05-06-11 BPU RPT 07 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

W A F E R E N E R G Y 4 1 F E RIVERSIDE PUBLIC UTILITIES Board Memorandum PUBLIC UTILITIES BOARD OF PUBLIC UTILITIES DATE: May 6, 2011 ITEM NO: 7 SUBJECT: LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE AT VARIOUS PUBLIC UTILITIES PROPERTIES — APPROVAL OF AGREEMENT WITH MARIPOSA LANDSCAPES, INC. ISSUE: That the Board of Public Utilities consider approval of an Agreement with Mariposa Landscapes, Inc., for landscape maintenance services at various Public Utilities properties, RFP No. 1242. RECOMMENDATIONS: That the Board of Public Utilities: 1. Approve an Agreement for General Landscape Maintenance at Various Public Utilities Properties, RFP No. 1242, with Mariposa Landscapes, Inc. of Irwindale, California from July 1, 2011 to June 30, 2013 in the amount of$228,092.67 per year; and 2. Authorize the expenditure of$228,092.67 for the first year of the contract. BACKGROUND: The Riverside Public Utilities Department (RPU) has 85 properties located in San Bernardino and Riverside Counties which require various degrees of general landscape maintenance and irrigation repairs on a weekly, monthly and quarterly basis. This work is performed by a private contractor, with the current contract expiring on June 30, 2011. The initial term of the proposed contract with Mariposa Landscapes, Inc. is for two (2) years from July 1, 2011 and expiring on June 30, 2013. The contract may be extended annually by mutual agreement for three additional one-year terms. Should the option to renew for additional years be exercised, the City and Contractor shall negotiate any and all price modifications, using the Consumer Price Index (CPI) as a basis. A Request for Proposals (RFP) was issued in March 2011. Staff proceeded with a RFP rather than the typical bidding process as allowed under the City's purchasing procedures (Resolution 21182, Section 201(i)}, which allows the City to proceed by way of an RFP instead of a Request for Bids, if the City's Purchasing Services Manager determines that it is in the best interests of the City to do so. Here, the Purchasing Services Manager has made such determination. Proposals were received and opened on March 31, 2011. Nine proposals were received from various contractors and are summarized below on a per year cost basis. Six proposals were deemed non responsive because they did not submit all required documentation with their proposals. Staff evaluated the remaining three proposals and determined that Mariposa Landscapes, Inc. had the best proposal that met all of the requirements of the specifications.