FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE AGREEMENT BETWEEN
THE CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO AND CSG CONSULTANTS
THIS FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE CONSULTING SERVICES AGREEMENT is made at South San Francisco, California, as of February 9, 2021 by and between THE CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO (“City”), a municipal corporation, and CSG CONSULTANTS, INC. (“Consultant”), (sometimes referred together as the “Parties”) who agree as follows:
RECITALS
A. On March 6, 2020, City and Contractor entered that certain Consulting Services Agreement (“Agreement”) whereby Contractor agreed to engineering plan check, development review, public works inspection, quality assurance, and quality control. A true and correct copy of the Agreement and its exhibits is attached as Exhibit A.
B. City and Contractor now desire to amend the Agreement.
NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the promises and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, City and Contractor hereby agree as follows:
1. All terms which are defined in the Agreement shall have the same meaning when used in this Amendment, unless specifically provided herein to the contrary.
2. Section 1.1 (Term of Services) is hereby amended as follows:
The March 6, 2022 end date for the Term of Services is hereby replaced with March 6, 2024.
3. Section 2 (Compensation) is hereby amended as follows:
a) Compensation shall be amended such that the City agrees to pay Consultant a sum not to exceed one million dollars ($1,000,000.00) per fiscal year, with the understanding that up to $59,712.50 has already been paid for Fiscal Year 2021-2022 to Consultant. Consultant and City agree that this is the City’s total compensation of costs under the Agreement unless additional compensation is authorized in accordance with the terms of the Agreement.
Any additional compensation shall be mutually agreed to by and between the Parties in writing.
b) Consultant’s compensation schedule attached to the Agreement as Exhibit B is hereby amended and replaced with Exhibit B.1, attached to this Amendment.
All other terms, conditions and provisions in the Agreement remain in full force and effect. If there is a conflict between the terms of this Amendment and the Agreement, the terms of the Agreement will control unless specifically modified by this Amendment. [SIGNATURES ON THE FOLLOWING PAGE]
Dated:
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO CSG CONSULTANTS, INC
By: By:
Mike Futrell, City Manager Cyrus Kianpour, President
Attest:
By:
City Clerk
Approved as to Form:
By:
City Attorney
Exhibit A
CSG PROPOSAL/QUALIFICATIONS TO CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO MUNICIPAL ENGINEERING SERVICES FOR FY 19-20 AND 20-21
11 E N G I N E E R I N G P L A N C H E C K / D E V E L O P M E N T R E V I E W Plan check and development review services form a large part of CSG’s services. CSG has been providing plan review services exclusively to local municipalities since the firm’s inception in 1991. Our success in maintaining ongoing relationships with our clients in a highly competitive environment is due to our ability to understand and partner with them in achieving their goals. We understand that our clientele includes not just public agencies but also the development community seeking to process applications through those agencies.
We also understand that many development applications are important to public agencies due to the economic or quality of life benefits that those projects bring to the communities.
Drawing on the combined experience and talent of our staff, we have found the following practices to be helpful in approaching development review and plan review:
• Active participation by engineering staff and consultants during the entitlement process is critical.
Design and other issues need to be discussed at this stage, with the appropriate staff from the City and/or other agencies included in the discussion. Project review needs to be a cooperative effort by all departments and other stakeholders so that issues are vetted and addressed. Engineering staff must spend time preparing clear and complete conditions of approval that outline the developer’s obligations and address issues. Conditions of approval that are incomplete or vague simply defer problems to the plan review stage, resulting in delay in issuance of permits and frustration on the part of the developer, consultants, or staff who have to resolve the issues. • Communication and alignment of expectations between the agency staff or consultants and the developer is needed, starting with the entitlement pre-application phase and lasting through permitting. This can start with an understanding of the developer’s desired schedule for project completion, and then working backwards to set the timing for the various steps in the review process (entitlement, plan review, permitting). This may require adjustment of the developer’s initial schedule; the agency should be prepared to offer means of running some processes in parallel rather than in sequence in order to shorten the overall review time. For example, if a developer’s schedule is dependent on completing grading of the site prior to winter weather, focus can be put on review of the grading plan and development of the grading permit. Review of the improvement plans, maps, or other documents could occur later while the grading is taking place. The same may also be applicable to activities that have a limited construction window due to permitting or restrictions by other agencies.
