CONSTRUCTION COMMITTE.~ RECOMMENDATION The Committee concurred with the staff recommendation to approve: A. the selection of Jacobs Engineering Group, Mort MacDonald Hatch and A.C.G. Environments, a joint venture to provide construction management services on the Metro Red Line segment 3 North Hollywood Extension, and authorize staff to negotiate costs, terms and conditions of the contract. the issuance of a Limited Notice to Proceed in an amount not to exceed $5,000,000 to the selected firm. CONSTRUCTION COMMITTEE - FEBRUARY 9, 1995
Transcript
CONSTRUCTION
COMMITTE.~ RECOMMENDATION
The Committee concurred with the staff recommendation to approve:
A. the selection of Jacobs Engineering Group, Mort MacDonald
Hatch and A.C.G. Environments, a joint venture to provide
construction management services on the Metro Red Line
segment 3 North Hollywood Extension, and authorize staff
to negotiate costs, terms and conditions of the contract.
the issuance of a Limited Notice to Proceed in an amount
not to exceed $5,000,000 to the selected firm.
CONSTRUCTION COMMITTEE - FEBRUARY 9, 1995
February 6, 1995
MEMO TO: CONSTRUCTION COMMITTEE
Franklin E. White
Chief Executive Officer
Los Angeles County
bletropolitan
Transportation
Authority
818 West Seventh Street
Suite 300
Los Angeles, CA 9oo17
THROUGH:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
FRANKLIN E. WHITE
J OHNJ. ADAMS~[..~-’~
METRO RED LINE - SEGMENT 3CONTRACT NO. MC035CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT SERVICESREQUEST TO NEGOTIATE AND ISSUE LIMITEDNOTICE TO PROCEED
213"623"II94 RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the Board:
1) Approve the selection of Jacobs Engineering Group, Inc., MottMacDonald Hatch and A.C.G. Environments, a Joint Venture,along with its subcontractors and authorize staff to negotiate forConstruction Management Services on the Metro Red Line andreturn to the Board for approval of an agreement for such servicesand a not to exceed dollar amount, along with a transitionagreement with Parsons-Dillingham.
2) Authorize the Chief Executive Officer to issue a Letter Contract -Limited Notice to Proceed to the selected firm, in an amount not
to exceed $5,000,000 for the immediate start up of services.
BACKGROUND
Consistent with the direction set forth in its October 26, 1994 letter toMr. Gordon Linton, Administrator of the Federal Transit Administration(FTA), regarding Construction Management (CM) improvements on Metro Red Line project, and with approval from the Board, MTA staffundertook the process of selecting a consultant to provide CM serviceson the North Hollywood portion of the Project, by issuing an Request forInformation and Qualification (RFIQ) on December 19, 1994.
CONSTRUCTION COMMITTEECONTRACT NO. MC035, REQUEST TO NEGOTIATEFebruary 6, 1995Page 2
As a result of the procurement process, Jacobs Engineering Group, et al isrecommended to perform the Construction Management work. The Cost of thework cannot be ascertained until an agreement for the reduction of the scope ofservices provided by our current consultant is negotiated. Staff will return to theBoard with a report on this once the agreement is completed.
The details of the procurement and the evaluation of proposals received in responseto the MTA’s RFIQ are provided in the Source Selection Summary which isprovided as Exhibit A.
DBE COMPLIANCE
The DBE goal for this Contract was set at 30%. The joint venture of JacobsEngineering Group, Inc., Mott MacDonald Hatch and A.C.G. Environments, hasmet the required goal and committed to meeting a goal of 32.7%
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
The Board has the option to reject all proposals and direct a resolicitation whichwill require a minimum of three months. Further, this would require the continueduse of the incumbent CM services consultant in order to support constructionactivity.
Staff did not consider any other alternative recommendations since the subjectrequest is for negotiations with the highest ranked, responsive and responsibleproposer, consistent with Federal and State Law and MTA Policies and Proceduresfor procurement of Construction Management Services.
CONSTRUCTION COMMITTEECONTRACT NO..MC035, REQUEST TO NEGOTIATEFebruary 6, 1995Page 3
IMPACT ON BUDGET AND OBJECTIVES
Funds for this action are available within the Board approved Project Budget.
Prepared by:
Acting Manager of ContractsConsultant Services
SOURCE SELECTION SUMMARYMetro Red Line Segment 3 - North Hollywood
The Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) requires theservices of a construction management (CM) consultant to provide CM services on theMetro Red Line Segment 3 - North Hollywood Extension (the Project).
Back.qround
Consistent with the direction set forth in its October 26, 1994 letter to Mr. Gordon Litton,Administrator of the Federal Transit Administration, regarding ConstructionManagement (CM) improvements on the Metro Red Line project, and with directionfrom the Board and MTA Executive Management, MTA staff undertook the process ofselecting a consultant to provide CM services on the North Hollywood portion of theProject, by issuing an Request for Information and Qualification (RFIQ) on December19, 1994. Staff conducted a Pre-Qualification conference for all prospective firms onDecember 21, 1994.
Scope of Work
The selected CM consultant will provide: resident engineering services, managementand coordination of construction, systems and procurement activity, contractadministration and compliance, cost and schedule management and reporting and otherservices required by the MTA. The scope of services does not include the safety andquality management functions for which the MTA has recently taken directresponsibility.
