HomeMy WebLinkAbout26 - Request for Proposals for Tree Maintenance Services (cont. from 5/12/2015)CTY OF
F
NEWPORT BEACH
" City Council Staff Report
May 26, 2015
Agenda Item No. 26
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: Mike Pisani, Acting Municipal Operations Department Director — (949) 644 -3055,
mpisani@newportbeachca.gov
PREPARED BY: Mike Pisani, Acting Municipal Operations Department Director
PHONE: (949) 644 -3055
TITLE: Request for Proposals for Tree Maintenance Services (cont. from 5/12/2015)
ABSTRACT:
At the April 28 City Council meeting, Council directed staff to return with a report to discuss the current
Request for Proposals that is now open for tree maintenance services.
RECOMMENDATION:
Provide direction to staff regarding the recently - closed RFP for tree maintenance services.
FUNDING REQUIREMENTS:
Not applicable at this time.
DISCUSSION:
Background:
At its November 12, 2013 meeting, following a Request for Proposals (RFP) process, the City Council
approved an agreement with Great Scott Tree Services (GSTS) of Stanton for the maintenance of City
trees at a not -to- exceed contract amount of $1,300,000 per contract year. For nearly 20 years, these
services had been performed by West Coast Arborists (WCA) of Anaheim, and these were the only firms
who submitted proposals to the City. WCA protested the award to GSTS on the basis of WCA's not
understanding the full breadth of annual trimming requirements. Because WCA had not raised these
concerns until WCA was informed that another firm (GSTS) was going to be recommended to Council,
WCA's bid protest was denied.
GSTS began working in the City on December 1, 2013. Over the course of the following 12 months, they
walked the City and updated the GPS, size, and species information in the tree database, performed
routine grid pruning, annual trimming of palm, eucalyptus, coral, and ficus trees, and removed and planted
trees.
26 -1
The Street Tree Division budget (Division 3180) includes approximately $1,650,000 for contract tree
services, which is more than the GSTS contract's $1,300,000 limit. In addition, tree services are funded out
of other department's budgets for facility tree trimming (Police Station, Balboa Yacht Basin, Utilities Yard
and pump stations, etc.) as well as for supplemental work on Capital Improvement Projects (CIPs).
Over the course of the first contract year, at the specific request of Municipal Operations Department
(MOD) staff, GSTS pruned more trees than anticipated. While this didn't exceed the budgeted amount and
was done with authorization, the dollar amount due GSTS exceeded the contract's dollar cap. On
November 12, 2014, staff brought a contract amendment to Council to raise the limit to $1,800,000 for that
year only.
Due to the fact that the number of trees pruned was significantly higher than noted in the 2013 RFP, a
majority of the Council directed staff to prepare and circulate a new RFP.
On April 7, 2015, staff released a new RFP for tree maintenance services. The RFP was different from the
2013 version in a number of ways. First, staff better defined annual trimming in the document.
Second, language was added that clarified that the quantities of services provided may be higher or lower
than anticipated based upon our budget and need for such services. As the contract included unit cost
pricing, it was always understood that quantities could change; we strengthened the language in that
section.
And finally, SB 7 requires that any new maintenance agreement issued after January 1, 2015 include
prevailing wage. This provision has the potential to significantly raise the unit price costs included in a new
agreement.
Previous Tree Agreement: As the City moved towards greater outsourcing following a recession, the City
selected WCA in December 1993 to replace City tree - trimming work and workers. That contract was a
piggyback agreement based upon a City of Tustin competitive bid that had been concluded early that year.
The term was for one year, but had a provision to allow four one -year extensions.
In December 1994, the agreement was extended ten years, through 2004. In February 2004, the
agreement was extended through December 4, 2013, and was amended in September 2010 to insert a
not -to- exceed amount of $950,000 per contract year into the agreement. None of the extensions or
amendments contained language altering the unit prices in the agreement - basically, that price was
$39 /tree with exceptions for additional work.
