Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout7. Village Manager's Report 03/15/2011Mount Prospect Public Works Department INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM TO: VILLAGE MANAGER MICHAEL E. JANONIS FROM: PROJECT ENGINEER DATE: MARCH 10, 2011 SUBJECT: 2011 STREET RESURFACING CONTRACT AWARD - $2,310,000 Background This year's program marks the second year of our new annual funding level necessary to maintain an average 20 -year life for all Village streets. However, due to the continued decline in street improvement funds and MFT funds, this year's program was reduced from 6.8 miles to approximately 4.7 miles. Again this year we also combined both the MFT funded program and the Village Street Improvement funded program into one project in order to secure an early and more favorable bid. Bids Results A notice to bidders was published in a local newspaper. Since this project uses MFT funds it was also published in the IDOT construction bulletin. On February 22nd, at 1:00 PM. sealed bids for the 2011 Street Resurfacing Program were publicly opened and read aloud. Eight general contractors picked up the bid documents and five contractors submitted bids. The bids ranged from a low of $2,055,477.10 by Arrow Road Construction Company, to a high of $2,999,480.00 by A Lamp Concrete Contractors, Inc. The Engineer's estimate for the project is $2,177,425.00. Below is a summary of the bids. Bidders Arrow Road Construction Co. Brothers Asphalt Paving, Inc. Curran Contracting Company Johnson Paving Co. A Lamp Concrete Contractors, Inc Total Bid $2,055,477.10 $2,291,114.80 $2,544,760.20 $2,625,110.00 $2,999,480.00 Engineer's Estimate $2,177,425.00 PAGE 2 2011 STREET RESURFACING CONTRACT AWARD MARCH 10, 2011 Discussion All bidders submitted IDOT Local Agency Bid Bonds in the amount of 5% of their total bids as required by the Bid Documents. All bids were checked for accuracy. All bidders correctly signed their bids and bid bonds. The low bidder, Arrow Road Construction Co. has previously completed street improvements for the Village including the 2008 and 2010 Street Resurfacing Programs and their work was acceptable. The Village budget limit for this project is $2,310,000.00. This year's unit prices are less than those used in my estimate and the low bid of Arrow Road is less than the amount budgeted. Therefore, I recommend that we take advantage of the lower than anticipated unit prices and add additional work up to the budgeted amount of $2,310,000.00. Recommendation I recommend that the low bidder, Arrow Road Construction Co. be awarded the contract for the 2011 Street Resurfacing Program in the amount not to exceed $2,310,000.00. There are sufficient funds in the 2011 Budget to cover this proposed contract. Joel Michalik I concur with the above recommendation. Public Works Director Glen Andler Village of Mount Prospect Mount Prospect, Illinois INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM TO: ASSISTANT VILLAGE MANAGER DAVE STRAHL FROM: IT DIRECTOR DATE: FEBRUARY 28, 2011 SUBJECT: REQUEST TO PURCHASE REPLACEMENT SERVER, SAN AND VMWARE LICENSES PF1, the Police and Fire file server crashed the morning of December 10, 2010 due to a hard disk controller failure. The server was due to be replaced in 2010, but the purchase was put off for budgetary reasons. Luckily a similar server with a working hard disk controller was available from a server that had been virtualized. The PF1 hard drives were moved to the spare server, but because the failure affected multiple hard drives, the data could not be rebuilt and had to be restored from tape. The server was down for 33 hours before users could start logging back in. Most of the time was taken up by failed attempts at rebuilding the hard drives and by the process of restoring from tape. Staff has reviewed ways to minimize recovery time for this server for the future. Options are listed below in the order of providing the best protection to minimal protection. Virtualize the server Virtualization allows quick recovery from hardware failures. In the case of a server hardware failure, the system would failover to another server automatically. Other types of failures could take longer, but even if the data was corrupted, it could be quickly restored from a snapshot. PF1 is the only Village file server that has not been virtualized to date. Unfortunately