HomeMy WebLinkAbout1984-01-24; City Council; 7620; Selection of a cost allocation consultantGIT JF CARLSBAD — AGENDA JILL 7..
(d
8t
8
0)
OLD
m roO to-
O-H ,y-p -P
&|8
iH 0) iH•rH >-l (0U Clj -P
B M -S
8^ 05
COI•*rCNI
-J
Oz
I
AB# V^<2£
mm-rf* 1/24/84nt 1 Ulr
DEPT. FIN
TITLE:
SELECTION OF A COST ALLOCATION
CONSULTANT
\CUc-^'DEPT. HDATp^
CITY ATTYvfe^
CITY MGR. ^^-
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Adopt Resolution No.awarding the contract for the preparation of a
Cost Allocation Plan for the City of Carlsbad to David M. Griffith and
Associates, Ltd.
ITEM EXPLANATION;
Shortly after the passage of Proposition 13, cities increased efforts to
establish cost collection systems that would aid in establishing fees and
charges to the users of municipal services. These cost systems typically
include a cost allocation plan. This plan is a framework that identifies the
users of services both direct and indirect. Direct services are those
provided directly to the user such as police, fire, engineering services to
developers, or building inspection services. Indirect services are usually
called overhead. Examples of overhead services are Finance, Personnel, City
Manager, and City Attorney services. Indirect services also include
departmental administration or shared services such as the Utilities Director
and Parks and Recreation Administration section.
A cost allocation plan provides the ability to allocate all costs to the point
where services are performed and therefore establish charges or fees based on
the cost of service and the demand for that service.
This cost allocation plan will be used in Carlsbad to develop inter fund
charges to enterprise, grant, redevelopment and capital funds. These funds
will pay for the services provided by general fund departments. The City
staff will also use this cost allocation plan as the basis for establishing
fees for services to the public. The City will be able to verify each fee
based upon the cost to provide that service and the number of units of service
provided.
In 1983-84, the Finance Department requested funds to conduct a cost
allocation study. The Finance Department began selection of a Cost Allocation
Consultant in November by sending an RFP to five companies. The responses to
these RFP's are summarized in the attached memo dated November 10, 1983.
This summary of proposals was circulated to all department heads for their
comments. Out of the five companies, two were selected based on the comments
received from department heads and the Finance Director's evaluation. A
review committee consisting of the Utilities Director, the Acting City
Engineer and the Finance Director interviewed the top two candidates: David
M. Griffith and Arthur Young.
PAGE 2 OF AB #
The committee recommends that the Council accept the David M. Griffith
proposal and award them the contract for the cost allocation study. The
committee did not recommend the firm with the lowest price due to their
limited experience with cost allocation plans.
A summary of the proposals is shown below:
Public Affairs Consultants $ 5,250
David M. Griffith and Associates 16,500
Arthur Young 24,000
Management Services Institute 60,000
Cooper & Lybrand no bid
The Council may wish to consider accepting the Management Services Institute
proposal priced at $60,000 although this proposal goes beyond the scope of the
Cost Allocation Plan. This study would also include review of all City fees
for services and would recommend revision of fees where necessary. Both
Oceanside and Vista have cost recovery plans prepared by this company. In
Vista, the Council accepted the report and modified some fees based on the
recommendations of the consultant. The fees are up-dated on an annual basis
by staff using a cost allocation framework created by MSI. In Oceanside, the
MSI study was used to support major revisions in almost all areas. A general
overhead rate was developed for the allocation of administrative costs for use
in budgeting. In both cases increased fee revenue more than offset the cost
of the study.
If the Council desires a full cost allocation and fee study, the David M.
Griffith proposal should also be considered. This proposal includes an
analysis of all City fees and the creation of computer models for the annual
re-evaluation of overhead allocations and fees. The full price for the DMG
proposal including all services is $36,750. The full DMG study provides
basically the same product as the MSI study. The net result of the Griffith
proposal is the same as the MSI proposal. The staff is confident that either
company could produce a very useable product .
