HomeMy WebLinkAbout1984-01-24; City Council; 7621; SELECTION OF COMMUNICATION CONSULTANT*
..
n w> 0 g 2
2 p 5 a = 0 2 3 0 0
i- -
i? CI-F CARLSBAD - AGENDmILL c
AB# 7baf TITLE: DEPT. HC
CITY All MTG.
DEPT. CITY MGI
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
1-24-84 SELECTION OF COMMUNICATION
cs CONSULTANT
Adopt Resolution No. 74F/ , accepting the proposal from
Communication Resources Company (CRC), authorizing the City Mana
to execute a contract with CRC, and authorizinq the transfer of
funds.
ITEM EXPLANATION:
In calendar year 1982, a total of approximately $85,000 was spen
in telephone costs. Telephone costs for the City in calendar ye
1983 were in excess of $100,000. Approximately $75,000 of that
cost was in equipment and line charges.
The City currently has in operation a Centrex telephone system
which means we now pay Pacific Bell for our dial tone service an
features. At the same time, we pay monthly rental on all equipm
to AT&T Information Systems.
Currently, we have no control over rising equipment and
installation costs. In addition, recent legislative and regulat
actions concerning the provision of telephone service could have significant fiscal impact on the City. The FCC monthly intersta
access charge of $6.00 per Centrex line currently under
consideration is merely one example of the possible fiscal impac on the City.
The City should carefully examine their telephone service to determine whether the existing Centrex system provides the best
service for the least cost. To enable the City to make such a
determination, and possibly allow us take advantage of the chang
and new technology, it is necessary to hire a consultant who is
well-versed in the telecommunications industry. The consultant
would analyze our current situation and make recommendations for
future actions regarding the City's telephone system.
Similar analyses in other cities have resulted in significant co
savings. One City contacted reports a savings of $30,000 annual
Another city reports saving several hundred-thousand dollars ove
the past 8 years.
Three consultants were contacted and all three submitted proposa
All proposals were analyzed and the proposal submitted by Communication Resources Company was determined to be the best. Additional information on all proposals is contained in the
memorandum to the Assistant City ManagerfAdministration attached Exhibit 1.
e 0 I
..
PAGE 2 OF AB# 762/
FISCAL IMPACT:
Council approval would transfer $14,700 from the contingency to
available for the full contract. Initial commitment for Phase I
would be $7,100. Council approval would be required for each subsequent phase.
The transfer of $14,700 would reduce the contingency account to
$249,623.
EXHIBITS:
1. Memo to Assistant City ManagerIAdministration dated
3anuary 6, 1984.
2. Resolution No. accepting the proposal of Communicat
execute a contract with CRC, and authorizing the transfer of
funds.
, Resources Company %;, authorizing the City Manager to
a
- e e
MEMORANDUM
JANUARY 6, 1984
TO : FRANK MANNEN , Assistant City ManagerfAdministration
FROM: Lee Rautenkranz, Central Services Director
Telephone service has been ignored or taken for qranted for many years.
now changing. Recent legislative and regulatory act ions concerning the
provision of telephone service could have a significant fiscal impact on the
City.
The FCC monthly interstate access charge of $6.00 per Centrex station line now
under consideration is one example of the fiscal impact on the City. The City
currently has approximately 150 lines which will mean an additional monthly
charge of $900 which is $10,800 annually.
Other significant changes are occurring as a result of the divestiture and
deregulation in the telephone industry. The Centrex equipment changed ownership
from Pacific Bell (previously Pacific Telephone) to AT&T Information Systems.
This includes the instruments, inside wiring, and any other equipment currently
provided to the City. The external lines (or "dial tone") are the property of
the utility, and will remain with the utility company - Pacific Bell.
The equipment transferred to AT&T Information Systems will no longer be
protected by the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) . The external lines will be protected. While it may seem an insignificant issue, protection
is important. AT&T has stated that all equipment costs will be adjusted to a
national level. That could result in dramatic increases since costs for equipment in California are now supposedly about 21% lower than in any other
state.