2013 RFP and Award of New Tree Agreement: While we were pleased with WCA's work, after twenty
years with no bid, it was time to issue a formal RFP by the end of the February 2004 contract. In August
2013, MOD staff circulated an RFP for tree maintenance services. A pre - proposal meeting was held to
give interested parties a chance to ask questions if any portion of the RFP was not clear or if information
was missing. Proposals were due on September 29, 2013, and two firms submitted proposals: GSTS and
WCA.
The proposals were evaluated by a committee made up of members from MOD and the Public Works
Department. Scoring was based upon three factors, qualifications and experience of the firm (25 %), the
contractor's recent experience in conducting similar work (25 %) and the proposed project costs (50 %). The
evaluation resulted in GSTS scoring 87.00 points and WCA scoring 83.88 points. Consequently, MOD staff
moved forward with reference checks and further evaluation of GSTS. Current and past customers of
GSTS gave the company high ratings, and MOD staff and the City's Purchasing Agent visited the
company's headquarters in Stanton. Following the evaluation and meeting with GSTS staff, City staff was
confident of GSTS' ability to perform the services required in the agreement.
Following notification that staff would be recommending an award to GSTS, WCA protested the results in a
number of meetings with City staff, claiming that they were unclear that the "annual trims" listed in the RFP
included palm trees, and that because of this, error, their cost was higher than it should have been. This
had been explained in the proposal meeting, and WCA's protest was denied on the basis of the ample time
26 -2
allowed for questions during the period the RFP was open
On November 12, 2013, the City Council awarded an agreement to GSTS for a ten -year term with an
opportunity for two three -year extensions for an amount not to exceed $1,300,000 per contract year. The
agreement contains "unit pricing" and allows services to be added or reduced at the listed prices.
GSTS Assumes Tree Maintenance in the City: GSTS started work on December 1, 2013. Their primary
emphasis at the time was to catch up on a backlog of annual pruning of palm, ficus, coral and eucalyptus
trees that had not been completed. This backlog was not WCA's fault. This work had been deferred at the
City's request due to budget limitations.
Early in calendar year 2014, GSTS put its emphasis on grid pruning. The City is arranged in 22 geographic
tree trimming grids. A number of grids had exceeded our three -year goal for grid trimming. By the late
summer all grids had met this goal, and since funds for tree trimming remained in the Street Tree Division
budget, City staff authorized GSTS to continue grid trimming. This resulted in the time between trims to dip
under three years in some areas. More frequent tree trimming has a number of benefits for the citizens.
First, it reduces the potential of limbs or other tree debris (such as leaves, fruits and flowers) to fall onto
streets or private property; it promotes a neater appearance in neighborhoods; it reduces surface root
growth; and, while we do not specifically trim for view, keeping tree canopies lighter and open provides a
benefit to residents with water views. Additionally, trimming trees on a shorter trim cycle significantly
reduce the number of citizen phone calls and complaints to City staff and Council Members.
The quality of work performed by GSTS was very high, as it had been when they were contracted by The
Irvine Company and local HOAs. Staff received a few complaints from the public regarding their service.
Some were valid, such as traffic control issues, but easily repairable and not unexpected with a new
contractor in the City. Others were received by email and thoroughly investigated, but in a number of
cases, we had a challenging time contacting the complaining party. All complaints were resolved with
GSTS to our satisfaction, and any such complaints have significantly declined.
Given the work completed since GSTS assumed responsibility for tree services, it is important to compare
the difference in costs between what GSTS and WCA would have charged with the 2013 RFP prices. The
difference is over $600,000 during the first 13 months of the agreement and is shown in Attachment 1.
It should be noted that while WCA's cost of annual canopy tree trims is high in its 2013 proposal compared
to its previous contract, the pricing was similar to what they had been charging the City since 2008. In July
2008, WCA was permitted a change in its pricing structure that raised the cost for slope trees
(predominantly in Newport Coast and not anticipated with the original 1994 agreement), and was allowed to
charge an additional "crew rental" charge on top of the $39 per unit cost when trimming large canopy
trees.