Staff will negotiate, with the selected CM consultant, the appropriate level of effort toperform the scope of work set for in the RFIQ and Contract. The level of effort will benegotiated based upon the number of construction contracts which will be managed bythe selected CM consultant, including the necessary and appropriate level of projectoffice support. The arrangements currently being made to reduce the services of theincumbent CM and transition to the selected CM may have a b~aring on the amountof work to be performed by the selected CM consultant. The goal of these negotationsis to minimize the amount of duplicative services performed by CM consultant firms.Further, the Contract documents state that the scope of services is subject to revisionbased upon the outcome of the ongoing MTA Construction Division reorganizationstudies.
SOURCE SELECTION SUMMARYMetro Red Line Segment 3 - North HollywoodContract No. MC035Construction Management ServicesPage 2
Qualification Submittal
The MTA received five proposals from the following firms/teams on January 12, 1995(listed in alphabetical order). A complete list of each team, including all subconsultants,is included as Attachment 1.
Bechtel Infrastructure Corporation / Vanir COnstruction Management, A JointVentureJacobs Engineering Group / Mott McDonald Hatch / A.C.G. Environments, AJoint VentureMorrison Knudsen Corporation / Brown & Root Civil, A Joint Venture known asMetro Construction EngineersO’Brien-Kreitzberg & Associates, Inc. / Raytheon Engineers and Constructors/Jenny Engineering Corporation, A Joint Venture known as Transit ConstructionManagersStone & Webster Engineering Corporation
Following the MTA Construction Committee’s approval of a staff recommendation forreaffirmation of a policy on conflicts of interest, related to firms providing design andCM services to the MTA, Bechtel and Vanir as Joint Venture partners submitted arequest to withdraw their qualification submittal.
Qualification Evaluation
Consistent with both Federal and State Law and with MTA Policies and Procedures forselection of Construction Management Services consultants, the selection is basedupon the technical qualifications of each firm, with the highest technically ranked firmbeing recommended for award. Each qualification submittal was independentlyevaluated in accordance with the Evaluation Plan (Attachment 2), by a seven memberEvaluation Team.
SOURCE SELECTION SUMMARYMetro Red Line Segment 3 - North HollywoodContract No. MC035Construction Management ServicesPage 3
The initial qualification submittal evaluation resulted in the following ranking:
The Evaluation Team determined that each of the firms had sufficient merit to beconsidered further and had a reasonable chance of being selected for award.Therefore, the Evaluation Team recommended that interviews be conducted with eachproposer.
The interviews were conducted on January 30, 1995. The interviews consisted of a 1/2hour presentation and a 1-1/2 hour question and answer period. During the questionand answer period questions specific to each firm’s experience and managementapproach were asked based upon the information contained in their proposals. Further,in order to ensure consistency during the interviews, a pre-set list of questions pertinentto the Evaluation Criteria set forth in the RFIQ was developed by the Evaluation Teamfor use during the interview.
The evaluations of the shortlisted firms resulted in the following ranking:
SOURCE SELECTION SUMMARYMetro Red Line Segment 3 - North HollywoodContract No. MC035Construction Management ServicesPage 4
Scoring
For both the qualification submittal and the interviews each proposer was scored by theEvaluation Team consistent with the RFIQ and the Evaluation Plan. The scoresprovided by each member of the Evaluation Team were given equal weight. Scoreswere provided at the subcriteria level and were compiled consistent the RFIQ and theEvaluation Plan.
The scores of each Evaluation Team member were analyzed to ensure consistency andto reveal any unbalanced scoring which might create a perception of bias by one of theEvaluation Team members. This analysis included two elements. First, a review of eachevaluators scores for each of the four proposers, to reveal any anomaly in the scoringof one proposer versus any of the other proposers. Second, a review of all evaluatorsscores for a specific proposer, compared against each other, to again reveal anyanomaly in the scoring by any evaluator. Both of these analyses revealed that thescoring was consistent and without any unbalanced scores which might create aperception of bias by one of the Evaluation Team members.
DBE Compliance
The DBE goal for this Contract was set at 30%. An evaluation (Attachment 3) of eachof the four qualification submittals indicates that the DBE goal has been met orexceeded by all proposers. The recommended joint venture of Jacobs EngineeringGroup, Inc., Mott MacDonald Hatch and A.C.G. Environments, has met the requiredgoal and has committed to meeting a goal of 32.7%
SOURCE SELECTION SUMMARYMetro Red Line Segment 3 - North HollywoodContract No. MC035Construction Management ServicesPage 5
Conflict of Interest
Consistent with the terms of the RFIQ, firms that provided design services for the MetroRed Line Segment 3, North Hollywood Project are precluded from providing CMservices for the same portion of the work for which they provided design services.Therefore, staff has conducted a review of each qualification submittal to identify firmsproposed for inclusion in the CM services, that provided design support to the MTA. Foreach firm proposed, the MTA reviewed their designated role within the CM services toensure that it did not establish a role in which they would be responsible to overseetheir own design. This review of qualification submittals did not reveal any areas wherea conflict of interest exists.
Staff also conducted a review to identify firms in the CM services proposal who arecurrently providing services as an incumbent, either as prime or subcontractor. Eachof the qualification submittals received by the MTA include a firm or firms who arecurrently incumbent subcontractors working on various MTA projects. Their role assubconsultants does not provide any proposer with an unfair competitive advantage orwith access to any information that is not otherwise available as public information.
