HomeMy Public PortalAbout08) 7E Acceptance of Safe Routes to School Improvements CIP No. P14-14 and Pavement Management Program PMP CIP No. P13-12L
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
MEMORANDUM
Octobe r 20 , 2015
The Honorable City Counci l
Bryan Cook, City Manager
Via : Mi chae l D. Forbes , Commu nity Development Director~
By: Yunus Rahi , PE , Dep uty City Engineer and Project Mana ger
AGENDA
ITEM ?.E.
SUBJECT: ACCEPTANCE OF SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL IMPROVEMENTS (CIP
NO. P14-14) AND PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT PROGRAM PROJECT
(CIP NO. P13-02)
RECOMMENDATION :
The City Cou ncil is requ ested to accept th e Safe Routes to School (S R2S ) project (C IP
No . P14 -13) and Pav eme nt Management Program (PMP) project (C IP N o. P13-02) as
comp leted by All Ameri ca n Asphalt.
BACKGROUND :
1. In March 2012 , the City submitted an applicatio n to the California Department of
T ranspo rtati o n (Caltrans ) for fund ing from the State SR2S Program , Cycle 10 .
2 . In June 20 12 , Caltrans re leased its SR2S Cycle 10 funding list that included an
award of $4 3 1,900 to Temple City for specific pedestri an improvements around nine
schoo l si tes : Longd en Elementary , Oak Avenue Intermed ia te , Temple City High
School , Emperor El eme ntary , First Luth e ran Christian School , La Rosa Elementary,
Clove rl y Elementary , Cleminson Elementary, and Longley Way Elementary.
Although some of th e sc ho ol locations a re not within Temple City lim its , st udents
living in Te mpl e Ci ty attend the schools . The improvements included sidewalks ,
c urb ramp s , crosswalks , signage , pavement markings, and related pedestrian
improvem e nts .
3 . In July 2013 , th e City hired a design cons ultant, Elie Farah , Inc ., through a
competitive bid prop osal process for the prepara ti on of the Plans , Specifications,
and Estimates (PS&E) Bid Packag e .
4 . On M ay 6 , 201 4 , th e PS&E Bid Pa ckag e was su bm itted and subsequently accepted
by th e City Counci l.
5. On May 29 , 2014 , th e City publi shed a Notice Inviting Bids (NIB). The NIB was
published on th e City's website , posted on six electronic bulle t in boards used by
City Council
October 20 , 2015
Page 2 of 2
contractors for bid tracking , and sent to over 40 contractors who specialize in these
types of projects.
6 . On June 24, 2014 , the City Clerk conducted the bid opening . Four bids were
received .
7 . On July 1, 2014 , the City Council awarded the construction contract to All American
Asphalt for $858 ,000 with a 10 percent contingency based on the results of a bid
analysis and contractor's license check conducted by staff. The total construction
contract budget was approved as $1,029 ,600.
8 . On July 21 , 2014, All American Asphalt began construction of the project. Per its
contract with the City , Transtech was directed to provide construction management,
supervision , material testing , and labor compliance services .
ANALYSIS:
The project included two components , SR2S pedestrian improvements and PMP street
resurfacing improvements. SR2S improvements were funded by the State 's SR2S
program with a funding amount of $488 ,900 . PMP improvements were funded by City's
PMP budget appropriation of $1 ,485,000 for Fiscal Year (FY) 2014-15 . The total
construction budget with contingency was $943 ,800 ($858 ,000 as base contract plus 10
percent approved contingency). All American Asphalt's final invoice total was
$912 ,461 .21 , including change orders and credits of net $54,461 .21 . The total amount is
below the approved contingency and total budget of $943 ,800.
CONCLUSION:
The City Council is requested to approve the final construction cost in the amount of
$912,461 .21 and accept the SR2S and PMP project as completed by All American
Asphalt.
FISCAL IMPACT:
The FY 2014-15 City Budget had an appropriation of $488 ,900 for the SR2S project (CIP
No . P13-13), of which $431 ,900 was provided by the SR2S grant and $57 ,000 was
provided by the City as local match . The FY 2014-15 City Budget had an appropriation
of $1 ,485 ,000 for the City 's PMP project (CIP No . P13 -02), which paid for the remaining
construction costs. The remaining balance of the PMP budget was reallocated for FY
2015-16 for use in other projects .
ATTACHMENT:
None