HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 05142013 - C.20RECOMMENDATION(S):
1. ADOPT a "Support" position on Assembly Bill 935 (Frazier), a bill that would expand membership of the Board of
Directors of the Water Emergency Transportation Authority to include a resident of Contra Costa County;
2. ADOPT a "Support" position on Senate Bill 328 (Knight), a bill that authorizes a county, with approval of the
Board of Supervisors, to utilize "construction manager at-risk" type construction contracts for public works projects;
and
3. AUTHORIZE the Chair of the Board of Supervisors to sign two letters communicating the positions on each bill
above to their respective sponsors.
FISCAL IMPACT:
AB 935 has not been analyzed by a fiscal committee but, if passed, is unlikely to result in a negative fiscal impact to
the County. AB 328 has not been analyzed by a fiscal committee but, if passed, is likely to result in cost savings by
Contra Costa County based on past experience.
APPROVE OTHER
RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE
Action of Board On: 05/14/2013 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER
Clerks Notes:
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS
AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor
Candace Andersen, District II
Supervisor
Mary N. Piepho, District III
Supervisor
Karen Mitchoff, District IV
Supervisor
Federal D. Glover, District V
Supervisor
Contact: John Cunningham,
674-7833
I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board
of Supervisors on the date shown.
ATTESTED: May 14, 2013
David Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors
By: June McHuen, Deputy
cc: Rob Lim, Steve Goetz, Julie Bueren, Steve Kowalewski, Lara Delaney
C.20
To:Board of Supervisors
From:Transportation, Water, & Infrastructure Cte
Date:May 14, 2013
Contra
Costa
County
Subject:Recommendations on Transportation Related Legislation.
BACKGROUND:
The Transportation, Water and Infrastructure (TWI) Committee reviewed the subject bills at their April 4th meeting
and approved forwarding the following recommendations to the Board of Supervisors:
1) SUPPORT Assembly Bill 935 (Frazier)
Assembly Bill 935 (Rev. 3-18-13 attached) revises the membership of the Board of Directors for the Water
Emergency Transportation Authority (WETA) and the manner in which they are appointed. Currently, the Governor
appoints three members and the Senate Committee on Rules and the Speaker of the Assembly each appoint one
member.
This bill would increase the Senate Committee on Rules and the Speaker of the Assembly appointments from one
member to two, and require that the Governor appointments be made from a list of three nominees provided by the
congestion management agencies of Contra Costa, San Mateo, and Solano counties (one from each county).
Nominees would be required to be residents of their respective nominating counties.
Assembly Bill 935 contains provisions similar to the Board's goals for the 2012 legislative session. These goals
included seeking more direct representation of Contra Costa County on the WETA Board of Directors (previous
Board Order is attached).
2) SUPPORT Senate Bill 328 (Knight)
Senate Bill 328 (Rev. 4-9-13 attached) formalizes, in statute, the counties’ ability to use the "Construction
Manager-At-Risk" project delivery method. This project delivery method offers a higher potential for project success,
allocates risk more evenly among the involved parties, and is a more collaborative method than the typical
design-bid-build method widely used in the public sector. The ambiguities in the current statute permitted the Board
of Supervisors approve the use of Construction Manager-At-Risk on October 26, 2004 (original Board Order is
attached). The report to the Board of Supervisors included authorization to utilize both the design-build and
Construction Manager-At-Risk project delivery methods.
The new Public Works Building (Building 500) and the new West County Health Center were delivered using the
Construction Manager-At-Risk project delivery method. The Public Works Building project came in $400,000 under
budget and was completed a month ahead of schedule. The recently completed West County Health Center project
came in $1 million under budget and was delivered 22 months sooner than a typical design-bid-build schedule.
The Construction Manager-At-Risk project delivery method is commonly used in the private sector. Within the public
sector, this method provides an alternative to the traditional design-bid-build method.
Advantages of Construction Manager-At-Risk include:
Project risk is allocated more evenly among project stakeholders compared to the traditional method. The
construction manager is motivated to meet budget and schedule goals because he/she is “at risk” for some of
the financial consequences if those performance goals are not met.