However, one situation identified in the staff review related to an incumbentsubconsultant to Fluor Daniel who also appeared as a subconsultant to the Jacobsteam. Staff used the services of this subconsultant to assist in the development of thequalification submittal format requirements which were set forth for all proposers in theSubmittal Requirements section of the RFIQ. These services did not include thedevelopment of the specific evaluation criteria nor the assignment of the weights tothose criteria. While it was unwise for the subconsultant to fail to notify the MTA of itsintent to be a included in a qualification submittal, an after the fact review by MTA staffrevealed that no unfair competitive advantage existed as a result of the activities of thissubconsultant. In fact, the Jacobs proposal did not rank highest in scores of writtenmaterials. With respect to the oral presentation, the information is not of a type whichcould have provided a competitive advantage to the Jacobs team.
SOURCE SELECTION SUMMARYMetro Red Line Segment 3 - North HollywoodContract No. MC035Construction Management ServicesPage 6
Recommendation
Staff’s recommendation has been developed consistent with MTA Policies andProcedures, the RFIQ, the Evaluation Plan, and as summarized in this SourceSelection Summary. Staff has recommended the most highly qualified firm, JacobsEngineering Group, Inc., Mott MacDonald Hatch and A.CoG. Environments, a JointVenture and its subcontractors, for negotiations and the issuance of a limited notice toproceed. ¯
ATTACHMENT 1
Metro Red Line North Hollywod - Construction Management Consultant
Contract No. MC035
January 12, 1995
O’Brien-Kreitzber~ & Associates. Inc./Raytheon Engineers &Constructors/Jenny En~lineerin~l (A Joint Venture)
O’Brien-Kreitzberg & Associates, Inc. (Joint Venture)188 The EmbarcaderoSan Francisco, CA 94105Fred Kreitzberg (415) 777-0t88
The Robert Group8800 West First Street, #64Los Angeles, CA 90012Christine M. Robert (213) 253-1272
STV Group1055 Wilshire Blvd.Los Angeles, CA 90017David Borger (213) 482-9444
Sverdrup Civil, Inc.600 Anton Blvd., Suite 400Costa Mesa, CA 92626Charles Lake (714) 549-5050
Towiil, Inc.301 Mission Street, Suite 300San Francisco, CA 94105Dennis Curtin (415) 243-4384
Transmetrics660 S. Figueroa Street, Suite 2000Los Angeles, CA 90017Jack Ybarra (213) 688-1400
Metro Red Line North Hollywod - Construction Management Consultant
Contract No. MC035
January 12, 1995
Stone & Webster Engineerina_ Corporation (Prime)
Stone & Webster Engineering Corp.245 Summe.r StreetBoston, MA 02210Daniel Jones (617) 589-6567
SUBCONTRACTOR:
HDR Engineering, Inc.2600 Michelson Drive, Suite t600Irvine, CA 92715Larry Kyle (714) 756-6800
Berryman & Henigar11590 West Bernando Count, Suite 100San Diego, CA 92127Ray Berryman (619) 451-6100
PCH Wong Engineering, Inc.256 Laguna Honda Blvd.San Francisco, CA 94116Peter Wong (415) 566-0800
Aegir Systems2051 North Solar Drive, Suite 200Oxnard, CA 93030Ella Williams (805) 485-4888
HARO Engineering & Construction, Inc.901 Wo Arrow HWYGlendora, CA 91740Joel Haro (818) 332-9677
LKG-CMC, Inc.700 South Flower St., #3210Los Angeles, CA 90017Louise Garside (213) 892-0789
O’Brien-Kreitzberg & Associates, Inc./Jenny Engineering Corporation (A Joint Venture)Transit Construction ManagersContract No. MC035January 12, 1995Page Two
L.K.R. Group Inc.2341 W. 205th Street, Suite 103Torrance, CA 90501Bernard LaRue (310) 320-5100
Morgner Technology Management2566 Overland Ave., Suite 550Los Angeles, CA 90064Carlos Morgner (3t0) 842-8064
Ted Tokio Tanka Architect4223 Glencoe Ave., Suite B107Marina Del Rey, CA 90292Ted Tanaka (310) 306-5432
YML Consultants, Inc.110 W. Las Tunas Dr., Ste BSan Gabriel, CA 91776Ying Ming Lee (818) 287-9631
ATTACHMENT 2
I1.
III.
REQUEST FOR QUALIFICATION - CONTRACT MC035
CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT SERVICES
METRO RED LINE NORTH HOLLYWOOD
EVALUATION PLAN
ACQUISITION SCHEDULE
The following schedule is established for this procurement:
Advertise Date ................................................................Pre-Submittal Meeting .....................................................Qualification Due Date ....................................................Establish Short List .......................................................Interviews ....................................................................Construction Committee Approval to Negotiate /Issue Limited Notice to Proceed ....................................MTA Approval to Negotiate /Issue Limited Notice to Proceed ....................................Request Proposal from Top Firm ...................... .............Proposal Due Date .......................................................Cost Evaluation Negotiations ........................................Item on Construction Committee ...................................Item on MTA Board Agenda ...........................................Notice to Proceed .......................................................
December18,1994December 21,1994
January 12,1995January 24,1995January 30,1995
February 7, 1995
February 8, 1995February 9, 1995
March 9, 1995March 20 - 24, 1995
April 12, 1995April 26, 1995April 27, 1995
EVALUATION COMMITTEE COMPOSITION
* * CONFIDENTIAL * *
EVALUATION CRITERIA
Any contract resulting from this RFIQ will be evaluated according to the criteria,and associated weight, established in Exhibit I "Evaluation Criteria". All sub-criteria are to be weighted equally. DBE participation is not part of the evaluationcriteria, but will be reviewed to determine responsiveness.
