HomeMy WebLinkAbout2009/05/12 Item 3
CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA STATEMENT
~ \ If:.. CITY OF
~~ CHUlA VISTA
5/12/09, Item~
ITEM TITLE:
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA APPROVING A DESIGN-BUILD AGREEMENT
WITH YOUNG ELECTRIC SIGN COMPANY (YES CO) FOR THE
DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION~ OF T, E,CHULA VISTA AUTO
PARK SIGN (CIP NO. RD248) ,
DffiECTOROC~ORKS .
CITY MANAGE
ASSIST ANT CITY ANAGER ':>)
4/5THS VOTE: YES D NO ~
SUBMITTED BY:
REVIEWED BY:
SUMMARY
On March 6, 2009, a Request for Proposal (RFP) was issued for proposals from qualified
Design-Build Teams (DBT) to provide design services, engineering services, construction
management, and construction services/coordination for the Chula Vista Auto Park Sign project.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The Planning and Environmental Review Coordinator has reviewed the proposed activity for
compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and has determined that the
activity is not a "project" as defined under Section 15378 of the State CEQA Guidelines because
at this time the action only involves the award of a contract. Thus, no environmental review is
necessary at this time. Although environmental review is not necessary at this time, once a
project has been specifically defined, environmental review will be required and an appropriate
CEQA detenllination completed prior to commencing any construction activities on the subject
property.
RECOMMENDATION
Council adopt the Resolution.
BOARDS/COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
Not applicable.
DISCUSSION
BACKGROUND
In June of 2005, the Chula Vista Redevelopment Agency (Agency) and Sunroad CV Auto, Inc.
(Developer), entered into an Owner Participation Agreement ("OP A") for the development of the
3-1
5/12/09, Item~ .
Page 2 of 4
Chula Vista Toyota auto dealership. The OPA includes an obligation for the Agency to
diligently pursue the construction of an Auto Park directional sign ("Sign") along Auto Park
Drive (Main Street) in the vicinity of the eastern boundary ofInterstate 805 for the benefit of the
entire auto park (see Attachment I). In April 2008, the OP A was amended, indicating that the
City, rather than the Agency, would build the sign.
PERt\1ITTING
Two permits will be required to build the proposed directional sign for the Chula Vista Auto
Park: an Outdoor Advertising (ODA) Display Permit and a Public Property Sign Permit. The
permit processes are described below.
Outdoor Advertising Display Permit: The proposed Auto Park Sign will be visible from a
portion of the 805 Freeway that is designated as a "Certified Landscape Area." According to
Section 5200, of the Business and Professions Code (the Outdoor Advertising Act), signs such as
the one being proposed are allowed (by permit) adjacent to the certified landscape area if they
are located within the limits of a redevelopment project area.2 CaITrans reviewed the Auto Park
Sign concept3 and issued a Preliminary Determination of approval for the sign - the first step to a
sign permit. The actual Outdoor Advertising Display Permit will not be issued until after the
City's permit process (Public Property Sign Permit) is complete. At that time, CaITrans will
review the Auto Park Sign once more, issuing an Outdoor Advertising Display Permit and decal.
Public Property Sign Permit: The City of Chula Vista's Sign Policy (Council Policy 465-02)
regulates signs on property owned or controlled by the City. The Auto Park Sign will be sited on
property controlled by the City or Agency and will therefore be governed by the Sign Policy and
the Public Property Sign Pernlit process. In accordance with the Sign Policy, the Director of
Development Services will issue the Public Property Sign Permit.
