
!
'
%
)
-
3
%
4
,
,
(
'
%
%
4&
&
'
')
!5
)-
'
6 '
$(
%)-
7
.
$
$
(
-)##0&
+
&
(
- 0!)
89:;<=<<><?@<A?@?=B
!
($)
C
D
(
(
'(
'
%
$('
$
'
&
$&$
($
C
)
(!1
C)
-)# "
$
-
%&
'
-
6
'
(&
&
(
&
%
-
%%
E
'
&
&
(
&
%
-
)
!'($
C)
7
%$
(%
!'(
6 '
(
&
%
(
%&
%
,
$
'
%F
!
G
!
$
G
!
$&
&
$E
)
8H:IJKL?A?=?KMKMIJK>?;?MNOPM;Q=K=LRRMRSB
!
T
!54
&
'
&
'
'
'
$
$
(%
!
$%
'
$
1
2
'
'
$
%
!
"
"#
$
%
&
'
()
$
% *+#
$)
,
!
&
)
'$)
)
'
-.
$
$
/
0111
23
%4 "(
%
)
'
&
)
&
$)
+
$!
'
$
(
!
(
$)
&
&
&
&
5"()$
6
-
(
'
+
!
%
)
'
'
&
&
()
(
%
)
'$
)
7
8
$'
!
%
)
'$
)
'
&
&
&
$
&
'
'
')
&
'
&
&
'
)
$
%
&
'
+
9:;<==>?>@A<B<CCDEE?@FDC>G>DA?FDC@F=E
!1
'
7
7
H
H
'(
%
I
&
J
7
'
$)
7
'
(
&
(&$
&
&
(
'
'(
'
&
'
6
-
&
&
'
)
$
%
&
'
(
7
))
$'
3
3
$
3 K(
)$
6
-
6-
/2
L.!
+
$!
$
(
$!(
8
$
$)
&
&
&
&
5"()$
6
-
(
'
+
9M;GF@N>O>?>@A@ACDF?<>A?DBDC@PPQA>C<?>@A<A=R>=D@ EQFRD>BB<ACDEDFR>CDE@FDSQ>GPDA? %
)
$
&
7
)
!)
&
8
&
$
**K
K2
3
J
+
$
&
$('
8
(
'
(
&
&
8
&
+
!
"#
"#
$$$%&'()*+,'-+./+0'$-+'*$.*1+)-&)*&)2)*&+'*,1
)-&3.-&$+$.-1
4
5
465!78
9 888:
:
;
:
;
<<8<
<<
<
;
<
=
<< ><
;
<?
< ><:
=@
=@
A:
8
B
:
8
=@
=
8
@8
465
=
:
=
=
8
@8
=
B
B
@
C
:
=
@8
=
8
@
465D
=
E
:##F:##>:
4658
@
8
;
C
:
B4658
;
E
:
8
D
=@G
8
=
;
;
:
;
@
HIJIKLMNOKPJKLQIMRSKOTUURLQOTSVHMIWIMIKOMXK
=
;
;
465
:
!"
#
$%%&'((%))*((
+,-
./&$01
2
!/
3 4
'3
4'
55
,6(78(98%(%(*(78(98%(%%
0
!"
:
1
!
;
4:
412
:
<
=
!:
4:
&
4;
*$"!
!.
>/
?
?
3 =;
@
!
!
4
=!
!2
3 !44
=
!
.
A
;
B
=C &3
=?
D0
:1
!2
3
!
1
4
;
1
2 4
!!
3!
4;
1
!1
2
=
;
3(DEF4
/
!&2
?
!3;
1
! !
3
!!:
4
$"!$2
?
.
A
;
$2
?
!
C
33C
G
:
H
:$
&
?
!
;
3
3!:
34
.
A
;
>
I
D0
1J
4
;
>
!
!/
3 4
'
K11
C &3
$2
!
!
A
C &3
=5
3
!$
3
!
/
3 4
'3
4D0
'J
!
3:
!
2 1
!
!:;
!:
3
44
=22
4
!
3
3 4
3 44
=:G 1
!4
3 ?
!:
!3
;
4
=.
>/
!
H
$
&3
=D
3 99
City Council Agenda Report
Agenda Item No. 9.e.
DATE: May 24, 2022
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
APPROVED BY: Rachel Barbosa, City Manager
SUBMITTED BY: Colby Cataldi, Community Development Director SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION NO. 22- 37, AWARDING A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT
(PSA) TO KIMLEY-HORN AND ASSOCIATES, INC. FOR
PLANNING & ENGINEERING SERVICES FOR THE
PREPARATION OF A LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN
(LRSP)
SUMMARY: Staff seeks City Council approval to award a Professional Services Agreement (PSA) to Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc., as the lowest responsive and responsible bidder to provide Planning & Engineering Services for the Preparation of a Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP).
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff recommends City Council adopt Resolution No. 22- 37, awarding a professional services agreement to Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. for Planning & Engineering Services for the Preparation of a Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP) in the amount of $39,976.88.
FISCAL IMPACT: The total cost for preparation of the LRSP, including project management, will be covered by the State Grant Funds in the amount of $40,000 with a local match required in the amount of $4,445, for a combined total project budget of $44,445. Local match will be funded through Measure R funds. Funds to be budgeted in the Fiscal Year 2022-23 budget.
DISCUSSION: On December 22, 2020, the City submitted the LRSP grant funding request to the State. In December 2021, the City received the approved allocation letter from Caltrans, approving the funds in the amount of $44,445 for the project, including $4,445 local match requirement.
The LRSP will identify and analyze roadway safety concerns, resulting in recommendations for potential roadway safety improvements to reduce or eliminate safety issues identified by the plan. Furthermore, the LRSP enables the City to apply for grant funding through the Highway State Safety Improvement Program, which has
become a requirement of the grant this year. The LRSP will be prepared in conformance with Federal and State standards.
On April 26, 2022, the City Council authorized staff to issue a Request for Proposals (RFP) for Planning & Engineering Services for the Preparation of a Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP).
On April 28, 2022, the City issued a Request for Proposal (RFP) for Planning & Engineering Services for the Preparation of a Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP) with a proposal due date of May 18, 2022. Two (2) firms submitted proposals: Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. and KOA Corporation. The proposals were evaluated based on the established criteria identified in the RFP including compliance with the RFP requirements, proposal quality, project understanding, approach, methodology including responsiveness and flexibility, experience of assigned staff, similar project experience, schedule efficiency, and references.
Staff reviewed the proposals and determined that the proposal from Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. was the lowest responsive and responsible bidder. Their proposal was the most comprehensive and demonstrated the best understanding of the project.
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. showed in its proposal their related project experience of similar projects for approximately 53 counties and cities in Southern California. The proposed project manager and proposed team also demonstrated required qualifications and experience providing similar services to the referenced agencies. Their proposed schedule is consistent with the upcoming HSIP Cycle 11 grant submittal deadline.
Staff recommends that the City Council approve a professional services agreement with Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc., as the lowest responsive and responsible bidder, to Prepare the Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP) for a total amount of $39,976.88 and authorize the City Manager to execute the agreement.
ATTACHMENT(S):
A. Resolution No. 22-37
B. Kimley-Horn, Inc. Proposal for Services
C. Professional Service Agreement (Kimley Horn, Inc.)
ATTACHMENT A
RESOLUTION NO. 22-37
A RESOLUTION OF THE SOUTH EL MONTE CITY COUNCIL
AWARDING PROFESSIONAL SERVICE AGREEMENT TO
KIMLEY-HORN AND ASSOCIATES, INC. FOR THE
PREPARATION OF A LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN
(LRSP)
WHEREAS, in December 2020, the City, submitted the grant funding request to the State, for the Local Roadway Safety Plan; and
WHEREAS, in December 2021, the City received the allocation approval from the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), in the amount of $44,445 (plus a required local match of $4,445) for the LRSP; and
WHEREAS, on April 26, 2022, the City Council authorized staff to issue a Request for Proposals (RFP) for Planning & Engineering Services for the preparation of an LRSP; and WHEREAS, on April 28, 2022, the City issued Request for Proposals for Proposals (RFP) for Planning & Engineering Services for the preparation of an LRSP, and the City received two (2) proposals for the solicited services on May 18, 2022; WHEREAS, the City staff evaluated the proposals and determined that Kimley-Horn, Inc. submitted the most qualified and comprehensive proposal to provide the subject services for the project;
WHEREAS, the City staff determined that Kimley-Horn, Inc. was the lowest responsive and responsible bidder for the project;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE SOUTH EL MONTE CITY COUNCIL HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. The above recitals are true and correct and incorporated by reference.
SECTION 2. Upon reviewing the proposals submitted for Planning & Engineering Services for the preparation of an LRSP, the City Council hereby finds that Kimley-Horn, Inc. has submitted the most qualified proposal, in the amount of $39,976.88.
SECTION 3. The City Council hereby authorizes the City Manager or designee to execute a professional service agreement with Kimley-Horn, Inc. in the amount of $39,976.88. The City Attorney may amend the agreement as to form. The Council further directs the City Manager to take all actions necessary to effectuate the agreement.
SECTION 4. The City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this resolution.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this 24th day of May, 2022. _____________________________
Gloria Olmos, Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
Donna G. Schwartz, City Clerk
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) SS:
CITY OF SOUTH EL MONTE )
I, Donna G. Schwartz, City Clerk of the City of South El Monte, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution, being Resolution No. 22-37 was passed and approved by the City Council of the City of South El Monte at a Regular meeting of said Council held on the 24th day of May, 2022, and that said Resolution was adopted by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
_____________________________
Donna G. Schwartz, City Clerk
ATTACHMENT B
PROPOSAL TO PROVIDE
Planning & Engineering Services
for the Preparation of a
LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN (LRSP)
IN THE CITY OF SOUTH EL MONTE
City of South El Monte | TRTS96022.2022 i
Cover Letter
May 18, 2022
Colby Cataldi, Community Development Director
City of South El Monte
1415 Santa Anita Avenue
South El Monte, CA 91733
RE: Proposal to Provide Planning and Engineering Services for the Preparation of a Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP) in the City of South El Monte, California Dear Mr. Cataldi and Members of the Selection Committee:
The City of South El Monte (City) is seeking the assistance of a qualified consultant in the preparation of a Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP). As an industry leader in safety, Kimley-Horn is well-qualified and dedicated to providing unique consulting services to the City for your LRSP. We bring the established experience to develop an LRSP that is tailored to your local procedures, desires, and issues while maintaining accordance with state and federal guidelines. The following benefits prove that Kimley-Horn is well-suited to support the City on this project:
Familiarity with LRSPs. Kimley-Horn is devoted to supporting local agencies in recommending safety enhancements in areas throughout California. Our team’s knowledge ranges from traffic safety planning and engineering to bicycle and pedestrian facility planning, safety, and design. We have completed LRSPs and Systemic Safety Analysis Reports (SSARs), Strategic Highway Safety Plans (SHSPs), Road Safety Audits (RSAs), Safety Management Plans (SMPs), data collection and crash analysis, and design of safety countermeasures throughout the country, including for the cities of Santa Clarita, Artesia, Lancaster, Ventura, Anaheim, San Clemente, Seal Beach, Costa Mesa, Eastvale, Chino, Perris, Goleta, Palm Desert, La Quinta, Santa Cruz, and Sunnyvale as well as the counties of Imperial and Ventura. Our previous experience and lessons learned from these projects have afforded us the information to develop effective and cost-efficient LRSPs. Kimley-Horn’s familiarity with the LRSP process will enable us to accomplish your project successfully.
Tailored Solutions. Our firm’s diverse experience in safety-related projects has allowed us to develop a fine-tuned approach to safety. We will deliver innovative techniques to generate the best results for the City, providing you with a prioritized list of low-cost safety improvements that can be applied not only at challenging segments, but throughout the City. This can be used and applied toward Highway Safety Improvement Plan (HSIP) grants for application—another area Kimley-Horn has significant experience in and can provide solutions for the City’s needs.
Local Management and Commitment to Your Success. Through our established past, Kimley-Horn proves that we are dedicated to surpassing expectations and serving local cities alike. Project manager and point of contact Kyle McGowan, AICP brings more than six years of professional traffic safety management experience—along with experience completing many LRSPs—to the proposed project.
Kyle’s experience in supporting and leading transportation planning and engineering projects is evidence of his continued success with LRSPs. For this endeavor, Kyle will be supported by principal-incharge Jean Fares, P.E., who brings 30 years of professional traffic and transportation engineering experience to the project, along with QC/QA reviewer Darryl dePencier, AICP, GISP, RSP2B, project 660 South Figueroa Street
Suite 2050
Los Angeles, CA 90017
TEL 213.261.4040
City of South El Monte | TRTS96022.2022 ii
engineer Jason Melchor, P.E., and project analysts Amanda Forsans and Zander Dally. Kimley-Horn will pair our in-house, certified team with Crossroads Software, Inc., a California-based software development company specializing in software for traffic divisions of police departments and traffic engineering departments, to provide data collection services on the project.
Kimley-Horn is committed to providing you high-level, professional services and is excited for the opportunity to further enhance the safety of the City’s streets from our local downtown Los Angeles office. Should you have any questions about our proposal or necessitate any additional information, please contact our project manager Kyle McGowan, AICP at 213.261.4040, via email at [email protected], or at the address listed on the previous page.
Sincerely,
KIMLEY-HORN AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
Kyle McGowan, AICP Jean Fares, P.E.
Project Manager/Point of Contact Principal-in-Charge/Senior Vice President* *As a Senior Vice President of the firm, Jean Fares, P.E., is fully authorized to contractually bind the firm.
This proposal is considered valid for a 120-day period following the proposal submission date of May 18, 2022.
City of South El Monte | TRTS96022.2022 iii
Table of Contents
Cover Letter...................................................................................................................................................i Section 1. Approach and Scope of Work .......................................................................................................1 Section 2: Schedule....................................................................................................................................14 Section 3: Project Team, Key Personnel and Resumes ..............................................................................15 Section 4: Company Qualifications..............................................................................................................22 Section 5: References.................................................................................................................................27 Section 6: City’s Standard Professional Services Agreement.......................................................................28 Section 7: Addenda Acknowledgement .......................................................................................................29 Section 8: Required Attachments ................................................................................................................29 Section 9: Fee Estimate Proposal ...............................................................................................................29
City of South El Monte | TRTS96022.2022 1
Section 1: Approach and Scope of Work
Project Understanding
The City of South El Monte (City) is taking a major step towards enhanced roadway safety through the development of an LRSP. This plan will help the City identify the factors that contribute most to local traffic collisions and will better position the City for safety funding from state and federal grant programs. Kimley-Horn has extensive experience with the California HSIP, including the development of the HSIP Implementation Plan at the statewide level, and recently securing over $30M in successful HSIP Cycle 10 grants for local agencies.
The goal of the LRSP is to develop countermeasures that can be systemically implemented to reduce the risk of collisions on City streets. Kimley-Horn’s approach builds that toolbox using three separate processes:
1. Identify Citywide emphasis areas such as impaired driving or active transportation that represent a large proportion of traffic injuries
2. Identify site-specific case studies that are representative of other locations in the City for a more detailed audit and focused countermeasures
3. A review of citywide policies, programs, resources, and practices that may have an impact on traffic safety, and then the identification of opportunities to align with safety best practices This study is important because, in addition to the trauma of injury and loss of life, economic losses in South El Monte due to traffic injuries on City streets were nearly $314M from 2016 through 2020 according to SafeTREC’s Traffic Injury Mapping System (TIMS) and Caltrans HSIP Cost Parameters. The Office of Traffic Safety (OTS) most recently ranked South El Monte 11th of 103 peer cities in 2019 for traffic injuries after normalizing for population and vehicle miles traveled (VMT), which suggests that the City is in the worst quartile for traffic injuries. The OTS ranking for several categories is listed in Table 1. The City scored better in every category that OTS tracks relative to its overall injury score, suggesting that injury-producing crashes in the City are not concentrated in any of those specific categories. Hit-and-run and nighttime collisions are the poorest performing of the ranked categories.