FISCAL IMPACT:
The proposed study will cost $16,500 which can be funded from the Finance
Department Budget. No transfer will be necessary to finance this project.
The inter-department charges included in the 1983-84- budget transfer part of
these cost to the enterprise funds.
EXHIBITS:
Resolution No. 7V7^ awarding the contract for a Cost Allocation Plan to
David M. Griffith and Associates.
Memo: Selection of Cost Allocation Consultant
Memo: Proposals on the City's Cost Allocation Plan, November 10, 1983
Agreement between the City and David M. Griffith and Associates.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
RESOLUTION NO.7479
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, AWARDING A CONTRACT FOR A
COST ALLOCATION CONSULTANT TO DAVID M. GRIFFITH
AND ASSOCIATES
of Carlsbad
requested
alloca,
these
ociates
PASSED , APPROV
1984, b the ollowing vote, to wit;
desires to employ the services
allocation plan for the City and,
bsals f rom >?£rious firms
plan and,
proposals, the City\finds that
posal most closely meets
available in the Finance Depart-
by the Co\ty Council of the City
Grif f ith\ and/Associates is
\ /authorized to execute the
City's cost allocation
egular meeting of the City
day of ,
NOES:
ABSENT:
ATTEST:
MARY H. CASLBR, Mayor
ALETHA L. RAUTENKRANZ, City Clerk
(SEAL)3
December 20, 1983
TO: CITY MANAGER
FROM: Finance Director
SELECTIOK OF COST ALLOCATIOH CONSULTANT
RECOMMENDATION
Award the contract for the preparation of a cost allocation plan
for the City of Carlbad to David M. Griffith and Associates,
Ltd.
BACKGROUND
The Finance Department began selection of a cost allocation
consultant in November by sending an RFP to five companies. The
responses to these RFP's are summarized in the attached memo
dated November 10, 1983.
This summary of proposals was circulated to all department heads
for their comments. Out of the five companies, two were selected
that most closely met the City's needs. This selection was based
on the comments received from department heads and my own
evaluation.
A selection committee was formed consisting of the Utilities
Director, Acting City Engineer and myself. This committee
interviewed both candidates and found both to have excellent
backgrounds and client references.
The committee agreed that either company could produce a quality
product for the City.
With two companies so highly qualified, the question of ranking
becomes most difficult. The primary differences lie in the
following areas:
0 Client References
David M. Griffith and Associates nation wide has
large client base and state wide has a very large
City user base. Cities such as Anaheim, Long
Beach, Riverside, Woodland, Stockton, Pasadena,
Fresno and many others use DMG's services.
Arthur Young has a good client base in the County
arena. The Counties of Contra Costa, Stanislaus,
Marin, Sonoma, Kings and Imperial have used Arthur
Young services.
Location
DMG is located in the Sacramento area and would
service our account from that location. Staff
would be sent to Carlsbad to perform the necessary
work on site.
Arthur Young has a San Diego office which would
service our account. Local staff would be
responsible for the preparation of our report.
Cost
DMG will charge a flat fee of $16,500 for the
entire cost allocation study. This amount includes
all costs. This is within the Finance Department's
budget for the project. The operating budget
includes $20,000 for this study.
Arthur Young would prepare the report for a total
cost of $24,000 plus $3,200 for the development of
a computer model, if desired. This cost is above
the amount budgeted and would require a fund
transfer.
In almost all other areas, the two companies are very close and
present basically identical options to the City.
This being the case, the committee recommends that the Council
accept the David M. Griffith proposal and award them the contract
for the cost allocation study. We also feel that the Arthur
Young firm has much to offer the City and should be considered on
other projects such as the Computer Advisory Consultant, City
audit or other management services.
A proposed contract is attached for the Attorney's review.
NOVEMBER 10, 1983
TO: ALL DEPARTMENT HEADS.
FROM: Finance Director
PROPOSALS ON THE CITY'S COST ALLOCATION PLAN
Attached to this memo is a brief summary of the proposals received from firms
interested in preparing a cost allocation plan for the City. As we discussed in
the department head meeting on November 4, I am asking for your help in
selecting one firm to prepare this plan. Any comments on the project or the
proposals will be appreciated.
