A meeting will be held  March 2 at 7pm at the east hills library, downstairs. We will be doing another presentation in presenting the petition to the public. Thanks for your interest -Rusty Summers 364-0404 or 244-3802

 

BLACKSNAKE CREEK—38KR.,b21

DESIGN– REVIEW

From: Fritz K. Ambrozi, II CONTRACT

To: St. Joseph City Council

Original Contract

Resolution No. 39839 – October 14, 2013

Contract Resolution states Public Works & Transportation Department completed a qualifications based selection process (RFQ). B&V was chosen to perform the engineering design for the project.

Aan anticipated total cost exceeding $5,000.00 shall be solicited by a request for proposal, except as otherwise provided in this policy.

It’s apparent the B&V contract was awarded in clear violation of the City Procurement Policy. The City Procurement Policy was not followed. The Resolution states it is for the performance of engineering design for the project. In addition the B&V contract is for Architectural Planning & Design, Alternative Financing, Permitting, Real Estate Property & Easement Acquisition, Regulatory Agency Submittals, Construction Bidding & Awarding, Detention Basin Design, Economic Impact, and Project Management & Administration. No Procurement was done for any of these services, which the community is being charged millions of dollars for. The engineering of the project is a small percentage of the project, B&V has no business coordinating or performing all these services, it’s a conflict of interest without adhering to the City procurement Policy. B&V is an engineering design firm;

The Contract Resolution No. 39839 – Explanation to Council clearly states; “Public Works & Transportation Department staff began working toward starting the project in late 2012 by starting to write a formal Request for Proposals (RFP), which was in turn advertised in early 2013.” Proposals were received for seven firms. Form the list of qualified firms; three were selected for interviews in May. The selection committee chose B&V as the firm best qualified to complete the project design.

This information provided to the City Council for the resolution is clearly false. No Request for Proposal (RFP) was completed, it was an RFQ. This was a false Explanation to the Council. An RFP as stated is what should have been completed and would have been in compliance of the City Procurement Policy.

B&V is in direct violation of the Contract Agreement, City Procurement Policy has not been followed when selecting sub-consultants/contractors for the project.

2.8) The Construction Administration Phase is the stage in which the Work is performed by one or more Contractors. Professional’s responsibility to provide the Services during Construction Administration Phase shall commence with the award of the contract(s) for construction and continue until (60) days after completion of construction for the Project.

The project construction won’t even start for another year and then be completed three years from now. The City has paid for services that haven’t been performed and won’t be completed for another three years.

Agreement for Professional Design Services; Cost of Services:

Total Cost Task #1: $953,316.00: Project Management and Administration

Total Cost Task #2: $295,150.00 Public Involvement and Education

Total Cost Task #3: $420,734.00 Alternative Financing – Application Tasks

Total Cost Task #4: $235,844.00 Permitting and Agency Coordination

Total Cost Task #5: $185,754.00: Hydrologic andraulicd Hy (H&H) Evaluation

Total Cost Task #6: $114,448.00 Blacksnake Detention Basin Evaluation

Total Cost Task #7: $64,724.00: Geotechnical Desktop Study

Total Cost Task #8: $267,648.00 Green Infrastructure Evaluation

Total Cost Task #9: $405,474.00 Alignment and Technology Evaluation

Total Cost Task #10: $99,554.00 Karnes/Cook Roadways Conceptual Design

Total Cost Task #11: $197,790.00 Conceptual Basis of Design Report

Total Cost Task#12: $251,375.00 Blacksnake Creek Sewer Condition Assessment

Total Cost Task #13: $1,733,544.00 Preliminary Design – Subtasks 13.1-13.9 and 13.16-13.66.

TOTAL OF ALL TASKS- THRU 1-13—-$5,225,355

Total Original Contract

B&V Hours: 22,940 hrs. @ $3,945,115.00

Reproduction (Copies): $23,940.00

Sub-Consultants: $1,266,300.00

Total Original Contract Cost: $5,225,355.00

Contract Amendment

Ordinance No. 8997 – October 26, 201

This Amendment is a continuation of the Original Contract;

Agreement for Professional Design Services; Cost of Services:

Task #13: Preliminary Design Total Cost Task #13: $927,997.00

Task #14: Detail Design Total Cost Task #14: $3,200,978.00

Task #15: Regulatory Agency Submittals Total Cost Task #15: $86,372.00

Task #16: Property and Easement Acquisition Total Cost Task #16: $899,872.00

Task #17: Permits Acquisition Assistance Total Cost Task #17: $152,470.00

Task #18: Bid and Award Total Cost Task #18: $131,693.00

Task #19: Blacksnake Combined Sewer Rehabilitation Design Total Cost Task #19: $287,925.00

Task #20: Basket Screen Structure and Manhole Rehabilitation Total Cost Task #20: $65,509.00

Task #21: Financial Initiative Plan Total Cost Task #21: $63,096.00

Task #23: Architectural Planning and Programming Total Cost Task #23: $83,866.00

Task #27: USACE Coordination – Final Design Total Cost Task #27: $86,067.00

Total Amendment No. 1 Total Cost Task #14: $5,985,845

Total Contract & Amendment Combined Total Cost All Combined Task: $11,211,200.00

CONTRACT OVERVIEW

The contract is in clear violation of the City Procurement Policy. The Resolution states the contract is to perform only the engineering design for the project. The contract contains numerous other services, which are in violation of the City Procurement Policy, no competitive bidding. The resolution explanation to Council contains false statements regarding the contract procurement. The City has paid for services NOT performed and excessively billed for work that was previously completed and paid for in the 2008-2010 Long Term Control Plan. This is an outrageous abuse and waste of tax payer funds. The contract should be terminated immediately and everyone involved needs to be held accountable.