• Development of a mutually-acceptable schedule and work plan can allow both parties to focus on important milestones. Review by the agency and response by the developer is governed by the schedule. If both parties do what they committed to do, the schedule can be met. • The City’s consultant needs to be driven by results and not tasks. The goal is not, as some plan checkers practice, to put redlines on plans. The goal is to move the project forward. The consultant needs to be a problem solver, and needs to accept a role in bringing the project to a successful completion. Design solutions must be reviewed not on the basis of “we’ve never done that before” or “we’ve always done it this way” but rather, “will this work”? The consultant must be proactive in presenting options to City staff and willing to make recommendations on which options may work. • The consultant needs to form a working relationship with the other parties. The developer team should see the consultant as an asset and a partner, someone who is motivated to move the project to completion, as opposed to someone who has no interest in moving the project along. We have found that, with this sense of trust, the developer team is more willing to work with the agency and more accepting of comments, changes, or even delays and extra costs, since the overall success of the project is not in doubt. This approach will reduce the likelihood of the developer “going around” staff to the City Council, City Manager, or others with complaints that the project is being delayed. • The consultant needs to listen – to staff, to the developer and its team, and to other stakeholders.
Hearing and understanding what the other party wants is the first step to developing a resolution.
CSG PROPOSAL/QUALIFICATIONS TO CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO MUNICIPAL ENGINEERING SERVICES FOR FY 19-20 AND 20-21
12 T Y P I C A L E N G I N E E R I N G P L A N R E V I E W S C O P E O F W O R K Drawing on the combined experience and talent of our staff, we have found the following practices helpful in approaching development review, and plan review. The exact Scope of Work will be determined based on our discussion with the City and the type of project.
New Development Entitlements
• Review tentative maps, tentative parcel maps, architectural review, and other entitlement applications. Coordinate review with other City staff and/or outside agencies as needed. • Attend follow-up meetings with Planning staff, the applicant, or others as needed to resolve issues regarding the proposal. Review subsequent submittals of the proposal. • Assist the City with development of conditions of approval, development agreements, and other requirements associated with development applications. Assist City in negotiating with developers regarding terms of agreements or conditions (Additional tasks associated with the entitlement process are described above).
Plan Review and Map Review
• Review final maps, improvement, and landscape plans. Review includes evaluation of required records, studies, grading and improvement plan, and additional materials submitted by the design professional. Confirm that plans conform to City standard design criteria, conditions of approval, and infrastructure or other master plans.
• Each plan review will be accompanied with a letter summarizing the red-line comments addressed to the applicant’s engineer or landscape architect, with a copy to City staff and the applicant. A complete red-lined set of drawings and any reports will be returned to the design professionals for use in their corrections. At the applicant’s discretion, the comment summary letter and red-lined plan sheets can be scanned and submitted electronically to the design consultant to expedite the review process.
• The consultant will meet with the applicant/representative and City staff to review comments or to delineate the standards which are not being met, in order to facilitate timely completion of the review and meeting the maximum goal of two plan checks. CSG will accept and review subsequent submittals electronically, when feasible, in order to expedite the review process. • Soils reports will be evaluated and confirmation of recommendations will be included on the plans.
Boundary conditions will be evaluated to maintain continuity with surrounding properties and maintain existing drainage patterns.
• Construction erosion control and post-construction water quality control will be evaluated for compliance with the storm water quality management permit in effect for the City. • Assist the City with development of conditions of approval, development agreements, and other requirements associated with development applications. Assist City in negotiating with developers regarding terms of agreements or conditions (Additional tasks associated with the entitlement process are described above).
• Confirm that the developer has obtained necessary permits or approvals from other public agencies as needed, and that plans conform to the City’s NPDES Municipal Regional Permit requirements for storm water treatment and retention.