DESIGN-BUILD TEAM SELECTION
On March 6, 2009, a Request for Proposal (RFP) was issued for proposals from Design-Build
Teams to provide design services, engineering services, construction management, and
construction/coordination for the Chula Vista Auto Park Sign project. The City received seven
(7) proposals from the following firms:
1. Stanford Sign & Awning, ChulaVista, CA
2. Ad Art Sign Company, San Francisco, CA
3. Fluoresco Lighting & Signs, Tuscon, AZ
4. Young Electric Sign Company, San Bernardino, CA
5. Ultrasigns Electrical Advertising, Las Vegas, CA
6. San Pedro Electric Sign Company, San Pedro, CA
7. Roel Construction Company, San Diego, CA
A selection committee, appointed by the City Manager, reviewed the proposals and conducted
interviews. Based on the proposals, Young Electric Sign Company (YES CO) was selected as the
2 The advertising on these signs is limited to businesses in the redevelopment project area.
l A design concept for the sign was developed several years ago, with input from the auto dealers. This
concept is subject to change through the permitting process.
3-2
5/12/09, Item~
Page 3 of4
Design Builder with extensive constmction experience for this type of project and who could
best meet the City's development schedule, monetary and time criteria of the project. The
Design/Build Team of YESCO offers an excellent combination of design and constmction
expertise for this type of project.
PROJECT SCOPE AND CONTRACTUAL REOUIREMENTS
As proposed, the services to be provided by YESCO are generally to be performed in three
phases: (1) Design Services, (2) Constmction Services, and (3) Operations.
YESCO shall perform all services, work and obligations as described in the RFP for a
Guaranteed Maximum Price ("GMP") which will be set at 90% construction documents and
shall include all Design Services and all Hard Constmction Costs necessary to provide a fully
completed and functional Chula Vista Auto Park Sign including, but not limited to: general
conditions, the cost for all labor, equipment, material and the YESCO Fixed Fee which includes
fees and expenses of any type associated completing the Chula Vista Auto Park Sign. Any cost
incurred by the YESCO in excess of said GMP shall be the sole responsibility of YESCO..
CHANGE ORDERS
Under the design/build process, change orders are handled differently than under the
design/bid/build process. Change orders are only returned for Council approval if they exceed
the approved GMP, or are for additional work requested by the City, which results in a
significant change to the original scope. Otherwise, change orders are reviewed/approved by
staff and the design builder. This practice is commonplace when using the design/build
constmction technique.
DECISION MAKER CONFLICT
Staff has reviewed the property holdings of the City Council and has found no property holdings
within 500 feet of the boundaries ofthe property which is the subject of this action.
CURRENT FISCAL IMP ACT
There is no impact to the General Fund as there are sufficient existing funds in the project
necessary for completion. A breakdown of project costs is as follows:
FUNDS REQUIRED FOR SIGN PROJECT
A. Design Build Contract Estimate Amount $798,487
B.City Contingency $120,000
C. Staff Time Estimate $180,000
D. Utilities $20,000
E. Special Inspections $81,513
TOTAL FUNDS REQUIRED FOR SIGN PROJECT $1,200,000
3-3
5/12/09, Item~
Page 4 of 4
FUNDS A V AILABLE FOR SIGN PROJECT
Existing eIP (RD248) funded by 2008 Tax Allocation Bond funds $1,200,000
TOT AL FUNDS A V AILABLE FOR SIGN PROJECT $1,200,000
ONGOING FISCAL IMPACT
None.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Vicinity Map
Prepared by: Gordon Day. Building Project lvfanager, Public Works-Engineering
K.\ENGfNEERIRESOSIResos2009\05-12-09ICV Auto Park Sign CAS-jjkdoc
3-4
2Gb
o ()
;lJ )>
.... -i
:I: 0
;c
~
--..,
....
n
"",.
o
....
