Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout16 - Approval of Agreement for Citywide Streetlight Maintenance and As-Needed Repair Services - CorrespondenceReceived After Agenda Printed July 28, 2015 Item No. 16 July 28, 2015, Council Agenda Item 16 Comments The following comments on items on the Newport Beach City Council agenda are submitted by: Jim Mosher ( iimmosher(o),vahoo.com ), 2210 Private Road, Newport Beach 92660 (949- 548 -6229) Item 16. Approval of Agreement with International Line Builders, Inc. for Citywide Streetlight Maintenance and As- Needed Repair Services 1. As recently as its May 26, 2015, meeting (as Consent Calendar Item 12) the Council approved a separate 2 -year $400,000 contract with International Line Builders for "On -Call Streetlight Repairs," to which the Clerk assigned the number "C- 6151." Although a signed copy of that contract has not yet been posted, it is presumably about to be signed and since the present one is a mix of routine maintenance and "As- Needed [Streetlight] Repair Services," it would seem the two need to be considered together. 2. Although not clearly explained in the staff report, the contract under consideration also appears related to two existing contracts, both of which expired on June 30, 2015: a. Contract C -4845 with Everbrite LLC (formerly Fluoresco) for routine streetlight maintenance. The decision to outsource routine maintenance to Fluoresco ( Everbrite) for about $51,684 per year was Item 10 on the Council's June 28, 2011, agenda. ii. At the time it was estimated the existing in -house streetlight maintenance program cost about $250,000 per year, although it is not clear the actual costs of the existing program were well documented nor were the residual City costs connected with administering the contract mentioned. iii. The City also had an offer in 2011 from a local contractor, Mike Kilbride, to perform the routine maintenance for $15,576 per year, although his bid was rejected "based on insufficient experience." b. Contract C -5549 with International Line Builders for emergency repairs such as "knock- downs" (possibly replaced by C- 6151 ?). i. The most recent decision to contract with International Line Builders for emergency knock -down repairs was Item 11 on the City Council's July 23, 2013, agenda. Although contract C -5549 was for a not -to- exceed price of $200,000 for two years, the work load estimated in the July 23, 2013, staff report was 20 knock -downs per year at a typical cost of $420 to $660 per incident or about $10,000 per year. As best I can tell, no explanation was sought or offered of the discrepancy between the $100,000 per year contract limit and the $10,000 per year estimated need. ii. According to the contract C -4845 file, Fluoresco had a staff - awarded contract to perform emergency knock -down repairs from October 10, 2011, through October 4, 2012. iii. Other contracts for this service, if there were any, are not easily located since only the currently active contracts are visible in the City's public contract July 28, 2015, City Council agenda Item 16 comments - Jim Mosher Page 2 of 2 archive, but per page 5 of Item 27 at the June 12, 2015, Council meeting there was also once an apparently no longer active $70,000 staff contract (C- 4818) with International Line Builders dating from March 2011 for some kind of on -call electrical repairs. 3. In summary, since the current agenda item involves an estimated cost of $1,353,425 for five years ($270,685 per year) and the related "on- call" contract approved on May 26 could add up to another $200,000 per year, the Council is being asked to commit to up to $470,685 per year for a combination of services that City staff originally thought cost around $250,000 per year to perform internally, and which under the recently expired outsourcing contracts cost the City at most $206,684 per year ($51,684 for maintenance by Everbrite + up to $100,000 for on -call emergency repairs by Line Builders + $55,000 materials). If correct, these numbers would seem to beg the questions of: a. Why have the outsourced costs increased so much? b. Is outsourcing still sensible, or could City staff perform the services at lower cost? 4. Regarding the substance of the contracts, questions that come to mind include: a. Why did the current vendor nod bid? Were they aware of the RFP? b. Staff was reportedly unable to negotiate a contact with the lowest bidder, Aegis ITS (whose bid for the maintenance services was still more than twice what we have been paying Everbrite), due to a disagreement over the indemnity clauses (Section 9 of the proposed contract). I have heard applicants balk at similar language at planning hearings. Is this language really necessary and enforceable? c. What does the City actually spend in a typical year on non - routine ( "as- needed" "emergency ") streetlight repairs of the sort contemplated in its existing or proposed not -to- exceed contracts? That is, how many knock -downs are there per year and what is the typical cost per incident? d. How many bulbs or other items are replaced per year as part of the routine maintenance contemplated? At the proposed routine maintenance rate of $230 per hour with a four hour minimum (plus 10% "materials " ?) Line Builders apparently expects to spend roughly four hours (possibly responding to a "routine" single light out "incident" at a cost of nearly $1,000 each) per business day on replacements and other maintenance. Is that realistic and is it what the contract means? Aside from replacing burned out lights, who determines the amount of routine maintenance to be performed under the new contract? The City or the contractor? f. Who will decide how Line Builders' non - routine work is allocated between the two contracts which seem to have overlapping scopes, but different billing schedules? g. Is the Schedule of Billing Rates in Exhibit B to the proposed contract really sufficient to control costs charged for the various kinds of maintenance services rendered? h. How long does the "night patrol" take at $135 per hour?