• Review and recommend approval of engineering bond estimates and subdivision guarantees. Assist the staff in preparing subdivision improvement agreements, other agreements (including stormwater treatment measure and landscape maintenance agreements), and staff reports. • Meet with developers, consultants, and other agencies on behalf of staff, as requested.
Street Vacations
• Assist in research and document preparation (e.g., plats, maps, legal descriptions, and findings) by a licensed surveyor to support summary and regular street vacations and City property disposition
CSG PROPOSAL/QUALIFICATIONS TO CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO MUNICIPAL ENGINEERING SERVICES FOR FY 19-20 AND 20-21
13 according to the City Municipal Code, Subdivision Map Act, and California Streets and Highways Code.
C.3 Compliance Review
C.3 review will be performed in accordance with the Municipal Regional Permit (MRP). Below is the review process CSG will undertake:
• Review of C.3 checklist(s) for applicability of LID/Special Projects • Review of Low Impact Development (LID) measures
• Review of sizing calculations of stormwater treatment measures, if any • Review of Maintenance Plans for compliance with Operation & Maintenance (O&M) requirements Staffing
• All plan reviews will be conducted by a State of California licensed civil engineer or under the supervision of a licensed civil engineer.
• Each plan review is assigned to a plan reviewer with oversight of the project manager. The assigned design plan reviewer will be committed to the project and will furnish all subsequent reviews for the project. It is the goal of CSG Consultants to provide, where practical, a cradle-to-grave approach for project review, where a review team is assigned to the project from entitlement through plan review and construction to closeout and acceptance.
• Provide specialized qualified licensed engineers to assist in any structural, soil and geotechnical reviews, for any of the assigned projects.
• Map checking will be overseen by licensed professional land surveyors or by professional engineers licensed to practice land surveying in the State of California. • The review team will be available for applicant inquiries or conferences during normal business hours, Monday through Friday, from 8:00 AM through 5:00 PM. Web conferences, fax, and conference calls are optional forms of communications between Consultant and City staff.
Accelerated Plan Review
• If required by the City, Consultant has the ability to perform plan review services within an accelerated time frame, negotiated on behalf of the applicant, the City’s appointed contact, and Consultant. In most cases, Consultant will complete initial plan review in fewer than ten working days (five working days for re-checks). However, it is understood that some plans may require additional time. In those instances, Consultant shall notify and receive approval by the City of South San Francisco of the expected processing time prior to performing the plan review.
Online Plan Check Status
• Consultant shall make available online services to enable City and authorized applicants to determine the status of plan checks. There is no additional cost for this service.
CSG PROPOSAL/QUALIFICATIONS TO CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO MUNICIPAL ENGINEERING SERVICES FOR FY 19-20 AND 20-21
14 Typical Plan Review Schedule
Development of hard-and-fast schedules for completion of development review and plan review work is difficult as timing and scope of projects is not always known. Examples of time frames for completing certain tasks are provided below.
Turnaround times include pickup, QA/QC, and delivery to City.
CSG will attempt to reduce the need for formal resubmittals to the City by reviewing electronic submittals of revisions provided directly to CSG. Turnaround times would vary based on the scope of the review but would typically be returned within one to two working days.
TYPE TIME FRAME
Pre-application entitlement review,
PRC review
Review application material in advance of requested meetings; complete formal comments and submit to Planning within one week of meeting Review Tentative Map Application
or Other Entitlement Package
Fifteen (15) working days of notice of submittal by City Prepare Conditions of Approval Prepare within one week of request by Planning, or within reasonable shorter time frame if needed to meet hearing date
Complete Improvement Plan or
Map Review (1st Check)
Fifteen (15) working days of notice of submittal by City Prepare fee estimate, review bond
estimate, or prepare permit
Ten (10) working days of request
Review request for right-of-way
vacation
Ten (10) working days of notice of submittal by City
Review Lot Line Adjustment/ Lot
Merger
Ten (10) working days of notice of submittal by City
Miscellaneous Assignments Dependent on scope, typically within five (5) working days
CSG PROPOSAL/QUALIFICATIONS TO CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO MUNICIPAL ENGINEERING SERVICES FOR FY 19-20 AND 20-21
15 P U B L I C W O R K S I N S P E C T I O N
CSG inspectors are well-versed in all facets of field inspection including writing comprehensive reports, tracking extra work activities (especially force account), tracking quantities, scheduling, coordinating material testing, and enforcing compliance with project documents. Many of our inspectors also serve as assistant resident or office engineers and are familiar with reporting requirements and procedures as outlined in the construction manual and Local Assistance Procedure Manual. Those duties include issuing weekly statements of working days, drafting correspondence for the City project manager’s review and signature, and tracking RFI, CCOs, compaction tests and submittal logs. CSG inspection staff are knowledgeable and trained in storm water compliance and include QSP certified professionals.