!""!-
~
~
Pol
~
-
)>
--+-
--+-
o
()
:::J
:3
CD
~
--+-
RESOLUTION NO. 2009-
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA APPROVING A DESIGN-BUILD
AGREEMENT WITH YOUNG ELECTRIC SIGN COMPANY
(YESCO) FOR THE DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION OF THE
CHULA VISTA AUTO PARK SIGN (CIP NO. RD248)
WHEREAS, in June of 2005, the Chula Vista Redevelopment Agency (Agency) and
Sunroad CV Auto, Inc. (Developer), entered into an Owner Participation Agreement ("OPA")
for the development of the Chula Vista Toyota auto dealership; and
WHEREAS, the OPA includes an obligation for the Agency to diligently pursue the construction
of an Auto Park directional sign ("Sign") along Auto Park Drive (Main Street) in the vicinity of
the eastern boundary ofInterstate 805 for the benefit of the entire auto park; and
WHEREAS, in April 2008, the OPA was amended, indicating that the City, rather than the
Agency, would build the sign; and
WHEREAS, on March 6, 2009, a Request for Proposal (RFP) was issued for proposals
from Design/Build Teams to provide design services, engineering services, construction
management, and construction/coordination for the Chula Vista Auto Park Sign project; and
WHEREAS, the City received seven proposals from the following firms:
1. Stanford Sign & Awning, ChulaVista, CA
2. Ad Art Sign Company, San Francisco, CA
3. Fluoresco Lighting & Signs, Tuscon, AZ
4. Young Electric Sign Company, San Bernardino, CA
5. Ultrasigns Electrical Advertising, Las Vegas, CA
6. San Pedro Electric Sign Company, San Pedro, CA
7. Roel Construction Company, San Diego, CA
WHEREAS, a selection committee, appointed by the City Manager, reviewed the
proposals and conducted interviews; and
WHEREAS, based on the proposals, Young Electric Sign Company (YESCO) was
selected as the Design Builder with extensive construction experience for this type of project and
who could best meet the City's development schedule, monetary and time criteria of the project.
3-6
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Chula
does hereby approve a design-build agreement with Young Electric Sign Company (YESCO)
for the design and construction ofthe Chula Vista Auto Park Sign (CIP No. RD248).
Presented by
Richard A. Hopkins
Director of Public Works
3-7
AddJ+;oYlc:J ll-\~~o I'\.
l-le-w, :3
u
I
RECEIVED
.. =lI1"4 =I oofl! F'I :11 ..v'\l ~':\l"Jl.YA =1-1/ &11-41,' IrfEliil
'09 MAY 12 P3:53
CITY OF CHULA VIS T,;
CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
May 12, 2009
Rick Hopkins
Director of Public Works
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
Re: City of Chula Vista - Request for Proposal for the Auto Park Sign
(File No. 0735-10-SW226)
Dear Mr. Hopkins:
Representing the Ultrasigns's Design Build Team, we are protesting the City's
Request for Proposal (RFP) and interview process for the Auto Park Sign. We feel
that the process and procedures taken by City staff are fundamental flawed. The
Design Build Team concept is allowed under the City's Charter Article 10, Section
1009 and is further defined within the City's Municipal Codes Chapter 2.57 and must
complete these under full public view and processes.
We feel that there are several indicators within the RFP guidelines, the three
clarifications addendum's and in the interview process that strongly suggest that a
preferred design team and sign design was already pre-determined by City staff.
The staff report again alludes to a pre-determined sign design and process.
Examples of these are attached to the letter.
Our Design Build Team throughout the proposal preparation spoke with City staff
regarding our concerns about the RFP contents, intent and procedures when it
appeared that proprietary materials or statements led us to believe that there was a
predetermined firm. City staff assured our team that the process was in accordance
with Chapter 2.57.
After obtaining the interview score sheets, we feel that the questions posed by City
staff did not accurately reflect the intent of the questions nor were articulated to
generate a correct response. As well as, it appears that certain firms were
evaluated differently based upon informational material given or left for the City.
9025 BALBOA AVENUE, SUITE 150. SAN DIEGO, CA. 92123. TEL (858) 569.1400. FAX (858) 569.1453
ul1b~
G
srugns
_ =I W,l =I otI d -II ...v..'Q uuy..".. h.YA::::I-~r4I--J I ~'I[r=id
We respectively request that tonight's City Council Agenda Item No.3 be pulled from
the Consent Calendar and be 'continued, so we may have an opportunity to discuss
these concerns with appropriate City staff and the City Manager.