In calendar year 1982, a total of approximately $85,000 was spent in telephone
costs. Telephone costs for the City in calendar year 1983 were in excess of
$100,000. Approximately $75,000 of that cost was in equipment and line
charges.
Line costs are currently being reviewed by the CPUC. Rate increase requests currently total $2.5 billion.
(line service) rate stabilization request, there are many unknowns.
Because of the many changes in the industry, the City can no longer take a
passive role. It is in the City's best interest to proceed immediately with a
comprehensive review of all City telephone service to determine whether the
existing service is provided on a best servicefleast cost basis.
Similar analyses in other cities have resulted in significant cost savings. Onc
city contacted reports a savings of $30,000 annually.
saving several hundred-thousand dollars over the past 8 years.
That is
While the CPUC is also considering a Centrex
Another city reports
e 0
Similar savings may be available for Carlsbad, but a thorough review of the
City's current system and operation is needed before we would know. Staff does
not have the time nor expertise necessary to accomplish such a review based on
the changes in technology and in the industry.
Three consultants were contacted verbally and proposals requested. Each was
asked to submit a proposal containing 3 separate, distinct stages. The first
stage to be addressed was the complete review of our existing system and needs.
The second was the competitive bidding process, and the third was
implement at ion.
The consultants were asked to make the proposal so each stage would require a
report to Council1 and Council approval before proceeding to the next stage. The
phased proposal seemed appropriate, also, since no assumptions should be made
about the outcome of the first stage.
The consultants contacted for proposals were:
JEiA/WESTEC Services, Inc. (San Diego)
The Triple-S Group (Woodland Hills)
Communication Resources Company (Fountain Valley)
All three firms submitted proposals.
Of the three, the only proposal that met the limited criteria established was
submitted by Communication Resources Company (CRC) .
was submitted in the form of one complete contract - from analysis to
implementation OF a new system.
only the first phase. They indicated they preferred not to submit a proposal or
subsequent phases until after completion of the first phase.
Costs were difficult to compare based on the way proposals were actually
submitted. They were:
The proposal from Triple-S
The proposal submitted by 3BA/Westec covered
Triple-S - $9,000 plus travel and lodging (all 3 phases) (travel
3i%/Wes tec - $5,000 - (1st phase only. Other phases unknown) CRC - $7,100 - 1st phase
$3,500 - 2nd phase
$4,100 - 3rd phase
and lodging would be difficult to estimate)
Another important aspect to be considered is whether the firm has done similar
work for other cities. The information contained in the proposals was as
follows. (References are shown on attached pages) :
Triple-S - Submitted no list of references.
3 BA / W es t ec
CRC - Had 21 cities for references.
- Had one city as a reference.
e 0
References contacted spoke very highly of the service provided by CRC. The city
who used 3BA/WESTEC also spoke very highly of them but noted one reason for
their selection was because they had performed a preliminary study of their city
two years prior to that, so they were familiar with the city's telephone
requirements.
It is recommended that the City accept the proposal of CRC, and authorize the
City Manager to execute a contract, and approve the transfer of $14,700 from
contingency .