I realize that a summary of proposals may leave many of your questions
unanswered. If this is the case, I will be available to meet with you to review
the complete proposals.
If possible, I would like to have specific feedback from you by November 18 on
two issues.
1. Does the cost allocation project as described pose any particular
problems for you or your department? And, has the project been defined
well enough to meet any needs you may have?
2. Which of the four proposals appears most acceptable to you?
I will arrange for the department head group to meet with the top candidate(s)
if that is of interest to the group.
Thank you for your assistance.
CITY OF CARLSBAD
Summary of Proposals
Cost Allocation Plan
DESCRIPTION OF FIRM:
Management Services Institute - Douglas W. Ayres, President
MSI is a La Mirada based firm that specializes in cost/fee studies for local
governments. The principals of the firm have considerable municipal
experience as City Managers and Finance Directors as well as significant
private sector exposure.
DESCRIPTION OF SERVICES:
MSI has used a standardized approach to cost/fee studies for the past few
years. The primary emphasis of the firm has been to assist cities in
establishing cost systems that, in their opinion, comply with the
requirements of Prop. 13 and Prop. 4 (Article XIII A and XIII B of the State
Constitution).
MSI typically follows the process outlined below:
Phase I
- Conduct seminar for managers on the MSI business philosophy, legal base
and operational aspect of the MSI system.
- Research and document each current non-tax revenue source and create a
six year revenue history.
- Create list of fee financed service centers.
- Using City records or City staff, create a list of capital assets and
depreciation schedules.
- Determine which City organization unit performs each service and prepare
cost worksheet for fee financed services.
- Analyze relationship between service, fee charged, and user.
- Determine unit of measure, number of units of service provided in the
last fiscal year, and an estimated of number service units for current
fiscal year.
- Determine direct costs of providing service.
- Analyze City's indirect costs of providing services and develop standard
allocation formula.
- Distribute indirect costs using formula.
- Develop City departmental overhead.
- Apply general and departmental overhead rates to service centers.
- Compute costs, revenues, excess revenues or excess costs.
At the end of Phase I, MSI will have determined a fair and consistent
relationship between City operations costs and fees.
Phase II
- Prepare a report appraising the strengths and weaknesses and potential
improvements measures for fee financial services and fiscal structure.
- Make recommendations to enhance financial information to management and
Council, to increase revenues or decrease expenses.
7
- Suggest new revenue sources.
- Present report to staff and Council.
MSI would also supply a micro computer and software for use in maintaining
the cost allocation plan and fees for an additional cost of $10,000.
PROJECT TIMING:
MSI would be unable to complete the indicated work in less the eight months.
Any slippage in the system would push the process to as much as 12 months.
EXPERIENCE:
MSI has prepared similar reports for:
Oceanside Rialto La Palma
San Clemente Alhambra South Gate
Rancho Cucamunga Monrovia San Juan Capistrano
Grand Terrace Vista Seal Beach
MSI principles have been included with the League of California Cities "Cost
Accounting for California Cities" manual.
FEE:
The proposed fee for services is as follows:
Phase I & II $60,000
Computer System (optional) 10,000
(Report reproduction costs &
Business License costs to be
added).
DESCRIPTION:
Arthur Young & Company
Arthur Young & Compnay is one of the nations largest CPA firms. Within the
scope of services offered by Arthur Young are consulting services such as
those needed to prepare a cost allocation plan or fee analysis. Arthur
Young is San Diego based and would utilize staff from this office for this
study.
DESCRIPTION OF SERVICES;
Arthur Young & Co. has produced cost allocation plans for several
governmental clients. The approach used for Carlsbad will basically follow
the system used for past studies, modified to meet any special needs we may
have. In general, their process is divided into four tasks which will
analyze the operating and cost structure of the City. Interviews or
questionaires will be used to gather information from department managers.
