Laserfiche WebLink
The Honorable Judge Kim Dunning <br />August 16, 2010 <br />Page 4 <br />FINDING F-2: Recommendations of Expert Panel Ignored: Santa Ana City staff created an <br />expert panel to evaluate the capabilities of the three applicant groups but the findings from this <br />evaluation were ignored in awarding the final contract. The contract was awarded to the lowest- <br />rated bidder with a poorly documented process. <br />RESPONSE: We disagree wholly. The City Council did not ignore the recommendation <br />of the selection panel. Rather, it fully considered the panel's recommendation and <br />instead proposed a hybrid team structure that could have included Parsons Brinkerhoff. <br />Parsons Brinkerhoff (PB) had been recommended and retained previously for Step 1 of <br />this process to prepare an initial needs assessment and transit vision for the City. As <br />such, the City Council was fully aware of the strengths and weaknesses of PB's work <br />product and project approach, which formed the basis for their desire to set this <br />recommendation aside and go with a different firm to lead the team of consultants. As <br />the final decision-making body on this contract, the City Council operated well within its <br />rights. <br />FINDING F-3: Mismanagement of Planning Funds: The process for awarding the Phase II <br />planning funds was mismanaged and compromised by miscommunications and lack of direction <br />between City Council and staff. <br />RESPONSE: We disagree wholly with this finding and believe the title is inaccurate and <br />misleading. While this title implies that there is wholesale mismanagement of the <br />project's funds, the text under this finding limits its criticism to the process for awarding <br />this contract. As stated in our response to findings F.1 and F.2, the City's selection and <br />award process went above and beyond the normal practice by conducting both a RFQ and <br />RFP process. Furthermore, the selection process was more rigorous than usual with the <br />convening of a selection panel by City staff, and further interviews with City Council's <br />Transportation Committee. Given the importance and magnitude of this project, the extra <br />steps and rigor seem appropriate, and it must be pointed out the final fee structure saved <br />significant costs over the PB proposal. <br />Finally, to respond to this finding's inaccurate and misleading title, the project funding is <br />being spent in direct alignment with the intent of Measure M's Project S criteria, and as a <br />further check, there are regular meetings with OCTA, the project sponsor. <br />FINDING F-4: The Project is Behind Schedule: Delays in the contract process put the Santa <br />Ana Street Car Project several months behind its original schedule which could affect future <br />funding. There continue to be problems in meeting critical deadlines. <br />RESPONSE: We disagree wholly with this finding. While it took six months to finalize <br />and negotiate a contract, the project is currently on track to be completed by December <br />2011 to meet our original schedule. We have not missed any deadlines for funding <br />opportunities. The City is planning to apply for preliminary engineering funding for the <br />19D-4