Council Approval of New Not -to- Exceed Limit: As noted above, under the direction of City staff and with
additional resources approved by the Council, GSTS performed more services in their first year than
anticipated. Consequently, staff prepared an amendment to the agreement in November 2014 for Council
consideration raising the contract's cap from $1,300,000 to $1,800,000 for the first contract year.
More precisely, in FY 2013 -14, the Tree Division's budget included $1,375,000 in total for tree trimming,
special ficus trimming, and tree replacements. In FY 2014 -15, that number was increased to $1,661,670 -
primarily on the tree replacement and trimming line items (010- 3180 -8080 and - 80806. See page 135 of
the FY 15 -16 Budget Detail). In FY 2015 -16, it's proposed to be $1,749,088.
While the expenditures were within Department budget limits as set by the Council, they were over the
agreement limit. On November 12, the Council approved the amendment, but directed staff to prepare a
new RFP that more clearly explained the variability to the quantity of services requested, as well as better
defined annual pruning.
Staff did not and does not believe that the error we made in asking for an "amendment in arrears" to the
GSTS contract was GSTS's fault, nor was it a good reason to re -issue a new RFP, though we can
understand why WCA might want this done. To check our own work, we asked a 3rd Party auditor to
26 -3
review the 2013 RFP process to see if it was correctly done. The firm concluded that the RFP was correct
and appropriate. Their report is Exhibit A.
2015 RFP and Effect of Prevailing Wage: Following Council direction, staff did prepare a new RFP for
tree trimming services. In preparing the RFP, staff reviewed the 2013 RFP and added separate price
items for annual trimming of both large canopy trees and palms. The new RFP also included language that
the proposers should have the ability to trim a higher number of trees than in previous documents; this,
however, there is no guarantee of future work at the same quantity.
To comply with Senate Bill 7, any City maintenance agreements issued after January 1, 2015 require the
payment of prevailing wages. This is significant in the tree trimming industry; on February 22, 2015, the
State Department of Industrial Relations included a new specialty classification "Landscape Maintenance
Tree Trimmer" which requires a fully loaded wage rate of $27.48 per hour. Current wage rates are in the
$18.00- $25.00 per hour range.
The proposals were due to the City on May 14. We have not opened the cost proposals. It is not known
the effect prevailing wage will have on the prices provided, however labor is a large cost component in tree
maintenance services, and any increase in labor costs will likely be passed on in the form of higher unit
costs.
During the last few months. During the last few months, both GSTS and WCA have provided extensive
documents that support their position - either that the RFP should be ended and the contract continued
(GSTS) or that the RFP should go forward and bids opened (WCA). Staff has met with both firms multiple
times to go over their documentation. We believe that both companies are strong providers of quality
service, and do not seek to malign either of them. We realize that they are tough competitors with each
other, and while we respect that, we wish these attacks were not occurring.
We have attempted to summarize their statements along with our responses /observations in Exhibit B.
We didn't include every allegation, but we could continue to do so if requested. We have not seen
anything that would lead us to change our minds that the November 2013 RFP was fair and fairly awarded,
and that GSTS should continue to provide this service through the contract's end of term (notwithstanding
any default or other concern between now and then). We again note our respect for both WCA and GSTS
as quality companies.
Further Action and Alternatives: If Council desires, they may direct staff to cancel the RFP and allow
GSTS to continue providing tree services in the City. Cost proposals that the City received on or before
May 14, 2015 would be returned, unopened, to the proposers. Similarly, if the Council seeks to continue
and complete the remaining eight (8) years on the GSTS contract, staff should consider whether the
contract's cap remain appropriate and should instead reflect the amount budgeted for tree work in any one
year.
The above is our recommendation.
