HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Statement 1988/09/20 Item 07a,b
-., .".
..
....
.
...
.
Of'
.
~
~
,
.
'.
.
".
..
..
".
..
.
/If'
'.
41
~
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
ITEM TITLE: a)
I tern 7 a, b
Meeting Date 9/20/88
Resolution)a 7JY / Approving agreement between the City of
Chula Vista and JHK & Associates for the implementation of a
traffic control system
Resolution Authorizing sole source purchase
Di gital Equi pment Corporation (DEC) for traffi c control system
central computer and. associa~e~~iPment
Director of Public ~ork~ (~
City 14anager W (4/5ths Vote: Ves_No~)
In March 1987, the City requested the submission of proposals by consultants
to design a Traffic Signal Control System for the purpose of controlling
approximately 100 traffic signals within the City limits by the use of a
central computer. Upon completion of the interview process, Council approved
in July 1987, an agreement between the City of Chula Vista and JHK &
Associates for the design of a traffic control system. The Request for
Propsals (RFP) leading to the above design agreement also included the
additional task of implementation. A final contract for implementation has
been negotiated between the Director of Public Works and the consultant and is
presented tonight. It outlines the work program, project schedule, and
compensation.
b)
SUBMITTED BY:
REVIEWED BY:
RECOMMENDATION: That Council:
1. Approve the agreement between the City of Chula Vista and JHK & Associates
for the implementation of the traffic control system in the amount of
$363,637.
2. Find that competitive bidding for the acquisition for the traffic control
system computer and related equipment is impractical and/or not cost
effective because of the excessive software development costs and
therefore authorize the City Purchasing Agent to negotiate for sole source
purchase of the central computer equi pment from Di gital Equi pment
Corporation (DEC) for a cost not to exceed $202,000.
3. Authorize the City Purchasing Agent to advertise for control/display
equipment for three stations.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: Not applicable.
i~~~
J l~j the C..""u~;cil of
Chula V:::.~~J, C~:iifornia
Dated ~/if
~
~.
.
..
.,
~.
...
.
f'
,
"
..
r
.
-
.
.
..
..
..
-.
.
..
Page 2, Item 7a, b
Meeting Date 9/20/88
DISCUSSION:
The Scope of Work in the Request for Proposals (RFP) included both the tasks
for system design and for system implementation; however, both of the
consulting firms that submitted proposals recommended during the interview
process that the consultant agreement be awarded in two phases. Their
reasoni ng was that it woul d be more appropri ate to estimate the fee for the
implementation task after the design task was completed because system details
could not be fully defined until the system design task was completed. In
addition, it was possible to add features that were later found necessary but
not included in their original proposal or the RFP. It was staffls intent to
award both phases to the same firm in order to have the design and
implementation be consistent with the concept that was chosen during the
interview process. Furthermore it would be impractical to award to a
different firm because a different implementing firm could not take advantage
of the design firm's existing software program which would result in greatly
increased costs for software development.
JHK & Associates have now completed the system design. The construction plans
and specifications are in final review by both CALTRANS and FAU. The next
steps after approval by FAU are construction, implementation, and acquisition
of the central computer and display equipment.
The implementation task is the portion of the work remaining that will be done
by JHK & Associ ates at a cost of $363,637. The consul tant servi ces i ncl ude
assistance in: (a) construction contract award, (b) field construction and
field installation of equipment, (c) acquisition of the central computer and
rel ated equi pment. The servi ces al so i ncl ude software development for the
central computer and the local intersection controllers, system integration,
system acceptance testing, data base preparation, signal timing preparation,
staff training, and documentation.
The second resolution recommends that the Council find that competitive
bidding for the acquisition for the traffic control system computer and its
related equipment is impractical because of the excessive software development
costs that would be incurred if a computer other than the DEC MicroVAX II were
acquired. One of the major reasons for choosing JHK and Associates was based
on their concept of traffic control under the Series 2000 software which uses
a relatively small and inexpensive computer. JHK has done the software
development for their Seri es 2000 program concept based on the DEC computer.