virtualization is the most expensive option since there is not enough storage space on the existing SAN (storage area network). A new server, new SAN, and VMware licenses are required for this option. Some savings can be realized by only populating 8 of the 16 drives in the SAN and leaving the remainder open to be populated at a later date. As shown in the table below, the cost to virtualize is $41,900.74. Server Virtualization Server: Dell R710 $5,936.01 SAN: Equallogic PS4000XV w/ 8x600 GB drives (or $36,105.26 for 16x600 GB drives) $28,297.87 VMware Licenses $7,666.86 Total $41,900.74 2. Replace the server with two smaller servers The PF1 server is large with approximately 850 gigabytes of data (1.3 terrabytes of drive space in total). If the server were divided Request to Purchase Replacement Server, SAN and VMware Licenses February 28, 2011 Page 2 into two smaller servers, it would be quicker to restore. The cost to purchase two servers is $18,179.78. 3. Replace the server with a single server At the very least, the server should be replaced, allowing the existing server to be saved as a spare in case another hardware failure occurs. The cost of an additional server is $10,321.35. Some action needs to be taken because, if another failure occurred, recovery time would be further delayed until new hardware was purchased. Option 1 is preferred as it will provide disaster recovery options for the Police /Fire file server at the same level that has already been provided for the other Village file servers. 24/7 file and print services are critical for both Police and Fire operations. The Village has standardized on Dell hardware for both servers and EqualLogic SANs, and pricing is provided from the state contract for each. Laurus Technologies has provided the lowest price for VMware licenses at $7,666.68 (compared to $8,738 from VMware, or $7,721.72 from CDW. Funds are available for this purchase. I recommend that the Village approve the purchase of the above specified server, SAN, and licenses necessary to virtualize the PF1 server for a price not to exceed $41,900.74. Let me know if you have any questions or concerns. Joan Middleton IT Director I: \VB Request Memos\2011 PF1 Replacement.docx Village of Mount Prospect Community Development Department MEMORANDUM TO: MICHAEL E. JANONIS, VILLAGE MANAGER FROM: DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DATE: MARCH 3, 2011 SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR FACADE REBATE REIMBURSEMENT -- YE OLDE TOWN INN RESTAURANT The Village has established the Fapade Rebate Program in the downtown Tax Increment Financing District that offers matching grants to businesses that make improvements to storefronts in the downtown district. The maximum Village contribution is $10,000 per storefront. The owner, Tod Curtis, has renovated his building at 6 -18 W. Busse Avenue to address code violations. These improvements include a complete renovation of the kitchen area, an upgrade to the electrical service and the correction of several plumbing violations. The owner has also addressed several exterior code violations as part of his reinvestment in the property. The total project costs are estimated at over $200,000. Mr. Curtis is seeking reimbursement for $20,000 of eligible expenses related to his project. The Village currently has sufficient funds budgeted in account # 636.007 (page 318 of the Budget) for the 2011 budget year. Please forward this memorandum and attachments to the Village Board for their review and consideration at their March 15 meeting. Staff will be at that meeting to answer any questions related to this matter. �0 1�1 6v�-, William J. Cooney Jr. APPLICATION October 2007 littp://www.mountprospeCt.org/business/DescApplicationTIF.doc Name Telephone (day) p Corporation A.? 5� Telep >ne (evening) 6 z ?3 — i z ,u Tel hone evening) 9 Street Address Fax 9 � Street Address % = R City (,�i State Zip Code Mobile State _ T-�v�� Zip Code Mobile C f�f o R r:G Number of storefronts in the building and occupants R; 1 m Relations to Property , Ld e -, - f >� October 2007 littp://www.mountprospeCt.org/business/DescApplicationTIF.doc Name Telepp (day) �{ p z Corpora on Tel hone evening) Q 9 � Street Address Fax ^ f zo City I � k �j �t State _ T-�v�� Zip Code Mobile C f�f o R R; 1 Architect's Name & Add ss Telephone (day) fax _ Ld / ■ �/ �/� •� �t�� 6 t,+k pq COnt, cto s r's Name &,Addres rk ='7 t s Te hone day) n ' 77r'- f �s Engin Name & Address (if applicable) (/f / fax 1 , Telep nnc ((da^yy y /� © ] October 2007 littp://www.mountprospeCt.org/business/DescApplicationTIF.doc Landscape Architect's Name & Address (if applicable) Telephone (day) fax w Type of Request (Check all that apply) E� p a Interior Renovation Exterior Fagade Improvement d Summary of Requested Action � C F Tax I.D. Number or County Assigned Pin Number(s) r tc r ') f L( !