Table 1: Office of Traffic Safety Rankings (2019)
Year County Group
2019 Los Angeles County E
TYPE OF CRASH VICTIMS KILLED OR INJURED OTS RANKING
Total Fatal and Injury 135 11/103
Alcohol Involved 7 38/103
Had Been Drinking Driver < 21 0 86/103
Had Been Drinking Driver 21–34 0 93/103
Motorcycles 1 68/103
Pedestrians 6 36/103
Pedestrians < 15 0 93/103
Pedestrians 65+ 1 41/103
Bicyclists 14 4/103
Bicyclists < 15 1 31/103
Composite 52 37/103
City of South El Monte | TRTS96022.2022 2
TYPE OF CRASH FATAL & INJURY CRASHES OTS RANKING
Speed Related 11 28/103
Nightime (9:00pm–2:59am) 20 3/103
Hit and Run 14 2/103
TYPE OF ARRESTS ARRESTS OTS RANKING
DUI Arrests 17 17/103
Kimley-Horn is the lead consultant supporting Caltrans’ Strategic SHSP and current HSIP Implementation Plan.
The SHSP outlines statewide priorities and emphasizes areas in which, when comparing fatalities and serious injuries between 2009 and 2018 against statewide trends for SHSP challenge areas, South El Monte crashes more often involved pedestrians, bicyclists, and commercial vehicles. Fewer involved lane departures, young drivers, or motorcycles. Table 2 shows the statewide fatal and severe injury collisions in comparison to data from the City of South El Monte.
Table 2: Fatal & Severe Injuries – Statewide vs. South El Monte Challenge Areas
Statewide South El Monte
% of F+SI Collisions
(2009-2018)
% of F+SI Collisions
(2009-2018)
% Point Difference
Pedestrians 19.2% 31.1% 11.9%
Bicyclists 8.3% 16.4% 8.1%
Commercial Vehicles 6.4% 13.1% 6.7%
Intersections 23.6% 29.5% 5.9%
Work Zones 1.4% 1.6% 0.2%
Distracted Driving 5.0% 1.6% -3.4%
Aggressive Driving 33.1% 29.5% -3.6%
Impaired Driving 25.3% 21.3% -4.0%
Aging Drivers 12.4% 8.2% -4.2%
Occupant Protection 14.2% 8.2% -6.0%
Motorcyclists 21.0% 14.8% -6.2%
Young Drivers 13.1% 4.9% -8.2%
Lane Departures 43.3% 19.7% -23.6%
Kimley-Horn has analyzed the TIMS data for the City from 2016–2020. Our preliminary analysis explored the following collision categories:
City of South El Monte | TRTS96022.2022 3
Collision Severity
4.8% of the injury collisions from 2016–2020 resulted in a fatality or severe injury. A majority of the injury collisions resulted in minor injuries only. Table 3 shows the breakdown of injury collisions by injury severity.
Table 3: Collisions by Severity Level
Severity Count Percent
Fatal 9 1.9%
Severe 32 6.8%
Other Visible Injury (OVI) 156 33.3%
Complaint of Pain (COP) 271 57.9%
Total 468 100.0%
Collision Type
The most common types of collisions in the City were broadsides and rear ends, totaling 41.5% of crashes in the City. A full breakdown of the collision types is shown in Table 4.
Table 4: Collisions by Type
Collision Type Count Percent
Broadside 194 41.5%
Rear End 106 22.6%
Head-On 41 8.8%
Vehicle/Pedestrian 41 8.8%
Sideswipe 34 7.3%
Hit Object 25 5.3%
Other 22 4.7%
Overturned 5 1.1%
Total 468 100.0%
Primary Collision Factor
The most common factors that led to collisions in the City were automobile right-of-way violations, disregarding traffic signals and signs, and unsafe speed representing over half of injury crashes in the City. A full breakdown of the primary collision factors is shown in Table 5.
Table 5: Collisions by Primary Collision Factor
Primary Collision Factor Count Percent
Automobile Right-of-Way 129 27.6%
Traffic Signals and Signs 71 15.2%
Unsafe Speed 66 14.1%
Improper Turning 62 13.2%
City of South El Monte | TRTS96022.2022 4
Primary Collision Factor Count Percent
Following Too Closely 32 6.8%
Wrong Side of Road 19 4.1%
Unknown 16 3.4%
Pedestrian Right-of-Way 15 3.2%
Driving or Bicycling Under the
Influence of Alcohol or Drug 14 3.0%
Pedestrian Violation 14 3.0%
Unsafe Starting or Backing 13 2.8%
Unsafe Lane Change 8 1.7%
Improper Passing 3 0.6%
Impeding Traffic 2 0.4%
Other Hazardous Violation 2 0.4%
Other than Driver
(or Pedestrian) 1 0.2%
Other Improper Driving 1 0.2%
Total 468 100.0%
Collision 'Involved With'
Nearly three-quarters of the collisions in the City were between two or more moving motor vehicles and an additional 17% were with pedestrians and bicycles. In particular, pedestrian and bicycle crashes resulted in a higher rate of more severe injuries. Table 6 shows a full breakdown of the collisions, what object they were involved with, and the distribution of their injury levels.
Table 6: Collisions ‘Involved With’
Vehicle Involved With Fatal Severe Other Visible
Injury
Complaint of
Pain Total Percent
Other Motor Vehicle 2 11 99 217 329 70.3%
Bicycle 1 7 16 18 42 9.0%
Pedestrian 4 8 13 12 37 7.9%
Fixed Object 2 1 12 14 29 6.2%
Parked Motor Vehicle - 1 11 5 17 3.6%
Motor Vehicle on Other
Roadway - 1 4 3 8 1.7%
Non-Collision - 2 - 2 4 0.9%
Animal - - 1 - 1 0.2%
Other Object - 1 - - 1 0.2%
Total 9 32 156 271 468 100.0%
City of South El Monte | TRTS96022.2022 5
Figure 1 and Table 7 show the concentration of injury crashes in South El Monte and highlight the 10 most economically impactful intersections in the City.
Figure 1: Injury Crashes and 10 Most Economically Impactful Intersections
City of South El Monte | TRTS96022.2022 6
Table 7: 10 Most Economically Impactful Intersections
Rank Intersection Total Fatal Severe OVI COP Cost
1 Rush Street Rosemead
Boulevard 14 0 3 4 7 $7,705,500
2 Garvey Avenue Rosemead
Boulevard 13 1 2 4 6 $7,624,600
3 Durfree
Avenue Rush Street 8 2 1 4 1 $7,220,100
4 Lee Avenue Garvey
Avenue 10 0 2 4 4 $5,272,800
5 Peck Road Michael Hunt
Drive 7 0 2 2 3 $4,907,300
6 Peck Road Farndon
Street 7 0 1 2 4 $2,798,200
7 Fawcett
Avenue
Santa Anita
Avenue 7 0 1 2 4 $2,798,200
8 Santa Anita
Avenue
Central
Avenue 5 0 1 2 2 $2,636,400
9 Santa Anita
Avenue
Klingerman
Street 5 0 1 2 2 $2,636,400
10 Garvey Avenue Potrero
Avenue 5 1 0 1 3 $2,575,000
Project Approach
Our team uses custom GIS-based tools to evaluate the
roadway system and intersections using Highway Safety
Manual statistical methods. This allows for independent evaluation of intersections by control type, and roadways by function. Our team then applies additional statistics to rate each location for crash severity, crash type patterns, driver behavior factors, and roadway conditions.
Kimley-Horn works closely with Crossroads, allowing us
to seamlessly input their data outputs of the most recent available crash data. Our custom in-house software can
process the Crossroads crash records to provide a ranked order of intersections and roadway segments by crash
activity consistent with the Local Roadway Safety Manual, provide a statistical evaluation of crash rates for each location relative to citywide norms, and highlight locations with unusually high crash severities or crash patterns that can help diagnose safety challenges.
City of South El Monte | TRTS96022.2022 7
Kimley-Horn’s approach to LRSP development centers on the creation of a countermeasure toolbox that includes items that address both infrastructure and driver behavior. A combination of crash history, roadway characteristics, and stakeholder feedback is used to determine which countermeasures that will be most likely to have the most safety benefit relative to cost for the City. The toolbox is then used to produce three products as part of the LRSP.
1. Citywide Systemic Infrastructure Projects: Serious injury crashes in South El Monte are more likely to involve pedestrians and bicyclists than in other parts of California. The LRSP would likely include a number of systemic countermeasures such as high visibility crosswalks, leading pedestrian intervals, and protected bicycle lanes.
2. Local Infrastructure Projects: For example, the intersection of Rush Street and Rosemead Boulevard has had the most-costly injury count between 2016 and 2020 according to the TIMS dataset with 14 injury crashes over a five-year period, three of which were severe. Two bicyclists were injured, and six of the crashes were rear-ends. The LRSP would likely consider installing leading pedestrian intervals, retroreflective back plating to improve signal head visibility, and advanced dilemma zone detection systems to reduce frequency of rear-end collisions.
3. Non-Infrastructure Projects: Serious injury and fatal crashes in South El Monte are more commonly associated with work zones. The LRSP could explore opportunities to get additional OTS or other state grants for enforcement campaigns and educational initiatives. The team might also evaluate lighting and other roadway features that can reduce the harm associated with work zones.
Our scope of services for this project—which starts on page 9—outlines how Kimley-Horn will build off of the City’s current plans to provide a well-rounded framework for an ongoing safety improvement program. The LRSP will be structured to make the City more competitive for grant funding, be better able to identify and prioritize safety needs, and encourage safer driving practices for its residents.
Project Management
Kimley-Horn’s approach to starting a project includes many tasks: develop a comprehensive work plan and project scope including phased tasks; identify scheduling, manpower, and materials requirements; establish a schedule showing key project tasks, milestones, and regular progress meetings; customize the work plan according to client needs and project schedule and budget; and secure a commitment from the various quality reviewers needed for our quality control and assurance plan. By the nature of its requirements, Kimley-Horn’s project management system produces deliverables that are common to nearly all projects:
✓ Progress reports that highlight all task-related activities and allow identification and resolution of problems or issues before they affect schedule and budget ✓ Regular and concise technical reports that summarize the findings of each specific task so that all project team members can continually evaluate the project’s progress ✓ Reports and results of public meetings and workshops
✓ Ongoing electronic communications among all members of the project team, including email and (if desired) an internet home page to allow anyone in the project area or across the nation to keep up with the progress of the project and upcoming meetings and activities ✓ User-friendly invoices so you can stay up to date on all project management activities ✓ Timely meeting summaries and notes to document the progress of the project
City of South El Monte | TRTS96022.2022 8
A project work plan will be developed at the onset of the project. The project work plan will contain the project scope, schedule, and budget and will identify team member roles and responsibilities. The project work plan will be provided to project team members so that we are working toward the same goals and everyone understands their roles. Subconsultants will be managed using formal subcontracts specifying required deliverables, budget, and schedule. The team will be managed to engage technical specialists to address specific project issues at appropriate phases of the project such that the team organization is transparent to the City.
Quality Control/Quality Assurance (QC/QA)
Kimley-Horn has developed a QC/QA manual that every project manager is required to know and use. The objective of our QC/QA program is to produce deliverables that conform to your scope and minimize the number of errors and omissions.
Quality control measures are put in place to control not only the quality of deliverables but also the quality of the process and communication with you. Our project managers assign
professionals who are not otherwise associated with the project to serve as quality control reviewers and provide detailed project checks from a neutral perspective. We will plan a carefully structured scope of services, corresponding schedule, and accurately developed budget as well as determine
appropriate stages at which quality reviews should occur. We simply don’t begin an assignment until these elements are in place and mutually agreed upon. This saves you time and money by making sure the job is done right the first time.
Budget and Schedule Control
Our goal as partners to City staff is to always keep you informed on the status of your projects. Based on our clear understanding of the scope of work and budget for each task order, we will prepare a detailed schedule that includes milestones for interim deliverables and the overall task. Kimley-Horn’s internal management information system (MIS) tracks effort and performance by recording time spent and percent of project tasks completed. Twice monthly, MIS produces a Project Effort Report, which shows the actual effort expended by task. This internal control allows us to make any timely adjustments as reasonably necessary to maintain schedules and stay within budget. Cost control is achieved through two independent processing systems integrated into the MIS, providing a complete financial and reporting overview of each individual task, as well as the entire project. The task managers receive detailed status reports twice each month. This level of tracking controls task budgets, allowing us to keep our clients fully informed of the administrative aspects of each task.
City of South El Monte | TRTS96022.2022 9
Scope of Work
Task 1. Project Management and Meetings
Task 1.1 – Kick-Off Meeting and Project Administration
Kimley-Horn will prepare an agenda and conduct a project kick-off meeting to review and refine the project methodology and schedule and to establish a Project Development Team (PDT) with key City staff, which we will maintain close and consistent communication through regular PDT status meetings to discuss plan development and project progress. Meetings can be held either virtually or in-person, based on City preference.
Kimley-Horn will assist the City in providing administrative support to make sure the project is compliant with the Caltrans Local Assistance Procedure Manual guidelines.
Kimley-Horn has established internal quality control processes that include multiple levels of review before deliverables are submitted to a client, including a designated quality control officer that is not part of the core project team to provide objective feedback from the perspective of someone external to the project. Kimley-Horn recommends in-person meetings, if conditions allow, at the following project milestones:
1. Project Kick-Off
2. Selection of High-Collision Sites for Project Development
3. Project Recommendations
Additionally, Kimley-Horn will hold a short bi-weekly project progress meeting with the City project manager to discuss the current status of the project and to make decisions about project direction as alternative courses emerge.
During our kick-off meeting, we will identify safety partners/stakeholders who should be included in future project communications. We value representation from the local community, businesses, non-profit organizations, local transportation providers, City’s Public Works department, South El Monte Police Department, South El Monte Fire Department, local school districts, and health and safety agencies when creating a well-rounded safety plan.
Task 1.2 – Identify Stakeholders
Kimley-Horn will work with the City to identify stakeholders that will be engaged throughout the LRSP process.
Key stakeholders will include those identified during the kick-off meeting in Task 1.
Task 1.3 – Identify Project Goals and Objectives
We will work with City staff to establish goals and objectives after completing the comprehensive data analysis with a focus on improving traffic and pedestrian safety. We will establish the emphasis areas. The team will identify safety challenges specific to the City of South El Monte that are elevating the risk of traffic injuries. The goals and objectives will be structured to meet the needs of the LRSP Program, provide optimal support of statewide funding priorities, and incorporate Priority Safety Strategies, Infrastructure Safety Projects, and Behavioral Safety Strategies and feedback from stakeholders and City staff. Each goal will be associated with a set of objectives that will help determine the prioritization of plan recommendations.
City of South El Monte | TRTS96022.2022 10
Task 1.4 – Stakeholder Meetings
Kimley-Horn will work with the City to reach out to safety partners/stakeholders from the contact list developed.