Sincerely,
Ultrasigns, Inc.
.) /)
.Y<~"Vt :I :':Y-L{'...(A/L./
Ron Breen
Account Executive
cc: Bart Miesfeld, City Attorney
Jim Sandoval, City Manager
Donna Norris, City Clerk
Rudy Ramirez, Chula Vista Councilmember
Pamela Bensoussan, Chula Vista Councilwoman
Steve Castaneda, Chula Vista Councilmember
John McCann, Council Member
Cheryl Cox, Mayor
9025 BALBOA AVENUE, SUITE 150. SAN DIEGO, CA. 92123. TEL (858) 569-1400. FAX (858) 569-1453
City of Chula Vista Auto Park Sign
RFP Introduction Statement
"Award will be based upon the best-qualified proposal of the proposed design fees, general
conditions, and construction fee. Price will be the primary factor... .."
The City's Municipal Code Section - Chapter 2.57
DESIGN-BUILD CONTRACTS
Excerpt from the Definitions....
"Best interest of the city" means a design-build process that is projected to meet the interests of
the city and objectives ofthc project which may include reducing the project delivery schedule
and total cost of the proiect while maintaining a high level of quality workmanship and
materials.
"Best value" means value determined by objective criteria, and may include, but is not limited to,
price, features, functions, life cycle costs, and other criteria deemed appropriate.
Request for Proposal
Throughout the Request for Proposal (RFP) there are inconsistent statements and referrals to the
sections or attachments that are not applicable. The RFP appears to be copy and paste from other
RFP's or SOQ's, causing disjointed statements and misleading criteria that the respondent is to
answer.
As an example of inconsistencies within the RFP:
13.3 General RFP Requirements - 13.3A notes... public sector sewer tunneling projects of
comparable magnitude.
The RFP internal "Message Center Minimum Technical Specification" for the lighting appears to
be provided by another design firm.
The next two concerns illustrate the uncertainty of the RFP process and confusing responses from
City staff in directing the consultants for this project.
Addendum No.2
I. Q 10 deletes the reference to the sewer tunneling projects.. ..deleted from
RFP... .again illustrates inconsistency in the RFP, interpretations, and direction from
City staff.
2. Q] 2 is looking for an Attachment D that does not exist and was deleted.
3. Ql5 refers to a.. .."schematic design was prepared for the Auto Park Sign. The
design represents conceptually the elements that should be included in the future
sign..." Although the City's response states that the DBT will be responsible for the
design and construction... it appears to indicate that there is a preferred design
already vetted in the process with another sign finn.
4. 017 indicates that the RFP warranty standards are not in keeping with sign industry
application, it appears that this warranty period of twenty five years is applicable to
another project.
5. 018 raises the question related to "enhancements", again this is a cut and paste RFP
effort for ground lighting and landscaping. Given the nature of this 120' sign... there
will be "no" accent lighting for a sign of this size and stated in other sections of the
RFP landscape improvements will be to replace damaged areas during construction.
6. 021 raises another point of concern related to the warranty period and the City's
response is not clear.. .."not responsible forthe maintenance... .and then further in the
same paragraph indicates that the DBT shall provide a maintenance agreement as part
of the RFP response.
Addendum No.3
I. 02 was not answered by City staff. The question was related to applicable Permit
Fees and not the answer given related to bidding or "Business and Professional
Code".
2. 06 is in conflict with the RFP Score Sheet which indicates that the sign location is up
for discussion while the Addendum clearly states the sign is to be located at the toe of
the slope. Furthermore, the Addendum states that the DBT is to determine the best
location based upon construction costs, site constraints, utilities, etc....this can only
be done after a contract is awarded and extensive site evaluations are undertaken.
3. 07 City has sign property setbacks per Section....are unknown?
4. 0 I 0 states that the DBT is to resolve issues that are unknown?