� � n�uL ' L• ^ j j /° ll!'vc` #? 5g✓L (% ; E����if — h Legal Description (see the plat of survey for the property) October 2007 http://www.inountprospect.org/business/DescApplicationTIF.doc Common Address(es) (Street Number, Street) 1 i V U � C F Tax I.D. Number or County Assigned Pin Number(s) Q 11 Legal Description (see the plat of survey for the property) FK Cn p�'! FF t� _ 7 3 --j 7 ib�yl t'r•1 1" '-4 11 �� �S��V�� 1t�i S �f��C Y S W V� A 1i t_ $aT ✓ 4 �l 1 J �� iy i 1111 � s 5 4 F �t�J �1 =d �IiU�. y � : DP iNlAf raJ i �82 ;s 1 October 2007 http://www.inountprospect.org/business/DescApplicationTIF.doc APPLICANT AFFIDAVIT I have read and understand the terms of the Fagade Improvement Program and Interior Build - out Program and agree that all work performed in conjunction with the aforementioned programs must comply with all other Village regulations. Additionally, I understand and will comply with all annual sales tax reporting requirements. October 2007 http://www.mountprospect.org/business/DescApplicationTIF.doc YJUv& T14E VALEhMNd LAW nRM RICHARD A, VALENTINO Attorney at Law 14 N. eoaxe AW, MOUNT PROSMU1 JLLYNOIS 60-56 (8 VAX (847} 577 -9045 December 6, 2010 Village of Mount Prospect Ann. Village Board Members 50 S. Frnerson St, Mount Prospect, IL 60056 3I C4lil s � Irm ltl✓: YOT'1- Curtis Fa0de inaprovement and interior Build Out Program Dear Mount Prospect Village Trustees: In an effort to hopefully expedite my client's, Tod Curtis' request, I have enclosed a letter from him as requested by the village board regarding his intentions and I.respectively submit this correspondence as a supplemvnt to the applica tion already on file for reimbursement as provided by the village of Mount Prospect's Fagade improvement and Interior Build Out Program. Also, instead of using the per stvroftnt calculation provision, my client has yclEbrenced similar roimbursernents approved by the village board and will request only reimbursement for functionally and improvements matte to the kitchen, wood flooring and exterior aesthetics of his building located at 6 -18 west Busse Avenue as follows: '9'J'ood F'loodrtg: $5,000.00 Awning [Overhatig] across entire Iongth of front of building; $2,500.00 Exterior aesthetics improvements [painting and woodwork] of front of building: $1,500.00 Exterior aesthetics improvements [porch screening] of back of building: $5,000.00 Improved kitchen functionality and improvements [including new floor, wall and ceiling tiles; floor drainage; removal built in wAlk freezer and reconfiguration of workstations, dishwasher, and freezer and refrigeration units]: $6,000.00 Thus, the to�mitnte ursemcnt my ciieilt seeps is $20,000, Dote that the receipts that we s were or amounts ar in excess. o e amount we are now requesting, but we recognize that the grant is limited to $10,004.00 per storefront per calendar year Since my previous attempts to be placed on the village board's agenda have been ignored by your staff, I can only hope that this renewed request will be met with a greater level of Pte,,.. ']V- cooperation. However, since I believe it is important that the citizens of Mt. Prospect lave an opportunity to be made aware of this boards decision on this matter, i will agree to came before the board as a "citizen to be heard" if you are unable to accommodate this request. SiriCer }� Ij I f ehard Valentino RAV\ras TO: VILLAGE MANAGER MICHAEL E. JANONIS FROM: DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS DATE: MARCH 8, 2011 SUBJ: RECISSION OF CONTRACT AWARD TO CINTAS CORPORATION Background On December 21, 2010, the Village Board awarded a 36 -month contract to Cintas Corporation of Schaumburg, Illinois (Cintas) to provide specified uniform rental and cleaning services for public works department employees. This award was based upon the results of a competitive public bidding process that included