Arthur Young has identified principally the administrative section of the
City for allocation as overhead. Arthur Young would develop procedures for
the City to follow for gathering base statistical data, performing the cost
allocation developing internal overhead rates and updating the plan.
Finally, Arthur Young will review the City's fee structure vs. the cost of
services deteremined after the allocation of overhead. A micro computer
model will be developed to be used on an HP 125/120. This model will be
used to assist in up-dating the study in future years.
A summary of the task description is shown below:
Task 1 - Analyze the cost structure of each department and program.
a. Arthur Young will prepare a detailed work plan and present this to
the City for approval.
b. Once approved, Arthur Young will commence data gathering to determine
the cost structure of each department using surveys and interviews.
Inter department charges will be identified.
Task 2 - Develop a City wide cost allocation plan.
a. Objectives of this step are:
- Preparing a conceptual design for the plan.
- Direct and monitor studies of statistical cost allocation base.
- Present recommendations on most appropriate approach.
b. Prepare conceptual design for cost allocation plan and present to
City for approval.
c. Select allocation base(s) for use in allocation plan and outline
procedures for collection of statistical data. Instruct City
personnel in the use of the study, procedures, and monitor gathering
of data.
d. Examine data collected and recommend appropriate allocation base.
e. Develop City-wide cost allocation plan and procedures and description
of methodology that City intends to follow.
Task 3 - Develop a fee setting methodology.
a. Identify direct and indirect costs for all departments.
b. Identify services departments perform and quantity of each service.
c. Determine costs related to each service (both direct and indirect).
d. Determine allocation base for charging departmental costs to each
service.
e. Determine cost per unit of service.
f. Present data to City.
Task 4 - Develop micro computer model for HP-125.
At the end of Task 4 the City will have a detailed work plan and supporting
work papers, a written conceptual design for cost allocation with supporting
work papers, recommendations on the most appropriate base for allocation of
costs, procedures for data collection, a City-wide cost allocation plan,
procedures for fee evaluation, a computer model for cost allocation plans
and fee studies and a management summary.
PROJECT TIMING:
Arthur Young feels that the project could be completed between eight to ten
weeks after beginning work. Departments should plan to spend from one to
two full days assisting the Arthur Young staff.
EXPERIENCE:
Arthur Young has prepared a similar cost allocation plan for Contra Costa,
Stanislaus, Marin, Sanoma and Imperial Counties. The firm also shows
considerable experience in review of data processing systems.
FEE:
The estimated fee for services is as follows:
Cost Allocation Plan $24,000
Fee Analysis (Per fee analyzed)* 3,400
Computer Model 3,200
* Since the fee analysis is based on a "per fee analyzed" basis, we cannot
determine the total program cost including the fee study.
Arthur Young recommends that before any final documents are signed, the
City and Arthur Young representatives should negotiate a total cost for
all services.
DESCRIPTION OF FIRM:
David M. Griffith and Associates, Ltd.
David M. Griffith has provided services to governmental clients for more
than seven years. The firm's California offices are located in the
Sacramento area. Nationwide, DMG has served more than 800 governmental
clients, and is currently serving more than 600 entities. Studies performed
by DMG California staff typically fall into the category of cost allocation
plans, rate studies, proposition 4 compliance services, and mandated cost
recovery plans.
DESCRIPTION OF SERVICES;
In performing a revenue/cost analysis for the City of Carlsbad, DMG proposes
to review all department and cost centers to determine total operating cost
including indirect overhead, and to review all non-property tax revenue
sources.
DMG has proposed a 14 task approach as outlined below:
Task 1 - Project initiation.
Meet with City Manager, Finance Director, and other appropriate
department heads or managers to set goals, objectives, and define
scope of work.
Document the proposed engagement in writing.
Obtain data such as organization charts, budgets, prior fee analysis
data, current cost allocation plan (if any) and municipal code.
Establish project liasion requirements.
Initiate the formation of a project advisory group.
Task 2 - Establish project advisory group.
This will be a group of department level managers who will work with
David M. Griffith staff to ensure interpretations are correct and to
assist in locating records.
The project advisory group will have several meetings during the
course of the project.