Up to three stakeholder meetings will be hosted, either virtually or in-person, to allow for two-way communication and feedback on the materials communicated. The meeting will provide an overview of the LRSP process, identify/establish safety goals, objectives, strategies, and emphasis areas, inform those present on the results found during the crash analysis, and outline the draft countermeasures and potential solutions.
Stakeholders will be utilized for their local insight on the area, any challenges or opportunities they may know of, and their knowledge of “near-miss crashes.” Any potential additions or changes to the recommended countermeasures, based on the feedback received during this meeting, will be discussed with the City. The group will prioritize plans for implementation and be able to review and comment on the draft and final LRSP before recommending approval of the document to be adopted by the City Council.
Task 1 Deliverables
✓ Project Kick-Off Meeting
✓ Project Update Meeting Agenda and Notes
✓ Monthly Progress Reports
✓ Stakeholder Identification List
✓ Draft Project Goals and Objectives
✓ Stakeholder Meetings
Task 2. Review of Existing Planning Documents
Task 2.1 – Literature Review
We will conduct a literature review of existing plans published by the City, including the General Plan. Documents produced by San Gabriel Valley Council of Governments (SGVCOG), Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), and Caltrans will also be reviewed to identify projects, policies, and programs that are in place or recommended that might be of value to this analysis. Our team is already familiar with Caltrans procedures and guidance on the development of SSARs and LRSPs and will provide a summary as part of this task.
Task 2.2 – Best Practices Analysis
Kimley-Horn will work with City staff to identify programs and policies within the City that are most 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. Kimley-Horn staff will collect the needed information by providing the City with a list of questions in advance and will conduct an interview with City staff to finalize the responses.
Task 2 Deliverables
✓ Question List of Current Practices for City
✓ Technical Memorandum #1: Existing Plans and Programs
Task 3. Data Collection and Analysis
Task 3.1 – Data Analysis
Kimley-Horn will perform a comprehensive data analysis review. Our approach to safety analysis includes statistical network screening using Highway Safety Manual Methods. These methods are selected to identify locations with higher-than-expected collision activity that can be reviewed to identify roadway and intersection characteristics associated with higher risk. These methods also review a variety of collision characteristics to identify locations
City of South El Monte | TRTS96022.2022 11
where specific types of collisions are over-represented. This helps to diagnose safety factors that are leading to elevated numbers of collisions.
The first screening step is to develop critical crash rates for segments and intersections in the City. Average crash rates are developed for intersections based on control type, and roadway segments based on functional classification. A statistical threshold is then established based on daily traffic volumes for each segment and intersection. The difference between the actual crash rate and the critical crash rate for each location can then be used to estimate the relative risk faced by users of the given intersection or segment. This method builds on the High Collision or High Injury Networks that essentially mirror High Traffic networks to provide deeper insight into potential low-cost safety measures. Roadways and intersections with lower classifications will also be identified, allowing the LRSP to broach risk factors associated with those roadways. ✓ Fatal Collisions
✓ Fatal + Serious Injury Collisions
✓ Broadside Collisions
✓ Rear-End Collisions
✓ Sideswipe Collisions
✓ Head-On Collisions
✓ Single Vehicle Collisions (run off road, fixed
object, parked vehicle, other)
✓ Bicycle Collisions
✓ Pedestrian Collisions
✓ Wet/Slippery Road Collisions
✓ Nighttime Collisions
✓ Collisions Involving Alcohol/Drugs
✓ Collisions Involving Driver Inattention
✓ Collisions Involving Speeding/Aggressive Driving
The resulting list would include both the number of collisions for each factor and the probability that any excess is not random.
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 the overall number of collisions per Local Roadway Safety Manual Guidance. Kimley-Horn will then recommend up to five locations for further evaluation and potential project 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. We will identify potential conflicts between vehicles, pedestrians, and bicycles.
Task 3.2 – Roadway Characteristics Inventory
Kimley-Horn will obtain available data on roadway functional classification, intersection control, schools, parks, transit stops, and other roadway characteristics that impact safety. Available traffic volume data will also be collected from the City.
Task 3 Deliverables
✓ Technical Memorandum #2: Citywide Safety Background and Trends ✓ List of Intersection and Segments with Statistically Analyzable Collision Activity ✓ Citywide Safety Trends and Recommended Focus Areas
✓ List of Potential Local Countermeasures
City of South El Monte | TRTS96022.2022 12
Task 4. Countermeasure Development
Task 4.1 – Develop Priority Criteria and Priority Areas Kimley-Horn will work with the City and stakeholders to develop priority criteria and identify priority areas that will be used to develop the countermeasures in Task 4.2. These countermeasures will address these priority areas and will align with state and federal countermeasures that have been identified to assist in reducing fatal and injury collisions.
Task 4.2 – Identify Countermeasures
The identification of the potential projects will be developed by examining the crash data and determining the appropriate countermeasures improvements to roadway segments. The team will prepare a toolbox of systemic safety mitigations that can be applied citywide, or on key parts of the network.
Countermeasures will include a mixture of infrastructural improvements, educational initiatives, law enforcement strategies, emergency response, policy updates, coordination activities, and other items that will contribute to the overall tapestry of roadway safety in the City. We will identify safety measures that are appropriate, cost-efficient, and proven effective countermeasures by the US Department of Transportation and the FHWA.
The toolbox will be developed in three steps:
1. The high crash locations will be used as case studies. Solutions that emerge from those will be associated with the conditions they are addressing and added to the toolbox
2. The team will identify up to three safety emphasis areas for the City based on collision trends and patterns that can be looked at holistically to identify broader strategies that can be employed to address them
3. The best practices review will be used to identify actions the City can take to improve the safety environment
An implementation plan will be developed for inclusion in the LSRP report that will help the City prioritize improvements and identify potential funding sources while remaining responsive to funding opportunities for HSIP and related grants, including evolving needs as plan implementation progresses.
Task 4.3 – Develop Priority Projects
Kimley-Horn will provide recommendations for operational safety improvements and develop project sheets for up to five high crash locations to improve roadway, traffic, and pedestrian safety. The sheets will profile the existing safety performance of the location, will include an aerial photo and map, and will outline potential countermeasures that had been identified through the safety analysis and workshop tasks and been approved by the City. Each countermeasure will also have a reported benefit/cost. These sheets will provide the City with a scalable overview of the most cost-effective safety options at each location based on the level of resources available, allowing for phased implementation of multiple countermeasures, or to go straight to implementation of the most cost-effective solutions. Projects will be reviewed and recommended for available grants.
Task 4 Deliverables
✓ List of Priority Criteria and Priority Areas
✓ Safety Countermeasure Toolbox
✓ Up to five Project Sheets Including List of Potential Projects ✓ Cost estimates, mapping, and cost/benefit ratio of proposed safety improvements
City of South El Monte | TRTS96022.2022 13
Task 5. Implementation Program
Projects will be analyzed on their potential to reduce crash activity. Projects with the greatest and most costefficient crash reduction potential will be prioritized. Short-term, medium-term, and longer-term projects will be identified based on their cost and likelihood of reducing crashes.
The Kimley-Horn team will work with the City to develop an action plan and provide guidance for securing funding to address recommendations and achieve the goals and objectives identified for the LRSP.
This plan will also include a program for updates to the LRSP and an analysis procedure that City staff can use to update the network screening results to determine the effectiveness of countermeasures that have been implemented and to establish new priorities as existing ones are addressed and as roadway conditions and driver expectations change.
The implementation plan will include the recommendations for education and enforcement programs for City consideration and future HSIP/OTS grants.
Task 5 Deliverable
✓ Technical Memorandum #3: Implementation Plan
Task 6. LSRP Development
Task 6.1 – Draft LRSP
Kimley-Horn will prepare a Draft LRSP to document the findings of the previous tasks. The draft report will be submitted to the City for review and comment, and we will assist in circulating the Draft LRSP to identified stakeholders for review. Kimley-Horn will collect a consolidated set of comments from City staff and stakeholders to refine the report into a final document. Kimley-Horn will submit a 60% draft submittal and an 85% draft submittal of the LRSP report.
Task 6.2 – Final LRSP
Kimley-horn will respond to all comments and incorporate feedback received on the Draft LRSP into the Final LRSP. This document will guide the City’s effort to improve transportation safety and reduce the number of incidents and the severity of those incidents on our transportation systems.
The LRSP will be a living document and analysis methods will be clearly outlined to facilitate future updates as the City completes projects, gets new collision data, as needs and priorities change, and seeks funding in future cycles after this report has reached its lifespan of up to five years per LRSP guidelines.
Kimley-Horn, along with City staff, will take the lead on plan adoption and present the Final LRSP to City Council.
Task 6 Deliverables
✓ 60% Draft LRSP
✓ 85% Draft LRSP
✓ Final LRSP
City of South El Monte | TRTS96022.2022 14
Section 2: Schedule
We have provided a detailed project schedule below that assumes a Notice to Proceed (NTP) of July 5, 2022 and a completion timeline of three months.
City of South El Monte | TRTS96022.2022 15
Section 3: Project Team, Key Personnel, and Resumes
Team Organization
Our project team is unsurpassed in local knowledge and relevant experience and has been structured to provide strong support to the City of South El Monte. Notably, our team will be managed by Kyle McGowan, AICP, a successful Kimley-Horn project manager with over six years of experience on traffic safety projects. Kyle and his team have a thorough knowledge of the LRSP process and extensive experience coordinating communications between stakeholder groups and City staff throughout plan development. Kyle will serve as your point of contact and will maintain a close working relationship with City staff throughout the duration of the project. He will oversee a team of well-qualified individuals as well as one subconsultant, all of whom are experienced in safety planning and engineering.
Subconsultant
Crossroads Software, Inc. – Data Collection
Kimley-Horn will pair our in-house, certified team with Crossroads Software, Inc. (Crossroads), 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 citation, traffic collision, and DUI arrest documents. With over 30 years of experience, Jeff Cullen will work alongside Kimley-Horn to collect data for this project as the Crossroads team has done on many projects across California.
Organization Chart
The organization chart below delineates the roles and responsibilities of our key personnel and included subconsultant staff on this pursuit. Kimley-Horn will not substitute the project manager and/or lead personnel without prior written approval of the City.
Resumes
Full resumes are provided for our key personnel beginning on the following page. These resumes outline the education, credentials, training, and related experience of our team members.
City of South El Monte | TRTS96022.2022 16
Kyle McGowan, AICP
Project Manager
Kyle is a planner in the traffic engineering field. His experience providing engineering design support includes crash and roadway analyses, document review, and data
collection. Kyle has also been involved in the
implementation of Goods Movement, Connected Vehicle, and Integrated Corridor Management (ICM) projects in southern California, where he utilized ArcGIS and design skills to prepare reports and maps of ITS infrastructure improvements. He is proficient with Synchro, Adobe Creative Suite, and SPSS.
Relevant Experience
✓ City of Santa Clarita, LRSP, Santa Clarita, CA – Project Planner ✓ City of Compton, LRSP, Compton, CA – Project Planner
✓ City of Cudahy, LRSP, Cudahy, CA – Project Planner
✓ City of Costa Mesa, LRSP, Costa Mesa, CA – Project Planner ✓ City of Seal Beach, LRSP, Seal Beach, CA – Project Planner ✓ City of Santa Clarita, SSAR, Santa Clarita, CA – Project Planner ✓ City of Eastvale, SSAR, Eastvale, CA – Project Planner ✓ City of Santa Clarita, Citywide Analysis of Pedestrian and Bicycle Collisions SSARP, Santa Clarita, CA – Project Planner
✓ City of Indio, LRSP, Indio, CA – Project Planner
✓ City of Palm Desert, LRSP, Palm Desert, CA – Project Planner ✓ City of Perris, LRSP, Perris, CA – Project Planner
✓ City of Goleta, Traffic Safety Study for the SSARP/LRSP, Goleta, CA – Project Planner ✓ City of Seal Beach, LRSP, Seal Beach, CA – Project Planner ✓ County of Imperial, SSAR for Varied Roadways, Imperial County, CA – Project Planner ✓ City of Chino, Engineering & Traffic Survey, Chino, CA – Project Manager ✓ City of Inglewood, Stadium Alternative Mitigation Measure: Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) Improvements, Inglewood, CA – Project Planner
✓ LA Metro, Arterial ITS Inventory Tool Expansion (ITS First), Los Angeles County, CA – Project Planner ✓ LA Metro, Los Angeles County Regional ITS Architecture (RITSA) Update, Los Angeles, CA – Project Planner
✓ City of Santa Clarita, ITS Phase VII, Santa Clarita, CA – Project Planner Professional Credentials
✓ Master of Urban
Planning, University of
Southern California
✓ Bachelor of Science,
Urban and Regional
Planning, University of
Arizona
Professional Affiliations
✓ American Institute of
Certified Planners
#33483
City of South El Monte | TRTS96022.2022 17
Jean Fares, P.E.
Principal-in-Charge
Jean has more than 30 years of professional experience
in the fields of traffic and transportation engineering, including systematic safety analysis, traffic signal design, signal system design, traffic signal timing, traffic
operations, signing and marking plans preparation, and traffic control plans. In addition to signal design and corridor signal operations, Jean has extensive experience with ITS technologies.
Relevant Experience
✓ City of Santa Clarita, LRSP, Santa Clarita, CA – Project Manager ✓ County of Ventura, LRSP, Ventura County, CA – Principal-in-Charge ✓ City of Seal Beach, LRSP, Seal Beach, CA – Principal-in-Charge ✓ City of Perris, LRSP, Perris, CA – QC/QA Manager
✓ City of Palm Desert, LRSP, Palm Desert, CA – Project Manager ✓ City of Indio, LRSP, Indio, CA – Project Manager
✓ City of Santa Clarita, SSAR, Santa Clarita, CA – Project Manager ✓ City of Ventura, SSAR, Ventura, CA – Project Engineer ✓ City of La Quinta, SSAR, La Quinta, CA – Project Manager ✓ City of Goleta, Traffic Safety Study for the SSARP/LRSP, Goleta, CA – QC/QA Manager ✓ County of Imperial, SSAR for Varied Roadways, Imperial County, CA – Project Manager ✓ County of Riverside, On-Call Traffic Engineering Services, Riverside County, CA – Project Manager ✓ County of Riverside, On-Call Traffic Engineering Services, Riverside County, CA – Project Manager ✓ City of Chino, On-Call Traffic Engineering Services, Chino, CA – Project Manager ✓ City of Glendale, On-Call Traffic Engineering Services, Glendale, CA – Project Manager ✓ City of Thousand Oaks, On-Call Traffic Engineering Services, Thousand Oaks, CA – Project Manager ✓ City of Culver City, On-Call Traffic Engineering Services, Culver City, CA – Project Manager ✓ City of Downey, On-Call Traffic Engineering Services, Downey, CA – Project Manager ✓ County of Los Angeles, On-Call Traffic Engineering Services, Los Angeles County, CA – Project Manager
✓ City of Palmdale, On-Call Signal Design Services, Palmdale, CA – Project Manager ✓ City of Agoura Hills, On-Call Traffic Engineering, Agoura Hills, CA – Project Director Professional Credentials
✓ Bachelor of Science,
Architecture, California
State Polytechnic
University, Pomona
✓ Professional Engineer
in CA #TR2097
Professional Affiliations
✓ Institute of
Transportation
Engineers (ITE),
Member
City of South El Monte | TRTS96022.2022 18
Darryl dePencier, AICP, GISP, RSP2B
QC/QA Manager
Darryl has been conducting transportation safety for more than 15 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
✓ City of Artesia, LRSP, Artesia, CA – Project Manager
✓ City of Cudahy, LRSP, Cudahy, CA – Project Manager
✓ City of Compton, LRSP, Compton, CA – Principal-in-Charge ✓ City of Maywood, LRSP, Maywood, CA – Project Manager
✓ County of Ventura, LRSP, Ventura County, CA – Project Manager ✓ City of Anaheim, LRSP, Anaheim, CA – Project Planner
✓ City of Palm Desert, LRSP, Palm Desert, CA – Project Planner ✓ City of Imperial Beach, LRSP, Imperial Beach, CA – Project Planner ✓ City of Perris, LRSP, Perris, CA – Project Manager
✓ City of Seal Beach, LRSP, Seal Beach, CA – Project Planner ✓ City of Santa Cruz, LRSP, Santa Cruz, CA – Project Manager ✓ City of Santa Clarita, SSAR, Santa Clarita, CA – Project Planner ✓ City of Eastvale, SSAR, Eastvale, CA – Project Manager ✓ City of Goleta, Traffic Safety Study for the SSAR/LRSP, Goleta, CA – Project Planner ✓ City of Ventura, SSAR, Ventura, CA – Project Manager
✓ City of Lancaster, SSARP, Lancaster, CA – Project Manager ✓ City of La Quinta, SSAR, La Quinta, CA – Project Planner ✓ County of Imperial, SSAR for Varied Roadways, Imperial County, CA – Project Planner ✓ Caltrans, Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP) Update and Implementation, Statewide, CA – Project Planner
✓ Caltrans, Safety Performance Measure Target Setting Analysis, Statewide, CA – Project Planner Professional Credentials
✓ Master of Science,
Urban Spatial
Analytics, 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
Professional1 #279
✓ Road Safety
Professional2B #17
City of South El Monte | TRTS96022.2022 19
Jason Melchor, P.E.
