Laserfiche WebLink
REQUEST FOR <br />COUNCIL ACTION <br />CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: <br />JUNE 17, 2013 <br />TITLE: <br />AGREEMENT WITH MARIPOSA <br />LANDSCAPES, INC., FOR MEDIAN <br />LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE <br />SERVICES <br />Irr <br />I MANAGER <br />RECOMMENDED ACTION <br />CLERK OF COUNCIL USE ONLY: <br />APPROVED <br />? As Recommended <br />? As Amended <br />? Ordinance on I" Reading <br />? Ordinance on 2nd Reading <br />? Implementing Resolution <br />? Set Public Hearing For_ <br />CONTINUED TO <br />FILE NUMBER <br />Authorize the City Manager and Clerk of the Council to execute an agreement with Mariposa <br />Landscapes, Inc., subject to non-substantive changes approved by the City Manager and City <br />Attorney, to provide median landscape maintenance services for the not-to-exceed amount of <br />$628,160 with an option for two, 2-year extensions. <br />DISCUSSION <br />The Public Works Agency Maintenance Services Division is responsible for the landscape <br />maintenance of all the medians, linear parks, neighborhood entry areas, water reservoir facilities, <br />arterial sidewalk areas citywide and the Regional Transportation Center. Staff released the <br />Request for Proposal (RFP) on April 23, 2013. It was posted on the City's website and advertised <br />in the Orange County Register. Staff held a pre-proposal meeting on May 2, 2013, with 11 <br />landscape maintenance contractors attending. Submittals were due on May 15, 2013, and the City <br />received proposals from four maintenance contractors. The proposals were evaluated by a team <br />comprised of representatives from the Public Works Agency utilizing the following criteria: phasing <br />approach, equipment, employee training program, ability to meet performance on schedule, <br />company experience and reputation, and competiveness of the fees. In addition, staff performed <br />reference checks on all of the proposers and determined that all were highly qualified. <br />All four contractors were invited to the interview phase of the evaluation process. The maximum <br />rating score was 600. The ratings and proposed fees for the four contractors are identified in <br />Table 1: <br />25E-1