REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL AND
CORONA UTILITY AUTHORITY ACTION
DATE: 04/03/2024
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
Honorable President and Board Members
FROM: Utilities Department
SUBJECT:
Title
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH ROBERT D. NIEHAUS, INC. FOR THE UTILITY RATE STUDY PROJECT
End
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
This staff report requests the City Council to award Request for Proposals No. 24-051AS to Robert D. Niehaus, Inc., for the Utility Rate Study Project to conduct a comprehensive rate study for water, sewer, reclaimed water, and greenfield (bundled) electric services.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Recommended action
That the City Council:
a. Award Request for Proposals No. 24-051AS to Robert D. Niehaus, Inc., in the amount of $157,940 for the Utility Rate Study project.
b. Authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to execute the Professional Services Agreement with Robert D. Niehaus, Inc., in the amount of $157,940 including any purchase orders, non-substantive extensions, change orders, and amendments up to the amount authorized by Corona Municipal Code Section 3.08.070(I), which is equivalent to 10% or $15,794.
That the Corona Utility Authority review, ratify, and to the extent necessary, direct the City Council to take the above actions.
Body
BACKGROUND & HISTORY:
On December 14, 2022, the Committee of the Whole heard a presentation from the Utilities Department regarding progress on the implementation of recommendations from the Utilities Department Audit and a discussion on cost increases from Fiscal Year 2018 through Fiscal Year 2022.
On April 13, 2023, Utilities Department staff presented to the City Council at the Spring Financial Workshop regarding the Utilities Department financials and the forecasted working capital for each of the Utilities Department funds (Water, Sewer, Reclaimed Water, and Greenfield (bundled) electric services).
The cost increases noted in the December 14, 2022, presentation and the working capital projections from the April 13, 2023, presentation showed that a comprehensive rate study was needed to ensure the City’s Utilities rates are appropriate for the cost of providing services. Staff prepared a Request for Proposals for a Utility Rate Study with an emphasis on long-term planning and multiple points for communications with the City Council and community.
ANALYSIS:
December 27, 2023, the City issued Request for Proposals (RFP) No. 24-051AS for the Utility Rate Study Project. As of January 8, 2024, ten vendors had viewed the RFP through the Planet Bids (PB) portal and nine vendors had downloaded the files. The City held a Non-Mandatory Pre-Proposal Meeting on January 9, 2024, with two companies in attendance.
As staff wanted to ensure a competitive environment for the RFP, and because the interest was not as high as anticipated, the City issued Addendum 1 on January 11, 2024, extending the deadline for proposals by one week from January 30, 2024, to February 6, 2024. Staff reached out to neighboring agencies and rate study workshop instructors to identify additional firms that provide rate study services. As a result of these efforts, Purchasing was able to send emails directly to five firms to make them aware of the RFP and direct them to the Planet Bids portal.
The City received eleven Requests for Information (RFI) by the RFI deadline of January 18, 2024. The City issued Addendum 2 on January 17, 2024, to respond to some RFIs that were received before the RFI deadline. The City issued Addendum 3 on January 23, 2024, completing the responses to the RFI.
In total:
• 591 vendors received notification of the RFP in Planet Bids
• 17 vendors viewed the RFP in Planet Bids
• 15 vendors downloaded the RFP from Planet Bids
The following table shows the increase in activity on the RFP from before the City conducted additional outreach and after. The table shows an increase in the volume of vendors viewing and downloading the RFP.
|
|
As of 1/8/2024 |
As of 2/6/2024 |
|
Vendors Viewed RFP on PB |
10 |
17 |
|
Vendors Downloaded RFP on PB |
9 |
15 |
The City received proposals from three firms by the February 6, 2024, proposal deadline. Proposals were received from:
• Black & Veatch Corporation
• Raftelis Financial Consultants, Inc.
• Robert D. Niehaus, Inc. (subcontracting with Water Resources Economics and EES Consulting, a GDS Associates Company)
The proposals were independently reviewed by four staff members across the Utilities and Finance Departments based on the following Evaluation Criteria:
Completeness of Response - Pass or Fail
-Responses to the RFP must be complete. Responses that do not include the proposal content requirements identified within this RFP and subsequent addenda and do not address each of the items listed below will be considered incomplete, be rated a Fail in the Evaluation Criteria and will receive no further consideration.
Qualification of Firm - 25 points
-Strength and stability of the firm.
-Technical competence and experience of firm’s consultants in general providing similar services.
-Demonstrated knowledge of the scope of work required, and capability performing specific tasks outlined in the RFP.
-Adequacy of staff to provide required services.