Project Engineer
Jason is a professional engineer with over 20 years of
experience in traffic engineering and transportation
planning. He has worked with clients in Orange, Los
Angeles, Riverside, and San Diego Counties to perform
systemic safety studies, traffic impact studies, and technical analyses for various safety projects, transportation planning projects, parking studies, transit analysis, site plan reviews, and circulation studies. His traffic engineering experience includes traffic signal design, signing and striping, traffic control, and signal interconnect design plans. He has acted as in-house staff for the cities of Irvine and Huntington Beach to review development studies and design plans. In this role, Jason worked directly with developers and City staff to provide comments on plan and document submittals. Jason also has experience working with a variety of traffic engineering software programs and computer design packages.
Relevant Experience
✓ County of Ventura, LRSP, Ventura County, CA – Project Engineer ✓ City of Seal Beach, LRSP, Seal Beach, CA – Project Manager ✓ City of Anaheim, LRSP, Anaheim, CA – Project Manager
✓ City of Palm Desert, LRSP, Palm Desert, CA – Project Engineer ✓ City of Perris, LRSP, Perris, CA – Project Engineer
✓ City of Goleta, Traffic Safety Study for SSAR, Goleta, CA – Project Manager ✓ City of Santa Cruz, LRSP, Santa Cruz, CA – Project Engineer ✓ City of Santa Clarita, SSAR, Santa Clarita, CA – Project Engineer ✓ City of Ventura, SSAR, Ventura, CA – Project Engineer ✓ City of La Quinta, SSAR, La Quinta, CA – Project Engineer ✓ City of Eastvale, SSAR, Eastvale, CA – Project Engineer ✓ County of Imperial, SSAR for Varied Roadways, Imperial County, CA – Project Engineer ✓ RCTD, Horizontal Curve Assessment, Riverside County, CA – Project Engineer ✓ City of Santa Ana, Santa Ana Boulevard and 5th Street Bikeway, Santa Ana, CA – Project Engineer Professional Credentials
✓ Bachelor of Science,
Civil Engineering,
Specialization in
Transportation,
University of
California, Irvine
✓ Professional Engineer
in California #C65218
Professional Affiliations
✓ Institute of
Transportation
Engineers (ITE),
Member
✓ Orange County Traffic
Engineering Council,
Member
City of South El Monte | TRTS96022.2022 20
Amanda Forsans
Project Analyst
Amanda’s background is in civil engineering and applied mechanics backed by successful internship experience
and knowledge of engineering methods, principles,
specifications, and standards. She has experience
working on LRSPs in the Southern California region and is very familiar with analysis required for these projects.
Relevant Experience
✓ City of Santa Clarita, LRSP, Santa Clarita, CA – Analyst ✓ County of Ventura, LRSP, Ventura County, CA – Analyst ✓ City of Seal Beach, LRSP, Seal Beach, CA – Analyst
✓ City of Costa Mesa, LRSP, Costa Mesa, CA – Analyst
✓ City of Indio, LRSP, Indio, CA – Analyst
Zander Dally
Project Analyst
Zander has technical skills in Mapping and Spatial
Analysis, Graphic Design, Travel Demand Modeling, and
Statistical Analysis. He is knowledgeable in ArcGIS
(ArcPro, ArcMap, ArcScene, ArcCatelog, Story Map),
Adobe Creative Cloud (Photoshop, InDesign, Illustrator), SketchUp, Canva, Bentley CUBE, IBM SPSS Statistics, and Microsoft Excel. Zander has previous experience working on LRSPs and similar transportation projects.
Relevant Experience
✓ City of Costa Mesa, LRSP, Costa Mesa, CA – Analyst
✓ City of Seal Beach, LRSP, Seal Beach, CA – Analyst
✓ City of Roseville, LRSP, Roseville, CA – Analyst
✓ City of Tracy, LRSP, Tracy, CA – Analyst
✓ City of Santa Maria, LRSP, Santa Maria, CA – Analyst
✓ San Gabriel Valley Council of Governments, San Gabriel Valley Transit Feasibility Study, Los Angeles County, CA – Analyst
✓ Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro), North Hollywood to Pasadena BRT, Los Angeles County, CA – Analyst
Professional Credentials
✓ Bachelor of Science,
Civil Engineering,
McGill University
Professional Credentials
✓ Master of Science,
Urban and Regional
Planning, Florida State
University
✓ Bachelor of Science,
International
Relations, Florida
State University
City of South El Monte | TRTS96022.2022 21
Jeff Cullen
Data Collection
With more than 30 years of experience in the fields of traffic/transportation, computer applications, and software development, Jeff brings an ability to develop powerful yet practical programming/hardware solutions to each project. Some of his accomplishments in the area of computer applications for transportation engineering include:
✓ Designing, developing, and implementing software packages for traffic collision and citation reporting and analysis; traffic signal design; graphics and mapping; radar speed study analysis and summary; license plate matching; traffic signal timing and coordination; and transportation planning
✓ Using the Microsoft Windows-based Crossroads Software Collision Database package to design and implement application database systems for more than 430 agencies throughout California, Nevada, and Washington, including the cities of Los Angeles, Ventura, Long Beach, Redmond, Fresno, Stockton, and Las Vegas; the counties of Riverside, Los Angeles, Ventura, San Diego, Santa Clara, San Bernardino, and Santa Clara; and many others
✓ Developing a full-featured Traffic Control Device Inventory System using Microsoft Access complete with GIS mapping and work order tracking capabilities
Supplementing Jeff’s vast experience in computer systems and software development is hands-on involvement analyzing and summarizing data (utilizing Crossroads Software systems) and preparing traffic signal, preliminary engineering, and final design plans for numerous projects utilizing various design packages.
Relevant Experience
✓ City of Santa Clarita, LRSP, Santa Clarita, CA – Data Collection ✓ City of Santa Clarita, Citywide SSAR, Santa Clarita, CA – Data Collection ✓ City of Anaheim, LRSP, Anaheim, CA – Data Collection
✓ City of Perris, LRSP, Perris, CA – Data Collection
✓ City of Palm Desert, LRSP, Palm Desert, CA – Data Collection ✓ City of Imperial Beach, LRSP, Imperial Beach, CA – Data Collection ✓ City of Goleta, Traffic Safety Study for the SSAR/LRSP, Goleta, CA – Data Collection ✓ City of Santa Cruz, LRSP, Santa Cruz, CA – Data Collection ✓ City of Ventura, SSAR, Ventura, CA – Data Collection
✓ City of Indio, LRSP, Indio, CA – Data Collection
✓ City of La Quinta, SSAR, La Quinta, CA – Data Collection ✓ County of Imperial, SSAR for Varied Roadways, Imperial County, CA – Data Collection Professional Credentials
✓ Bachelor of Science,
Computer Science with
Mathematics,
California State
University, Fullerton
City of South El Monte | TRTS96022.2022 22
Section 4: Company Qualifications
Firm Overview
Kimley-Horn 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 5,600+ staff in 103 offices nationwide. Our 11 California offices, including local offices in Downtown Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, and San Diego, have more than 600 engineers, planners,
designers, and technicians—affording us the depth of
resources reasonably necessary to staff and execute virtually any assignment in response to the City’s needs for this LRSP.
Our growth during the past five decades is the result of the firm’s commitment to integrity and dedication to providing quality services. Today, we are one of the highest-ranked engineering, planning, and environmental consulting firms in the U.S. According to Engineering News-Record, our firm now ranks 10th overall among the top 500 U.S. design firms and 7th in the transportation sector. Our extensive resource network and the qualifications and experience of our team allow us to 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.
Firm Qualifications
Our proposed project team brings technical knowledge and partners that will enhance the progress of an accurate and effective LRSP. The Kimley-Horn team offers specialists for the following service areas:
Local Roadway Safety Plans
Kimley-Horn understands that an LRSP is a proactive
approach to safety analysis. Existing crash patterns show part of the safety picture, but they 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. In an effort to provide completeness and to set safety benchmarks customized for the City, our approach will be to:
✓ 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 volumes and highest risk factors based on network screening (from the designated corridors and intersections)
✓ Identify countermeasures that would likely reduce crashes ✓ Map crash patterns at higher crash locations
City of South El Monte | TRTS96022.2022 23
✓ 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
✓ 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 software—including VISSIM, CORSIM, HCS+, Synchro/SimTraffic, SIDRA Intersection, Signal 2020, and Transyt-7F—to evaluate the operating conditions for existing or proposed roadway configurations. 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
✓ Data collection
✓ Collision analysis
✓ Freeway, arterial, and
intersection capacity
analysis
✓ Interchange justification and
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
✓ Traffic calming studies and
cut-through analysis
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, KimleyHorn knows the criteria for data collection, documentation, and compilation. Similarly, our strong relations with partners like Crossroads allow us to collect necessary data for projects such as this LRSP.
Bicycle and Pedestrian Planning
We prioritize implementable solutions that enable safe and comfortable access for multi-modal 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 such as for 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.
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, we have helped clients secure over $200M for the implementation of various projects. We 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.
City of South El Monte | TRTS96022.2022 24
Caltrans Knowledge
Kimley-Horn has completed projects in more than 70 municipalities in California, many of which involved some level of coordination with Caltrans. As a result, we have developed a clear understanding of standards, procedures, and local assistance programs. Our established relationships with Caltrans staff in various districts, including District 7 will prove useful to future LRSPs. Kimley-Horn and the proposed team offer insights to navigating regulatory challenges, codes, procedures, and infrastructure requirements.
Firm Experience
Kimley-Horn has vast consecutive experience working with local and state agencies to develop their safety projects across California (demonstrated by the map below). The following pages describe the applicable experience of the proposed team to demonstrate the depth of familiar projects and quality of Kimley-Horn’s services within California.
City of South El Monte | TRTS96022.2022 25
City of Santa Clarita, LRSP/SSAR, Santa Clarita, CA
Kimley-Horn is developing an LRSP focused on all roadway users for the City of Santa Clarita. 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. Kimley-Horn also developed a bicycle and pedestrian focused SSAR for the City. The report focused on the locations and factors involved with bicycle and pedestrian crashes in the City and included a toolbox of countermeasures specifically tailored to improving bicycle and pedestrian safety.
Crossroads provided data collection services for both of these projects.
City of Perris, LRSP, Perris, CA
Kimley-Horn assisted the City of Perris with their LRSP to help 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 emergency response. The LRSP resulted in a set of data-driven recommendations with input from key stakeholders representing the four E’s of safety included in the SHSP: engineering, enforcement, education, and emergency services. Crossroads provided data collection services for this project.
City of Palm Desert, LRSP, Palm Desert, CA
Kimley-Horn developed an LRSP for the City of Palm Desert that identified the trends and patterns for traffic collisions in the City and included a customized toolbox of countermeasures that address the most common local challenges that align with statewide funding priorities. Crossroads provided data collection services for this project.
City of Artesia, LRSP, Artesia, CA
Kimley-Horn is working with the City of Artesia to develop an LRSP that uses local crash histories to identify trends and patterns within the City that will inform the development of a customized countermeasure toolbox. The plan will identify locations with higher crash rates, higher crash costs, and crash patterns to determine the physical roadway characteristics and driver attributes that contribute to the largest number and highest severity of crashes.
City of Anaheim, LRSP, Anaheim, CA
The City of Anaheim received grant funding from Caltrans to conduct 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 addresses safety through roadway improvements, measures to modify driver behavior, and improved emergency response. The LRSP has resulted in a set of data driven recommendations, coupled with input from key stakeholders representing the four E’s of safety included in the SHSP: engineering, enforcement, education, and emergency services. Kimley-Horn is developing the LRSP for the City, which includes a customized toolbox of countermeasures that address the most common local challenges that align with statewide funding priorities. Crossroads provided data collection services for this project.
City of Eastvale, SSAR, Eastvale, CA
Kimley-Horn provided engineering services to prepare an SSAR with a focus on addressing safety concerns for vehicular and pedestrian patterns associated with available collision data for the most recent three- or five-year period for which data is available. The goal was to provide the City with an overall understanding of available traffic data and safety analysis to identify areas with a high risk for collisions that will allow the City to plan for future safety improvements for the short, mid, and long-term.
City of South El Monte | TRTS96022.2022 26
City of Imperial Beach, LRSP, Imperial Beach, CA
Kimley-Horn provided traffic safety services to prepare an LRSP, including a citywide traffic collisions analysis identifying safety issues throughout the City’s road network. The overall goal of this project was to provide the City with a detailed understanding of high-risk locations for collisions and identify engineering, education, and enforcement countermeasures that would allow the City to plan for future safety improvements for the immediate, mid-range, and long-term. This document provided guidance on selecting projects that will be well defined for future grant cycles. The project involved partnership with Crossroads and detailed crash data analysis to identify the number of collisions collision risk factors and rates, collision types and severity, crash rates, and various environmental variables. Based on the findings for Imperial Beach having more frequent vulnerable user crashes (pedestrian, bicycle, motorcycle), infrastructure and non-infrastructure countermeasure recommendations to reduce the likelihood of future crashes were identified. The project also included public outreach and involvement to get feedback from residents.
City of Santa Cruz, LRSP, Santa Cruz, CA
Kimley-Horn is developing an LRSP for the City of Santa Cruz. The plan includes 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. Crossroads provided data collection services for this project.
Caltrans, Safety Performance Management Target Setting Analysis, Statewide, CA
Kimley-Horn was selected for this project to assist Caltrans in coordinating with stakeholders across the state— including state agencies, MPOs, and tribal governments—to establish annual Safety Performance Measure Targets (SPMTs). Under the FAST Act, Caltrans is required to establish annual safety targets for each of the following five performance measures: 1) number of fatalities, 2) rate of fatalities, 3) number of serious injuries, 4) rate of serious injuries, and 5) number of non-motorized fatalities and non-motorized serious injuries. The project successfully set a process to assess roadway safety to assist with the planning on how to most effectively allocate safety funding.