5. 012 states that an E1R is required and the.. . excerpt - "DBT is responsible for
completing as well as provide any additional work necessary.. ..." This is not true
and misleading the consultants response.
6. 013 deleted elements.
Interview Process
I. Time allocated for this project is very unusual in the sense that the City is embarking
upon close to a 1.2 million dollar project and only twenty minutes had been allocated
to hear the proposed team and nine (9) answer questions.
2. RFP Score Sheet - the questions in which we where evaluated upon where not
clearly identified nor articulated to the interview team.
3. Informational handouts are not typically part of the interview process or rating of
such materials and should be disqualified. The City did not request that the
respondent was to provide at the interview.
4. The interview team was requested to prior to the interview bring in additional
materials, maintenance certificates, and provide further site visits to address site
locational issues. These are not typical interview processes nor do we know whether
all of the interviewers were asked the same questions or intent of responses.
2
AdcL'+;onoJ Lvttp~o "'"
/-k-w, 3
REr"C'I'/i-"
, . - .... L- I ': c::.. l~
M =8 tiI =I... n1 =11..v~~ ~1!7"" .~'fA =I-IE 111-41~' III:'f!lm
'09 MAY 12 P 3 :53
CITY OF CHULA Vi~; ~..
CITY CLERK'S OFFICi:
May 12, 2009
Rick Hopkins
Director of Public Works
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
Re: City of Chula Vista - Request for Proposal for the Auto Park Sign
(File No, 0735-10~SW226)
Dear Mr, Hopkins:
Representing the Ultrasigns's Design Build Team, we are protesting the City's
Request for Proposal (RFP) and interview process for the Auto Park Sign. We feel
that the process and procedures taken by City staff are fundamental flawed. The
Design Build Team concept is allowed under the City's Charter Article 10, Section
1009 and is further defined within the City's Municipal Codes Chapter 2.57 and must
complete these under full public view and processes.
We feel that there are several indicators within the RFP guidelines, the three
clarifications addendum's and in the interview process that strongly suggest that a
preferred design team and sign design was already pre-determined by City staff,
The staff report again alludes to a pre-determined sign design and process,
Examples of these are attached to the letter.
Our Design Build Team throughout the proposal preparation spoke with City staff
regarding our concerns about the RFP contents, intent and procedures when it
appeared that proprietary materials or statements led us to believe that there was a
predetermined firm. City staff assured our team that the process was in accordance
with Chapter 2.57.
After obtaining the interview score sheets, we feel that the questions posed by City
staff did not accurately reflect the intent of the questions nor were articulated to
generate a correct response. As well as, it appears that certain firms were
evaluated differently based upon informational material given or left for the City,
9025 BALBOA AVENUE, SUITE 150. SAN DIEGO, CA. 92123. TEL (858) 569-1400 . FAX (858) 569~1453
MfIlralmgnl
Mil =1 III =I DillIIII"II""'~" i!tJ'llY"'O. ft."A=I-IIfl"l1I--"~' I c-DIII
We respectively request that tonight's City Council Agenda Item No.3 be pulled from
the Consent Calendar and be continued, so we may have an opportunity to discuss
these concerns with appropriate City staff and the City Manager.
Sincerely,
Ultrasigns, Inc.
) /J
.0< 0'-v[ ;-':Y(...("'(fiV
Ron Breen
Account Executive
cc: Bart Miesfeld, City Attorney
Jim Sandoval, City Manager
Donna Norris, City Clerk
Rudy Ramirez, Chula Vista Councilmember
Pamela Bensoussan, Chula Vista Councilwoman
Steve Castaneda, Chula Vista Council member
John McCann, Council Member
Cheryl Cox, Mayor
9025 BALBOA AVENUE, SUITE 150. SAN DIEGO, CA. 92123 . TEL (858) 569-1400. FAX (658) 569-1453
City of Chula Vista Auto Park Sign
RFP Introduction Statement
"Award will be based upon the best-qualified proposal of the proposed design fees, general
conditions, and construction fee. Pricewill bethe primary factor....."