Task 3 - Develop revenue history.
Develop a 5 year revenue history.
Identify areas where fees could be utilized but have not been
established.
Task 4 - Develop cost objective organization.
Identify which revenue sources relate to which components of
service.
Task 5 - Distribute agency-wide indirect costs.
Identify "service" departments (such as Manager, Finance, Personnel,
etc.) which exist to serve the agency's departments.
Use interviews of providers of central services to determine for whom
services are provided.
Collect the cost allocation base data.
Task 6 - Develop direct service costs.
Identify the direct cost of each service related to a "cost
objective" or revenue source.
Task 7 - Distribute departmental/program overhead.
Distribute supervisory and management costs within the department.
Task 8 - Develop fixed asset replacement costs.
Task 9 - Complete the cost and revenue worksheets.
Summarize activities carried out to this point. (Task 1 to 8)
Task 10 - Match service revenue with service costs.
Total cost for each service is to be matched with the revenue from
each service.
Task 11 - Review cost and revenue relationships with advisory group and City
managment. This step verifies the feasibility of increasing fees
including political, social, legal and economic considerations.
Task 12 - Prepare draft report for review by project advisory group and City
managment.
Task 13 - Prepare final report.
Present final report to staff, department management and Council.
Report to department groups emphasizes methodology.
Report to management groups emphasizes methodology and impact of
recommendations.
Overview report presented to City Council includes project findings
and recommendations.
Task H - Project close out.
Exit review of methodology.
Answer final questions.
Review plans for project up-date.
PROJECT TIMING
DMG indicates that all services can be provided within the 90 day limit
requested in our RFP.
EXPERIENCE;
David M. Griffith has extensive experience in working with California cities
and counties. Assignments have included cost allocation plans, fee studies,
mandated cost reimbursement engagements, Proposition k limitation studies,
computerized cost allocation plans as well as other projects. Clients
using DMG cost allocation services include:
Anaheim Ventura Regional Sanitation District
Ventura County Woodland
Sacramento County Sheriff's Dept. Long Beach
Riverside City Library
Other clients include 38 California Counties and 24 California cities and 12
special districts and associations including the County Supervisors
Association of California. Studies for these additional clients were
similar to the ones detailed above.
FEE:
The fee for the outlined services would be as follows:
Consultant Services $26,000
Travel 3,000
Per Diem 3,000
Computer Services 3,000
Report Production 1,000
Miscellaneous 750
TOTAL $36,750
This total cost of $36,750 represents the cost for a complete cost
allocation plan and fee analysis. The City may choose to defer the fee
analysis portion and reduce the price to a total of $16,500.
/3
DESCRIPTION OF FIRM:
Public Affairs Consultants - John McTighe
PAC is a San Diego based firm that specializes in serving the needs of local
governments. The principal service performed by PAC is in the general area
of analysis of the economic impact of development. Although smaller in size
the the other companies included in this review, PAC has considerable
experience in dealing with local government issues.
DESCRIPTION OF SERVICES:
PAC proposes a five step process for preparing the cost allocation plan and
fee analysis.
1. General research - including budget review, preparing questionaire for
departments, sending questionaires to departments and conducting
interviews with City Manager, ACM's and Finance Director.
2. Cost allocation model development.
- Interview Developmental Services, Maintenance and Utility
Departments.
- Modify PAC's existing model (used for study of Hunt Property's EIR)
to relfect 83-84 budget and tentative allocations.
- Prepare narrative description of cost allocations.
- Review cost allocations with City staff.
- Revise allocations, if necessary.
- Prepare final cost allocation plan.
3. City fee analysis.
- Prepare inventory of current City fees and basis for each fee.
- Review inventory with City staff and Manager.
- Recalculate fees for services based on basis of full cost recovery.
- Prepare report describing methodology.
4. Documentation and training.
- Prepare manual describing update procedures for cost allocation plan
and fee analysis.
- Hold training sessions with finance staff on update procedures.
5. Present report to staff and Council.
PROJECT TIMING:
PAC indicates that all work can be completed within the requested 90 day
time period.