CSG inspectors will keep one set of plans to red mark throughout the course of the project. They will work closely with the contractor to ensure the changes are accurately reflected in the redlined set. Upon completion of the project, the redlined set will be delivered to the designer for the final as-built plan issuance.
While typically the responsibility of the resident engineer or assistant resident engineer, CSG inspectors can coordinate the submittals with all stakeholders including the City project manager, designer and other parties. It is imperative that submittals be handled and processed expeditiously so that the project is not delayed. All submittals will be logged in and tracked. Our inspectors will follow up on the processing of the submittals with the appropriate party with emails, phone calls, or office meetings if necessary. Many of our inspectors are able to review submittals such as asphalt concrete and concrete mix designs, aggregate base and sub-base material. CSG inspectors are well-versed in contract administration and project record filing. If requested, our experienced inspectors will prepare the final project report and expenditure report for federally or state funded projects.
Safety is of the utmost importance on construction sites. Our inspectors are trained and familiar with the latest OSHA requirements. Safety is critical not only to the workers but also the traveling public, pedestrians and all personnel on the construction site. Our inspectors will attend the contractor’s weekly safety meeting, document any safety related deficiencies in diaries, and demand immediate attention and correction by the contractor.
Development Inspection
CSG has provided field inspection of infrastructure work for developments throughout the Northern California including Burlingame Point for the City of Burlingame; Charring Cross in the City of Pacifica; and Gilead Life Sciences Campus in the City of Foster City. CSG only works on behalf of public agencies in overseeing development projects. We do not work directly for developers. We also understand the difference in managing and inspecting CIP vs. development projects. The following are critical roles and responsibilities associated with inspecting grading and infrastructure work on development projects:
• The ability of inspectors to be available on short notice and resolve conflicts in an expeditious manner • Understanding the goals and objectives of developers vs. the governing agency and enforcing the standards and requirements of the agencies while coordinating with all stakeholders to keep projects moving
• Understanding and enforcing all governing documents including development agreement, conditions of approval, and other pertinent agreements
• Coordination with other governing entities such as water districts, PG&E, AT&T, and Comcast to ensure no conflicts with agencies’ standards
• Bringing any conflicts or necessary changes in the field to the attention of the project manager • Coordinating with geotechnical engineering on the observance and responsibility of grading operation
CSG PROPOSAL/QUALIFICATIONS TO CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO MUNICIPAL ENGINEERING SERVICES FOR FY 19-20 AND 20-21
16 Q U A L I T Y A S S U R A N C E / Q U A L I T Y C O N T R O L ( Q A / Q C ) CSG’s in-house QA / QC Implementation Plan utilizes a peer review process with multi-level internal project checking. As highlighted in the organizational chart for this contract, Mark Lander, PE and David Baumann, PLS will be dedicated to the QA / QC Implementation Plan and will be responsible for the followings:
• Establishing guidelines & assigning accountable personnel and responsibilities for each task. • Assuring that all deliverables are reviewed, including products from subconsultants. • Monitoring the process to assure that the schedule and budget are followed. • Participating in the internal and external reviews.
• Reviewing and signing off on deliverables before submittal to the clients.