IV. EVALUATION PROCEDURES
A. Initial Proposal Review
Each member of the evaluation team will independently review thequalification submittals against the criteria set forth in Exhibit I, providingscoring for each sub-criteria to the Chairperson. They will keep the
go
C°
submittals locked up at all times and will not disclose any informationregarding the qualification submittals or their scoring to any person outsideof the evaluation team. Following this review, the Chairperson will conducta meeting with the evaluators in order to discuss the preliminary findingsand establish the shortlist. Should an evaluator, at any time, need anynecessary clarification from the proposers, they will contact theChairperson who will obtain the necessary information. Under nocircumstances are the evaluation team members to contact the proposers.
The evaluation team members are required to read, understand and signa Declaration of Confidentiality Agreement (Exhibit IV) to be submitted the Chairperson prior to or at the first team meeting.
Proposal Scoring
Evaluators will score the submittals based upon the pre-establishedEvaluation Criteria (Exhibit I) in association with the Evaluation RatingGuideline (Exhibit II), and submit scores and narrative comments to theChairperson on the provided forms (Exhibit Ill).
Each evaluator will provide scores for the sub-criteria set forth in the RFIQand Exhibit I, for each firm/team submitting a qualification documentsubmittal. With all sub-criteria being weighted equally, the Chairperson willcompile the score for each firm/team based upon the scoring from allvoting members of the evaluation team and the weighted EvaluationCriteria. These scores will be the basis for establishment of the shortlist.
Each qualification document submittal will be reviewed and evaluated bythe assigned Contract Compliance Analyst in order to insure that the goalsfor Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) participation have beenobtained by each of the firms/teams. Firms will either be deemedresponsive or non-responsive for this item, with a non-responsive firmbeing provided the opportunity to submit good faith efforts.
Discussions/Interviews with Proposers
Those respondents which are most highly qualified on the initial rankingmay be shortlisted. Shortlisted firms may be required to make oralpresentations and discuss their qualifications and methodologies further.Oral discussions may take the form of conference calls or face to faceinterviews, depending upon the amount of time involved and the need forpersonal contact in the evaluation process. Such firms may also berequested to make revisions to their submittals. All original evaluatorsshould participate in these discussions. These discussions will include apresentation by the firm/team of their qualifications to perform the services,as well as a question and answer period, which may include a list of preset
EVALPL35MC035
2
questions to be asked of each firm/team.
NOTE: The evaluators are not allowed to conductdiscussions/interviews on their own,
Award Recommendation
The Chairperson will collect and consolidate the evaluation team scoresbased upon the oral presentation and prepare a final ranking. Followingdevelopment of an evaluation team summary and an agenda item for MTABoard approval; the individual evaluators score sheets will not be returned.After MTA Board approval to negotiate with the one top ranked firm will besought, along with approval to issue a Limited Notice to Proceed. Afterapproval a cost proposal will be requested from the top-ranked respondent,after which cost evaluation/negotiations will be conducted. If agreementcannot be reached, negotiations will be terminated, and held in rank orderwith other respondents until agreement on cost, fee and terms andconditions can be reached.
After the agreement on cost, fee and terms and conditions, theChairperson will prepare a memorandum recommending contract award.This memorandum may be signed by the original Evaluation Pane--~l-members and will support the development of the Agenda Item.
Agenda Item
The Chairperson will prepare an Agenda Item for the ConstructionCommittee recommending award of the contract. If approved, therecommendation will then be considered by the MTA Board.
Letter of Award
Following approval by the Authority, staff will secure an executed contractand appropriate insurance certificates.
Exhibits (4)
EVALPL35MC035
=
EXHIBIT I
REQUEST FOR QUALIFICATION - CONTRACT NO. MC035
CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT SERVICES
METRO RED LINE NORTH HOLLYWOOD
EVALUATION CRITERIA
DEGREE OF THE PRIME’S SKILLS AND EXPERIENCE 25%
Degree of corporate skills and experience in similar or related projects(with emphasis on the last (5) years).
Record of satisfactory performance and completion of five (5) similar Scopeof Work based on review of references from current and past clients.
Ability to manage personnel changes, and work unrelated to theAUTHORITY, without sacrificing quality of service on any AUTHORITYassignments.
Evidence of relevant knowledge and experience of personnel and qualityof technical resources which will be brought to AUTHORITY assignments.
¯ Availability of key personnel for the AUTHORITY assignments
EXPERIENCE AND CAPABILITIES OF THE FIRMS ON THECONTRACTOR’S TEAM 25%
¯ Experience and capabilities of Contractor’s Team on related projects (withemphasis on the last (5) years).
¯ Record of satisfactory performance and completion of five (5) similarScopes of Work based on review of references from current and pastclients.
¯ Evidence of relevant knowledge and experience of personnel and qualityof technical resources which will be brought to Authority assignments.
EFFECTIVENESS OF MANAGEMENT PLAN 25%
¯ Ability to have a well-defined line of authority, ability to organize formultiple AUTHORITY assignments and ability to manage an integratedteam.
EVALPL35MC035
4
=
¯ Depth of skilled personnel and quality technical resources to handlemultiple Authority assignments.
¯ Effective cost and schedule control on Contract Work Order assignments.
¯ Effectiveness of plan for transition and coordination with the incumbent CM,and Authority Personnel.
