FULL PACKET_2010-08-16 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

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