Fast-tracking opportunities become available (overlapping design and construction phases) which may increase
the speed of project delivery.
The agency hires the construction manager with consideration to qualifications and experience, thus increasing
the potential for improved collaboration and project success.
Improved coordination between the design team and the construction manager since both are hired at about the
same time.
Earlier identification and resolution of budget, schedule, and constructability issues since the construction
manager is on board early and can lead or participate in the design phase of a project.
Cost and schedule transparency is enhanced between the public agency and the construction manager.
Draft letters of support for each bill are attached. Staff will advise the Board if the bills are changed significantly
subsequent to the submission of this Board Order.
POSITIONS OF OTHER GROUPS
BILL Association
of Bay Area
Governments
Air
District
Contra Costa
Transportation
Authority
California
State
Association
of Counties
League of
California
Cities
Metropolitan
Transportation
Commission
AB 935 No Position No
Position
Support No Position Watch No Position
SB 328 No Position No
Position
No Position Pending Watch No Position
CONSEQUENCE
OF NEGATIVE
ACTION:
Without
approving the
recommendations
of the
Transportation,
Water and
Infrastructure
Committee, the
Board will forgo
an opportunity to
communicate the
legislative
interests to the
State Legislature.
CHILDREN'S
IMPACT
STATEMENT:
No impact.
ATTACHMENTS
AB 935 (Rev 3-18-13)
5-8-12BOSpositionReWETA
SB 328 (Rev 4-9-13)
10-24-04 CM-at-Risk Board Order
Support AB935
Support SB 328
AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY MARCH 18, 2013
california legislature—2013–14 regular session
ASSEMBLY BILL No. 935
Introduced by Assembly Member Frazier
(Coauthor: Assembly Member Bonilla)
February 22, 2013
An act to amend Section 66540.12 of the Government Code, relating
to the San Francisco Bay Area Water Emergency Transportation
Authority.
legislative counsel’s digest
AB 935, as amended, Frazier. San Francisco Bay Area Water
Emergency Transportation Authority: terms of board members.
Existing law establishes the San Francisco Bay Area Water Emergency
Transportation Authority (WETA) with specified powers and duties,
including, but not limited to, the authority to coordinate the emergency
activities of all water transportation and related facilities within the bay
area region, as defined.
Existing law provides for a board of directors of the authority, 3
members of which are appointed by the Governor and one each by the
Senate Committee on Rules and the Speaker of the Assembly. Directors
serve 6-year terms.
This bill would expand the number of members appointed by the
Senate Committee on Rules and the Speaker of the Assembly to 2
members each. The bill would require that the initial terms of the
additional members appointed by the Senate Committee on Rules and
the Speaker of the Assembly pursuant to its provisions shall be 2 years
and 6 years, respectively. The bill would also require that one of the 3
members appointed by the Governor be a resident of the County of
98
Contra Costa selected from a list of 3 nominees provided by the Contra
Costa Transportation Authority and one, a resident of the County of
San Mateo selected from a list of 3 nominees provided by the San Mateo
County Transportation Authority, and a resident of the County of Solano
selected from a list of 3 nominees provided by the Solano Transportation
Authority. The bill would require the Governor to appoint a resident
of the county of one of these transportation authorities that fails to
submit a list of 3 nominees to the Governor within 45 days of a vacancy.
Vote: majority. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: yes.
State-mandated local program: no.
The people of the State of California do enact as follows:
line 1 SECTION 1. Section 66540.12 of the Government Code is
line 2 amended to read:
line 3 66540.12. (a) The authority shall be governed by a board
line 4 composed of seven members, as follows:
line 5 (1) Three members shall be appointed by the Governor, subject
line 6 to confirmation by the Senate. The Governor shall make the initial
line 7 appointment of these members of the board no later than January
line 8 11, 2008.
line 9 (A) One member appointed by the Governor shall be a resident
line 10 of the County of Contra Costa and shall be selected from a list of
line 11 three nominees provided by the Contra Costa Transportation
line 12 Authority. If the authority fails to submit a list of three nominees
line 13 within 45 days of a vacancy, the Governor shall appoint a resident
line 14 of that county.