¯ Effectiveness of plan for coordination with the Engineering ManagementConsultant.
¯ Effective use of advance planning tools to help reduce the overall costs ofthe project.
UNDERSTANDING OF WORK AND APPROPRIATENESS 15%OF APPROACH FOR IMPLEMENTATION
¯ Contractor’s ability to explain its understanding of the AUTHORITY’Srequirements and expected outcome.
¯ Clarity and efficiency in implementing in the Scope of Work.
SUBCONTRACTING WITH DISADVANTAGED BUSINESSENTERPRISES 10%
¯ Plan for meaningful use of DBE businesses.
MC035 EVALPL35
EXHIBIT II
=
REQUEST FOR QUALIFICATION - CONTRACT NO. MC035
CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT SERVICES
METRO RED LINE NORTH HOLLYWOOD
EVALUATION RATING GUIDELINE
DEGREE OF THE PRIME’S SKILLS AND EXPERIENCE 25%
10= Highest confidence in ability to perform work satisfactorily; prior experiencecorresponds very closely with AUTHORITY requirements; and evidence ofprior client satisfaction.
Very high confidence in ability to perform work; prior experiencecorresponds closely with AUTHORITY requirements; and evidence of priorclient satisfaction.
Good confidence in ability to perform work; prior experience generallycomparable to AUTHORITY requirements; and evidence of prior clientsatisfaction.
Adequate confidence in ability to perform work, with some reservations;prior experience somewhat comparable to AUTHORITY requirements; orprior client satisfaction good, with some exceptions or qualifications.
Strong reservations about ability to perform work; prior experience mostlynot comparable to AUTHORITY requirements; or evidence of significantprior client dissatisfaction.
No confidence in ability to perform work; prior experience not relevant orgrossly incoherent; or evidence of extensive prior client dissatisfaction,gross malfeasance or violation of laws.
EXPERIENCE AND CAPABILITIES OF THE FIRMS ON THECONSULTANT’S TEAM
25%
The qualification submittal demonstrates that the consultant team has thoroughexperience and capabilities in conjunction with the scope of services.
10= Highest level of apparent experience. The consultant has thoroughlyunderstood project needs, goals and objectives; has the convincing abilityto manage the project; and has the highest capabilities to perform thescope of services.
EVALPL35MCO35
6
High level of apparent experience. The consultant has very clearlyunderstood project needs, goals and objectives; has ability to manage theproject; and has the capabilities to perform the scope of services.
Good level of apparent experience. The consultant has closely understoodproject needs, goals and objectives; has the ability to manage the projectand has the capabilities to perform the scope of services.
Adequate level of apparent experience. The consultant has addressedunderstanding project needs, goals and objectives; has managementexperiences for similar sized projects; a has capabilities to perform thescope of services.
Fair level of apparent experience. The consultant has recognized projectneeds, goals and objectives; is technically capable of providing necessarymanagement services; and has apparent capabilities to perform the scopeof services.
0 = Lowest level of apparent understanding; the consultant has not understoodproject needs, goals and objectives.
EFFECTIVENESS OF MANAGEMENT PLAN 25%
The qualification submittal demonstrates that the Consultant team has thecapability and expertise to successfully plan, organize, control and manage allaspects of this agreement.
10 = Highest confidence in ability to provide and carry out an acceptablemanagement plan.
9 = Very high confidence in ability to provide and carry out an acceptablemanagement plan.
8 = Good confidence in ability to provide and carry out an acceptablemanagement plan.
7 = Adequate confidence in ability to provide and carry out an acceptablemanagement plan.
5 = Strong reservations about ability to provide and carry out an acceptablemanagement plan.
0 = No confidence in ability to provide and carry out an acceptablemanagement plan.
EVALPL35MC035
7
=UNDERSTANDING OF WORK AND APPROPRIATENESSOF APPROACH FOR IMPLEMENTATION
10=
SUBCONTRACTING WITH DBE’S
15%
Highest level of apparent understanding; the consultant has thoroughlyunderstood project needs, goals, objectives and approach.
9 = High level of apparent understanding; the consultant has very nearlyunderstood project needs, goals, objectives and approach.
8 = Good level of apparent understanding; the consultant has closelyunderstood project needs, goals, objectives and approach.
7 = Adequate level of apparent understanding; the consultant has addressedunderstanding project needs, goals, objectives and approach.
5 = Fair level of apparent understanding; the consultant has recognized projectneeds, goals, objectives and approach.
0 = Lowest level of apparent understanding; the consultant has not understoodproject needs, goals, objectives and approach.
10%
Highest confidence is plan for partnering with DBE’S.
Very high confidence in plan for partnering with DBE’S.
Good confidence in plan for partnering with DBE’S.
Adequate confidence in plan for partnering with DBE’S.
Strong reservations in plan for partnering with DBE’S.
No confidence in plan for partnering with DBE’S.
10=
9=
8=
7=
5=
0=
MCO35 EVALPL35
EXHIBIT III A
REQUEST FOR QUALIFICATION - CONTRACT NO. MC035
CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT SERVICES
METRO RED LINE NORTH HOLLYWOOD
EVALUATOR RATING SHEET FOR QUALIFICATION SUBMITTALS
PROPOSER:
Each Sub-Criteria identified below shall be scored on a Scale of 0 - 10, in accordancewith Exhibit II, "Evaluation Rating Guideline".
