The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About4 Distributed after the posting Item E (Goldberg) • TReA \ t Robin Roberts From: Robert Goldberg <rgoldberg @live.com> Sent: Saturday, February 11, 2017 8:00 PM To: Mike Varipapa; Thomas Moore; Ellery Deaton; Sandra Massa-Lavitt; Schelly Sustarsic Cc: Robin Roberts; Jill Ingram;Tim Kelsey; Steve Myrter Subject: Comments on Landscaping Contract Attachments: Landscape Maintenance Services RFP 10.18.16.pdf; Lanscaping contract.approved 7.22.13.pdf; Landscape Maintenance Services Contract.2.13.17.doc Dear Council Members, Please find attached my comments on the proposed landscaping contract (attached Word document). The contract cost proposal has decreased significantly, but so has the scope of services. Whether and/or how frequently services excluded from the proposed contract will be provided by in-house staff is questioned, as well as the cost effectiveness of doing so. The two pdf's attached are reference documents to my comments. Thank you for your consideration, Robert Goldberg 1 RE: Landscape Maintenance Services Contract (Item E) Dear Council Members, I submit the following for your consideration regarding the above issue. Cost of Services: The staff presents cost proposals for five months of basic routine maintenance that were received following a reissue of the RFP with the low bidder being So Cal Land Maintenance, Inc. So Cal also submitted a cost proposal in response to the first issuance of RFP. However, the staff report does not provide any comparison to the previous bid. Making this comparison reveals that So Cal lowered their annualized cost for routine maintenance by almost 40% (see Table 1). Their current bid for this service is now, in fact, $51,000 less than the accepted 2013 bid from Spectrum Landscape Care, our defunct contractor. While So Cal's bid on possible "extra work" is higher than Spectrum's, So Cal's total for both routine work and extra work is still $17,000 less than Spectrum's. This is despite So Cal paying slightly higher wages. Table 1: Comparison of So Cal Landscaping Bids to Canceled Spectrum Contract So Cal Land Maintenance Spectrum Current Bid December Bid Canceled Contract (A)Annualized Cost of Regular Maintenance $300,624 $496,296 $351,577 Labor Costs for Maintenance Work: Supervisor $40 $40 No charge Irrigator $35 $45 $35 Laborer $25 $25 $20 (B)Maximum Cost of Possible Extra $163,350 $150,350 $129;530 Work per Year \ Maximum Annual Cost (A + B) $463,974 ) $646,646 $481;107 1 � I Scope of Services The 40% drop in So Cal's revised bid is associated with a 22% decrease in the labor rate for Irrigator. However, this would not be expected to account for much cost savings, given the limited duties for an Irrigator. Therefore, one must question whether there was a major reduction in the scope of services in the revised RFP. The staff report is silent on this issue. • However, a comparison between the respective RFP's indicates that the scope of the work (referred to "Technical Specifications") was in fact decreased significantly. This can be observed 1 in two ways: page count and number/frequency of services. In the October RFP, description of Technical Specifications (Section IX) requires 38 pages. The same section in the revised December RFP is only two pages. My review of services indicates that 14 services were eliminated in the revised RFP (See Table 2 below). These include emptying of trash cans and cigarette butt containers including those on Main Street, refilling pet waste bag dispensers, spraying for weeds, rodent and snail control, fertilizing, turning off sprinklers in the rain, minor repairs to sprinklers, and specialized maintenance of sports fields and sand courts. Several tasks will be done less frequently such as litter and debris removal from parks, and mowing. Table 2: Changes in "Technical Specifications" for Routine Maintenance Service October RFP December RFP Emptying of Trash Cans Daily in every park, Main St, and Not included various street corners Litter Removal from Parks Daily Prior to mowing Inspection of Sand Areas and Hard Surfaces for Debris Removal Daily Weekly Stocking of Pet Waste Bag Dipensers As needed Not included Emptying of Main St & 1st St Weekly Not included Cigarette Butt Containers Herbicide S ra Y g in Free spraying of problem areas Not included P upon request Crabgrass Pre-Emergent Spraying Once per year on turf areas Not included Fungicide Spraying Twice per year Not included Mowing Weekly Schedule to be approved by Recreation Manager Plant Pests, Diseases, & Rodent Contr Monthly Not included Fertilization, Landscaping 7 times per year Not included Fertilization, Trees In accordance with the National Not included Arborist Association Standards Irrigation System,Turn Off/On As needed Not included Related to Rain As needed (not charged as "extra Irrigation System, Minor Repairs work") Not included Daily "drag, level, rake, wet down" Sports Field Maintenance &various other tasks less Not included frequently Play and Sports Equipment Daily inspections for safety hazards Not included Sand Courts Monthly rototilling,sand Not included replenishment as needed Since the staff report did not disclose any truncation of services, it is not possible to determine which have been eliminated vs. being currently done by in-house staff. Additionally, it is possible that So Cal has offered to do services above and beyond the RFP specifications. 2 "Exhibit E—Scope of Services," page 20 of 25 in So Cal's proposal, was blank but referenced additional sheets which were not included in the staff report. Cost Benefit Analysis of Performing Services In-House This was originally proposed in December when staff was concerned about increased costs compared to the cancelled contract with Spectrum. However, two things have changed since then: 1) Staff has already made a de-facto decision to either eliminate certain services or bring them in-house currently. 2) This decision has already reduced the annual cost of contract services to be less than what we were paying Spectrum previously. Therefore, in addition to studying the cost-benefit of bringing additional services in-house, staff should present, as soon as possible, the cost-benefit and staffing implications of the "in-housing" that they have already implemented. Thank you for your consideration, Robert Goldberg Seal Beach Reference Documents Separately Attached: -October 2016 RIP -Spectrum Landscaping, Staff report July 22, 2013 3