The City's Municipal Code Section - Chapter 2.57
DESIGN-BUILD CONTRACTS
Excerpt from the Definitions....
"Best interest of the city" means a design-build process that is projected to meet the interests of
the city and objectives of the projcct which may include reducing the project delivery schedule
and total cost of the project while maintaining a high level of quality workmanship and
materials.
"Best value" means value detennined by objective criteria, and may include, but is not limited to,
orice. features. functions, life cycle costs, and other criteria deemed appropriate.
Request for Proposal
Throughout the Request for Proposal (RFP) there are inconsistent statements and referrals to the
sections or attachments that are not applicable. The RFP appears to be copy and paste from other
RFP's or SOQ's, causing disjointed statements and misleading criteria that the respondent is to
answer.
As an example of inconsistencies within the RFP:
13.3 General RFP Requirements - 13.3A notes... public sector sewer tunneling projects of
comparable magnitude.
The RFP internal "Message Center Minimum Technical Spccification" for the lighting appears to
be provided by another design finn.
The next two concerns illustrate the uncertainty of the RFP process and confusing responses from
City staff in directing the consultants for this project.
Addendum No.2
J. QIO dcletes the reference to the sewertunneling projects....deleted from
RFP....again illustrates inconsistency in the RFP, interpretations, and direction from
City staff.
2. QJ2 is looking for an Attachment D that does not exist and was deleted.
3. Q 15 refers to a... "schematic design was prepared for the Auto Park Sign. The
design represents conceptually the elements that should be included in the future
sign..." Although the City's response states that the DBT will be responsible for the
design and construction... it appears to indicate that there is a preferred design
already vetted in the process with another sign finn.
4. QJ 7 indicates that the RFP warranty standards are not in keeping with sign industry
application, it appears that this warranty period oftwenry five years is applicable to
another project.
5. Q18 raises the question related to "enhancements", again this is a cut and paste RFP
effort for ground lighting and landscaping. Given the nature of this 120' sign... there
will be "no" accent lighting for a sign of this size and stated in other sections of the
RFP landscape improvements will be to replace damaged areas during construction.
6. Q21 raises another point of concern related to the warranty period and the City's
response is not clear.. .."not responsible forthe maintenance.. ..and then further in the
same paragraph indicates that the DBT shall provide a maintenance agreement as part
of the RFP response.
Addendum No.3
1. Q2 was not answered by City staff. The question was related to applicable Permit
Fees and not the answer given related to bidding or "Business and Professional
Code".
2. Q6 is in conflict with the RFP Score Sheet which indicates that the sign location is up
for discussion while the Addendum clearly states the sign is to be located at the toe of
the slope. Furthermore, the Addendum states that the DBT is to determine the best
location based upon construction costs, site constraints, utilities, etc....this can only
be done after a contract is awarded and extensive site evaluations are undertaken.
3. Q7 City has sign property setbacks per Section....are unknown?
4. QJ 0 states that the DBT is to resolve issues that are unknown?
5. QI2 states that an EIR is required and the. ..excerpt - "DBT is responsible for
completing as well as provide any additional work necessary...." This is not true
and misleading the consultants response.
6. Q 13 deleted elements.
In1en'iew Process
I. Time allocated for this project is very unusual in the sense that the City is embarking
upon close to a 1.2 million dollar project and only l\venty minutes had been allocated
to hear the proposed team and nine (9) answer questions.
2. RFP Score Sheet - the questions in which we where evaluated upon where not
clearly identified nor articulated to the interview team.
3. lnformational handouts are not typically part of the interview process or rating of
such materials and should be disqualified. The City did not request that the
respondent was to provide at the interview.
4. The interview team was requested to prior to the interview bring in additional
materials: maintenance certificates, and provide further site visits to address site
Ioeational issues. These are not typical interview processes nor do we know whether
all of the interviewers were asked the same questions or intent of responses.
2