DEGREE OF PRIME’S SKILLS AND EXPERIENCE
Availability of Key Personnel
Degree of Corporate Skills and Experience
Ability to Manage Other Work without Sacrificing Quality
Relevant Knowledge and Experience
Record of satisfactory performance & completion of similar projects
Comments:
Score0 - 10
MC035 EVALPL35
Score0 - 10
EXPERIENCE AND CAPABILITIES OF THE FIRMS ON THECONTRACTORS’S TEAM
Experience and Capabilities of Contractor’s Team
Record of Satisfactory Performance on Similar Projects
Evidence of Relevant Knowledge and Exeperience
Comments:
EVALPL35MC035
10
EFFECTIVENESS OF MANAGEMENT PLAN
Ability to Have Defined Line of Authority and Organize Project
Depth of Skilled Personnel and Quality Technical Resources
Effective Cost and Schedule Control on CWO assignments
Effectiveness of plan for transition and coordination with the incumbent CM, andAUTHORITY Personnel.
Effectiveness of Plan for Coordination with EMC
Effective Use o~ Advance Planning Tools to help reduce project costs
Score0 - 10
Comments:
EVALPL35MC035
11
UNDERSTANDING OF WORK AND APPROPRIATENESSOF APPROACH FOR IMPLEMENTATION
Thoroughness In Explaining Scope of Services
Clarity and Efficiency in Implementing Scope of Services
Score0 - 10
Comments:
EMALPL35MC035
12
SUBCONTRACTING WITH DBE’S
Plan for Meaningful use of DBE businesses
Score0 - 10
Comments:
EVALPL35MC035
13
EXHIBIT III B
REQUEST FOR QUALIFICATION - CONTRACT NO. MC035
CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT SERVICES
METRO RED LINE NORTH HOLLYWOOD
EVALUATOR RATING SHEET FOR ORAL PRESENTATIONS
PROPOSER:
Each Sub-Criteria identified below shall be scored on a Scale of 0 - 10, in accordancewith Exhibit 11, "Evaluation Rating Guideline".
DEGREE OF PRIME’S SKILLS AND EXPERIENCE
Availability of Key Personnel
Degree of Corporate Skills and Experience
Ability to Manage Other Work without Sacrificing Quality
Relevant Knowledge and Experience
Record of satisfactory performance & completion of similar projects
Comments:
Score0 - 10
EVALPL35MCO35
14
ScoreEXPERIENCE AND CAPABILITIES OF THE FIRMS ON THECONTRACTORS’S TEAM
Experience and Capabilities of Contractors’s Team
Record of Satisfactory Performance on Similar Projects
Evidence of Relevant Knowledge and Experience
Comments:
MCO35
15EVALPL35
EFFECTIVENESS OF MANAGEMENT PLAN
Ability to Have Defined Line of Authority and Organize Project
Depth of Skilled Personnel and Quality Technical Resources
Effective Cost and Schedule Control on CWO assignments
Effectiveness of plan for transition and coordination with the incumbent CM, andAUTHORITY Personnel.
Effectiveness of Plan for Coordination with EMC
Effective Use of Advance Planning Tools to help reduce project costs
Comments:
Score0 - 10
EVALPL35MC035
16
UNDERSTANDING OF WORK AND APPROPRIATENESSOF APPROACH FOR IMPLEMENTATION
Thoroughness In Explaining Scope of Services
Clarity and Efficiency in Implementing Scope of Services
Score0 - 10
Comments:
MC035
17EVALPL35
SUBCONTRACTING WITH DBE’S
Plan for meaningful use of DBE businessesComments:
Score0 - 10
EVALPL35MC035
18
EXHIBIT IV
REQUEST FOR QUALIFICATION - CONTRACT NO. MC035
CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT SERVICES
METRO RED LINE NORTH HOLLYWOOD
DECLARATION OF CONFIDENTIALITY
I have been made a member of the evaluation team, or otherwise been granted accessto confidential information relating to Contract No. MC035 CONSTRUCTIONMANAGEMENT for the Metro Red Line North Hollywood.
I acknowledge the importance of confidentiality in the above procurement, and affirm that1 will not divulge any confidential information concerning such procurement to anyoneother than a person expressly authorized to receive such confidential information, untilsuch information is made public by statute or agency policy. Confidential informationshall include, but is not limited to, contents of submissions, bid evaluation documents,and opinions regarding qualifications or eligibility for contract award.
I have read the foregoing statement and understand completely my obligation to maintainconfidentiality, which shall also include protection of documents containing confidentialinformation. I acknowledge that a copy of this Declaration will be placed in thepermanent file for this procurement.
Signature
Printed Name
Project Manager/Supervisor Evaluation Team Chairperson
The Equal Opportunity Dept. has completed its initial evaluation of the Proposers commitment to meetthe DBE goal requirements for the above named project. The DBE goal established for this contract is30%.
Following is a summary:
METRO CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERSJoint Venture of Morrison-Knudsenand Brown 8: Root, Inc.
STONE & WEBSTER ENGINEERING CORP. Under Separate 35%Cover - -~
TRANSIT CONSTRUCTIONMANA GERS, committed to 30% DBE participation on this project.Construction Control Services, Dames & Moore, :lacobs & Assoc., Inc. and L.S. Transit Systems are
not certified DBEs. Their participation was not counted towards meeting the DBE goal. All otherfinns were certified with the MTA. Transit Construction Managers met the 30% DBE goal establishedand was found to be responsive to the DBE requirements of this project.