Example:

A few Excessive charges Property Easement Assistance: $899,872.00, Public Education (Meetings): $295,150.00, Alternative Financing: $420,734.00, Management & Administration: $953,316.00

Note:

The water conveyance portion of the project is costing the Citizens approx.; $29,824,561.00 a mile or $5,600.00 per foot. This is an extreme and absurd cost.

“Either they are in on it or incompetent, either way they have to go”

FYI:

In addition B&V and Staff have another $2,146,466.00 in future design fees not yet approved by Council. Also, Project Inspection Fees of $3,424,000.00 have not been approved by Council. So the City is looking at total additional cost of $5,570,466.00 for project professional fees not yet approved by Council.

8.1) The City, at any time and for any reason, including, without limitation, for its own convenience and at its sole discretion, cancel or terminate this Agreement in whole or in part upon five (5) days written notice to Professional without liability other than payment for Services already performed up to the date of termination, In a nutshell, the City has NO liability for Contract Termination for any reason

MISSOURI STATE LAW 136.4.1.2 “MINI-BROOKS ACT”

QUALIFICATION BASED SELECTION (QBS)

ARCHITECTURAL, ENGINEERING AND LAND SURVEYING PROFESSIONAL SERVICES

When completing (QBS), Preliminary Engineering (PE) and Construction Engineering (CE) can be under the same contract. The solicitation and contract to indicate the City is not obligated to proceed with finial design. It should be advertised as a phased contract, provided that they split up the estimated cost for (PE) and (CE).

This was not correctly done when procuring the Blacksnake Design Services. Proper Solicitation was NOT followed. The project was not advertized as a phased contract. The project was advertised as a single construction package, then proceeded with phased contracts for the project.

The contract issued for the project should have been a contract for Engineering Services only. It was advertised for Engineering Services, not all the other services contained in the contract. The contract issued for the project was a blanket Professional Services contract. All the other services CAN NOT be included in one blanket (QBS) solicitation. The City added the two additional CIP projects, architectural and other services to the contract without any Procurement at all. The City CAN NOT add work or projects without Procurement.

The contract should have been issued as an Actual Cost Plus Fixed Fee, which is actual cost NOT to exceed a maximum 15% profit. All sub-consultants are required to perform on Actual Cost Plus Fixed Fee as well. The Blacksnake Professional Services contract is a Specific Hourly Rate of Pay, which is to be used for emergencies only. This is a major reason way the City is being charged/paying outrageous design fees for the project.

Each sub-consultant and amounts must be identified in the contract according to the law. This was NOT done in the Blacksnake Professional Services Contract or Contract Amendment.

Design Contract must contain an Audit Clause. The Blacksnake Professional Services Contract omits an Audit Clause.

The contract Solicitation was advertized to be governed by the “Mini-Brooks Act”. The Blacksnake Professional Services Agreement is based on the City “Administrative Code” / “City Charter”.

In the Evaluation of Qualifications; The rating of, “Proximity to or familiarity with the area in which the project is located” has been omitted from the “Mini-Brooks Act” and should no longer be used in the evaluation process. It was determined this was not being used correctly by Local Public Agencies (LPA) and giving an unfair advantage to certain Firms. Example: B&V received a perfect score on this section of the evaluation. No other firm received perfect scores, giving B&V an unfair advantage. B&V had an advantage over all other firms, they are the firm who developed the plan for the City.

The entire advertised solicitation is based on and is to be completed according to the City’s Combined Sewer System Long Term Control Plan which was submitted to the MODNR on February 15, 2008. B&V is the firm who completed the documents the project procurement is based on. This is a conflict of interest, by law B&V CAN NOT be involved with the design or construction since they prepared the documents the procurement is based on.

The City CAN NOT limit the competition by advertising in the solicitation the successful firm must be a national firm. Not only is this against the law, it also will increases the project cost tremendously.

All of the above is in Violation of the Missouri State Law “Mini-Brooks Act”

THE FOLLOWING IS A SAMPLE OF B&V EMPLOYEES, HOURS, RATES, CHARGED AND TOTAL AMOUNTS PAID ON THE PROJECT FOR THE LAST 24 MONTHS:–TOP 3

MATTHEW SCHULTZE–$536,633

PAGE BURKS–$315,323

JERA WILLIAMS–$252,956