line 15 (B) One member appointed by the Governor shall be a resident
line 16 of the County of San Mateo and shall be selected from a list of
line 17 three nominees provided by the San Mateo County Transportation
line 18 Authority. If the authority fails to submit a list of three nominees
line 19 within 45 days of a vacancy, the Governor shall appoint a resident
line 20 of that county.
line 21 (C) One member appointed by the Governor shall be a resident
line 22 of the County of Solano and shall be selected from a list of three
line 23 nominees provided by the Solano Transportation Authority. If the
line 24 authority fails to submit a list of three nominees within 45 days of
line 25 a vacancy, the Governor shall appoint a resident of that county.
line 26 (2) Two members shall be appointed by the Senate Committee
line 27 on Rules.
98
— 2 —AB 935
line 1 (3) Two members shall be appointed by the Speaker of the
line 2 Assembly.
line 3 (b) Each member of the board shall be a resident of a county in
line 4 the bay area region.
line 5 (c) Public officers associated with an area of government,
line 6 including planning or water, whether elected or appointed, may
line 7 be appointed to serve contemporaneously as members of the board.
line 8 A public agency shall not have more than one representative on
line 9 the board of the authority.
line 10 (d) The Governor shall designate one member as the chairperson
line 11 of the board and one member as the vice chairperson of the board.
line 12 (e) Except as provided in subdivisions (f) and (g), the term of
line 13 a member of the board shall be six years.
line 14 (f) (1) The Except as to initial appointments specified in
line 15 subdivision (g), the appointments next following the expiration of
line 16 the terms of the initial appointments shall be for the following
line 17 terms:
line 18 (A) Two of the members appointed by the Governor shall serve
line 19 terms of two years and one shall serve a term of six years.
line 20 (B) The member appointed by the Senate Committee on Rules
line 21 shall serve a term of four years.
line 22 (C) The member appointed by the Speaker of the Assembly
line 23 shall serve a term of four years.
line 24 (2) Each member appointed after the expiration of the terms set
line 25 forth in subparagraphs (A) to (C), inclusive, of paragraph (1) shall
line 26 serve a term of six years.
line 27 (g) The initial terms for additional appointees of the Senate
line 28 Committee on Rules and the Speaker of the Assembly added to
line 29 the authority pursuant to the act that added this subdivision shall
line 30 be the following:
line 31 (1) The additional member appointed by the Senate Committee
line 32 on Rules shall serve a term of two years.
line 33 (2) The additional member appointed by the Speaker of the
line 34 Assembly shall serve a term of six years.
line 35 (h) Vacancies shall be filled immediately by the appointing
line 36 power for the unexpired portion of the terms in which they occur.
O
98
AB 935— 3 —
RECOMMENDATION(S):
1. ADOPT an "Oppose" position on Assembly Bill 2231 (Fuentes), a bill that would amend long-standing statutes
related to sidewalk repairs;
2. ADOPT a "Support" position and seek amendments to Assembly Bill 2433 (Hill), a bill to stagger the terms for the
members of the Board of Directors of the San Francisco Bay Water Emergency Transportation Authority (WETA);
and
3. AUTHORIZE the Chair of the Board of Supervisors to sign three letters; two communication the positions on each
bill above and one requesting coordination with the Contra Costa County Transportation Authority.
FISCAL IMPACT:
AB 2231 has not been analyzed by a fiscal committee but, if passed, is likely to increase the maintenance costs for
local jurisdictions.
AB 2433 has not been analyzed by a fiscal committee but, if passed, is unlikely to result in a negative fiscal impact to
the County.
APPROVE OTHER
RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD
COMMITTEE
Action of Board On: 05/08/2012 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER
Clerks Notes:
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS
AYES 4 NOES ____
ABSENT 1 ABSTAIN ____
RECUSE ____
Contact: John Cunningham,
674-7833
I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of
the Board of Supervisors on the date shown.