llLdi&L 4 6?-
ALETHA L. RAUTENKRANZ
AR/ds
0 0 2
GOVERNMENTAL CLIEKT LIST
c CITIES
CITY OF ALHAMBRA CITY OF LA MIRADA Alhambr-a, California La Mirada, California Michael Paules Joyce Ponso
CITY OF BELLFLOWER CITY OF LOS ANGELES Bellflower, California DEPARTMENT OF AIRPORTS
Bill McConnell Dennis Green
CITY OF CARSON CITY OF MONTEBELLO
Carson, California Monter-ey Park, Califor-ni
Howard HGman Joe Goeden
CITY OF COMNERCE CITY CITY OF MONTEREY PARK
Conrnerce City, Colorado Monterey Park, Califor-ni
e James Heck Maynard Merkt
CITY OF DOWNEY CITY OF PALM SPRINGS
Down e y , C a 1 i for n i a Palm Springs, California Victor Kax Jim Runge
CITY OF DUARTE CITY OF SAN CLEMENTE
Duarte, CaliforRia San Clemente, CaliforRia
Don Pruyn Ron Coleman
CITY OF FOUNTAIN VALLEY CITY OF STANTON
Foantain Valley, California Stanton, California
H3 w a I-d Stephen s Jim Antoniono
CITY OF HUNTINGTON PARK CITY OF STOCKTON
hunting ton Park, Cali fornia Stockton , California
Craig Robinson Gary Ingrahan
CITY OF IRVINE CITY OF TORRANCE
Irvine, California Torrance, C a 1 i f 0 r n 1 a
Roger Davis Rill White
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH CITY OF SANTA ANA
Kewpcrt Beach, California Santa Ana, California
Gerry Bo1 int Eave Bor-ik
CITY OF BURBANK
Burbank, California
Ardy LazFar-etco COUYTIES
COUNTY OF OfiANGE COUXTY OF SOLAfi.v@
Kat el- Di st r i c t
tiunt ington Beach , Cal ifoi-nia John Tait Nary E. Johnson
Fa i r f i e 1 d , c a 1 1 f o 1- n i a
Rev. 7/83 -
e 0
- - “-&Z J’
- Xu‘ -3- 4 A/ d E-> !LL 4
J
-4-
- - - I -
1 Table 3 ii
GOVERNMENT AGENCY CLIENTS 1 d Government Agency Year Supplier System
4 City of La Mesa 1982 Anaconda Ericsson ASB 900 q
3
Mira Costa College 1982 Southern Cal Tel. Focus a Valley Center Schools 1982 Compath Mite1
L.
YWCA 1982 San Diego Tel. Inter t el
Chula Vista Schools 1981 Southern Cal Tel. Focus
Santee School District 1981 Southern Cal Tel. Focus
San Diego Unified Port District 1981 San Diego Tel. 0 KI
Grossmont College District
3
8
1
1
4
1
f
9
9
1979 ITT ITT 400A (Cuyamaca College)
San Diego Unified School District
i978 ITT ITT 400G Education Center
7 secondary schools 1978 Executone ITT 100
32 elementary schools 1978 Executone ITT KTS
17
*
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
0 0
RESOLUTION NO. 7481
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD
ACCEPTING THE PROPOSAL OF COMMUNICATION RESOURCES COMPANY
(CRC) FOR COMMUNICATION CONSULTANT SERVICES , AUTHORIZING THE
THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A CONTRACT WITH CRC,
AND AUTHORIZING THE TRANSFER OF FUNDS.
WHEREAS, the City did solicit proposals from three
communication consultants; and
WHEREAS , after significant review, the Communication
Resources Company (CRC) proposal has been determined the most
suited to provide the requested services to the City; and
WHEREAS, a transfer of $14,700 will be necessary to
support the contract; and
WHEREAS, the Contingency Reserve will be reduced fro1
$264,323 to $249,623 by this transfer;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that;
1. The above recitations are true and correct.
2. The proposal submitted by Communication Resource
Company is hereby accepted, and the City Manager is authorize
execute the agreement with Communication Resources Company fo
communication consult ant services.
3. That Fund Transfer No. 062 , on file with th
Finance Department transferring $14,700 from Contingency Rese
to Account No. 1-11-10-2470 is approved.
/I/
/I/
//I
/I/
I//
/I/
/I/
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
I.3 14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
0 e
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of
City Council of the City of Carlsbad held the 24th day of
mry
AYES:
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
, 1984, by the following vote, to wit;
Council &mbers Casler, Lewis, Kulckin, Chick and Presmtt
7?!L&++ d&
MARY H. YASLER, Mayor
ATTEST;
ALETHA u L. RA~L~RM~G~~ -
(SEAL)
0 8 .