Alternatively, Council may ask that the proposals be opened and scored and brought to the City Council
with a recommendation.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
Staff recommends the City Council find this action is not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act
( "CEQA ") pursuant to Sections 15060(c)(2) (the activity will not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable
indirect physical change in the environment) and 15060(c)(3) (the activity is not a project as defined in
Section 15378) of the CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Chapter 3, because it
has no potential for resulting in physical change to the environment, directly or indirectly.
NOTICING:
The agenda item has been noticed according to the Brown Act (72 hours in advance of the meeting at
which the City Council considers the item).
26 -4
ATTACHMENTS:
Description
Exhibit A - Results of the RFP Audit
Exhibit B - Tree RFP Notes
26 -5
EXHIBIT A
SJOBLMG LVASHENK
CONSULTING. INC
May 6, 2015
Dan Matusiewicz, Finance Director/Treasurer
City of Newport Beach
100 Civic Center Drive
Newport Beach, CA 92660
RE: Contract Performance /Compliance Audit of Tree Maintenance Services — Phase I
Dear Mr. Matusiewicz:
The City of Newport Beach (City) engaged Sjoberg Evashenk Consulting to conduct a
preliminary review of the City's procurement of tree maintenance services, currently provided by
Great Scott Tree Service, hic. (GSTS) under an agreement approved by the City Council on
November 12, 2013. The first phase of this project was to analyze the following documents
related to the 2013 contract:
1. RFP No. 14 -9 and Addendum A for procuring Tree Maintenance Services issued in
September 2013.
2. Responses received to RFP No. 14 -9 from GSTS and West Coast Arborists, Inc. (WCA).
3. Technical and cost scoring sheets for each proposal.
4. Executed Maintenance Services Agreement with GSTS with scope of services as
approved by the City Council on November 12, 2013.
5. WCA protest and City resolution.
6. Amendment No.1 to GSTS Maintenance Services Agreement approved by the City to
increase budget authority to compensate the contractor for additional services.
We conducted a number of evaluative tasks to assess the procurement process and resulting
service agreement. In the Appendix to this letter we detail scope and methodology followed by
Sjoberg Evashenk Consulting in conducting this preliminary review.
SJOBERG EVASEENK City of Newport Beach
K.M.
Results of our preliminary review
In summary, our preliminary review did not identify any instances of non - compliance with the
City's directives included in the Request for Proposal, proposal reviews, technical and cost
scoring, agreement execution, protest resolution, or contract amendment. Based on the
documents we reviewed and interviews with City staff involved in the procurement, we believe
the City's selection processes and award of the contract to GSTS to provide tree maintenance
services is fully supported.
During our review we did identify a minor error in the cost portion of the scoring methodology.
Specifically, when City staff applied the costs bid by GSTS for certain trees, it applied a rate for
"special" trees rather than "common" trees resulting in an over - estimated cost value for GSTS –
this overstated the company's total price. We recalculated the results correcting for this error;
this correction reduces GSTS cost bid and when applied to the cost scoring metric reduces the
points earned by West Coast Arborists (the more expensive cost bid) from a total of 33.88 to
32.78. This change has no effect on the outcome of the selection process.
Our evaluation consisted of eight primary areas of review. In the following, we recap each area.
1. RFP No. 14 -9 and Addendum A for procuring Tree Maintenance Services.
We reviewed the RFP and identified the following provisions to guide the selection:
• Minimum qualifications.
• Detailed scope of work listing tree and service types.
• Evaluation criteria —a two -step process that set forth scoring weights – 25% for
qualifications /experience; 25% for recent experience; 50% for cost.
• Cost scoring methodology – lowest cost based on estimated annual cost of services
awarded 50 points, next lowest bidder receives a score based on the ratio of its
estimated annual costs applied against the lowest cost.
We believe the RFP and addendum provided potential proposers with the scope of work
and other required information needed to respond if qualified.
2 Bid Responses Received
The City received responses from two bidders Great Scott Tree Service (GSTS) and
West Coast Arborists, Inc. (WCA).