This project included stakeholder coordination and the development of a safety performance measure target dashboard developed with Tableau software. Some aspects of this dashboard are now available within the California SHSP Crash dashboard at https://shsp.dot.ca.gov/.
Caltrans, Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP) Update and Implementation, Statewide, CA
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. KimleyHorn 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 South El Monte | TRTS96022.2022 27
Section 5: References
We are proud of our working relationships with our clients, and much of our success over the last 55 years is directly related to our efforts to provide consistent, high-quality, and timely services. The following is a list of five references that received similar services from Kimley-Horn within the last five years. We invite you to contact our clients directly for comment on the quality of Kimley-Horn’s services.
City of Santa Clarita
Mark Hunter | Transportation Planning Analyst
23920 Valencia Boulevard, #300, Santa Clarita, CA 91355 661.286.4042 | [email protected]
City of Perris
Stuart McKibbin | Contract City Engineer
24 South D Street, Suite 100, Perris, CA 92570
951.435.2108 | [email protected]
City of Palm Desert
Randy Bowman | Senior Project Manager
73-510 Fred Waring Drive, Palm Desert, CA 92260
760.776.6493 | [email protected]
City of Artesia
Ernesto Sanchez | City Clerk
18747 Clarkdale Avenue, Artesia, CA 90701
562.865.6262 | [email protected]
City of Santa Cruz
Claire Gallogly | Transportation Planner
809 Center Street, Room 9, Santa Cruz, CA 95060
831.420.5030 | [email protected]
I’ve loved working with Kimley Horn on this project. Darryl dePencier is our project manager, and has done a great job keeping the project moving on time and on budget. The rest of the team has also been great to work with. Their work is high quality, communication clear, and product is immediately usable. They went the extra mile in assisting us with two HSIP applications this cycle based on their draft report, and we would have been unable to take on the extra work of those without their help. I’d highly recommend their team. - Claire Gallogly, Transportation Planner, City of Santa Cruz
City of South El Monte | TRTS96022.2022 28
Section 6: City’s Standard Professional Services Agreement Kimley-Horn has reviewed the sample Professional Services Agreement and requests the following modifications.
1.1 Scope of Services.
In compliance with all terms and conditions of this Agreement, […]. Consultant covenants that it shall follow the highest professional standards in performing the work and services required hereunder and that all materials will be both of good quality as well as fit for the purpose intended. For purposes of this Agreement, the phrase “highest professional standards” shall mean those standards of practice recognized by one or more first-class firms performing similar work under similar circumstances.
1.5 Familiarity with Work.
By executing this Agreement, Consultant warrants maintains that Consultant (i) has thoroughly investigated and considered the scope of services to be performed, (ii) has carefully considered how the services should be performed, and (iii) fully understands the facilities, difficulties and restrictions attending performance of the services under this Agreement. If the services involve work upon any site, Consultant warrants that Consultant has or will investigate the site and is or will be fully acquainted with the conditions there existing, prior to commencement of services hereunder. […].
5.2 General Insurance Requirements.
(c) Primary/noncontributing. Coverage provided by Consultant, with the exception of professional liability, worker’s compensation and employer’s liability, shall be primary and any insurance or self-insurance procured or maintained by City shall not be required to contribute with it. […].
7.7 Termination Prior to Expiration of Term.
This Section shall govern any termination of this […]. Upon receipt of any notice of termination, Consultant shall immediately cease all services hereunder except such as may be specifically approved by the Contract Officer.
Except where the Consultant has initiated termination, the Consultant shall be entitled to compensation for all services rendered prior to the effective date of the notice of termination and for any services authorized by the Contract Officer thereafter in accordance with the Schedule of Compensation or such as may be approved by the Contract Officer, except as provided in Section 7.3. In the event the Consultant has initiated termination, the Consultant shall be entitled to compensation only for the reasonable value of the work product actually produced hereunder for all services rendered prior to the effective date of the notice of termination. In the event of termination without cause pursuant to this Section, the terminating party need not provide the non-terminating party with the opportunity to cure pursuant to Section 7.2.
City of South El Monte | TRTS96022.2022 29
Section 7: Addenda Acknowledgement
No addenda have been issued by the City as of the date of submission on May 18, 2022.
Section 8: Required Attachments
As per the City’s RFP, we have included signed copies of the attachments listed below on the following pages:
✓ Attachment A – Affidavit of Non-Collusion
✓ Attachment B – Claims History
Section 9: Fee Estimate Proposal
Per the City’s RFP, we have submitted our fee proposal, including a schedule of standard hourly rates, in a separate, sealed envelope.
ATTACHMENT A
AFFIDAVIT OF NON-COLLUSION
state that am Vice President (title) of
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. (name of firm) and that I am authorized to make this affidavit on behalf of my firm, and its owners, directors, and officers. I am the person responsible in my firm for the price(s) and the amount of this Offer.
I state that:
( 1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
The price(s) and amount of this Offer have been arrived at independently and without consultation, communication or agreement with any other Proposer or potential Proposer.
That neither the price(s) nor the amount of this Offer, and neither the approximate price(s) nor approximate amount of this Offer, have been disclosed to any other firm or person who is a Proposer or potential Proposer, and they will not be disclosed before Solicitation opening.
No attempt has been made or will be made to induce any firm or person to refrain from bidding on this contract, or to submit an Offer higher than this Offer, or to submit any intentionally high or noncompetitive Offer or other form of complementary Offer.
The Offer of my firm is made in good faith and not pursuant to any agreement or discussion with, or inducement from, any firm or person to submit a complementary or other noncompetitive Offer.
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. (name of firm), its affiliates, subsidiaries, officers, directors and employees are not currently under investigation by any governmental agency and have not in the last four years been convicted of or found liable for any act prohibited by State or Federal law in any jurisdiction, involving conspiracy or collusion with respect to bidding on any public contract, except as described in the attached appendix.
I state that Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. (name of firm) understands and acknowledges that the above representations are material and important, and will be relied on by the City of South El Monte in awarding the contract(s) for which this Offer is submitted. I understand and my firm understands that any misstatement in this affidavit is and shall be treated as fraudulent co ealment fro the t of South El Monte of the true facts relating to the submission of Offers f
/ th s o tract
{� � Robert D. Blume, P.E.
(Authorized Sign
Vice President, Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
(Name of Company/Position)
C O w. r°RATIC°ELLI C O �
COMM. #2282291 z
Notary Public • Qalifornia �
Los Angeles County ...
M Comm. Ex ires Mar. 22, W23
Sworn to and subscribed before me this \ 'l day of_�r\��-"'t----' 20_2_2 .
Nota"'ry P ic for California
My Commission Expires: �b 2. 2.., 202....3
12402-0001\2179898v2.doc Approved for Use 04/26/18
Attachment
A, Page 1
12402-0001\2179898v2.doc Approved for Use 04/26/18
Attachment B, Page 1
ATTACHMENT B
CLAIMS HISTORY
Each Consultant shall submit a summary of whether or not any of the following events have occurred within the past (10) years and, if so, a brief description of the circumstances involved (including, without limitation, the names of parties involved, current status and final disposition of the matter of dispute):
Failure to disclose any circumstances requested in the following paragraphs is grounds for disqualification.
▪ Failure by Consultant or any sub-consultant to enter into a contract to which it has received an award by a public entity.
▪ Forfeiture of a bid or proposal bond by proposer or any sub-consultant. ▪ Termination for default under a contract awarded by a public entity to Consultant or any sub-consultant.
▪ Debarment of Consultant or any sub-consultant by any municipal, county, state, federal, or local agency (note: debarment is grounds for automatic disqualification). ▪ The filing of a lawsuit or arbitration in which the Consultant or a sub-consultant was a defendant or cross-defendant at any time within the past ten (10) years that involved the performance of project, program, or engineering services and that involved an amount in controversy sought to be recovered from Consultant or the sub-consultant of more than $100,000.00.
▪ Conviction of Consultant, a sub-consultant, or any of their principals or officers for violation of a state or federal antitrust law involving bid rigging, collusion, or restriction on competition between bidders, or conviction of violating any other federal or state law relating to bidding or contract performance (note: such conviction is grounds for automatic disqualification).
▪ Any publications involving firm or principals alleging or claiming corruption (such claims are grounds for automatic disqualification).
▪ Any suspension, revocation, or other disciplinary proceeding relating to a contracting or professional license issued to proposer or a sub-consultant.
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
See attached 10-year litigation statement
N/A
N/A
Kimley-Horn and its subsidiaries have provided services in all fifty 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 ten (10) years are as follows:
29Twenty Maintenance Association v Van Daele Development, et al; Los Angeles County, Superior Court of the State of California; Case No 19STCV13496; filed 2019; alleged economic loss; settled; closed 2020 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.
Farhad Abad, individually and for the Estate of Mahin Ashki-Abad; et al v. US Foods, et.al.; Alameda County Superior Court; Case RG17856272; filed 2017; traffic accident, wrongful death claim; settled; closed 2019.
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.
Davis S. Lindley, et al v. City of Los Angeles, et al: Los Angeles County Superior Court, Central District; Case No. BC576886; filed 2015; wrongful death claim; settled; closed 2016.
Michelle Mobbs, et al v Walden Environment, et al: Riverside Co Central Superior Court; Case RIC 1300161; filed 2012; served 2014; personal injury related to traffic accident; Kimley-Horn dismissed 2015.
Santa Monica Malibu Unified School District v Killefer Flammang Architects, et al: Superior Court California County of Los Angeles West District; Case SC115579; filed 2012; property damage; settled; closed 2013.
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
660 SOUTH FIGUEROA STREET, SUITE 2050, LOS ANGELES, CA 90017 WWW.KIMLEY-HORN.COM
CONTACT: KYLE MCGOWAN, AICP
[email protected] 213.354.9944
ATTACHMENT C
DRAFT
01257.0001/577811.2
CONTRACT SERVICES AGREEMENT
By and Between
CITY OF SOUTH EL MONTE
and
KIMLEY-HORN AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
DRAFT
01257.0001/695512.1 1
AGREEMENT FOR CONTRACT SERVICES
BETWEEN THE CITY OF SOUTH EL MONTE AND
KIMLEY-HORN AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
THIS AGREEMENT FOR CONTRACT SERVICES (herein “Agreement”) is made and entered into this 24th day of May, 2022 by and between the CITY OF SOUTH EL MONTE, a California, a municipal corporation (“City”) and KIMLEY-HORN AND ASSOCIATES, INC. (“Consultant”). City and Consultant may be referred to, individually or collectively, as “Party” or “Parties.”
RECITALS
A. City has sought, by issuance of a Request for Proposals or Invitation for Bids, the performance of the services defined and described particularly in Article 1 of this Agreement.
B. Consultant, following submission of a proposal or bid for the performance of the services defined and described particularly in Article 1 of this Agreement, was selected by the City to perform those services.
C. Pursuant to the City of South El Monte Municipal Code, City has authority to enter into and execute this Agreement.
D. The Parties desire to formalize the selection of Consultant for performance of those services defined and described particularly in Article 1 of this Agreement and desire that the terms of that performance be as particularly defined and described herein.
OPERATIVE PROVISIONS
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises and covenants made by the Parties and contained herein and other consideration, the value and adequacy of which are hereby acknowledged, the parties agree as follows:
ARTICLE 1. SERVICES OF CONSULTANT
1.1 Scope of Services.
In compliance with all terms and conditions of this Agreement, the Consultant shall provide those services specified in the “Scope of Services” attached hereto as Exhibit “A” and incorporated herein by this reference, which may be referred to herein as the “services” or “work” hereunder.
As a material inducement to the City entering into this Agreement, Consultant represents and warrants that it has the qualifications, experience, and facilities necessary to properly perform the services required under this Agreement in a thorough, competent, and professional manner, and is experienced in performing the work and services contemplated herein. Consultant shall at all times faithfully, competently and to the best of its ability, experience and talent, perform all services described herein. Consultant covenants that it shall follow the highest professional standards in performing the work and services required hereunder and that all materials will be both of good quality as well as fit for the purpose intended. For purposes of this Agreement, the phrase “highest
DRAFT
01257.0001/695512.1 2
professional standards” shall mean those standards of practice recognized by one or more firstclass firms performing similar work under similar circumstances.
1.2 Consultant’s Proposal.
The Scope of Services shall include the Consultant’s scope of work or bid which shall be incorporated herein by this reference as though fully set forth herein. In the event of any inconsistency between the terms of such proposal and this Agreement, the terms of this Agreement shall govern.
1.3 Compliance with Law.
Consultant shall keep itself informed concerning, and shall render all services hereunder in accordance with, all ordinances, resolutions, statutes, rules, and regulations of the City and any Federal, State or local governmental entity having jurisdiction in effect at the time service is rendered.
1.4 Licenses, Permits, Fees and Assessments.
Consultant shall obtain at its sole cost and expense such licenses, permits and approvals as may be required by law for the performance of the services required by this Agreement. Consultant shall have the sole obligation to pay for any fees, assessments and taxes, plus applicable penalties and interest, which may be imposed by law and arise from or are necessary for the Consultant’s performance of the services required by this Agreement, and shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless City, its officers, employees or agents of City, against any such fees, assessments, taxes, penalties or interest levied, assessed or imposed against City hereunder.
1.5 Familiarity with Work.
By executing this Agreement, Consultant warrants that Consultant (i) has thoroughly investigated and considered the scope of services to be performed, (ii) has carefully considered how the services should be performed, and (iii) fully understands the facilities, difficulties and restrictions attending performance of the services under this Agreement. If the services involve work upon any site, Consultant warrants that Consultant has or will investigate the site and is or will be fully acquainted with the conditions there existing, prior to commencement of services hereunder. Should the Consultant discover any latent or unknown conditions, which will materially affect the performance of the services hereunder, Consultant shall immediately inform the City of such fact and shall not proceed except at Consultant’s risk until written instructions are received from the Contract Officer.
1.6 Care of Work.
The Consultant shall adopt reasonable methods during the life of the Agreement to furnish continuous protection to the work, and the equipment, materials, papers, documents, plans, studies and/or other components thereof to prevent losses or damages, and shall be responsible for all such damages, to persons or property, until acceptance of the work by City, except such losses or damages as may be caused by City’s own negligence.
DRAFT
01257.0001/695512.1 3
1.7 Further Responsibilities of Parties.
Both parties agree to use reasonable care and diligence to perform their respective obligations under this Agreement. Both parties agree to act in good faith to execute all instruments, prepare all documents and take all actions as may be reasonably necessary to carry out the purposes of this Agreement. Unless hereafter specified, neither party shall be responsible for the service of the other.
1.8 Additional Services.
City shall have the right at any time during the performance of the services, without invalidating this Agreement, to order extra work beyond that specified in the Scope of Services or make changes by altering, adding to or deducting from said work. No such extra work may be undertaken unless a written order is first given by the Contract Officer to the Consultant, incorporating therein any adjustment in (i) the Contract Sum for the actual costs of the extra work, and/or (ii) the time to perform this Agreement, which said adjustments are subject to the written approval of the Consultant. Any increase in compensation of up to ten percent (10%) of the Contract Sum or $25,000, whichever is less; or, in the time to perform of up to one hundred eighty (180) days, may be approved by the Contract Officer. Any greater increases, taken either separately or cumulatively, must be approved by the City Council. It is expressly understood by Consultant that the provisions of this Section shall not apply to services specifically set forth in the Scope of Services. Consultant hereby acknowledges that it accepts the risk that the services to be provided pursuant to the Scope of Services may be more costly or time consuming than Consultant anticipates and that Consultant shall not be entitled to additional compensation therefor. City may in its sole and absolute discretion have similar work done by other Consultants. No claims for an increase in the Contract Sum or time for performance shall be valid unless the procedures established in this Section are followed.