ATTESTED: May 8, 2012
David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors
By: June McHuen, Deputy
cc: Steve Kowalewski, Steve Goetz, Lara Delaney
C. 27
To:Board of Supervisors
From:Transportation, Water, & Infrastructure Cte
Date:May 8, 2012
Contra
Costa
County
Subject:Transportation, Water and Infrastructure Committee recommendations on transportation related legislation.
BACKGROUND:
The Transportation, Water and Infrastructure (TWI) Committee reviewed this information at their April 5th meeting
and approved the following recommendations to the full Board of Supervisors:
1) OPPOSE AB 2231 (Fuentes)
Assembly Bill 2231 (Attachment 1) would alter long standing statutes that address sidewalk repairs. The bill would
mandate that cities and counties be responsible for maintenance of sidewalks and increase liability for injuries related
to sidewalks in disrepair. Obligating cities and counties in this manner will result in 1) a new maintenance demand
with no identifiable funding source, and 2) a reduction of new sidewalks being built due to a common policy (which
Contra Costa County has) that limits capital investments when there is no maintenance funding identified.
Attachment 3 is a draft letter responding to the TWI Committees direction on this bill.
2) SUPPORT and SEEK AMENDMENTS to AB 2433 (Hill)
As written, Assembly Bill 2433 (Attachment 2) would stagger the terms for the members of the Board of Directors of
the Water Emergency Transportation Authority (WETA). The TWI Committee recommends that the County support
the bill and also seek an amendment to ensure that communities hosting a ferry terminal have representation on the
WETA Board. Attachment 4 is a draft letter responding to the TWI Committees direction on this legislation.
Related to AB 2433, the TWI Committee directed staff to prepare a letter to the Contra Costa Transportation
Authority (CCTA) requesting their assistance with public ferry service planning (Attachment 5: CCTA letter re:
WETA).
The most recent versions of the bills are attached in redline/strikeout. Please note that the bills may have changed
subsequent to the submission of this Board Order.
CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION:
Without approving the recommendations of the Transportation, Water and Infrastructure Committee, the Board will
forgo an opportunity to communicate the legislative interests to the State Legislature and an opportunity for
coordination with the Contra Costa Transportation Authority on ferry planning.
CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT:
No impact.
AMENDED IN SENATE APRIL 9, 2013
AMENDED IN SENATE APRIL 1, 2013
SENATE BILL No. 328
Introduced by Senator Knight
February 19, 2013
An act to add and repeal Section 20146 to of the Public Contract
Code, relating to public works contracts.
legislative counsel’s digest
SB 328, as amended, Knight. Counties: public works contracts.
Existing law provides that if the estimated cost of construction of any
county building or the cost of any painting, or repairs thereto exceeds
a specified sum, the work shall be done by contract and that any such
contract not let pursuant to specified provisions is void. Existing law
requires a board of supervisors to award the contract to the lowest
responsible bidder. Existing law also authorizes a county, with approval
of the board of supervisors, to utilize an alternative procedure for bidding
on construction projects in the county in excess of $2,500,000 and to
award the project using either the lowest responsible bidder or by best
value, as specified.
This bill would authorize a county, until January 1, 2021, with
approval of the board of supervisors, to utilize construction manager
at-risk construction contracts for the erection, construction, alteration,
repair, or improvement of any building owned or leased by the county.
The bill would provide that a construction manager at-risk contract may
only be used for projects in the county in excess of $1,000,000 and may
be awarded using either the lowest responsible bidder or best value
method, as defined. This bill would require that subcontractors that
were not listed by a construction manager at-risk entity as partners,
97
general partners, or association members in a partnership, limited
partnership, or association in the entity’s construction manager at-risk
bid submission, be awarded certain work by the construction manager
at-risk entity in accordance with the process set forth by the county, as
provided.
This bill would require a county that elects to use a construction
manager at-risk contract to submit to the office of the State Controller
a copy of the construction manager at-risk contract, and would require
the office of the State Controller to make the copies of the contract
available for public inspection on its Internet Web site.
Vote: majority. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: no yes.
State-mandated local program: no.