-Reputation of firm in providing similar services.
Qualifications of Personnel/Experience with Similar Work - 25 points
-Qualifications, education, technical competence, and experience of staff.
-Proposal demonstrates the following:
- Provides a project-appropriate Principal Consultant team organization diagram, including the Project Manager as the main point of contact; and all applicable subcontractors that will be working on this project.
- Identifies the geographic location of the firm and each team member.
- Describes the qualifications and experience of each proposed consultant team member, including key areas of expertise of each team member, plus their anticipated level of participation for the proposed type of service.
- Identifies the anticipated level of participation as primary or supportive.
- Clarifies who would be reasonably expected to perform the bulk of the work, and who would perform primarily oversight, Quality Assurance/Quality Control, and other supportive roles.
-Evidence of successful completion of similar projects.
- List at least five (5) similar projects with other utilities and list at least one project in each service type (water, sewer, reclaimed water and electric) and provide contact persons with telephone numbers.
Work Plan/Project Understanding and Approach - 25 points
-Depth and thoroughness of Consultant’s understanding of the Project and the City’s requirements.
-Identification and understanding of Project issues and challenges.
-Quality and logic of work plan.
-Logic of Project organization and appropriateness of resource estimate and labor distribution among the tasks.
-Adequacy of system or process for managing cost and budget.
-Adequacy of system or process for managing project schedule.
-Adequacy of system or process for communicating with the City.
Value - 25 points
-Appropriate number of hours budgeted for Project tasks.
-Reasonableness of the Consultant’s hourly rates, labor hours, and fee required to perform the work in relation to the scope of work and other proposals received.
-The total fee will be judged for value and used as the basis of comparison between the proposals submitted.
Total - 100 points
The Purchasing Division aggregated and averaged the scores, and the results were as follows:
After the qualifications review was completed and the scores compiled, Staff then conducted an interview with Robert D. Niehaus, Inc., the top-scoring firm. The interview was scored based on 5 criteria:
• Presentation - 2 points
• Technical Content - 3 points
• Project Manager and Key Team Members - 2 points
• Flexibility to Accommodate City Needs - 3 points
• Total - 10 points
Seven members of the Utilities and Finance Departments participated in the interview and the aggregated average score was 9 out of the possible 10 points.
Robert D. Niehaus provided the following scope of work for the project:
|
Scope of Work |
Hours |
Total Price |
|
Task 1. Kickoff & Data Collection |
24 |
$6,420 |
|
Task 2. Ten-Year Financial Plan |
100 |
$26,120 |
|
Task 3. Cost of Service Analysis |
132 |
$34,440 |
|
Task 4. Rate Design |
124 |
$30,920 |
|
Task 5. Reports, Models & Presentations |
174 |
$44,460 |
|
Estimated Expenses |
|
$1,000 |
|
Total |
554 |
$143,360 |
This scope of work includes several opportunities for City Council and public engagement including:
• Three workshops with City Council
• Three in-person community meetings
• Two virtual community meetings
• Proposition 218 Hearing at City Council
Recognizing the utmost importance of community and City Council engagement in this process, staff included “optional bid items” in the RFP and asked the responding firms to provide pricing for these items. The optional bid items include in-person presentations to the City Council. The proposed award to Robert D. Niehaus, Inc., includes three additional City Council or community presentations which may or may not be used at the City’s discretion.
|
Proposal |
$143,360 |
|
Additional Meeting Presentation (#1) |
$4,860 |
|
Additional Meeting Presentation (#2) |
$4,860 |
|
Additional Meeting Presentation (#3) |
$4,860 |
|
Total |
$157,940 |
City Staff recommends that City Council award RFP 24-051AS and issue a Professional Services Agreement to Robert D. Niehaus, Inc., in the amount of $157,940.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
There is sufficient budget in the Utilities Department operating budget for the recommended actions.
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS:
This action is exempt pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of the Guidelines for the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), which states that a project is exempt from CEQA if the activity is covered by the common sense exemption that CEQA applies only to projects that have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. Where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA. This action approves a professional services agreement for financial analysis and study of utility rates and there is no possibility that this action will have a significant effect on the environment. Therefore, no environmental analysis is required at this time.
PREPARED BY: KATIE HOCKETT, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF UTILITIES
REVIEWED BY: TOM MOODY, DIRECTOR OF UTILITIES
Attachments:
1. Exhibit 1 - Professional Services Agreement
2. Exhibit 2 - Request for Proposals and Addenda
3. Exhibit 3 - RDN Proposal
4. Exhibit 4 - RDN Cost Proposal
5. Exhibit 5 - Presentation