Both proposals from GSTS and WCA were determined by the City to meet minimum
qualifications and were advanced to the proposal evaluation phase (technical and cost
scoring) of the procurement.
Our review of the proposals confirmed that they both met minimum qualifications and
provided all supporting documents required (e.g. five years in operation, insurance, staff
qualifications, references, etc.)
SJOBERG EVASEENK City of Newport Beach
26 -7
3. Technical scoring of each proposal.
Our interviews revealed that the City's Purchasing Agent appropriately separated the
technical and cost portions of each proposal. The technical portions of the proposal were
forwarded to an evaluation committee for review and scoring.
• Four City staff conducted the technical evaluations of each proposal utilizing the
City's pro -forma scoring sheet. The scoring sheet included four areas to evaluate
with Qualifications and Experience worth a combined total of 25 possible points and
Project History and References combined for a total of 25 possible points.
• We reviewed the final evaluations for each of the four City evaluators and traced and
recalculated their individual totals to the Technical Summary sheet prepared by the
Purchasing Agent.
No errors were found and we confirmed that the total Technical Scores for GSTS and
WCA were accurately presented to the City Council in Agenda Item # 26 on November
12, 2013.
4. Cost scoring for each proposer.
Proposer costs represented 50% of the City's scoring process, with 50 points assigned to
the lowest annual price, and the other proposer assigned a Cost Ratio Score directly
proportional to 50 points.
• The Cost Ratio Score the City used is typical of other proposals we have seen and is
the recommended approach under the State Contracting Manual for RFPs.
• The City calculated the annual cost estimates for each proposer based on an estimated
range of typical services to be provided yearly against the rates proposed for each
service type by GSTS and WCA.
• We identified an error related to the GSTS cost score due to the City applying
GSTS's unit pricing for "Special Variety Trees" for 24 ", 36" and 48" tree planting
rather than "Common" tree unit pricing that was applied against the WCA bids.
• Since "Common" tree planting is less costly than "Special Variety Trees ", GSTS's
overall annual price was overstated by $37,100.
• Correcting for the error does not change GSTS's score of 50, because they remain the
lowest bidder. However, it does reduce WCA's score from 33.88 to 32.78 points.
Overall, this minor error had no effect on the selection process.
SJOBERG EVASEENK City of Newport Beach
5. Auditor's Recalculation of Technical and Cost Scoring.
We recalculated the results of the procurement adjusting for the minor error that
overstated GSTS's cost score.
Auditor's Recalculation of Procurement Scoring
Original Score
Corrected Score
Great Scott Tree Service
Great Scott Tree Service
Cost
50.00
Cost
50.00
Technical
36.50
Technical
36.50
Total
86.50
Total
86.50
West Coast Arborists
West Coast Arborists
Cost
33.88
Cost
32.78
Technical
50.00
Technical
50.00
Total
83.88
Total
82.78
6. Executed Maintenance Services Agreement with GSTS approved by the City Council
on November 12, 2013.
We compared the City's RFP #14 -9 and Addendum A sections against the final GSTS
Maintenance Services Agreement's terms and conditions.
• On a line -by -line basis we found that the agreement included all sections of the RFP.
We found that the final contract mirrors all key provisions of the RIP and addendum.
7. Contract Award Protest and City resolution.
On October 28, 2013, WCA protested the award of the Maintenance Services Agreement
to GSTS. We reviewed the materials related to the WCA protest of the contract award as
well as interviewing pertinent City staff.
• WCA asserted that the pre - proposal conference included unclear definitions regarding
grid and annual pruning service prices that resulted in WCA's prices being incorrectly
quoted.
• WCA requested that the City accept their corrected proposal or reject all proposals
and reissue the contract solicitation.
SJOBERG EVASEENK City of Newport Beach
`.
