Laserfiche WebLink
REQUEST FOR <br />COUNCIL ACTION <br />CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: <br />NOVEMBER 15, 2010 <br />CLERK OF COUNCIL USE ONLY: <br />TITLE APPROVED <br />AGREEMENT WITH PACIFIC ❑ As Recommended <br />TRAFFIC DATA SERVICES FOR ❑ As Amended <br />TRAFFIC COUNTING SERVICES <br />E] Ordinance on 1St Reading <br />❑ Ordinance on 2 "d Reading <br />PROJECT (PROJECT NO. 116739) ❑ Implementing Resolution <br />❑ Set Public Hearing For_ <br />s 7 <br />CITY MANAGER <br />RECOMMENDED ACTION <br />CONTINUED TO <br />FILE NUMBER <br />Authorize the City Manager and the Clerk of the Council to execute the agreement with Pacific <br />Traffic Data Services to provide traffic counting services, for an amount not to exceed $30,000 <br />with an option to extend the agreement for one additional year, subject to nonsubstantive <br />changes approved by the City Manager and the City Attorney. <br />DISCUSSION <br />The City contracts for annual traffic counting services to conduct counts for neighborhood <br />studies, the biannual citywide traffic volume study, traffic signal operations, and the annual traffic <br />signal and left -turn priority studies. These contracts also include data collection and speed <br />surveys in support of the speed hump program. <br />A Request for Proposals (RFP) for annual traffic counting services was mailed on September 29, <br />2010 to 11 qualified consulting firms. One of the firms is based in Santa Ana. Seven of the 11 <br />consultants submitted proposals. <br />The proposals were reviewed by a three - member committee comprised of Public Works Agency <br />staff. The ratings were based on experience, qualifications, project understanding, scheduling, <br />past performance, and the overall proposal. Once rated, the sealed cost bids of the top four <br />firms were opened. <br />To compare the fees of the firms, the RFP required each firm to submit its proposed costs for a <br />particular scenario of work specified in the RFP, based on the fee schedules for services. The <br />costs for the scenario were for comparison purposes only and not related to the contract amount. <br />251 -1 <br />