EXPERIENCE:
PAC has recently performed a detailed fiscal impact analysis of general plan
alternatives for the City of Santee. This report analyzed the cost of
additional City services and additional revenues that would be associated
with various general plan alternatives. PAC also prepared an Economic
Impact Report on the Hunt Property annexation for the City of Carlsbad
Planning Department. Other clients include the City of Chula Vista and El
Centre.
FEE:
The proposed fee for this study is as follows:
Cost allocation plan including fee study $9,400
Cost allocation plan only 5,250
In addition, the City will be billed for the cost of printing reports and
manuals.
The City may also experience additional costs of $4,000 (or more) to acquire
micro computer hardware and software to be used with the cost allocation
plan computer model.
AGREEMENT TO PROVIDE
PROFESSIONAL CONSULTING SERVICES
TO THE CITY OF CARLSBAD
THIS AGREEMENT, entered into this day of , 1984,
effective immediately by and between David M. Griffith and Associates, Ltd.
(hereinafter called "Consultant") and the City of Carlsbad (hereinafter called
"City"), WITNESSETH THAT:
WHEREAS, the City provides services and programs to outside entities, including
the public, for which it charges user fees,
WHEREAS, the City provides support services paid from the City's general fund to
enterprises operated from restricted funds for which the City's general fund may
be reimbursed when service costs are appropriately documented,
WHEREAS, the City desires to engage the Consultant to assist in developing plans
which will provide support service allocations to the City's restricted funds
and to its operating departments.
NOW, THEREFORE, the parties hereto mutually agree as follows:
(1) Employment of Consultant. The City agrees to engage the Consultant and
the Consultant hereby agrees to perform the following services.
(2) Scope of Services. The Consultant shall do, perform, and carry out in a
good and professional manner the following services:
A. Development of a central services cost allocation plan which
identifies the various costs incurred by the City for the fiscal year
ended Gune 30, 1984 (based on budgeted financial data supplied by the
City) to support and administer its enterprise funds and programs.
This plan will be prepared in general accordance with the Office of
Management and Budget Circular A-87 (OMB A-87) except that the
allocations will include certain support functions (such as City
Council) that are disallowed solely for federal claiming purposes.
The plan will contain a determination of the allowable costs of
providing each supporting service such as purchasing, legal counsel,
disbursement processing, etc. The plan shall in addition include the
administrative functions of up to six non-central service departments.
The administrative functions will be allocated to the appropriate
divisions within the departments. The selection of six administrative
functions will be at the discretion of the City. Services will be
performed as specified in the attached proposal and sample cost
allocation plan submitted by the Consultant dated October 29, 1983.
B. Review of the City's plan with affected departments and funds to
ensure accuracy and understanding.
C. Train the City staff in the preparation and use of the cost allocation
plan.
- 2 -
(3) Time of Performance. The services to be performed hereunder by the
Consultant shall be undertaken and completed in such sequence as to assure
their expeditious completion and best carry out the purposes of the
agreement. All services required hereunder shall be completed by May 1,
1984. The plan will be available for review by the City within 12 weeks
of receiving authorization to proceed.
(4) Compensation. The City agrees to pay the Consultant a sum not to exceed
($16,500) sixteen thousand five hundred dollars for all service required
herein, which shall include reimbursement for expenses incurred.
Consultant agrees to complete the project and all services provided herein
for said sum.
(5) Method of Payment. The Consultant shall be entitled to payment in
accordance with the provisions of this paragraph. The Consultant shall
receive 75 percent (75%) of the agreed upon fee upon submission of the
draft plan. The remaining 25 percent (25%) is due upon the City's final
acceptance of the plan and the completion of all work under this contract
by the Consultant to the satisfaction of the City.
(6) Changes. The City may, from time to time, require changes in the scope of
services of the Consultant to be performed hereunder. Such changes, which
are mutually agreed upon by and between the City and the Consultant, shall
be incorporated in written amendment to this agreement.