• City staff prepared a response to the protest disagreeing with WCA's contentions and
rejecting the protest. Among several issues raised by the City disputing the unclear
pruning definitions was the fact that WCA should have had no doubt regarding the
pruning requirements based on its first -hand knowledge of pruning schedules and
requirements while providing tree maintenance services for Newport Beach for the
past 20 years.
• City staff addressed WCA's claim with the City Council on November 12, 2013.
We found no compelling support for WCA's protest based on the City's 3 -page response
and our interviews with key City staff.
8. Amendment No. Ito GSTS Maintenance Services Agreement.
We reviewed the Amendment to the original GSTS contract as well as the rationale
provided to the City Council.
• City staff presented and City Council approved Amendment No. 1 to the GSTS
Maintenance Services Agreement on November 5, 2014.
Amendment No. 1 increased GSTS's compensation by $500,000 for additional
services performed following the approved unit pricing in the base agreement.
Various sections of the GSTS primary Maintenance Services Agreement allow the
City to request additional work from the contractor. Consequently, amendments to
the agreement is possible during its term.
o For instance, Section 4.5 states that "Extra Work" can be performed upon
written authorization of the City. The "Description of Project" section
outlines all trees under the City's jurisdiction and states that work "includes
but are not limited to" a range of services such as trimming, removal, disposal
and planting, etc. Further, under "work to be performed" including pruning,
trimming, watering and planting "approximately" 33,000 trees and others "by
service request ".
• City staff state that these services were conducted upon direction and prior approval
by appropriate City staff.
• City staff informed us that the additional work was needed and directed to GSTS in
2014 to bring the City's annual maintenance goals back on track after prior budget
reductions.
We find that the contract provisions have no limitations on the additional services that
can be assigned to GSTS as long as the services and pricing align with agreement
provisions.
SJOBERG EVASEENK City of Newport Beach
26 -10
Summary of Observations
Based on our preliminary phase assessment of the City of Newport Beach's contracted Tree
Maintenance Services, evidence reviewed did not reveal any instances of non - compliance with
the City's RFP or Maintenance Service Agreement's terms, conditions or requirements.
Consequently, under the "stop and go" basis of our engagement with the City, we do not
recommend any additional work on this matter under our contract.
Please contact me or my partner, Kurt Sjoberg if you have any questions.
Respectfully submitted:
M P. Evashenk, CPA
Pre ' t
SJOBERG EVASEENK City of Newport Beach
26 -11
Appendix — Scope and Methodology of the Preliminary Review
Sjoberg Evashenk Consulting was engaged by the City of Newport Beach to conduct a Contract
Performance /Compliance Audit of its Tree Maintenance Services under a Maintenance Services
Agreement with Great Scott Tree Service, Inc. (GSTS). Phase I of the project was to conduct a
preliminary review under a "stop and go" basis to determine if additional work on this matter
would be needed and then negotiated with the City.
Phase I scope entailed:
• Conducting interviews with relevant City staff.
• Obtaining and reviewing the following documents:
• RFP for procurement
• Responses to the RFP
• Scoring criteria and scoring sheets
• Executed contract and scope of services
• Relevant policies and procedures for such procurements
We were provided documents by City staff to review, including:
• Tree Maintenance Services RFP and RFP addendum
• City staff report to the City Council regarding GSTS contract approval
• Proposals from GSTS and West Coast Arborists (WCA)
• Technical Scoring summaries
• Final evaluator scoring sheets from four evaluators showing GSTS and WCA technical
point scores
• Cost Scoring summaries
• Cost evaluation worksheet
• Summary sheet for both Cost and Technical Scores
• Final contract with GSTS
• Award letter
• WCA protest
• City staff response to WCA protest
• Amendment No. One to the GSTS contract
During this preliminary review, we conducted the following reviews and activities:
• Interviewed the City's Deputy General Services Manager, Park and Tree Superintendent,
City Arborist and Purchasing Agent, to answer questions and obtain explanations
regarding the procurement processes followed.
• Analyzed the REP and assessed each section and requirements.