The people of the State of California do enact as follows:
line 1 SECTION 1. Section 20146 is added to the Public Contract
line 2 Code, to read:
line 3 20146. (a) A county, with approval of the board of supervisors,
line 4 may utilize construction manager at-risk construction contracts
line 5 for the erection, construction, alteration, repair, or improvement
line 6 of any building owned or leased by the county. A construction
line 7 manager at-risk construction contract may only be used for projects
line 8 in the county in excess of one million dollars ($1,000,000) and
line 9 may be awarded using either the lowest responsible bidder or best
line 10 value method.
line 11 (b) For purposes of this section, the following definitions apply:
line 12 (1) “Best value” means a value determined by objective criteria
line 13 related to the experience of the entity and project personnel, project
line 14 plan, financial strength of the entity, safety record of the entity,
line 15 and price.
line 16 (2) “Construction manager at-risk contract” means a
line 17 competitively procured contract by a county with an individual,
line 18 partnership, joint venture, corporation, or other recognized legal
line 19 entity, that is appropriately licensed in this state and that guarantees
line 20 the cost of a project and furnishes construction management
line 21 services, including, but not limited to, preparation and coordination
line 22 of bid packages, scheduling, cost control, value engineering,
line 23 evaluation, preconstruction services, and construction
line 24 administration.
97
— 2 —SB 328
line 1 (c) Subcontractors that were not listed by a construction
line 2 manager at-risk entity as partners, general partners, or association
line 3 members in a partnership, limited partnership, or association in
line 4 the entity’s construction manager at-risk bid submission shall be
line 5 awarded by the construction manager at-risk entity in accordance
line 6 with the process set forth by the county. All subcontractors bidding
line 7 on contracts pursuant to this section shall be afforded the
line 8 protections contained in Chapter 4 (commencing with Section
line 9 4100) of Part 1. The construction manager at-risk entity shall do
line 10 both of the following:
line 11 (1) Provide public notice of the availability of work to be
line 12 subcontracted in accordance with the publication requirements
line 13 applicable to the competitive bidding process of the county.
line 14 (2) Provide a fixed date and time on which the subcontracted
line 15 work will be awarded in accordance with the procedure established
line 16 pursuant to this section.
line 17 (d) A county that elects to proceed under this section and uses
line 18 a construction manager at-risk contract for a building project
line 19 shall submit to the office of the State Controller, in electronic
line 20 format, a copy of the construction manager at-risk contract. The
line 21 office of the State Controller shall make the copies of contracts it
line 22 receives pursuant to this subdivision available for public inspection
line 23 on its Internet Web site.
line 24 (e) This section shall remain in effect only until January 1, 2021,
line 25 and as of that date is repealed, unless a later enacted statute, that
line 26 is enacted before January 1, 2021, deletes or extends that date.
O
97
SB 328— 3 —
TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
FROM: JOHN SWEETEN, COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
Contra
Costa
County DATE : OCTOBER 26, 2004
SUBJECT: BUSINESS PRACTICE IMPROVEMENTS IN
THE DEVELOPMENT AND DELIVERY OF COUNTY CAPITAL PROJECTS h -z.,..
SPECIFIC REOUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
Alpha/CPM ML tb
RECOMMENDATIONS:
1. ACKNOWLEDGE that the County Administrator's Offi ce and the General S ervices
Department have examined the management and admin istration of County capital
projects with the goals of minimizing contractor performan ce problems and impro ving
the overall efficiency of capital project delivery.
2. AUTHORIZE the General Services Director to implement procedures to evaluate the
performance qualifications of contractors, as permitted by State law, prior to awarding
construction contracts.
3. DIRECT the County Administrator to pursue with the help of the County's legislativ e
advocate, and with input from the local building construction industry and labor
organizations, legislation that would lower the existing thresh old in Public Contract
Code Section 20133 for negotiated "best value" design-build construction projects
from $20 milli o n to $1 million .
4. AUTHORIZE the General Services Director, wl1en appropriate , to employ alternative
project delivery methods such as negotiated "best value" design-build and
"construction manager at-risk" to shorten project delivery timeframes, provide
improved cost control, better allocate risk , and enhance project collabo ration .