If they were required to program for a different computer, the costs for this
project would increase significantly. Also, the DEC computer is tried and
proven and meets the requi rements of the consul tant IS Seri es 2000 software
program. While other computers might be used, there is no assurance that they
woul d perform as well nor that there woul d be any cost savings. Even if it
could be argued that there might be a cost savings on a more generic computer,
these savings would be more than offset by the additional costs for
development of generic bid specs and reprogramming. The only other computer
that staff is aware of that will run thi s program without modifi cati ons is
between $40,000 and $50,000 higher in price than the DEC.
/378/1f
.
~.
~
-
...
\
'f
y
.
~-.-
.
...
.
)I
-
y.
~~
~I
Page 3, Item 7a. b
Meeting Date 9/20/88
A summary of project costs are shown on the following table:
1. Project Management Consultant (John Tsiknas)
2. Design - work completed (JHK Contract)
3. City purchase of three control/display
stations computer equipment
4. Construction Contract - provide new controller
and retrofit old controllers plus actual
field installation
$ 15,000
150,000
40,000*
806,000
5. Telephone company installation work
for drops to controllers
6 . City s ta ff time
20,000
105,000
202,000*
7. Central computer and related equipment
(City purchase)
8. Construction management, software development,
system integration, testing. training,
documentation and related follow-up service
(JHK contract)
364,000*
9. Contingencies
166,000
40,000
10.
Fuel Efficient Traffic signal Management
(FETSIM) Federal grant program
TOTAL
$1,908,000
It is estimated that the entire system will be fully operational by the fall
of 1989.
FISCAL IMPACT: The total amount budgeted for this project through the
1988-89 fiscal year is $1,869,800. The total cost of the implementation phase
of this project and equipment purchase (items indicated by an asterisk, above)
is $606,000. Suffi ci ent funds are i ncl uded in the budget for the
implementation phase and the purchase of the central computer and display
station equipment. It is estimated that approximately $40,000 to $50,000
additional funds will be required in the 1989-90 budget. The exact amount
will depend on the actual bids received for the construction contract and
hardware purchases.
WPC 3979E
13lff/A-
.
.
.
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
I tern 7 a, b
Meeting Date 9/20/88
ITEM TITLE: a)
Resolution Approving agreement between the City of
Chula Vista and JHK & Associates for the implementation of a
traffic control system
Resolution/37ft?- Authorizing sole source purchase
Digital Equipment Corporation (DE C) for traffic control system
central compute.r and associa:~~~iPment
Director of PUb1iC~O~k~ ~
City I~anager {f~ (4/5ths Vote: Yes_No~J
In March 1987, the City requested the submission of proposals by consultants
to design a Traffic Signal Control System for the purpose of controlling
approximately 100 traffic signals within the City limits by the use of a
central computer. Upon comp1 eti on of the i ntervi ew process, Counci 1 approved
in July 1987, an agreement between the City of Chula Vista and JHK &
Associates for the design of a traffic control system. The Request for
Propsa1s (RFP) leading to the above design agreement also included the
additional task of implementation. A final contract for implementation has
been negotiated between the Director of Public Works and the consultant and is
presented tonight. It outlines the work program, project schedule, and
compensation.
b)
SUBMITTED BY:
REVIEWED BY:
RECOMMENDATION: That Council:
1. Approve the agreement between the City of Chula Vista and JHK & Associates
for the imp1 ementati on of the traffi c control system in the amount of
$363,637.
2. Find that competitive bidding for the acquisition for the traffic control
system computer and related equipment is impractical and/or not cost
effective because of the excessive software development costs and
therefore authorize the City Purchasing Agent to negotiate for sole source
purchase of the central computer equipment from Digital Equipment
Corporation (DEC) for a cost not to exceed $202,000.
3. Authorize the City Purchasing Agent to advertise for control/display
equipment for three stations.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: Not applicable.
I
of
Chula Vi3t':l, C,;;iiornia
Dated
.
.
.