a detailed set of specifications and contract requirements. These bids were publicly opened on December 13, 2010. The results are listed below: Subsequent to this award, staff has attempted to execute an agreement with Cintas that incorporates the bid specifications and requirements. To date, Cintas has refused to sign such an agreement. The primary points of contention are: • Cintas does not want to sign an agreement that limits the contract to an explicit 36- month term. They prefer a contract that automatically renews unless written notice is given with predetermined notice. The bid documents specify a 36 -month term. • Cintas wants to include automatic annual price increases based on the increase in the Consumer Price Index (CPI). The bid documents solicited flat rates effective for the term of the contract. • Cintas wants to receive payment within 10 days or apply interest at rates up to 18% per year. As an Illinois municipal corporation, the Village is governed by the Illinois Prompt Payment Act which stipulates bills be paid in 60 days. Although the bid specifications were silent with respect to the terms of payment, and the Village typically pays bills within 30 days, staff cannot agree to such a tight accounts payable schedule. Bidder Cintas Corporation, Schaumburg, IL - $10,490.48 Aramark Uniform Services, Arlington Heights, IL $11,590.28 Lechner & Sons, Mount Prospect, IL $11,811.80 G &K Services, Lombard, IL $17,333.68 Unifirst, Melrose Park, IL No Bid Subsequent to this award, staff has attempted to execute an agreement with Cintas that incorporates the bid specifications and requirements. To date, Cintas has refused to sign such an agreement. The primary points of contention are: • Cintas does not want to sign an agreement that limits the contract to an explicit 36- month term. They prefer a contract that automatically renews unless written notice is given with predetermined notice. The bid documents specify a 36 -month term. • Cintas wants to include automatic annual price increases based on the increase in the Consumer Price Index (CPI). The bid documents solicited flat rates effective for the term of the contract. • Cintas wants to receive payment within 10 days or apply interest at rates up to 18% per year. As an Illinois municipal corporation, the Village is governed by the Illinois Prompt Payment Act which stipulates bills be paid in 60 days. Although the bid specifications were silent with respect to the terms of payment, and the Village typically pays bills within 30 days, staff cannot agree to such a tight accounts payable schedule. March 8, 2011 Recission of Contract Award to Cintas Corporation Page 2 of 2 To date, all public works uniformed personnel have been measured and, presumably, Cintas has ordered garments. However, no garments have been received or otherwise accepted by the Village. No costs have been incurred under this proposed contract. Discussion Bidders were required to submit their bids based upon the bid specifications. Acquiescing to Cintas' terms would make the bid award inconsistent with the bid specifications. As such, the bidding process could be construed as unfair or biased, and would violate competitive bidding procedures and applicable law. The Village Attorney concurs with this assessment. To highlight the importance of this impasse, the Village Attorney drafted a letter explicitly stating staff's intent to seek recission of this award at the March 15, 2011 regular meeting of the Village Board. This letter was delivered to Cintas via certified mail. A delivery receipt has been received. Cintas has not responded to this letter. For your reference, a copy of this letter is attached. Finally, in due diligence, staff has contacted the second - lowest bidder in the December 13, 2010 bid opening, Aramark Uniform Services of Arlington Heights, Illinois, and inquired as to their ability to honor their bid. Aramark has verbally advised staff that they will execute an agreement with the Village at their bid price and incorporating all of the bid document specifications including a 36 -month term and no annual price increases. Aramark has also indicated that they would accept the Village's current accounts payable schedule. Recommendation It is the recommendation of staff that the Village Board rescind the December 21, 2010 award to Cintas Corporation of Schaumburg, Illinois