Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Statement 1986/09/02 Item 7 COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT Item Meeting Date 9/2/86 ITEM TITLE: Resolution /X70 1 Approving a contract with Infrastructure Management Services for the development of a Pavement Management System and Street Structural Inventory for the Montgomery area and appropriating funds from the Unappropriated Gas Tax Fund SUBMITTED BY: Director of Public Works/City Engineer REVIEWED BY: City Manager{ (4/5ths Vote: Yes X No ) In December 1985, as part of the Montgomery Budget adoption, Council approved a project to develop an inventory of street condition and a pavement management system for the Montgomery area. An RFP was developed and proposals for that work have been received and analyzed. RECOMMENDATION: That Council adopt the resolution approving the contract and appropriating $21 ,550 from unappropriated Montgomery Area Gas Tax funds to Gas Tax Project Account (250-2501 -GT205) . BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: Not applicable. DISCUSSION: On February 26, 1986, pursuant to the adoption of the Montgomery area budget, the Public Works Department advertised for proposals to develop a pavement management system for the newly annexed area. The proposal was to develop an inventory of all 90 lane miles of streets; evaluate the pavement condition; determine rehabilitation and maintenance strategies and priorities; and devise a software system with the ability to assess, document, and update the condition of the entire street network on a perpetual basis. In addition to the advertisement, letters of solicitation were sent directly to approximately eight consulting firms. The deadline for proposals to be submitted was March 31 , 1986. Four firms responded to the request by submitting proposals to the Public Works Department. Those firms were: 1 . BSI Consultants, Inc. - San Diego, California 2. Carter Associates, Inc. - San Diego, California 3. Infrastructure Management Services, Inc. - Arlington Heights, Illinois 4. Pavement Management Systems - Irvine, California During the month of April , a screening committee composed of three Public Works Department staff members discussed and evaluated the proposals and developed a rating form for consultant interviews. The screening committee then invited the consultants to an interview where they were given a change to offer more detail on their proposal and methods and answer staff's questions. Page 2, Item 7 Meeting Date 9/2/86 During the interviews, the screening committee rated the four companies and proposals on the following basis: 1 . General experience and knowledge - 20 pts. 2. Local experience of firm - 10 pts. 3. Thoroughness of proposed work plan and responsiveness to the RFP - 50 pts. a. Explanation of work plan and methodology (13 pts. ) b. Software and evaluation (12 pts. ) c. City staff work required (9 pts. ) d. City data required (5 pts. ) e. Test results repeatability, validity and correlation (11 pts. ) 4. Experience of key personnel assigned to the project - 20 pts. This evaluation by staff narrowed the field down to two firms that sufficiently met the criteria to rate further consideration. A detailed letter to the two firms, Carter Associates, Inc. and Infrastructure Management Services, Inc. was prepared outlining further questions that staff had, requesting clarification on certain issues or methodology and inviting the two firms to another interview with members of the committee plus the Director of Public Works/City Engineer. After this second interview, Infrastructure Management Services, Inc. ( IMS) was tentatively determined to be the firm for the project. A reference check with some of the cities IMS had done similar projects was conducted. Their proposal was determined to best meet our needs for basically three reasons. First, one of staff' s primary concerns with any pavement rating system is the repeatability of the field survey of the street pavement condition. Most firms perform a visual survey using trained personnel who would be given a short evaluation training course. Staff was concerned about the human element in rating over 90 miles of pavement and the repeatability of subsequent test results. IMS's proposal included a patented laser road surface tester that measures eight surface parameters using a combination of the latest laser technology and trained operator input. This testing method is more detailed, comprehensive and, because much of the human element is eliminated, more repeatable. This method also is quicker and cuts the overall project cost because less City staff involvement is required for the survey. Second, since the City had just annexed the Montgomery area, very little was known about either the pavement conditions or structural section and another of the Department's main concerns was in developing as detailed an inventory of the pavement condition as possible. The second firm's philosophy was that the more detailed analysis, which is obtained through a series of deflection analysis tests, is needed only on those sections of pavement which are in more immediate need of improvement. IMS' s philosophy is to develop the complete structural data through deflection testing immediately in order to do a Page 3, Item 7 Meeting Date 9/2/86 complete pavement evaluation as opposed to only a pavement management program. This method permits a better evaluation of those pavements where the condition can best be improved by a less expensive maintenance program such as chip sealing before a more expensive maintenance alternative is required. The cost of Carter' s proposal for 57.7 dual'-lane miles is estimated at $21 ,950. That figure includes $8,050 for the computer software and $13,900 for the surface condition inventory. IMS's proposal is for $43,550 which includes $23,550 for the computer software, $12,000 for the surface condition inventory and $8,000 for the structural section evaluation. Carter's proposal also included a cost of $600 per dual lane mile to do the more detailed project level analysis. Depending on the actual work required, that could add as much as $34,600 additional to Carter's proposal , putting their total cost well above IMS' s. Further, City staff costs required to perform the visual survey would raise the overall cost of the second firm's proposal even more. Next fiscal year staff proposes to include a project in the budget recommendations to complete the pavement management system throughout the remainder of the City. As can be seen from the figures above, the cost of IMS's computer program is a major element in this project's cost. That cost would be a non-recurring cost for the next phase to finish the remaining City area and the net inventory costs would be considerably lower. Third, IMS's software package appeared to be equal to the other firms. Staff was also impressed by IMS's willingness to work on program corrections or even individual modifications after the initial project was completed. This aspect was brought out in interviews of other cities that had used IMS for similar projects. One of the features of IMS's software package, when combined with the level of test data, is the ability to maximize the maintenance dollar by optimizing the time to perform different maintenance activities. Because a more accurate pavement life curve is known utilizing IMS's approach, more accurate predictions about deferring certain maintenance activities can be generated. The City can then spend the maintenance dollar more effectively. The agreement with IMS specifies that all field testing is to be done on a unit price basis and the software and training at a set cost. The agreement also specifies that the price for services rendered will not exceed $43, 550. Ten percent of all amounts due will be held until final acceptance by the City. The Montgomery budget adoption included $22,000 for this item. The budget input was done on a very quick basis and, therefore, it was impossible to go into the same detail in developing the budget as has been done in laying out the final work program. A local consulting firm was consulted in the development of this proposal and the budget estimate was based on those discussions. At least two of the original four proposals did come in at or under the budgeted amount, but the proposed work did not include the analysis now proposed. Subsequent work on the development of the proposal has indicated the need for the more in-depth analysis included in the proposed agreement. FISCAL IMPACT: The estimated total project cost is $43,550. The Gas Tax project budget includes $22,000 for the Montgomery Street Inventory under Account Number 250-2501 -GT205. It is recommended that the City Council appropriate the additional $21 ,550 from the unappropriated Montgomery Gas Tax fund balance. WPC 0013S - - x j2/ i , by the City Council of Chula Vista, California Dated 1- ��