METRO CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERS committed to 30% DBE participation on this project.Woodward-Clyde Consultants, Holmes & Narver, Inc. Post Buckley & Schuh and Jemigan, Inc. andPsomas & Assoc. are not certified DBEs and their participation was not counted towards meeting theDBE goal. Additionally, credit was not given for United Inspection & Testing Co. as they would beutilized "as needed" and their participation percentage was not delineated. All other firms werecertified with the MTA. Metro Construction Engineers met the 30% DBE goal and was found to beresponsive to the DBE requirements of this project.
JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP, INC. committed to 32.7% DBE participation on this project.ATL, Inc. is not a certified DBE and The Robert Group’s Caltrans Certification could not be acceptedas it did not include evidence of a site visit (re£ Addendum #1 SR-18), therefore their participation wasnot counted towards meeting the DBE goal. Additionally, credit was not given for GSO Corporationand Transmetfics, Inc. as they would be utilized "as needed" and their participation percentage was notdelineated. All other subcontractors listed were certified with the MTA. The Proposer exceeded the30% DBE goal and was found to be responsive to the DBE requirements of this project.
STONE & WEBSTER ENGINEERING CORP. committed to 35% DBE participation on thisproject. L.K.R. Group’s Caltrans certification could not be accepted as it did not include evidence of asite visit (ref. Addendum #1 SR-18) and their participation was not counted towards meeting the DBEgoal. All other subcontractors listed were certified with the MTA. Stone & Webster EngineeringCorporation exceeded the 30% DBE goal and was found to be responsive to the DBE requirements ofthis project.
If you have any questions regarding this initial evaluation, I may be reached at ext. 46532.
BIDDER/PROPOSER:TRANSIT CONSTRUCTION MANAGER8A JOINT VENTURE OF O’BRIEN KREITZBERG, RAYTHEON AND JENNYENGINEERING
CONTRACT SPECIFIC GOAL:
DBE_/MBE/WBE GOAL ACHIEVED:
BID/PROPOSALAMOUNT:PRICE UNDER SEPARATE COVER
30%
30%
EQUAL OPPORTUNITY REPRESENTATIVE:TAMIKO HIRANO
CONSTRUCTION CONTROL SCHEDULING, INSPECTION AND $ 3% $ $ 0%SERVICES TECHNICAL SUPPORT3685 MOTOR AVE.,LOS ANGELES~ CA 90034ELCON ASSOC.12670 N.W. BARNES RD.,PORTLANDI OR 97229HARO ENGINEERING &CONSULTANTS901 W. ARROW HVVY,GLENDORA, CA 91740KDG DEVELOPMENT3600 WlLSHIRE BLVD. #332LOS ANGELES~ CA 90017KAL KRISHNAN CONSULTING900 WlLSHIRE BLVD., #1230LOS ANGELES~ CA 90017LKG-CMC INC.700S. FLOWER ST., #3210LOS ANGELES~ CA 90017LEMLEY & ASSOC., INC.1508 N. 13TH ST.,BOISE~ ID 83702J.L PATTERSON & ASSOg.725 TOWN & COUNTRY RD. #220ORANGE, CA 92688DAMES & MOORE911 WlLSHIRE BLVD., #700LOS ANGELESI CA 90017JACOBS & ASSOC., INC.500 SANSOME ST., #700SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111
SYSTEMS ENGINEERING AND 4% 4%INSPECTION
SURVEYING 6% 6%
PROJECT CONTROLS ANDCONSTRUCTION INSPECTION
3% 3%
PROJECT CONTROLS ANDCONSTRUCTION INSPECTION
CONFIGURATION MANAGEMENT AND 3% 3%DOCUMENT CONTROL
RESIDENT ENGINEERING 4% 4%
TRACKWORK INSPECTION 3% 3%
GEOTECHNIGAL & ENVIRONMENTAL 8% 0%SERVICES
RESIDENT ENGINEERING SERVICES 6% 0%
NOTCERT
DBE ASIANPACIFICMALE
DBE HISPANICMALE
DBE ASIANPACIFICMALE
DBE ASIANPACIFICMALE
DBE CAUCASIANFEMALE
DBE CAUCASIANFEMALE
DBE HISPANICFEMALE
NOTCERT
NOTCERT
TRANSIT CO UCTION MANAGERS "--A JOINT VENTURE OF O’BRIEN KREITZBERG, RAYTHEON AND JENNY ENGINEERING
L S TRANSIT SYSTEMS SYSTEMS ENGINEERING AND 4% 0% NOT
1515 BROAD ST., INSPECTION SERVICES CERT
BLOOMFIELD N.J. 07003
PROJECT NAME:CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT SERVICES
CONTRACT NO:
MC035
BIDDER/PROPOSER:METRO CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERSJT VENTURE OF MORRISON-KNUDSEN AND BROWN & ROOT, INC.