1.9 Special Requirements.
Additional terms and conditions of this Agreement, if any, which are made a part hereof are set forth in the “Special Requirements” attached hereto as Exhibit “B” and incorporated herein by this reference. In the event of a conflict between the provisions of Exhibit “B” and any other provisions of this Agreement, the provisions of Exhibit “B” shall govern.
ARTICLE 2. COMPENSATION AND METHOD OF PAYMENT.
2.1 Contract Sum.
Subject to any limitations set forth in this Agreement, City agrees to pay Consultant the amounts specified in the “Schedule of Compensation” attached hereto as Exhibit “C” and incorporated herein by this reference. The total compensation, including reimbursement for actual expenses, shall not exceed Thirty Nine Thousand Nine Hundred Seventy Six Dollars and Eighty Eight Cents ($39,976.88) (the “Contract Sum”), unless additional compensation is approved pursuant to Section 1.8.
DRAFT
01257.0001/695512.1 4
2.2 Method of Compensation.
The method of compensation may include: (i) a lump sum payment upon completion; (ii) payment in accordance with specified tasks or the percentage of completion of the services, less contract retention; (iii) payment for time and materials based upon the Consultant’s rates as specified in the Schedule of Compensation, provided that (a) time estimates are provided for the performance of sub tasks, (b) contract retention is maintained, and (c) the Contract Sum is not exceeded; or (iv) such other methods as may be specified in the Schedule of Compensation.
2.3 Reimbursable Expenses.
Compensation may include reimbursement for actual and necessary expenditures for reproduction costs, telephone expenses, and travel expenses approved by the Contract Officer in advance, or actual subcontractor expenses of an approved subcontractor pursuant to Section 4.5, and only if specified in the Schedule of Compensation. The Contract Sum shall include the attendance of Consultant at all project meetings reasonably deemed necessary by the City.
Coordination of the performance of the work with City is a critical component of the services. If Consultant is required to attend additional meetings to facilitate such coordination, Consultant shall not be entitled to any additional compensation for attending said meetings.
2.4 Invoices.
Each month Consultant shall furnish to City an original invoice for all work performed and expenses incurred during the preceding month in a form approved by City’s Director of Finance.
By submitting an invoice for payment under this Agreement, Consultant is certifying compliance with all provisions of the Agreement. The invoice shall contain all information specified in Exhibit “C”, and shall detail charges for all necessary and actual expenses by the following categories:
labor (by sub-category), travel, materials, equipment, supplies, and sub-contractor contracts. Subcontractor charges shall also be detailed by such categories. Consultant shall not invoice City for any duplicate services performed by more than one person.
City shall independently review each invoice submitted by the Consultant to determine whether the work performed and expenses incurred are in compliance with the provisions of this Agreement. Except as to any charges for work performed or expenses incurred by Consultant which are disputed by City, or as provided in Section 7.3, City will use its best efforts to cause Consultant to be paid within forty-five (45) days of receipt of Consultant’s correct and undisputed invoice; however, Consultant acknowledges and agrees that due to City warrant run procedures, the City cannot guarantee that payment will occur within this time period. In the event any charges or expenses are disputed by City, the original invoice shall be returned by City to Consultant for correction and resubmission. Review and payment by City for any invoice provided by the Consultant shall not constitute a waiver of any rights or remedies provided herein or any applicable law.
2.5 Waiver.
Payment to Consultant for work performed pursuant to this Agreement shall not be deemed to waive any defects in work performed by Consultant.
DRAFT
01257.0001/695512.1 5
ARTICLE 3. PERFORMANCE SCHEDULE
3.1 Time of Essence.
Time is of the essence in the performance of this Agreement.
3.2 Schedule of Performance.
Consultant shall commence the services pursuant to this Agreement upon receipt of a written notice to proceed and shall perform all services within the time period(s) established in the “Schedule of Performance” attached hereto as Exhibit “D” and incorporated herein by this reference. When requested by the Consultant, extensions to the time period(s) specified in the Schedule of Performance may be approved in writing by the Contract Officer but not exceeding one hundred eighty (180) days cumulatively.
3.3 Force Majeure.
The time period(s) specified in the Schedule of Performance for performance of the services rendered pursuant to this Agreement shall be extended because of any delays due to unforeseeable causes beyond the control and without the fault or negligence of the Consultant, including, but not restricted to, acts of God or of the public enemy, unusually severe weather, fires, earthquakes, floods, epidemics, quarantine restrictions, riots, strikes, freight embargoes, wars, litigation, and/or acts of any governmental agency, including the City, if the Consultant shall within ten (10) days of the commencement of such delay notify the Contract Officer in writing of the causes of the delay. The Contract Officer shall ascertain the facts and the extent of delay, and extend the time for performing the services for the period of the enforced delay when and if in the judgment of the Contract Officer such delay is justified. The Contract Officer’s determination shall be final and conclusive upon the parties to this Agreement. In no event shall Consultant be entitled to recover damages against the City for any delay in the performance of this Agreement, however caused, Consultant’s sole remedy being extension of the Agreement pursuant to this Section.
3.4 Term.
Unless earlier terminated in accordance with Article 7 of this Agreement, this Agreement shall continue in full force and effect until completion of the services but not exceeding 1 year from the date hereof, except as otherwise provided in the Schedule of Performance (Exhibit “D”). [The City may, in its sole discretion, extend the Term for 1 additional one-year term.] ARTICLE 4. COORDINATION OF WORK
4.1 Representatives and Personnel of Consultant.
The following principals of Consultant (“Principals”) are hereby designated as being the principals and representatives of Consultant authorized to act in its behalf with respect to the work specified herein and make all decisions in connection therewith:
DRAFT
01257.0001/695512.1 6
Jean Fares, PE Principal-in-Charge/Senior Vice President (Name) (Title)
Kyle McGowan Project Manager
(Name) (Title)
It is expressly understood that the experience, knowledge, capability and reputation of the foregoing principals were a substantial inducement for City to enter into this Agreement.
Therefore, the foregoing principals shall be responsible during the term of this Agreement for directing all activities of Consultant and devoting sufficient time to personally supervise the services hereunder. All personnel of Consultant, and any authorized agents, shall at all times be under the exclusive direction and control of the Principals. For purposes of this Agreement, the foregoing Principals may not be replaced nor may their responsibilities be substantially reduced by Consultant without the express written approval of City. Additionally, Consultant shall utilize only competent personnel to perform services pursuant to this Agreement. Consultant shall make every reasonable effort to maintain the stability and continuity of Consultant’s staff and subcontractors, if any, assigned to perform the services required under this Agreement. Consultant shall notify City of any changes in Consultant’s staff and subcontractors, if any, assigned to perform the services required under this Agreement, prior to and during any such performance.
4.2 Status of Consultant.
Consultant shall have no authority to bind City in any manner, or to incur any obligation, debt or liability of any kind on behalf of or against City, whether by contract or otherwise, unless such authority is expressly conferred under this Agreement or is otherwise expressly conferred in writing by City. Consultant shall not at any time or in any manner represent that Consultant or any of Consultant’s officers, employees, or agents are in any manner officials, officers, employees or agents of City. Neither Consultant, nor any of Consultant’s officers, employees or agents, shall obtain any rights to retirement, health care or any other benefits which may otherwise accrue to City’s employees. Consultant expressly waives any claim Consultant may have to any such rights.
4.3 Contract Officer.
The Contract Officer shall be Colby Cataldi or such person as may be designated by the City Manager. It shall be the Consultant’s responsibility to assure that the Contract Officer is kept informed of the progress of the performance of the services and the Consultant shall refer any decisions which must be made by City to the Contract Officer. Unless otherwise specified herein, any approval of City required hereunder shall mean the approval of the Contract Officer. The Contract Officer shall have authority, if specified in writing by the City Manager, to sign all documents on behalf of the City required hereunder to carry out the terms of this Agreement.
4.4 Independent Consultant.
Neither the City nor any of its employees shall have any control over the manner, mode or means by which Consultant, its agents or employees, perform the services required herein, except
DRAFT
01257.0001/695512.1 7
as otherwise set forth herein. City shall have no voice in the selection, discharge, supervision or control of Consultant’s employees, servants, representatives or agents, or in fixing their number, compensation or hours of service. Consultant shall perform all services required herein as an independent contractor of City and shall remain at all times as to City a wholly independent contractor with only such obligations as are consistent with that role. Consultant shall not at any time or in any manner represent that it or any of its agents or employees are agents or employees of City. City shall not in any way or for any purpose become or be deemed to be a partner of Consultant in its business or otherwise or a joint venturer or a member of any joint enterprise with Consultant. Consultant represents and warrants that the personnel used to provide services to the City pursuant to this Agreement are classified by Consultant as employees and that Consultant issues or will issue a W-2 to such personnel.
In the event that Consultant or any employee, agent, subcontractor, or independent contractor of Consultant providing services under this Agreement claims or is determined by a federal or state agency, a court of competent jurisdiction, or the California Public Employees’ Retirement System (“CalPERS”) to be classified as other than an independent contractor for the City, then Consultant shall indemnify, defend, and hold harmless the City for the payment of any and all assessed fines, penalties, judgments, employee and/or employer contributions, and any other damages and costs assessed to the City as a consequence of, or in any way attributable to, the assertion that Consultant or any of Consultant’s personnel used to provide the Services under this Agreement are other than independent contractors of the City.
4.5 Prohibition Against Subcontracting or Assignment.
The experience, knowledge, capability and reputation of Consultant, its principals and employees were a substantial inducement for the City to enter into this Agreement. Therefore, Consultant shall not contract with any other entity to perform in whole or in part the services required hereunder without the express written approval of the City. In addition, neither this Agreement nor any interest herein may be transferred, assigned, conveyed, hypothecated or encumbered voluntarily or by operation of law, whether for the benefit of creditors or otherwise, without the prior written approval of City. Transfers restricted hereunder shall include the transfer to any person or group of persons acting in concert of more than twenty five percent (25%) of the present ownership and/or control of Consultant, taking all transfers into account on a cumulative basis. In the event of any such unapproved transfer, including any bankruptcy proceeding, this Agreement shall be void. No approved transfer shall release the Consultant or any surety of Consultant of any liability hereunder without the express consent of City.
ARTICLE 5. INSURANCE AND INDEMNIFICATION
5.1 Insurance Coverages.
Without limiting Consultant’s indemnification of City, and prior to commencement of any services under this Agreement, Consultant shall obtain, provide and maintain at its own expense during the term of this Agreement, policies of insurance of the type and amounts described below and in a form satisfactory to City.
DRAFT
01257.0001/695512.1 8
(a) General liability insurance. Consultant shall maintain commercial general liability insurance with coverage at least as broad as Insurance Services Office form CG 00 01, in an amount not less than $2,000,000 per occurrence, $4,000,000 general aggregate, for bodily injury, personal injury, and property damage. The policy must include contractual liability that has not been amended. Any endorsement restricting standard ISO “insured contract” language will not be accepted.
(b) Automobile liability insurance. Consultant shall maintain automobile insurance at least as broad as Insurance Services Office form CA 00 01 covering bodily injury and property damage for all activities of the Consultant arising out of or in connection with Services to be performed under this Agreement, including coverage for any owned, hired, non-owned or rented vehicles, in an amount not less than $1,000,000 combined single limit for each accident. (c) Professional liability (errors & omissions) insurance. Consultant shall maintain professional liability insurance that covers the Services to be performed in connection with this Agreement, in the minimum amount of $1,000,000 per claim and in the aggregate. Any policy inception date, continuity date, or retroactive date must be before the effective date of this Agreement and Consultant agrees to maintain continuous coverage through a period no less than three (3) years after completion of the services required by this Agreement. (d) Workers’ compensation insurance. Consultant shall maintain Workers’ Compensation Insurance (Statutory Limits) and Employer’s Liability Insurance (with limits of at least $1,000,000).
(e) Subcontractors. Consultant shall include all subcontractors as insureds under its policies or shall furnish separate certificates and certified endorsements for each subcontractor. All coverages for subcontractors shall include all of the requirements stated herein. (f) Additional Insurance. Policies of such other insurance, as may be required in the Special Requirements in Exhibit “B”.
5.2 General Insurance Requirements.
(a) Proof of insurance. Consultant shall provide certificates of insurance to City as evidence of the insurance coverage required herein, along with a waiver of subrogation endorsement for workers’ compensation. Insurance certificates and endorsements must be approved by City’s Risk Manager prior to commencement of performance. Current certification of insurance shall be kept on file with City at all times during the term of this Agreement. City reserves the right to require complete, certified copies of all required insurance policies, at any time.
(b) Duration of coverage. Consultant shall procure and maintain for the duration of this Agreement insurance against claims for injuries to persons or damages to property, which may arise from or in connection with the performance of the Services hereunder by Consultant, its agents, representatives, employees or subconsultants. (c) Primary/noncontributing. Coverage provided by Consultant shall be primary and any insurance or self-insurance procured or maintained by City shall not be required
DRAFT
01257.0001/695512.1 9
to contribute with it. The limits of insurance required herein may be satisfied by a combination of primary and umbrella or excess insurance. Any umbrella or excess insurance shall contain or be endorsed to contain a provision that such coverage shall also apply on a primary and noncontributory basis for the benefit of City before the City’s own insurance or self-insurance shall be called upon to protect it as a named insured.
(d) City’s rights of enforcement. In the event any policy of insurance required under this Agreement does not comply with these specifications or is canceled and not replaced, City has the right but not the duty to obtain the insurance it deems necessary and any premium paid by City will be promptly reimbursed by Consultant or City will withhold amounts sufficient to pay premium from Consultant payments. In the alternative, City may cancel this Agreement. (e) Acceptable insurers. All insurance policies shall be issued by an insurance company currently authorized by the Insurance Commissioner to transact business of insurance or that is on the List of Approved Surplus Line Insurers in the State of California, with an assigned policyholders’ Rating of A- (or higher) and Financial Size Category Class VI (or larger) in accordance with the latest edition of Best’s Key Rating Guide, unless otherwise approved by the City’s Risk Manager.
(f) Waiver of subrogation. All insurance coverage maintained or procured pursuant to this agreement shall be endorsed to waive subrogation against City, its elected or appointed officers, agents, officials, employees and volunteers or shall specifically allow Consultant or others providing insurance evidence in compliance with these specifications to waive their right of recovery prior to a loss. Consultant hereby waives its own right of recovery against City, and shall require similar written express waivers and insurance clauses from each of its subconsultants.
(g) Enforcement of contract provisions (non-estoppel). Consultant acknowledges and agrees that any actual or alleged failure on the part of the City to inform Consultant of non-compliance with any requirement imposes no additional obligations on the City nor does it waive any rights hereunder.
(h) Requirements not limiting. Requirements of specific coverage features or limits contained in this section are not intended as a limitation on coverage, limits or other requirements, or a waiver of any coverage normally provided by any insurance. Specific reference to a given coverage feature is for purposes of clarification only as it pertains to a given issue and is not intended by any party or insured to be all inclusive, or to the exclusion of other coverage, or a waiver of any type. If the Consultant maintains higher limits than the minimums shown above, the City requires and shall be entitled to coverage for the higher limits maintained by the Consultant. Any available insurance proceeds in excess of the specified minimum limits of insurance and coverage shall be available to the City.