for a 36 -month public works uniform rental and cleaning contract. Staff also recommends that the Village Board award this contract to the second - lowest bidder, Aramark Uniform Services of Arlington Heights, Illinois for a fee not to exceed $11,590.28 per year. Sean P. Dorsey I concur. Glen R. Andler Director of Public Works Director Deputy Director Glen R. Andler Sean P. Dorsey Mount Prospect Public Works Department 1700 W. Central Road, Mount Prospect, Illinois 60056 -2229 VIA REGISTERED MAIL, RECEIPT REQUESTED Cintas Corporation c/o Brian Brosnan 1025 National Parkway Schaumburg, Illinois 60173 February 25, 2011 Re: Village of Mount Prospect - Intent to Rescind Award of Contract Bid for Rental and Cleaning of Public Works Uniforms Dear Mr. Brosnan, The Village of Mount Prospect awarded a contract to Cintas based upon its bid for the "Rental and Cleaning of Public Works Uniforms." Award of the contract required, among other things, that Cintas enter into a written contract with the Village. Cintas has proposed a contract that is contrary to the terms of its bid, and has refused to enter into a contract with the Village based upon its bid and the bid documents. Therefore, I intend to request the Village President and Board of Trustees to rescind its award of the contract to Cintas at the Village Board's March 15, 2011, meeting, which will be held at 7:00 p.m. in the Village Board Room, 3rd floor, 50 South Emerson Street, Mount Prospect, Illinois. Please let me know if you have any questions. I can be reached at 847.870.5640 or via e-mail at sdorsey@mountprospect.org Sincerely i, Sean Dorsey Deputy Direct of Public Works c: Michael Janonis, Village Manager Everette M. Hill, Jr., Village Attorney Phone 8471870 -5640 Fax 847/253 -9377 www.mountprospect.org Village of Mount Prospect Community Development Department MEMORANDUM 0 TO: VILLAGE MANAGER FROM: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR DATE: MARCH 8, 2011 SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS — SELECTION OF T.P.I. BUILDING CODE CONSULTANTS, INC. FOR BUILDING INSPECTION AND PLAN REVIEW SERVICES Purpose To review a request for proposals for Building Inspection and Plan Review Services performed by the Village's Community Development Department. Background As part of the preparation of the 2011 Village Budget the Community Development Department was tasked with reducing its existing expenditures. In order to achieve the required Department savings staff proposed pursuing the outsourcing of the building inspection services to achieve an annual savings of $140,000. Following the approval of the 2011 Fiscal Year Budget, the Community Development Department distributed a request for proposals for the services described above. Due to contractual obligations with existing Building Division staff, any contract for outsourcing inspection services can't be implemented until May 1, 2011. Historically the Community Development Department has experience with outsourcing both its inspection and plan review services to private contractors. The Village currently outsources our plan review services for commercial projects and any residential projects in excess of 300 sq. ft. in size. This practice will continue under the proposed contract. Additionally the Village utilizes third party inspectors to fill -in during times of peak demand or when the Building Division may be short staffed due to inspector illnesses or vacations. Depending on permit activity the Village performs on average 9,100 inspections per year and outsources approximately 100 plan reviews. The two following tables provide an overview of the Building Division's current workload related to these services. Outsourcing inspections will provide greater protection to the Village from fluctuations in the development industry. If the average number of inspections decreases due to lack of permit activity, the Village will not need to absorb additional costs for staff that are not utilized to their fullest ability. When inspections are higher than average, the additional costs incurred should be offset by an increase in building permit activity and related fees. Table l: Projected Building Inspections (2011-2014)* Year Inspections VOMP Expense Cost Per Inspection 2011 9,100 $453,173 $49.80 2012 9,100 $463,975 $50.99 2013 1 9,100 1 $476,183 $52.33 2014 1 9,100 1 $488,756 $53.71 * Village incurred expenses to perform services in house include salary, benefits, computers, vehicles, and existing third party expenses. Projected costs assume 3% annual increase in inspector salary expenses only. Number of inspections based on previous four year average. Request for Proposals — Selection of TPI Building Code Consultants, Inc. for Building Inspection and Plan Review Services Page 2 of 7 Table 2: Third Party Plan Reviews (2010) Type of Project Number of Reviews Commercial 78 Industrial 11 Residential 15 Discussion The Community Development Department advertised the RFP to perform building inspection and plan review services for the Village in January 2011. The RFP was published locally in the Daily Herald and was mailed directly to six local vendors with whom the Village had previous experience or had contacted staff expressing interest. Five responses were submitted. A summary of the vendors and project costs is provided in Tables 3 through 8. While staff reviewed all proposals submitted, special attention was given to proposals which provided costs for inspection services which were below what the Village currently pays for these services. Primary factors used in reviewing proposals included cost, ability to provide requested services, previous experience working with the firm, references, and interviews with key staff. Of the five proposals submitted, TPI Building Code Consultants, Inc. (TPI) and B &F Technical Code Services, Inc (B &F) were the most competitive with a per inspection fee of $35 (Table 4). TPI's costs for the first year will be discounted to $32 per inspection until such time as the Village requires the inspectors to log inspections electronically in the field (anticipated fall 2011). Table 5 details the projected annual savings from outsourcing the inspection services based on these proposals. The following provides an overview of the review of each firm: Expertise /Qualifications Staff believes that both TPI and B &F are highly capable of providing the requested services. Each firm has sufficient qualified staff to meet the demands of the contract and has a proven track record working with the Village and other area communities. Each firm will utilize International Code Council licensed inspectors to perform inspections required by the Village and has a significant number of Master Code Professionals on staff to perform plan reviews and respond to public inquiries. The qualifications of the inspectors assigned to perform inspections in the Village will exceed those of current staff. B &F has been in operation for over 21 years and is headquartered in Hoffman Estates. TPI has been based out of St. Charles for the past 13 years. Emergency Response During the interview process staff questioned both firms on their ability to assist with response to emergency situations (i.e. tornado) and inspections of damage throughout the community. Both firms indicated they would be able to assist with emergencies and provided examples of previous experience in other communities where they provided these services. Staff felt each firm has sufficient experience and resources to respond to emergencies within the community which may arise. Consistency in Inspectionllnterpretation Each firm plans to assign specific inspectors to perform inspections within Mount Prospect. Depending on inspection workload, each firm anticipated having between 1 -3 inspectors assigned to the community. This will ensure that inspections are performed by the same personnel consistently and will not result in several inspectors visiting a project throughout its life cycle. Also, each firm indicated that if an inspection is failed they will cite the specific code section which the project has not complied with in writing. Citing code sections will prevent different inspectors from failing inspections for personal reasons or for doing improvements based on personal preference. Request for Proposals — Selection of TPI Building Code Consultants, Inc. for Building Inspection and Plan Review Services Page 3 of 7 Quality Control Each firm utilizes different measures to assure the quality of their services. For the most part inspections are controlled via surveys, ride - along's by supervisors, and review of customer complaints which are received. Each organization provides constant training to its staff to ensure they are