CONTIN UED ON ATTACHM ENT: ~-YES
__ RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
__ APPROVE __ OTHER
SIGNATURE(S): ,
--------------------;;'!·-------------------------------·----------··--··-··------------------------·-·--------------------------------------------------------------------------ACTIO N OF
BO ARD ON U~-' (} ~ :;Looi_APPROVE AS RECOMMENDED X ~----
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS
]{__UNANIMOUS (ABSENT ~
I HERE BY CERTIFY THAT T HIS IS A TRU E
AND CORRE CT COPY OF AN AC TION TAKEN
AN D ENTERE D ON THE MINUTES OF THE
BOARD OF SUP ERVISORS ON THE DATE
AYES: _______ NOES : ______ _ S HO WN .
ABSENT: ABSTAIN:------
MEDIA CONTACT: BARTON J. GILBERT (313-71 00)
CC: Gene ra l Services Department
Capital Projects Management Divi sion
Acco unting
CPM File : Alpha /CPM
County Admini strator's Office
County Counsel
Auditor Controller
ATTESTED 1::"'4"
JOHN SW ETEN , C LERK OF THE BOARD OF
SUPERV ISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
BUSINESS PRACTICE IMPROVEMENTS IN October 26, 2004
THE DEVELOPMENT AND DELIVERY OF COUNTY
CAPITAL PROJECTS
FINANCIAL IMPACT
The recommended business pra ctice changes can be implemented with minimal expense.
While cost savings are difficult to quantify, it is anticipated that the business practice changes
and implementation of alternative project delivery methods will improve th e management and
administration of capital projects.
BACKGROUND
The County Administrator's Office and the General Services Department have examined the
County's capital project management practices with two goals in mind:
1. Minimize contractor performance problems, and;
2. Improve administrative practices to shorten project delivery time and reduce project cost.
Changes to the County's capital project management practices designed to further these two
goa ls are addressed below.
A voidance of Contractor Non-Performance
To improve the se lection of responsibl e contractors capab le of fulfilling thei r contractual
obligations on construction projects, staff recommends the County strengthen its procedures for
eva luating the performance capabi liti es and track record of contractors prior to selection.
Pro ced ure s for evaluating the performance capabilities of potential co ntractors can be applied
eith er before or after bids for a project are received. Such proced ures wi ll add some additional
time and cost to capital projects, and therefore should be used primarily on larger and more
co mple x projects where the benefits are likely to outweigh the costs. For all projects with
co nstruction cost projected to exceed $1 million , staff recommend that pre-qualification of
contractors take pl ace before bids are received to ensure a pool of qualified contractors bidding
o n the job. For smaller projects , with construction cost estimated as $1 million or less, use of
co ntra ctor evaluation methods either before or after receipt of bids would be at the di scretion of
t he Genera l Services Director based on the uniqu e ness and comp lexity of the project.
Eva lu ating Contractors Before Bids a re Received
In 1999, the California Legis lature e nact ed a l aw th a t a uthorizes cities, counties and special
districts to require lic e nse d contractors to pre-qualify for public construction projects before
bidding. Public Contract Code Section 20101 establishes the following procedures for pre-
qualification:
1. Use of a standardized qu estionnaire and fin a ncial statement in a form specified by the
public entity;
2 . Adoption and app lication of a uniform syst em of rating bidders on objective criteria on th e
basis of the compl et ed questionnaires a nd financial st ateme nts; and
3. C reatio n of a n appea l procedure by which a contractor that is denied pre -qualification
may seek a reversa l of that determin ation.
The 1 999 Stat e law a lso required th e Departm e nt of Industri a l Re lation s (D IR) to draft a
standardized questionnaire and to develop model guidelines f or pre-qualify in g bidders on public
agency co nstructio n projects. Th ese guidelines were released in October 2000. The Gene ra l
Serv ices Department proposes to imple me nt pre -qua l ification procedures cons ist e nt with the
D IR guidelines.