(i) Notice of cancellation. Consultant agrees to oblige its insurance agent or broker and insurers to provide to City with a thirty (30) day notice of cancellation (except for nonpayment for which a ten (10) day notice is required) or nonrenewal of coverage for each required coverage.
DRAFT
01257.0001/695512.1 10
(j) Additional insured status. General liability policies shall provide or be endorsed to provide that City and its officers, officials, employees, and agents, and volunteers shall be additional insureds under such policies. This provision shall also apply to any excess/umbrella liability policies.
(k) Prohibition of undisclosed coverage limitations. None of the coverages required herein will be in compliance with these requirements if they include any limiting endorsement of any kind that has not been first submitted to City and approved of in writing. (l) Separation of insureds. A severability of interests provision must apply for all additional insureds ensuring that Consultant’s insurance shall apply separately to each insured against whom claim is made or suit is brought, except with respect to the insurer’s limits of liability. The policy(ies) shall not contain any cross-liability exclusions. (m) Pass through clause. Consultant agrees to ensure that its subconsultants, subcontractors, and any other party involved with the project who is brought onto or involved in the project by Consultant, provide the same minimum insurance coverage and endorsements required of Consultant. Consultant agrees to monitor and review all such coverage and assumes all responsibility for ensuring that such coverage is provided in conformity with the requirements of this section. Consultant agrees that upon request, all agreements with consultants, subcontractors, and others engaged in the project will be submitted to City for review. (n) Agency’s right to revise specifications. The City reserves the right at any time during the term of the contract to change the amounts and types of insurance required by giving the Consultant ninety (90) days advance written notice of such change. If such change results in substantial additional cost to the Consultant, the City and Consultant may renegotiate Consultant’s compensation.
(o) Self-insured retentions. Any self-insured retentions must be declared to and approved by City. City reserves the right to require that self-insured retentions be eliminated, lowered, or replaced by a deductible. Self-insurance will not be considered to comply with these specifications unless approved by City.
(p) Timely notice of claims. Consultant shall give City prompt and timely notice of claims made or suits instituted that arise out of or result from Consultant’s performance under this Agreement, and that involve or may involve coverage under any of the required liability policies.
(q) Additional insurance. Consultant shall also procure and maintain, at its own cost and expense, any additional kinds of insurance, which in its own judgment may be necessary for its proper protection and prosecution of the work.
5.3 Indemnification.
To the full extent permitted by law, Consultant agrees to indemnify, defend and hold harmless the City, its officers, employees and agents (“Indemnified Parties”) against, and will hold and save them and each of them harmless from, any and all actions, either judicial, administrative, arbitration or regulatory claims, damages to persons or property, losses, costs, penalties,
DRAFT
01257.0001/695512.1 11
obligations, errors, omissions or liabilities whether actual or threatened (herein “claims or liabilities”) that may be asserted or claimed by any person, firm or entity arising out of or in connection with the negligent performance of the work, operations or activities provided herein of Consultant, its officers, employees, agents, subcontractors, or invitees, or any individual or entity for which Consultant is legally liable (“indemnitors”), or arising from Consultant’s or indemnitors’ reckless or willful misconduct, or arising from Consultant’s or indemnitors’ negligent performance of or failure to perform any term, provision, covenant or condition of this Agreement, and in connection therewith:
(a) Consultant will defend any action or actions filed in connection with any of said claims or liabilities and will pay all costs and expenses, including legal costs and attorneys’ fees incurred in connection therewith;
(b) Consultant will promptly pay any judgment rendered against the City, its officers, agents or employees for any such claims or liabilities arising out of or in connection with the negligent performance of or failure to perform such work, operations or activities of Consultant hereunder; and Consultant agrees to save and hold the City, its officers, agents, and employees harmless therefrom;
(c) In the event the City, its officers, agents or employees is made a party to any action or proceeding filed or prosecuted against Consultant for such damages or other claims arising out of or in connection with the negligent performance of or failure to perform the work, operation or activities of Consultant hereunder, Consultant agrees to pay to the City, its officers, agents or employees, any and all costs and expenses incurred by the City, its officers, agents or employees in such action or proceeding, including but not limited to, legal costs and attorneys’ fees.
Consultant shall incorporate similar indemnity agreements with its subcontractors and if it fails to do so Consultant shall be fully responsible to indemnify City hereunder therefore, and failure of City to monitor compliance with these provisions shall not be a waiver hereof. This indemnification includes claims or liabilities arising from any negligent or wrongful act, error or omission, or reckless or willful misconduct of Consultant in the performance of professional services hereunder. The provisions of this Section do not apply to claims or liabilities occurring as a result of City’s sole negligence or willful acts or omissions, but, to the fullest extent permitted by law, shall apply to claims and liabilities resulting in part from City’s negligence, except that design professionals’ indemnity hereunder shall be limited to claims and liabilities arising out of the negligence, recklessness or willful misconduct of the design professional. The indemnity obligation shall be binding on successors and assigns of Consultant and shall survive termination or expiration of this Agreement.
ARTICLE 6. RECORDS, REPORTS, AND RELEASE OF INFORMATION
6.1 Records.
Consultant shall keep, and require subcontractors to keep, such ledgers, books of accounts, invoices, vouchers, canceled checks, reports, studies or other documents relating to the disbursements charged to City and services performed hereunder (the “books and records”), as shall be necessary to perform the services required by this Agreement and enable the Contract
DRAFT
01257.0001/695512.1 12
Officer to evaluate the performance of such services. Any and all such documents shall be maintained in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles and shall be complete and detailed. The Contract Officer shall have full and free access to such books and records at all times during normal business hours of City, including the right to inspect, copy, audit and make records and transcripts from such records. Such records shall be maintained for a period of three (3) years following completion of the services hereunder, and the City shall have access to such records in the event any audit is required. In the event of dissolution of Consultant’s business, custody of the books and records may be given to City, and access shall be provided by Consultant’s successor in interest. Notwithstanding the above, the Consultant shall fully cooperate with the City in providing access to the books and records if a public records request is made and disclosure is required by law including but not limited to the California Public Records Act.
6.2 Reports.
Consultant shall periodically prepare and submit to the Contract Officer such reports concerning the performance of the services required by this Agreement as the Contract Officer shall require. Consultant hereby acknowledges that the City is greatly concerned about the cost of work and services to be performed pursuant to this Agreement. For this reason, Consultant agrees that if Consultant becomes aware of any facts, circumstances, techniques, or events that may or will materially increase or decrease the cost of the work or services contemplated herein or, if Consultant is providing design services, the cost of the project being designed, Consultant shall promptly notify the Contract Officer of said fact, circumstance, technique or event and the estimated increased or decreased cost related thereto and, if Consultant is providing design services, the estimated increased or decreased cost estimate for the project being designed.
6.3 Ownership of Documents.
All drawings, specifications, maps, designs, photographs, studies, surveys, data, notes, computer files, reports, records, documents and other materials (the “documents and materials”) prepared by Consultant, its employees, subcontractors and agents in the performance of this Agreement shall be the property of City and shall be delivered to City upon request of the Contract Officer or upon the termination of this Agreement, and Consultant shall have no claim for further employment or additional compensation as a result of the exercise by City of its full rights of ownership use, reuse, or assignment of the documents and materials hereunder. Any use, reuse or assignment of such completed documents for other projects and/or use of uncompleted documents without specific written authorization by the Consultant will be at the City’s sole risk and without liability to Consultant, and Consultant’s guarantee and warranties shall not extend to such use, reuse or assignment. Consultant may retain copies of such documents for its own use. Consultant shall have the right to use the concepts embodied therein. All subcontractors shall provide for assignment to City of any documents or materials prepared by them, and in the event Consultant fails to secure such assignment, Consultant shall indemnify City for all damages resulting therefrom. Moreover, Consultant with respect to any documents and materials that may qualify as “works made for hire” as defined in 17 U.S.C. § 101, such documents and materials are hereby deemed “works made for hire” for the City.
6.4 Confidentiality and Release of Information.
DRAFT
01257.0001/695512.1 13
(a) All information gained or work product produced by Consultant in performance of this Agreement shall be considered confidential, unless such information is in the public domain or already known to Consultant. Consultant shall not release or disclose any such information or work product to persons or entities other than City without prior written authorization from the Contract Officer.
(b) Consultant, its officers, employees, agents or subcontractors, shall not, without prior written authorization from the Contract Officer or unless requested by the City Attorney, voluntarily provide documents, declarations, letters of support, testimony at depositions, response to interrogatories or other information concerning the work performed under this Agreement. Response to a subpoena or court order shall not be considered “voluntary” provided Consultant gives City notice of such court order or subpoena. (c) If Consultant, or any officer, employee, agent or subcontractor of Consultant, provides any information or work product in violation of this Agreement, then City shall have the right to reimbursement and indemnity from Consultant for any damages, costs and fees, including attorney’s fees, caused by or incurred as a result of Consultant’s conduct. (d) Consultant shall promptly notify City should Consultant, its officers, employees, agents or subcontractors be served with any summons, complaint, subpoena, notice of deposition, request for documents, interrogatories, request for admissions or other discovery request, court order or subpoena from any party regarding this Agreement and the work performed there under. City retains the right, but has no obligation, to represent Consultant or be present at any deposition, hearing or similar proceeding. Consultant agrees to cooperate fully with City and to provide City with the opportunity to review any response to discovery requests provided by Consultant. However, this right to review any such response does not imply or mean the right by City to control, direct, or rewrite said response.
ARTICLE 7. ENFORCEMENT OF AGREEMENT AND TERMINATION
7.1 California Law.
This Agreement shall be interpreted, construed and governed both as to validity and to performance of the parties in accordance with the laws of the State of California. Legal actions concerning any dispute, claim or matter arising out of or in relation to this Agreement shall be instituted in the Superior Court of the County of Los Angeles, State of California, or any other appropriate court in such county, and Consultant covenants and agrees to submit to the personal jurisdiction of such court in the event of such action. In the event of litigation in a U.S. District Court, venue shall lie exclusively in the Central District of California, in the County of Los Angeles, State of California.
7.2 Disputes; Default.
In the event that Consultant is in default under the terms of this Agreement, the City shall not have any obligation or duty to continue compensating Consultant for any work performed after the date of default. Instead, the City may give notice to Consultant of the default and the reasons for the default. The notice shall include the timeframe in which Consultant may cure the default.
This timeframe is presumptively thirty (30) days, but may be extended, though not reduced, if
DRAFT
01257.0001/695512.1 14
circumstances warrant. During the period of time that Consultant is in default, the City shall hold all invoices and shall, when the default is cured, proceed with payment on the invoices. In the alternative, the City may, in its sole discretion, elect to pay some or all of the outstanding invoices during the period of default. If Consultant does not cure the default, the City may take necessary steps to terminate this Agreement under this Article. Any failure on the part of the City to give notice of the Consultant’s default shall not be deemed to result in a waiver of the City’s legal rights or any rights arising out of any provision of this Agreement.
7.3 Retention of Funds.
Consultant hereby authorizes City to deduct from any amount payable to Consultant (whether or not arising out of this Agreement) (i) any amounts the payment of which may be in dispute hereunder or which are necessary to compensate City for any losses, costs, liabilities, or damages suffered by City, and (ii) all amounts for which City may be liable to third parties, by reason of Consultant’s acts or omissions in performing or failing to perform Consultant’s obligation under this Agreement. In the event that any claim is made by a third party, the amount or validity of which is disputed by Consultant, or any indebtedness shall exist which shall appear to be the basis for a claim of lien, City may withhold from any payment due, without liability for interest because of such withholding, an amount sufficient to cover such claim. The failure of City to exercise such right to deduct or to withhold shall not, however, affect the obligations of the Consultant to insure, indemnify, and protect City as elsewhere provided herein.
7.4 Waiver.
Waiver by any party to this Agreement of any term, condition, or covenant of this Agreement shall not constitute a waiver of any other term, condition, or covenant. Waiver by any party of any breach of the provisions of this Agreement shall not constitute a waiver of any other provision or a waiver of any subsequent breach or violation of any provision of this Agreement.
Acceptance by City of any work or services by Consultant shall not constitute a waiver of any of the provisions of this Agreement. No delay or omission in the exercise of any right or remedy by a non-defaulting party on any default shall impair such right or remedy or be construed as a waiver.
Any waiver by either party of any default must be in writing and shall not be a waiver of any other default concerning the same or any other provision of this Agreement.
7.5 Rights and Remedies are Cumulative.
Except with respect to rights and remedies expressly declared to be exclusive in this Agreement, the rights and remedies of the parties are cumulative and the exercise by either party of one or more of such rights or remedies shall not preclude the exercise by it, at the same or different times, of any other rights or remedies for the same default or any other default by the other party.
7.6 Legal Action.
In addition to any other rights or remedies, either party may take legal action, in law or in equity, to cure, correct or remedy any default, to recover damages for any default, to compel specific performance of this Agreement, to obtain declaratory or injunctive relief, or to obtain any other remedy consistent with the purposes of this Agreement. Notwithstanding any contrary
DRAFT
01257.0001/695512.1 15
provision herein, Consultant shall file a statutory claim pursuant to Government Code Sections 905 et seq. and 910 et seq., in order to pursue a legal action under this Agreement.
7.7 Termination Prior to Expiration of Term.
This Section shall govern any termination of this Contract except as specifically provided in the following Section for termination for cause. The City reserves the right to terminate this Contract at any time, with or without cause, upon thirty (30) days’ written notice to Consultant, except that where termination is due to the fault of the Consultant, the period of notice may be such shorter time as may be determined by the Contract Officer. In addition, the Consultant reserves the right to terminate this Contract at any time, with or without cause, upon sixty (60) days’ written notice to City, except that where termination is due to the fault of the City, the period of notice may be such shorter time as the Consultant may determine. Upon receipt of any notice of termination, Consultant shall immediately cease all services hereunder except such as may be specifically approved by the Contract Officer. Except where the Consultant has initiated termination, the Consultant shall be entitled to compensation for all services rendered prior to the effective date of the notice of termination and for any services authorized by the Contract Officer thereafter in accordance with the Schedule of Compensation or such as may be approved by the Contract Officer, except as provided in Section 7.3. In the event the Consultant has initiated termination, the Consultant shall be entitled to compensation only for the reasonable value of the work product actually produced hereunder. In the event of termination without cause pursuant to this Section, the terminating party need not provide the non-terminating party with the opportunity to cure pursuant to Section 7.2.
7.8 Termination for Default of Consultant.
If termination is due to the failure of the Consultant to fulfill its obligations under this Agreement, City may, after compliance with the provisions of Section 7.2, take over the work and prosecute the same to completion by contract or otherwise, and the Consultant shall be liable to the extent that the total cost for completion of the services required hereunder exceeds the compensation herein stipulated (provided that the City shall use reasonable efforts to mitigate such damages), and City may withhold any payments to the Consultant for the purpose of set-off or partial payment of the amounts owed the City as previously stated.
7.9 Attorneys’ Fees.
If either party to this Agreement is required to initiate or defend or made a party to any action or proceeding in any way connected with this Agreement, the prevailing party in such action or proceeding, in addition to any other relief which may be granted, whether legal or equitable, shall be entitled to reasonable attorney’s fees. Attorney’s fees shall include attorney’s fees on any appeal, and in addition a party entitled to attorney’s fees shall be entitled to all other reasonable costs for investigating such action, taking depositions and discovery and all other necessary costs the court allows which are incurred in such litigation. All such fees shall be deemed to have accrued on commencement of such action and shall be enforceable whether or not such action is prosecuted to judgment.