The Implementation Plan
highlights that quality
control is the responsibility
of every team member of
our staff at every level and
at every milestone of the
project development
processes. All deliverables,
including technical
engineering reports, studies,
design notes, maps,
drawings, engineering cost
estimates and specifications
are subject to a multi-tiered
approach for review to
ensure that all products are
checked for accuracy,
correctness, completeness and conformity with standards. Design Engineers are accountable for making sure that their engineering design works are in conformance with local agencies’ design guidelines, standards and specifications as well as the generally accepted industry standard practices. Project Manager and QA / QC staff routinely perform their inter-discipline coordination and constructability reviews on all deliverables at draft and pre-final submittal stages in order to adhere to project’s goals and agencies’ expectations. The QA / QC Manager conducts periodic audits of the QA / QC process to ensure that all reviews are being properly conducted and documented by all team members.
Deliverables will be reviewed for:
• Compliance with approved formats, criteria, specifications, and professional standards of practice. • Adequacy, clarity, ease of interpretation
• Consistency
• Constructability
• Compatibility of design discipline interfaces
• Errors and discrepancies
• Coordination with related designs and project elements • Integration of design disciplines
• Incorporation of design changes
• Conformance to required environmental mitigation and governmental regulations Review comments made by QA / QC staff will be noted on the deliverables being reviewed. All comments and the corresponding action items needed will be transcribed onto the comment forms. Design Engineers will document their responses on the comment forms. A log of all QA / QC measures taken during the course of the project, including any corrective actions taken, will be maintained by the Project Manager.
CSG PROPOSAL/QUALIFICATIONS TO CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO MUNICIPAL ENGINEERING SERVICES FOR FY 19-20 AND 20-21
17 Fee Schedule
CSG services are billed on a time-and-materials basis according to our Standard Rates, shown below.
All hourly rates include overhead costs including, but not limited to, salaries, benefits, Workers Compensation Insurance, travel and office expenses. CSG will coordinate the pickup and return of plans to and from CSG offices.
Overtime work will be billed at 1.5x the hourly rates indicated in the table above. On each anniversary of the contract start date, CSG will initiate a rate increase based on change in CPI-U for the applicable region. CSG will mail an invoice every month for services rendered during the previous month.
Professional Engineering Services 2020
Hourly Rate
Engineering Trainee $60
Administrative Assistant $80
Analyst $130
Engineering Designer/CASp Inspection & Consultation $140 Construction Inspector $145
Senior Analyst $155
Assistant Resident Engineer $170
Assistant Engineer $145
Associate Engineer $170
Senior Construction Inspector $155
Senior Engineer $200
Senior Land Surveyor $200
Resident Engineer $200
Structure Representative $200
Senior Structural Engineer $220
Senior Project Manager $220
Principal Engineer $230
Senior Principal Engineer $250
Two-Person Survey Crew $330
Sustainability Program Management Services Hourly Rate
Sustainability Program Analyst $130
Sustainability Program Senior Analyst $155
Sustainability Program Manager $185
S E C T I O N 7
2021-22 Engineering Division Hourly Rates
CSG services are billed on a time-and-materials basis according to our Standard Rates, shown below.
Professional Engineering Services 2021-22
Hourly Rate
Engineering Trainee $60
Administrative Assistant $80
Analyst $135
Engineering Designer/CASp Inspection & Consultation $145 Construction Inspector $145
Senior Analyst $160
Assistant Resident Engineer $175
Assistant Engineer $150
Associate Engineer $175
Senior Construction Inspector $165
Senior Engineer $205
Senior Land Surveyor $205
Resident Engineer $210
Structure Representative $210
Senior Structural Engineer $225
Senior Project Manager $225
Principal Engineer $240
Senior Principal Engineer $260
Two-Person Survey Crew $340
Sustainability Program Management Services Hourly Rate
Sustainability Program Analyst $135
Sustainability Program Senior Analyst $160
Sustainability Program Manager $190
All hourly rates include overhead costs including, but not limited to, salaries, benefits, Workers Compensation Insurance, travel and office expenses. CSG will coordinate the pickup and return of plans to and from CSG offices.
Overtime work will be billed at 1.5x the hourly rates indicated in the table above. On each anniversary of the contract start date, CSG will initiate a rate increase based on change in CPI-U for the applicable region. CSG will mail/email an invoice every month for services rendered during the previous month.