Laserfiche WebLink
<br />REQUEST FOR <br />COUNCIL ACTION <br /> <br />~ <br />~ <br /> <br />CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: <br /> <br />CLERK OF COUNCIL USE ONLY: <br /> <br />JUNE 6, 2005 <br />TITLE: <br /> <br />APPROVED <br /> <br />o As Recommended <br />o As Amended <br />o Ordinance on 1 sl Reading <br />o Ordinance on 2nd Reading <br />o Implementing Resolution <br />o Set Public Hearing For <br /> <br />AGREEMENTS FOR ANNUAL <br />CONTRACT FOR TRAFFIC COUNTING <br />SERVICES PROJECT (PROJECT NO. <br />5512) <br /> <br /> <br />CONTINUED TO <br /> <br />FILE NUMBER <br /> <br />L/ <br />RECOMMENDED ACTION <br /> <br />Direct the City Attorney to prepare and authorize the City Manager and <br />the Clerk of the Council to execute agreements with Southland Car <br />Counters, Inc. and Transportation Studies, Inc. to provide traffic <br />counting services, each for an amount not to exceed $50,000, with an <br />option to extend the agreements for one additional year. <br /> <br />DISCUSSION <br /> <br />In recent years, the City has contracted for annual traffic counting <br />services to conduct counts for neighborhood studies, the bi-annual <br />citywide traffic volume study, and the annual traffic signal and left- <br />turn priority studies. These contracts also include data collection and <br />speed surveys in support of the speed hump program. <br /> <br />A Request for Proposals (RFP) for annual traffic counting services was <br />mailed on Monday April 4, 2005, to seven qualified consulting firms. <br />One of the firms was based in Santa Ana. Only two of the seven <br />consultants submitted proposals. The proposals received are from <br />qualified consultants with extensive work experience in Santa Ana. <br /> <br />The proposals were reviewed by a three-member committee comprised of <br />Public Works Agency staff. The ratings were based on experience, <br />qualifications, project understanding, scheduling, past performance, and <br />the overall proposal. Once rated, the sealed bids of the two firms were <br />opened. <br /> <br />To compare the fees of the firms, the RFP required each firm to submit <br />their proposed costs for a particular scenario of work specified in the <br />RFP, based on their fee schedules for services. The costs for the <br />scenario were for comparison purposes only and not related to the <br />contract amount. <br /> <br />25C-1 <br /> <br />