(7) Services and Materials to be Furnished by City. The City shall furnish
the Consultant with all available necessary information, data, and
material pertinent to the execution of this agreement. The City shall
cooperate with the Consultant in carrying out the work herein and shall
provide adequate staff for liaison with the Consultant and other agencies
of City government.
(8) Termination of Agreement. If, through any cause, the Consultant shall
fail to fulfill in timely and proper manner his obligation under this
agreement, the City shall thereupon have the right to terminate this
agreement by giving written notice to the Consultant of such termination
and specifying the effective date thereof, at least five days before the
effective date of such termination.
(9) Information and Reports. The Consultant shall, at such time and in form
as the City may require, furnish such periodic reports concerning the
status of the project, such statements, certificates, approvals, and
copies of proposed and executed plans and claims and other information
relative to the project as may be requested by the City. The Consultant
shall furnish the City, upon request, with copies of all documents and
other materials prepared or developed in relation with or as part of the
project. Working papers prepared in conjunction with the project will be
turned over to the City for safekeeping.
(10) Records and Inspections. The Consultant shall maintain full and accurate
records with respect to all matters covered under this agreement. The
City shall have free access at all proper times to such records, and the
right to examine and audit the same and make transcripts therefrom, and to
inspect all program data, documents, proceedings, and activities.
- 3 -
(11) Accomplishment of Project. The Consultant shall commence, carry on, and
complete the project with all practical dispatch, in a sound, economical,
and efficient manner, in accordance with the provisions thereof and all
applicable laws. In accomplishing the project, the Consultant shall take
such steps as are appropriate to ensure that the work involved is properly
coordinated with related work being carried on in the City.
(12) Provisions Concerning Certain Waivers. Subject to applicable law, any
right or remedy which the City may have under this contract may be waived
in writing by the City by a formal waiver, if, in the judgement of the
City, this contract, as so modified, will still conform to the terms and
requirements of this contract.
(13) Matters to be Disregarded. The titles of the several sections,
subsections, and paragraphs set forth in this contract are inserted for
convenience only and shall be disregarded in construing or interpreting
any of the provisions of this contract.
(14) Completeness of Contract. This contract and any additional or
supplementary document or documents incorporated herein by specific
reference contain all the terms and conditions agreed upon by the parties
hereto, and no other agreements, oral or otherwise, regarding the subject
matter of this contract or any part thereof shall have any validity or
bind any of the parties hereto.
(15) City Not Obligated to Third Parties. The City shall not be obligated or
liable hereunder to any party other than the Consultant.
(16) When Rights and Remedies Not Waived. In no event shall the making by the
City of any payment to the Consultant constitute or be construed as a
waiver by the City of any breach of covenant, or any default which may
then exist, on the part of the Consultant, and the making of any such
payment by the City while any such breach or default shall exist in no way
impair or prejudice any right or remedy available to the City in respect
to such breach or default.
(17) Personnel. The Consultant represents that he has, or will secure at his
own expense, all personnel required in performing the services under this
agreement. All of the services required hereunder will be performed by
the Consultant or under his supervision, and all personnel engaged in the
work shall be fully qualified to perform such services.
(18) Consultant Liability if Audited. The Consultant will assume all financial
and statistical information provided to the Consultant by City employees
or representatives is accurate and complete. Any subsequent disallowance
of funds paid to the City under the plan for whatever reason is the sole
responsibility of the City. Consultant will, however, provide assistance
to the City should an audit be undertaken of indirect costs.
(19) Notices. Any notices, bills, invoices, or report required by this
agreement shall be sufficient if sent by the parties in the United States
Mail, postage paid, to the address noted below:
Finance Director David M. Griffith and Associates, Ltd.
City of Carlsbad 5441 Fair Oaks Boulevard, Suite C3
1200 Elm Avenue Carmichael, California 95608
Carlsbad, California 92008
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the City and the Consultant have executed this agreement as
of the date first written above.
City of Carlsbad
By:
(City Official)
ATTEST:
David M. Griffith and Associates, Ltd.
By:
Louis E. Chappuie
Vice President