DRAFT
01257.0001/695512.1 16
ARTICLE 8. CITY OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES: NON-DISCRIMINATION
8.1 Non-liability of City Officers and Employees.
No officer or employee of the City shall be personally liable to the Consultant, or any successor in interest, in the event of any default or breach by the City or for any amount which may become due to the Consultant or to its successor, or for breach of any obligation of the terms of this Agreement.
8.2 Conflict of Interest.
Consultant covenants that neither it, nor any officer or principal of its firm, has or shall acquire any interest, directly or indirectly, which would conflict in any manner with the interests of City or which would in any way hinder Consultant’s performance of services under this Agreement. Consultant further covenants that in the performance of this Agreement, no person having any such interest shall be employed by it as an officer, employee, agent or subcontractor without the express written consent of the Contract Officer. Consultant agrees to at all times avoid conflicts of interest or the appearance of any conflicts of interest with the interests of City in the performance of this Agreement.
No officer or employee of the City shall have any financial interest, direct or indirect, in this Agreement nor shall any such officer or employee participate in any decision relating to the Agreement which affects her/his financial interest or the financial interest of any corporation, partnership or association in which (s)he is, directly or indirectly, interested, in violation of any State statute or regulation. The Consultant warrants that it has not paid or given and will not pay or give any third party any money or other consideration for obtaining this Agreement.
8.3 Covenant Against Discrimination.
Consultant covenants that, by and for itself, its heirs, executors, assigns, and all persons claiming under or through them, that there shall be no discrimination against or segregation of, any person or group of persons on account of race, color, creed, religion, sex, gender, sexual orientation, marital status, national origin, ancestry or other protected class in the performance of this Agreement. Consultant shall take affirmative action to insure that applicants are employed and that employees are treated during employment without regard to their race, color, creed, religion, sex, gender, sexual orientation, marital status, national origin, ancestry or other protected class.
8.4 Unauthorized Aliens.
Consultant hereby promises and agrees to comply with all of the provisions of the Federal Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1101 et seq., as amended, and in connection therewith, shall not employ unauthorized aliens as defined therein. Should Consultant so employ such unauthorized aliens for the performance of work and/or services covered by this Agreement, and should any liability or sanctions be imposed against City for such use of unauthorized aliens, Consultant hereby agrees to and shall reimburse City for the cost of all such liabilities or sanctions imposed, together with any and all costs, including attorneys’ fees, incurred by City.
ARTICLE 9. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS
DRAFT
01257.0001/695512.1 17
9.1 Notices.
Any notice, demand, request, document, consent, approval, or communication either party desires or is required to give to the other party or any other person shall be in writing and either served personally or sent by prepaid, first-class mail, in the case of the City, to the City Manager and to the attention of the Contract Officer (with her/his name and City title), City of South El Monte, 6330 Pine Avenue, South El Monte, California 90201 and in the case of the Consultant, to the person(s) at the address designated on the execution page of this Agreement. Either party may change its address by notifying the other party of the change of address in writing. Notice shall be deemed communicated at the time personally delivered or in seventy-two (72) hours from the time of mailing if mailed as provided in this Section.
9.2 Interpretation.
The terms of this Agreement shall be construed in accordance with the meaning of the language used and shall not be construed for or against either party by reason of the authorship of this Agreement or any other rule of construction which might otherwise apply.
9.3 Counterparts.
This Agreement may be executed in counterparts, each of which shall be deemed to be an original, and such counterparts shall constitute one and the same instrument.
9.4 Integration; Amendment.
This Agreement including the attachments hereto is the entire, complete and exclusive expression of the understanding of the parties. It is understood that there are no oral agreements between the parties hereto affecting this Agreement and this Agreement supersedes and cancels any and all previous negotiations, arrangements, agreements and understandings, if any, between the parties, and none shall be used to interpret this Agreement. No amendment to or modification of this Agreement shall be valid unless made in writing and approved by the Consultant and by the City Council. The parties agree that this requirement for written modifications cannot be waived and that any attempted waiver shall be void.
9.5 Severability.
In the event that any one or more of the phrases, sentences, clauses, paragraphs, or sections contained in this Agreement shall be declared invalid or unenforceable by a valid judgment or decree of a court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity or unenforceability shall not affect any of the remaining phrases, sentences, clauses, paragraphs, or sections of this Agreement which are hereby declared as severable and shall be interpreted to carry out the intent of the parties hereunder unless the invalid provision is so material that its invalidity deprives either party of the basic benefit of their bargain or renders this Agreement meaningless.
9.6 Warranty & Representation of Non-Collusion.
No official, officer, or employee of City has any financial interest, direct or indirect, in this Agreement, nor shall any official, officer, or employee of City participate in any decision relating
DRAFT
01257.0001/695512.1 18
to this Agreement which may affect his/her financial interest or the financial interest of any corporation, partnership, or association in which (s)he is directly or indirectly interested, or in violation of any corporation, partnership, or association in which (s)he is directly or indirectly interested, or in violation of any State or municipal statute or regulation. The determination of “financial interest” shall be consistent with State law and shall not include interests found to be “remote” or “noninterests” pursuant to Government Code Sections 1091 or 1091.5. Consultant warrants and represents that it has not paid or given, and will not pay or give, to any third party including, but not limited to, any City official, officer, or employee, any money, consideration, or other thing of value as a result or consequence of obtaining or being awarded any agreement.
Consultant further warrants and represents that (s)he/it has not engaged in any act(s), omission(s), or other conduct or collusion that would result in the payment of any money, consideration, or other thing of value to any third party including, but not limited to, any City official, officer, or employee, as a result of consequence of obtaining or being awarded any agreement. Consultant is aware of and understands that any such act(s), omission(s) or other conduct resulting in such payment of money, consideration, or other thing of value will render this Agreement void and of no force or effect.
Consultant’s Authorized Initials _______
9.7 Corporate Authority.
The persons executing this Agreement on behalf of the parties hereto warrant that (i) such party is duly organized and existing, (ii) they are duly authorized to execute and deliver this Agreement on behalf of said party, (iii) by so executing this Agreement, such party is formally bound to the provisions of this Agreement, and (iv) that entering into this Agreement does not violate any provision of any other Agreement to which said party is bound. This Agreement shall be binding upon the heirs, executors, administrators, successors and assigns of the parties. [SIGNATURES ON FOLLOWING PAGE]
DRAFT
01257.0001/695512.1 19
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement on the date and year first-above written.
CITY:
CITY OF SOUTH EL MONTE, a municipal
corporation
Gloria Olmos, Mayor
ATTEST:
Donna G. Schwartz, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
ALESHIRE & WYNDER, LLP
Anthony R. Taylor, City Attorney
CONSULTANT:
KIMLEY-HORN AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
By:
Name:
Title:
By:
Name:
Title:
Address:
Two corporate officer signatures required when Consultant is a corporation, with one signature required from each of the following groups: 1) Chairman of the Board, President or any Vice President; and 2) Secretary, any Assistant Secretary, Chief Financial Officer or any Assistant Treasurer. CONSULTANT’S
SIGNATURES SHALL BE DULY NOTARIZED, AND APPROPRIATE ATTESTATIONS SHALL BE
INCLUDED AS MAY BE REQUIRED BY THE BYLAWS, ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION, OR OTHER RULES OR REGULATIONS APPLICABLE TO CONSULTANT’S BUSINESS ENTITY.
DRAFT
01257.0001/695512.1
CALIFORNIA ALL-PURPOSE ACKNOWLEDGMENT
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
On __________, 2022 before me, ________________, personally appeared ________________, proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose names(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument.
I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing paragraph is true and correct.
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
gnature: _____________________________________
OPTIONAL
Though the data below is not required by law, it may prove valuable to persons relying on the document and could prevent fraudulent reattachment of this form
CAPACITY CLAIMED BY SIGNER DESCRIPTION OF ATTACHED DOCUMENT
INDIVIDUAL
CORPORATE OFFICER
_______________________________
TITLE(S)
PARTNER(S) LIMITED
GENERAL
ATTORNEY-IN-FACT
TRUSTEE(S)
GUARDIAN/CONSERVATOR
OTHER________________________
_______
______________________________________
SIGNER IS REPRESENTING:
(NAME OF PERSON(S) OR ENTITY(IES))
_________________________________________
____
_________________________________________
____
___________________________________
TITLE OR TYPE OF DOCUMENT
___________________________________
NUMBER OF PAGES
___________________________________
DATE OF DOCUMENT
___________________________________
SIGNER(S) OTHER THAN NAMED ABOVE
A notary public or other officer completing this certificate verifies only the identity of the individual who signed the document to which this certificate is attached, and not the truthfulness, accuracy or validity of that document.
DRAFT
01257.0001/695512.1
CALIFORNIA ALL-PURPOSE ACKNOWLEDGMENT
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
On __________, 2022 before me, ________________, personally appeared ________________, proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose names(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument.
I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing paragraph is true and correct.
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
gnature: _____________________________________
OPTIONAL
Though the data below is not required by law, it may prove valuable to persons relying on the document and could prevent fraudulent reattachment of this form.
CAPACITY CLAIMED BY SIGNER DESCRIPTION OF ATTACHED DOCUMENT
INDIVIDUAL
CORPORATE OFFICER
_______________________________
TITLE(S)
PARTNER(S) LIMITED
GENERAL
ATTORNEY-IN-FACT
TRUSTEE(S)
GUARDIAN/CONSERVATOR
OTHER________________________
_______
______________________________________
SIGNER IS REPRESENTING:
(NAME OF PERSON(S) OR ENTITY(IES))
_________________________________________
____
_________________________________________
____
___________________________________
TITLE OR TYPE OF DOCUMENT
___________________________________
NUMBER OF PAGES
___________________________________
DATE OF DOCUMENT
___________________________________
SIGNER(S) OTHER THAN NAMED ABOVE
A notary public or other officer completing this certificate verifies only the identity of the individual who signed the document to which this certificate is attached, and not the truthfulness, accuracy or validity of that document.
DRAFT
01257.0001/695512.1 A-1
EXHIBIT “A”
SCOPE OF SERVICES
I. Consultant will perform the following Services:
DRAFT
01257.0001/695512.1 A-2
DRAFT
01257.0001/695512.1 A-3
DRAFT
01257.0001/695512.1 A-4
DRAFT
01257.0001/695512.1 A-5
DRAFT
01257.0001/695512.1 A-6
II. As part of the Services, Consultant will prepare and deliver the following tangible work products to the City:
DRAFT
01257.0001/695512.1 A-7
III. In addition to the requirements of Section 6.2, during performance of the Services, Consultant will keep the City appraised of the status of performance by delivering the following status reports:
A. Monthly status reports
IV. All work product is subject to review and acceptance by the City, and must be revised by the Consultant without additional charge to the City until found satisfactory and accepted by City.
V. Consultant will utilize the following personnel to accomplish the Services:
DRAFT
01257.0001/695512.1 B-1
EXHIBIT “B”
SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS
(Superseding Contract Boilerplate)
The Agreement is amended as provided herein. Deleted text is indicated in strikethrough and added text in bold italics.
DRAFT
01257.0001/695512.1 C-1
EXHIBIT “C”
SCHEDULE OF COMPENSATION
I. Consultant shall perform the following tasks at the following rates:
DRAFT
01257.0001/695512.1 C-2
II. A retention of ten percent (10%) shall be held from each payment as a contract retention to be paid as part of the final payment upon satisfactory completion of services.
III. Within the budgeted amounts for each Task, and with the approval of the Contract Officer, funds may be shifted from one Task subbudget to another so long as the Contract Sum is not exceeded per Section 2.1, unless Additional Services are approved per Section 1.9.
IV. The City will compensate Consultant for the Services performed upon submission of a valid invoice. Each invoice is to include:
A. Line items for all personnel describing the work performed, the number of hours worked, and the hourly rate.
B. Line items for all materials and equipment properly charged to the Services.
C. Line items for all other approved reimbursable expenses claimed, with supporting documentation.
D. Line items for all approved subcontractor labor, supplies, equipment, materials, and travel properly charged to the Services.
V. The total compensation for the Services shall not exceed the Contract Sum as provided in Section 2.1 of this Agreement.
VI. The Consultant’s billing rates for all personnel are attached as Exhibit C-1.
DRAFT
01257.0001/695512.1 C-3
EXHIBIT “C-1”
DRAFT
01257.0001/695512.1 D-1
EXHIBIT “D”
SCHEDULE OF PERFORMANCE
I. Consultant shall perform all services timely in accordance with the following schedule:
DRAFT
01257.0001/695512.1 D-2
II. Consultant shall deliver the following tangible work products to the City by the following dates.
A. Best Practices Analysis, by July 19, 2022
B. Data Analysis, by July 26, 2022
C. Priority Projects List, by August 16, 2022
D. Draft LRSP, by August 23, 2022
E. Final LRSP, by August 30, 2022
III. The Contract Officer may approve extensions for performance of the services in accordance with Section 3.2.
City Council Agenda Report
Agenda Item No. 19.a.
DATE: May 24, 2022
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
APPROVED BY: Rachel Barbosa, City Manager
SUBMITTED BY: Donna Schwartz, City Clerk
SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF THE SUCCESSOR
AGENCY MEETING MINUTES FOR APRIL 26, 2022
SUMMARY: Staff is requesting approval of the Minutes of the April 26, 2022, Successor Agency Meeting.
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff recommends the Board approve the Successor Agency Meeting Minutes of April 26, 2022.
FISCAL IMPACT: None.
DISCUSSION: None.
ATTACHMENT(S):
A. Minutes
CITY OF SOUTH EL MONTE
SUCCESSOR AGENCY MEETING MINUTES
TUESDAY, APRIL 26, 2022 - 6:00 p.m.
Successor Agency Meeting Immediately Followed Regular City Council Meeting
15. ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE CITY CLERK (PRIOR TO CONVENING THE
SUCCESSOR AGENCY MEETING)
Pursuant to Government Code Section 54952.3, Board Members do not receive any compensation or stipend for attending the Successor Agency meeting
16. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL
Chair Olmos called the meeting to order at 8:01 p.m.
PRESENT: Board Member(s): Angel, Delgado, Retamoza, Vice Chair Acosta, and Chair Olmos.
STAFF PRESENT: Rachel Barbosa, Executive Director; Anthony R. Taylor, General Counsel; Donna G. Schwartz, Secretary; and Nancy Rodriguez, Recreation Specialist.
STAFF ABSENT: Paola Lara, Deputy City Clerk
Zoom was provided for the Public to participate during public comment via teleconference.
17. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
A motion was made by Board Member Delgado, seconded by Councilmember Angel to approve the agenda. Motion carried 5-0, by the following vote:
AYES: Board Member(s): Angel, Delgado, Retamoza, Vice Chair Acosta, and Chair Olmos.
NAYS: None.
18. PUBLIC COMMENTS
Chair Olmos opened public comment, there being none, closed public comment.
19. CONSENT CALENDAR
A motion was made by Board Member Delgado, seconded by Vice Chair Acosta to approve the Consent Calendar. Motion carried 5-0, by the following vote:
AYES: Board Member(s): Angel, Delgado, Retamoza, Vice Chair Acosta, and Chair Olmos.
NAYS: None
19.a. Approved the Regular Successor Agency Meeting Minutes of March 22, 2022.
20. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR'S AGENDA – None
21. ADJOURNMENT OF SUCCESSOR AGENCY MEETING
There being no further business coming before this body, at 8:02 p.m. Chair Olmos adjourned the meeting.
________________________ _____________________
Donna G. Schwartz, Secretary Gloria Olmos, Chair