Page 2, Item 7 a, b
Meeting Date 9/20/88
DISCUSSION:
The Scope of Work in the Reques t for Proposals (RFP) i nc 1 uded both the tasks
for system design and for system implementation; however, both of the
consul ti ng fi rms that submitted proposals recommended duri ng the i ntervi ew
process that the consultant agreement be awarded in two phases. Their
reasoning was that it would be more appropriate to estimate the fee for the
implementation task after the design task was completed because system details
could not be fully defined until the system design task was completed. In
addition, it was possible to add features that were later found necessary but
not included in their original proposal or the RFP. It was staff's intent to
award both phases to the same firm in order to have the design and
impl ementati on be consi stent with the concept that was chosen duri ng the
interview process. Furthermore it would be impractical to award to a
different firm because a different implementing firm could not take advantage
of the design firm's existing software program which \'iould result in greatly
increased costs for software development.
JHK & Associates have now completed the system design. The construction plans
and specifications are in final revie\' by both CALTRANS and FAU. The next
steps after approval by FAU are construction, implementation, and acquisition
of the central computer and display equipment.
The implementation task is the portion of the work remaining that will be done
by JHK & Associ ates at a cost of $363,637. The consul tant servi ces i ncl ude
assistance in: (a) construction contract award, (b) field construction and
field installation of equipment, (c) acquisition of the central computer and
rel ated equi pment. The servi ces al so i ncl ude software development for the
central computer and the local intersection controllers, system integration,
system acceptance testi ng, data base preparati on, si gnal timi ng preparati on,
staff training, and documentation.
The second resolution recommends that the Council find that competitive
bidding for the acquisition for the traffic control system computer and its
related equipment is impractical because of the excessive software development
costs that would be incurred if a computer other than the DEC MicroVAX II were
acquired. One of the major reasons for choosing JHK and Associates was based
on their concept of traffic control under the Series 2000 software which uses
a relatively small and inexpensive computer. JHK has done the software
development for their Seri es 2000 program concept based on the DEC computer.
If they were required to program for a different computer, the costs for this
project \'iould increase significantly. Also, the DEC computer is tried and
proven and meets the requi rements of the consul tant' s Seri es 2000 software
program. While other computers might be used, there is no assurance that they
would perform as well nor that there would be any cost savings. Even if it
could be argued that there might be a cost savings on a more generic computer,
these savings would be more than offset by the additional costs for
development of generi c bi d specs and reprogrammi ng. The only other computer
that staff is aware of that will run this program \'/ithout modifications is
between $40,000 and $50,000 higher in price than the DEC.
/::;; 7P'2
.
Page 3, Item 7 a, b
Meeting Date 9/20/88
A summary of project costs are shown on the following table:
1. Project Management Consultant (John Tsiknas)
2. Design - work completed (JHK Contract)
3. City purchase of three control/display
stations computer equipment
4. Construction Contract - provide new controller
and retrofit old controllers plus actual
field installation
$ 15,000
150,000
40,000*
806,000
5. Telephone company installation work
for drops to controllers
20,000
6 . City s ta f f time
105,000
7. Central computer and related equipment
(C ity purchase)
202,000*
.
8. Construction management, software development,
system integration, testing. training,
documentation and related follow-up service
(JHK contract)
364,000*
9. Contingencies
10. Fuel Efficient Traffic signal Management
(FETSIM) Federal grant program
166,000
40,000
TOTAL
$1,908,000
It is estimated that the entire system will be fully operational by the fall
of 1989.
FISCAL IMPACT: The total amount budgeted for this project through the
1988-89 fiscal year is $1,869,800. The total cost of the implementation phase
of this project and equipment purchase (items indicated by an asterisk, above)
is $606,000. Sufficient funds are included in the budget for the
implementation phase and the purchase of the central computer and display
stati on equi pment. It is estimated that approximately $40,000 to $50,000
additional funds \'/i11 be required in the 1989-90 budget. The exact amount
wi 11 depend on the actual bi ds received for the constructi on contract and
hardware purchases.
. WPC 3979E
/3 )J',J-