CONTRACT SPECIFIC GOAL:
DBE/MBEPzVBE GOAL ACHIEVED:
DBE
3O%
3o%
MBE
BID/PROPOSAL AMOUNT:PRICE UNDER SEPARATE COVER
WBE
EQUAL OPPORTUNITY REPRESENTATIVE:TAMIKO HIRANO
DEAN RYAN CONSULTANTS & CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION 5% 5% DBEDESIGNERS3540 WlLSHIRE BLVD., SUITE 712LOS ANGELESI CA 90010KAL KRISHNAN CONSULTING900 WlLSHIRE BLVD., #1230LOS ANGELESI CA 90017JENKINS, GALE & MARTINEZ5933 W. CENTURY BLVD., #1000LOS ANGELES~ CA 90045ANIL VERMA ASSOC.911 WlLSHIRE BLVD., #1700LOS ANGELESI CA 90017J.L. PATTERSON & ASSOC.725 TOWN 8, COUNTRY, SUITE 222ORANGEI CA 92688UNITED INSPECTION & TESTING CO.22620 GOLDENREST DR., SUITE 114MORENO VALLEY~ CA 92553WILLIAM J. YANG & ASSOCo847 N. HOLLYWOOD WAY, #100BURBANK~ CA 91505LKG-CMC, INC.700 S. FLOWER ST., #3210LOS ANGELESt CA 90017KARO ENTERPRISES900 WlLSHIRE BLVD., #522LOS ANGELES~ CA 90017E2 CONSULTING ENGINEERS601 S. FIGUEROA ST., #-4895LOS ANGELES~ CA
PROJECT CONTROLS
MIS, ARCHITECTURAL INSPECTION
CIVIL INSPECTION
TRACK INSPECTION
MATERIAL TESTING
MECHANICAL/ELECTRICALINSPECTION
CONFIGURATION MANAGEMENT,DOCUMENT CONTROL
DBE COMPLIANCE
(AS NEEDED)
5% 5% DBE
HISPANICFEMALE
ASIANPACIFICMALE
4% 4% DBE AFRICANAMERICANMALE
5% 5% DBE
2% 2%
0%
2%
2%
1%
DBE
DBE
DBE
DBE
DBE
2%
2%
1%
ASIANPACIFICFEMALEHISPANICFEMALE
ASIANPACIFICMALEASIANPACIFICMALECAUCASIANFEMALE
AFRICANAMERICANMALE
THIRD PARTYCOORDINATION 3% 3% DBE ASIANINDIANMALE
METRO CONST~TION ENGINEERSJT VENTURE OF MORRISON-KNUDSEN AND BROWN & ROOT, INC.
CONSENSUS PLANNING GROUP7640 LANKERSHIM #514N. HOLLYWOODI CA 91602WOODWARD-CLYDE CONSULTANTS2O20 E. 1ST ST.,SANTA ANA~ CA 92705HOLMES & NARVER, INC.999 TOWN & COUNTRYORANGE~ CA 92668PSOMAS & ASSOC.3420 OCEAN PARK BLVD.,SANTA MONICA~ CA 90405
PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT, COMMUNITYRELATIONS
GEOTECHNICAL/ENVIRONMENTALCOORDINATION
STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING
SURFACE SURVEY
1%
7%
4%
3%
1% DBE CAUCASIANFEMALE
0% NOTCERT
0% NOTCERT
NOTCERT
POST, BUCKLEY, SCHUH & TUNNEL ALIGNMENT SURVEY 4%JERNIGAN, INC.2501 ALTON AVE.,IRVING~ CA 92714
A.C.G. ENVIRONMENTS1750-14TH ST., #CSANTA MONICA, CA 90404
ATL, INC.16921 S. WESTERN, #109GARDENA~ CA 90247G & C EQUIPMENT1875 W. REDONDO BEACH BLVD.,#102GARDENA~ CA g0247.GARDNER CONSULTING PLANNERS22010 S. WILMINGTON AVE., #300CARSON, CA 90745GSO CORPORATION3440 WILSHIRE BLVD., #272LOS ANGELES, CA 90010
KAL KRISHNAN CONSULTINGSERVICES900 WlLSHIRE BLVD., #123~0LOS ANGELESI CA 90017~iKJM & ASSOCo500 - J08TH AVE., N.E., #9~o0SEATTLE, C A 98004LEE ANDREWS GROUP1900 AVENUE OF THE STARS~ #1450LOS ANGELES, CA 90067PGH WONG ENGINEERING256 LACUNA HONDA BLVD.,SAN FRANCISCO, C A 94116
JT. VENTURE MANAGEMENT, 14%PROJECT CONTROLS, CONTRACTADMINISTRATION AND FIELDSERVICESMATERIALS TESTING ANDGEOTECHNICAL
PROCUREMENT, SUPPLIES,
2%
2%
2.5%
(AS NEEDED)
2.5%
4%
2%
3.5%
14%
0%
1.2% DBE
0%
2.5%
4% DBE CAUCASIANFEMALE
2% DBE AFRICANAMERICANFEMALE
3.5% DBE
DBE
NOTCENT
DBE
RTA DBE
DBE
HISPANICMALE
AFRICANAMERICANMALE
AFRICANAMERICANMALE
AFRICANAMERICANMALEASIANPACIFICMALE
ASIANPACIFICMALE
ENGINEERING AND INSPECTION
ACCOUNTING AND FINANCIALSERVICES
PROJECT CONTROLS, CONTRACTADMINISTRATION AND FIELDSERVICES
DOCUMENT CONTROL AND COSTCONTROL
COMMUNITY RELATIONS
TRANSIT SYSTEMS,COMMUNICATIONS, POWERSYSTEMS, FARE COLLECTIONTESTING AND START-UP
J.L. PATTERSON & ASSOC. FIELD INSPECTION725 TOWN & COUNTRY RD., #220ORANG~ CA 92668THE ROBERT GROUP COMMUNITY RELATIONS880 W. 1ST ST., #604LOS ANGELES, CA 90012
TRANSMETRICS, INC. FIELD SERVICES AND INSPECTION (AS NEEDED)660 S. FIGUEROA ST., #2000