Evaluating Co ntractors After Bids a re R eceived
Co ntractor performance qualifications can a lso be eva lu at ed after bids a re rece ived but before
th e contra ct is awa rded. This process is called post-bid assessment. In this process, bidders
2
BUSINESS PRACTICE IMPROVEMENTS IN October 26, 2004
THE DEVELOPMENT AND DELIVERY OF COUNTY
CAPITAL PROJECTS
are required to submit a questionnaire at the time bids are due. The questionna'ire is developed
by the County and used to evaluate a bidder's quality and capacity to perform the required work.
If a bidder is deemed "non-responsible," the bid is rejected , even though it may be the low
monetary bid . The accepted bid must meet both criteria of "responsible " and price.
Enhancing Efficient Project Delivery
The General Services Department continually strives to improve the efficiency of capital project
delivery. Over the past two years, the Department has implemented the Job Order Contract
(JOC) Program as a way to reduce the time and cost of delivering smaller capital projects.
Together with the County Administrator's Office, the General Services Department has reviewed
its pra ct ices for implementing larger capital projects and seeks the Board's direction to consider
alternative approaches for delivering future capital projects , as appropriate, and to advocate for
legislative changes to increase the ability of counties to utilize such approaches.
Alternative Project Delivery Methods
Design/Bid/Build (DBB) is the traditional project delivery method for public works construction
and is the project delivery method used by the County for most construction projects. This
method involves the following three steps:
• The County contracts with a design firm to provide detailed plans and specifications
describing the project;
• Those documents are then provided to prospective bidders to develop and submit a price
for the work;
• The construction contract is awarded to th e lowest responsive res ponsible bidder to build
the project.
The DBB method is a linear process and requires more time than either the "design /b uild" or
"co nstruction manager at-risk" approaches discussed below. The "design/build" and
"constru ct ion manager at-risk" project delivery methods are alternative project delivery methods
that have been used for many years by the private sector and have been increasingly us ed in
the public sector.
Design/Build
Design/b uild is a project delivery method wherein a single entity is se lected to perform both
design and construction. Public Contract Code Section 20133 authorizes Contra Costa and six
other co unties to use the design-build method for projects in excess of $10 million . The
design/build entity is selected through a low bid approach. For projects exceeding $20 million,
these same counties are allowed to use a neg otiated "b es t value" d es ign /build approach, which
considers multiple factors such as qualifications, experience, past performance, and price.
The d es ign /build project delivery method may provide the County with faster project completion
and improved collaboration between the designer and construction team, which in turn may
red uce cha nge orders, c la im s, and litig ation . The design/build sel ect io n process ca n a lso be
crafted to in co rporate ex ist ing County policies and procedures rela ti ve to outreac h and project
labo r ag ree men t s.
The Co unty co uld benefit from a nego tiated "b es t value" design/build approac h. Given th a t th e
majority of th e Coun ty's ca pita l projects cost fa r less than the ex isting $20 million threshold for
use of negotiated "bes t value," it is recomme nd ed th at th e County Administrator be a uthorize d
to pursue -with the he lp of the County's legis lati ve advocate a nd input from the local building
indu stry a nd labor organizations -leg islation to lower the exi st ing threshold for negotiated "b es t
va lu e" design/build construction projects from $20 million to $1 million .
Co n s tru ction Manager At-Risk
"Con stru cti o n m anage r at-ri sk" is anoth er a lternative project d eliv ery method where the County
would co nc urre ntly contract with a design firm and construction management firm on a fixed-fee
basis . Using this approach, the co nstruction manager participate s throughout th e design
process, oversees th e bidding of sub co ntracto r work, and has financial respo n sibility for
3
BUSINESS PRACTICE IMPROVEMENTS IN October 26, 2004
THE DEVELOPMENT AND DELIVERY OF COUNTY
CAPITAL PROJECTS
delivering the project for an agreed-upon cost. A Guaranteed Maximum Price approach can be
used , with the construction manager at risk if the project goes over budget.
The construction manager is selected based on qualifications and is made a part of a
collaborative team from the beginning of the project. The construction manager provides pre-
construction services including estimating, scheduling, value engineering and constructability
reviews, and managing trade contractor bidding and contracts. All subcontractor construction
work is competitively bid and the construction manager coordinates the work of !he
subcontractors during construction.