• Reviewed proposals received from GSTS and WCA, and compared them to RFP
requirements.
• Compared the GSTS contract line -by -line with the RFP and addendum to determine if
key terms and conditions were similar.
SJOBERG EVASEENK City of Newport Beach
26 -12
• Assessed WCA protest and City's response.
• Independently calculated Technical scores for GSTS and WCA from the four final
evaluator scoring sheets.
• Independently calculated Cost scores for GSTS and WCA from proposer unit pricing and
City's hypothetical annual usage figures.
• Confirmed ratio calculation employed to determine cost points for the lowest proposer
and next lowest ratio.
• Reviewed Amendment No. One to the GSTS Maintenance Services Agreement
SJOBERG EVASEENK City of Newport Beach
26 -13
EXHIBIT B
Allegation City Staff Response and Comments
Did WCA do a poor job, causing GSTS to have to accelerate
No. Both GSTS and WCA have done a good job. We think both are quality companies. Because City staff slowed tree trimming based on available
trimming to rush to catch up to trimming obligations?
budget resources and other tree needs, some of the regular pruning regimen was delayed. In the 2013 RFP, WCA's experience rating was a 100%
scare by CNB staff.
Did GSTS without authorization? If so, doesn't
No, they did not. The City authorized GSTS to accelerate pruning in 2014 based on need and additional resources budgeted by the City Council.
eover
that
this meaa n t hat a neew w RFP should be issued?
Our error was to not concurrently ask the Council to also lift the "not to exceed" cap in the underlying contract. We did this later. We do not
believe that this means anew RFP is appropriate.
In 2008 or so, WCA was authorized to charge more "crew rental" costs on certain slope and large canopy trees. In part as an offset, WCA agreed to
lower their price on tree planting from $735 1tree to $575 /tree. The additional use of crew rental had the effect of increasing price per tree on
Did WCA charge extra services at significant expense to the City?
average. The pricing in the previous contract was $39 /tree for annual grid pruning, $78 /tree for slope trees, and $134 /tree for large canopy trees.
Wasn't WCA's pricing a flat $39 /tree for 20 years?
In the current GSTS contract, it's $48 /tree for annual grid pruning and $58 /tree for service requests. The restructured WCA fee put more trees in
the category of $134 /tree and $78 /tree fee versus the $39 /tree fee. The $39 /tree was advantageous for the City from 1993 to 2008 -the lower
replacement tree cost was advantageous after that period.
Was the 2013 RFP process completed fairly? Did GSTS
Staff believes that the 2013 RFP was processed correctly. Staff had chosen GSTS due to an aggregate score of 87 compared to 83.88 for WCA. In
early 2015, the City Manager asked that a 3rd party audit be done of the 2013 RFP process, specs, and scoring system. The audit confirmed that
appropriately get the high score in the RFP?
the process was fair and correct.
1- We identified a few overcharges involving inches of tree grinding early on, and sent the incorrect invoices back to GSTS for correction. We have
Did GSTS overcharge the City for;
not seen similar errors in recent months.
1- tree and stump removal;
2 -- Our review shows that any GSTS pruning - related crew rental was authorized by City staff -this occurs fairly rarely for exceptional
circumstances, i.e. a parkway full of Ficus roots.
2 -tree pruning;
3— Traffc control/ mobilization was charged for specialized pesticide tree spraying done by a smaller subcontractor (RPW). This contractor
3 - mobilizations and traffic control?
doesn't have traffic control abilities, so we asked GSTS to do the traffic control. This is not something that would be foreign to WCA, as they did
this for us, too.
At a recent City Council Meeting, WCA stated they made a
Staff agrees that WCA made a mistake, but we feel as if WCA (as our current contractor for 20 years) knew the terms of the RFP and the City's work
demands. There were opportunities within the bidding process to clarify any questions WCA may have had. WCA bid was $1.610 vs. GSTS at
mistake on the RFP, and that is why their bid was so high.
$1.1M.
26 -14