AGREEMENT FOR COMMUNICATION CONSULTANT SERVICES
BETWEEN THE CITY OF CARLSBAD AND COMMUNICATION
RESOURCES COMPANY (CRC)
THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into as of the
day of ? 19 f by and between the CITY OF
CARLSEAD, a municipal corporation, hereinafter referred to as
"City," and Communication Resources Company (CRC) hereinafter
referred to as "Consultant .I1
RECITALS
City requires the services of Consultant to provide
communication consultant services; and
Consultant possesses the necessary skills and
qualifications to provide the services required by City;
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of these recitals and
the mutual covenants contained herein, City and Consultant agree
as follows:
(1) CONSULTANT'S OBLIGATIONS
The Consultant shall perform an analysis of the City's
telephone system and usage for the purpose of providing City with
appropriate recommendations to assure that satisfactory
telecommunications services are provided for the City Hall
complex including all locations which are currently used as City
facilities. Also to be considered is the new safety center
facility to be built in the next few years.
The Consultant will perform all functions necessary to
determine which communication system or systems offer the City
maximum cost effectiveness and best service arrangements. The
scope of such services will include all services, studies,
planning, and analysis as detailed within the CRC proposal dated
July 18, 1983.
0 e
(2) CITY OBLIGATIONS
The City shall provide Consultant with information and
assistance as detailed in Consultant's proposal dated 3uly 18,
1983.
(3) PROGRESS AND COMPLETION
The work under this contract will begin within 10 days afte
receipt of notification to proceed by the City and be completed
within 12 weeks of that date at which time a preliminary report
covering initial findings will be submitted to City. Following
Council approval of the report, Consultant shall proceed with Pha
11 (Competitive Bidding) if so directed by the Council.
Subsequently, Council approval shall be required before Consultan
proceeds with Phase I11 (Implementation Supervision). Each Phase
is further defined in Consultant's proposal dated 3uly 18, 1983.
If all three phases of the project are approved, completion of th
entire project shall be completed within one (1) year.
(4) FEES TO BE PAID TO CONSULTANT
The total cost oayable for Phase I is $7,100; total cost fo
Phase 11 would be $3,500; and total cost for Phase 111 would be
$4,100.
(5) PAYMENT OF FEES
Consultant shall bill City monthly and be paid monthly as
time is expended. Final payment for each phase of the contract
shall be paid after Council acceptance of the work.
0 a
(6) CHANGES IN WORK
If, in the course of this contract, changes seem merited by
the Consultant or the City, and informal consultations with the
other party indicate that a change in the conditions of the
contract is warranted, the Consultant or the City may request a
change in contract. Such changes shall be processed by the City
the following manner: A letter outlining the required changes
shall be forwarded to the City or Consultant to inform them of th
proposed changes. After reaching mutual agreement on the changes
the proposed changes shall be prepared by the City and approved b:
the City Council. Council approved changes which expand the stud
cover other locations, or require additional activities beyond th,
stipulated shall be billed to City at the rate of $85.00 per hour
(7) The Consultant warrants that their firm has not employed or
retained any company or person, other than a bona fide employee
working for the Consultant, to solicit or secure this agreement,
and that Consultant has not paid or agreed to pay any company or
person, other than a bona fide employee, any fee, commission,
percentage, brokerage fee, gift, or any other consideration
contingent upon, or resulting from, the award or making this
agreement. Consultant also warrants for breach or violation of
this warranty, the City shall have the right to annul this
agreement without liability, or, in its discretion, to deduct froi
the agreement price or consideration, or otherwise recover, the
full amount of such fee, commission, percentage, brokerage fee,
gift or contingent fee.
0 m .
