Laserfiche WebLink
7.1.D. - Page 1 <br /> RE PO RT <br /> To the Honorable Mayor and City Council <br /> From the Cit Mana er <br /> October 7, 2013 <br /> SUBJECT <br /> Agreement with URS for Professional Engineering and Environmental Services for the <br /> US 101/84 (Woodside Road) Interchange Project Approval & Environmental Document <br /> (PA&ED) <br /> RECOMMENDATION <br /> By motion, approve and authorize City Manager to execute the professional services <br /> agreement with URS for engineering and environmental services related to the US <br /> 101/84 Interchange PA&ED in the amount of $3,351,487, and authorize the City <br /> Manager to increase the agreement amount, if necessary, up to 10% not to exceed <br /> $3,686,636. <br /> BACKGROUND <br /> On March 29, 2013, the City distributed the Request for Proposal (RFP) to identify and <br /> select an engineering and environmental consultant to prepare the PA&ED for the <br /> US 101/84 Interchange Improvement Project, one which is also fully qualified to provide <br /> final design services, and design services during construction, if so desired by the City. <br /> The RFP was issued by email to 33 consulting firms in the San Francisco Bay Area. On <br /> April 12, 2013, the City held a public information meeting to inform prospective <br /> consultants about the US 101/84 Interchange Improvement Project and the RFP and to <br /> answer questions about the RFP and the City's selection process. <br /> Proposals were due to the City on May 28, 2013, and the City received nine submittals <br /> that date. A Review Board with representatives from the City, Caltrans, San Mateo <br /> County Transportation Authority, and business stakeholders evaluated the proposals <br /> and identified four consultants as most qualified to perform the work outlined in the <br /> RFP. These four consultants were then interviewed by the Review Board on July 1, <br /> 2013. Each proposal was evaluated according to the relevant experience of their project <br /> manager, relevant experience of the key staff, technical approach, consensus building <br /> approach, the allocation of labor to complete the project, and the proposed schedule. <br /> Following interviews, the Review Board concluded that URS was the top-ranked <br /> consultant. <br />