With the "construction manager at -ri sk" approach, a project can be fast-tracked, similar to
design /build. The "construction manager at-risk" model provides more certainty up-front
regarding schedule and costs and has been used successfully by public agencies in California
including San Mateo County, Santa Clara County, the City of Oakland , and Redwood City. It is
also commonly used by the public sector in the States of Washington , Oregon, Utah, Arizona
and Colorado .
As with design/build, the "construction manager at-risk" approach can be customized to
incorporate existing County policy and procedures related to outreach and project labor
agreements.
4
s:\board items by year\board items 2013\05-14-13 bos\14277_cccounty-positionab935-2013.doc
The Board of Supervisors
County Administration Building
651 Pine Street, Room 106
Martinez, California 94553
John Gioia, 1st District
Candace Andersen, 2nd District
Mary N. Piepho, 3rd District
Karen Mitchoff, 4th District
Federal D. Glover, 5th District
May 14, 2013
The Honorable Jim Frazier
11th Assembly District
State Capitol
P.O. Box 942849
Sacramento, CA 94249-0011
Subject: AB 935: San Francisco Bay Area Water Transportation
Dear Assembly Member Frazier:
The Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors enthusiastically supports your bill, AB 935, which expands the
number of members on the San Francisco Bay Area Water Emergency Transportation Authority (WETA) Board
of Directors and ensures that at least one member will be a resident of Contra Costa County. We understand that
San Mateo and Solano Counties will also benefit from the additional Board members and residency
requirements under your bill.
As you are well aware, four of the seven proposed WETA ferry terminals are located in Contra Costa County.
As such, the Board of Supervisors considers your bill a critical step in helping the County move ahead with the
development of these vital transportation facilities.
Thank you for authoring this important legislation. If you, or your staff, have any questions about our support
position, please contact me or John Cunningham at (925) 674-7833 or at john.cunningham@dcd.cccounty.us
Sincerely,
Federal D. Glover, Chair
Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors
Supervisor, District V
C: Contra Costa County State Legislative Delegation
S. Goetz, D. Director, Dept. of Conservation and Development
L. DeLaney, Interim Senior Deputy County Administrator, CAO
Janet Abelson, Chair, Contra Costa Transportation Authority
David Twa
Clerk of the Board
and
County Administrator
(925) 335-1900
Contra
Costa
County
s:\board items by year\board items 2013\05-14-13 bos\14277_cccounty-positionsb328-2013.doc
The Board of Supervisors
County Administration Building
651 Pine Street, Room 106
Martinez, California 94553
John Gioia, 1st District
Candace Andersen, 2nd District
Mary N. Piepho, 3rd District
Karen Mitchoff, 4th District
Federal D. Glover, 5th District
May 14, 2013
The Honorable Steve Knight
21st Senate District
State Capitol, Room 2048
Sacramento, CA 95814
Subject: SB 328: Counties: Public Works Contracts
Dear Senator Knight:
The Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors supports your bill, SB 328, which authorizes a county, with
approval of the board of supervisors, to utilize "construction manager at-risk" construction contracts for public
works projects in excess of a specified amount and to award the construction manager at-risk construction
contract using either the lowest responsible bidder or best value method.
Please be aware that Contra Costa County has used this project delivery mechanism with great success in the
recent past. We have delivered several large projects ahead of schedule and under budget including our West
County Health Center and a new Public Works building.
Thank you for authoring this important legislation. If you, or your staff, have any questions about our support
position, please contact me or Steve Kowalewski at (925) 313-2225 or at skowalew@pw.co.contra-costa.ca.us.
Sincerely,
Federal D. Glover, Chair
Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors
Supervisor, District V
C: Contra Costa County State Legislative Delegation
S. Kowalewski, D. Director, Public Works Department
L. DeLaney, Interim Senior Deputy County Administrator, CAO
Janet Abelson, Chair, Contra Costa Transportation Authority
David Twa
Clerk of the Board
and
County Administrator
(925) 335-1900
Contra
Costa
County