(8) NONDISCRIMINATION CLAUSE
The Consultant shall comply with the State and Federal
Ordinances regarding nondiscrimination.
(9) TERMINATION OF CONTRACT
In the event of the Consultant's failure to prosecute,
deliver, or perform the work as provided for in this contract, thc
City may terminate this contract for nonperformance by notifying
the Consultant by certified mail of the termination of the
contract. The Consultant, thereupon, has five working days to
deliver said documents owned by the City and all work in progress
to the City. The City shall make a determination of fact based
upon the documents delivered to City of the percentage of work
which the Consultant has performed which is usable and of worth tc
the City in having the contract completed. Based upon that findii
as reported to the City Council, the Council shall determine the
final payment of the contract. Final payment shall be in
compliance with the Code of Federal Regulations.
(IO) DISPUTES
If a dispute should arise regarding the performance of work
under this agreement, the following procedure shall be used to
resolve any question of fact or interpretation not otherwise
settled by agreement between parties. Such questions, if they
become identified as a part of a dispute among persons operating
under the provisions of this contract, shall be reduced to writin
by the principal of the Consultant or the City. A copy of such
documented dispute shall be forwarded to both parties involved
along with recommended methods of resolution which would be of
benefit to both parties. The City or principal receiving the
0 e .
letter shall reply to the letter along with a recommended method
resolution within ten days. If the resolution thus obtained is
unsatisfactory to the aggrieved party, a letter outlining the
dispute shall be forwarded to the City Council for their resoluti(
through the office of the City Manager. The City Council may the
opt to consider the directed solution to the problem, In such
cases, the action of the City Council shall be binding upon the
parties involved, although nothing in this procedure shall prohib
the parties seeking remedies available to them at law,
(11) STATUS OF THE CONSULTANT
The Consultant shall perform the services provided for here
in Consultant's own way as an independent contractor and in pursu
of Consultant's Independent calling, and not as an employee of thl
City. Consultant shall be under control of the City only as to t
result to be accomplished and the personnel assigned to the
project.
(12) HOLD HARMLESS AGREEMENT
The City, its agents, officers and employees shall not be
liable for any claims, liabilities, penalties, fines, or any dama
to goods, properties, or effects of any person whatever, nor for
personal injuries or death caused by, or resulting from, or claimc
to have been caused by, or resulting from, any act or omission of
Consultant or Consultant's agents, employees or representatives.
Consultant agrees to defend, indemnify and save free and harmless
the City and its authorized agents, officers, and employees again
any of the foregoing liabilities or claims of any kind and any co
and expense that is incurred by the City on account of any of the
foregoing liabilities, unless the liability or claim is due, or
arises out of, solely to the City's negligence.
Y a m
1
(13) ASSIGNMENT OF CONTRACT
The Consultant shall not assign this contract or any part
thereof or any monies due thereunder without the prior written
consent of the City.
(14) VERBAL AGREEMENT OR CONVERSATION
No verbal agreement or conversation with any officer, agent
or employee of the City, either before, during, or after the
execution of this contract, shall affect or modify any of the ter
or obligations herein contained nor such verbal agreement or
conversation entitle the Consultant to any additional payment
whatsoever under the terms of this contract.
(15) SUCCESSORS OR ASSIGNS
Subject to the provisions of paragraph (181, Hold Harmless
Agreement, all terms, conditions, and provisions hereof shall
insure to and shall bind each of the parties hereto, and each of
their respective heirs, executors, administrators, successors and
assigns.
(16) EFFECTIVE DATE
This agreement shall be effective on and from the day and
year first above written.
m b
1
(17) CONFLICT OF INTEREST
The Consultant shall file a conflict of interest statement
with the City Clerk of the City of Carlsbad. The Consultant shal
report investments or interests in real property in the City of
Carl sbad.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, we have hereunto set our hands and seals.
CITY OF CARLSBAD
By
City Manager
Title
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
City Clerk Assistant City Attorney