Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Statement 1986/01/07 Item 14 COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT Item 14 Meeting Date 1/7/86 ITEM TITLE: a) Resolution / 'Rescinding the Tentative Award of the Enhancement Planning Contract to Leedshill-Herkenhoff, Inc. b) Resolution X Directing Staff to Reject all Enhancement Planning Proposals c) Resolutio erecting Staff to Reinitiate the RFP Process for Bayfront nhancement Plans SUBMITTED BY: Community Development Directo /5ths Vote: Yes No X ) REVIEWED BY: City Manager 1 On December 17, 1985, the City Council approved the selection of the consulting firm Leedshill-Herkenhoff, Inc. to prepare Enhancement Plans for the Bayfront based on staff recommendation. The resolution regarding consultant selection included a clause stating that the City Council approval was contingent upon concurrence by the Executive Officer of the Coastal Conservancy. The Executive Officer of the Conservancy, Peter Grenell , has not concurred with consultant selection and has asked that the City Council rescind its award. City and Conservancy staff members have been unable to reach a satisfactory agreement regarding consultant selection. Rejection of all proposals would allow a new selection process to be initiated. RECOMMENDATION: Adopt resolutions rescinding the tentative award of the Enhancement Planning contract to Leedshill-Herkenhoff, Inc. , and direct staff to reject all proposals and reinitiate the RFP process. BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: Not applicable. DISCUSSION: The selection committee included three City representatives and one Coastal Conservancy representative. The rankings of each committee member were weighted so that the Conservancy and the City each accounted for fifty percent of the score. One hundred points were possible in the initial ranking which was based on the criteria in the RFP. The two top ranking proposals received weighted scores less than one point apart. The staff recommendation for the selection of Leedshill-Herkenhoff, Inc. , the second ranking proposer, was based on the understanding that Wetlands Research Associates, Inc. would be disqualified because of a conflict of interest of ________1! by the City Council of Chula Vista, California Dated ___„__:_2:-Lffa_ Page 2, Item 14 Meeting Date 1/7/86 one of the subcontractors. At the time of the writing of the December 17, 1985, agenda statement, it was believed that the Conservancy would concur in the City's choice of contractors. Only minutes prior to the Council meeting was word received that the Conservancy was not in a position to concur with the pending action. It was for this reason that the clause "contingent upon the concurrence of the Executive Officer of the Conservancy" was added to the Council resolution. The fact that the problem was not discussed is regrettable. The problem which occurred relative to the City s position of not favoring the top rated firm was not readily discernable until after the agenda statement was released. Due in part to the pending holiday recess and the time sensitivity of the work product, the issue remained on the Council ' s agenda. By letter dated December 31 , the Executive Officer of the Conservancy would like to negotiate with the highest ranking firm regarding subcontractors. The City Attorney has, however, advised against this option because major renegotiations following the proposal situation would not be fair to the other proposers and is not consistent with City policy. In the RFP, the right to reject all proposals was reserved. It is the staff recommendation, based on the above information, that all proposals should be rejected. In addition, because of the need to have the Enhancement Planning process precede development in the Bayfront area, we recommend that a revised RFP be issued as soon as possible. The new RFP would contain basically the same information as the preceding RFP with minor modifications. In the preceding RFP, the five enhancement areas were not given priorities. Due to potential development in the Mid-Bayfront area, the F & G Street Marsh and the remnant marsh are recommended for priority status in the new RFP. The indemnification clause contained in Resolution B was inserted at the request of the Conservancy. The City Attorney is of the opinion that the City is not in greater jeopardy with the clause as proposed. The rejection of proposals does not place any additional responsibilities on the funding or contracting entity. The clause is to accommodate the Conservancy's attorney but is not detrimental to City interest. FISCAL IMPACT: None of these actions would have a fiscal impact. WPC 2021H J r� / .