up to date on current Building Codes. Inspectors will also be required to attend training provided by the Village on the use of our software systems and existing Village Policies. Selected Firm As previously mentioned, staff is confident that both TPI and B &F are capable of performing the requested services while maintaining or improving our current customer service levels. Based on the analysis of the proposals staff is recommending that the Village utilize TPI Building Consultants, Inc. to provide both the Building Inspection and Plan Review Services. TPI's costs to perform the services were very competitive compared with the others submitted and staff has verified that they will be able to perform the services as requested. TPI has been performing fill -in inspections for the Village for the past four years and plan review services for over two years. The transition to full -time inspections through TPI should be relatively seamless as their inspectors are already familiar with our processes, policies, existing construction projects, and staff. Funds for inspection services are allocated in the 2011 fiscal year budget. Recommendation Staff recommends that the Village Board grant the Village Manager approval to enter into a three year contract with TPI Building Code Consultants, Inc. for Building Inspection and Plan Review Services. William J. Cooney, Jr., AICP H: \ADMN\13RIAN\13Wdhng Inspections RFP Memo to V13 03081 Ldoc Request for Proposals — Selection of TPI Building Code Consultants, Inc. for Building Inspection and Plan Review Services Page 4 of 7 Table 3. Firms Responding to RFP: • B &F Technical Code Services, Inc. 2401 W. Hassell Road, Suite 1550 Hoffman Estates, IL 60169 • JAS Consultants LLC 1701 E. Lake Ave., Suite 365 Glenview, IL 60025 • TPI Building Code Consultants, Inc. 7N262 West Whispering Trail St. Charles, IL 60175 • Charles Abbott Associates, Inc. 27401 Los Altos, Suite 220 Mission Viejo, CA 92691 • International Code Council Chicago District Office 4051 W. Flossmoor Road Country Club Hills, IL 60478 Table 4. Building Inspection Services Cost Proposals (Cost Per Inspection) Building Inspections (Business Hours) VOMP TPI B &F JAS ** CAA ** 1CC ** Plumbing $50 $35 $35 $78 $60 - Electrical 50 35 35 65 60 - Building 50 35 35 70 60 - Mechanical 50 35 35 65 60 - CDBG 50 35 35 70 60 - Adjudication 50 80* 85 80 90 - Other Misc - - - - 122 - Building Inspections (After Business (lours) VOMP TPI B &F JAS ** CAA ** ICC ** Plumbing 80 /hr 120 /hr 85 145 120 - Electrical 75 /hr 120 /hr 85 125 120 - Building 75 /hr 120 /hr 85 130 120 - Mechanical 75 /hr I 120 /hr 1 85 125 120 - Notes: 1) JAS and CAA proposals eliminated from analysis of plan review as inspection service costs exceeded current VOMP expenses. ICC did not provide costs for performing inspection services. 2) TPI will charge for a minimum of 2 hours for adjudication. 3) VOMP and TPI afterhours will be charged at a minimum of 2 hours. 4) VOMP CDBG and Adjudication expenses based on hourly salary of inspectors plus benefits. 5) Any after hours inspections could be direct billed to customers. Request for Proposals — Selection of TPI Building Code Consultants, Inc. for Building Inspection and Plan Review Services Page 5 of 7 Table 5. Building Inspection Cost Analysis Year Inspections TPI/B&F Cost Per Inspection YQMP Cost section Per Inspection Annual Savings 2011 9,100 $35 $49.80 $134,680* 2012 9,100 $35 $50.99 $145,509 2013 1 9,100 1 $35 1 $52.33 1 $157,703 2014 1 9,100 1 $35 1 $53.71 1 $170,261 * Savings increases to $161,980 for TPI at $32 /inspection prior to electronic field recording. Table 6. Residential Plan Review Costs (Cost Per Review in Dollars) Plan Review Residential Standard TPI Review B &F Expedited TPI Review B &F SFH Unlimited (Initial) $450 $297 $900 $594 SFH Unlimited (Re- Review) 225 148.5 450 297 SFH Addition (Initial) 250 220 500 440 SFH Addition (Re- Review) 125 110 250 220 SFH Unlimited + Plumb (Initial) 525 337.5 1050 675 SFH Unlimited + Plumb (Re- Review) 262.5 168.75 525 337.5 SFH Addition + Plumb (Initial) 325 250 650 500 SFH Addition + Plumb (Re- Review) 162.5 125 325 250 Request for Proposals — Selection of TPI Building Code Consultants, Inc. for Building Inspection and Plan Review Services Page 6 of 7 Table 7. Standard Commercial Plan Review Costs (Cost Per Review in Dollars) Commercial Reviews B &F B &F (Standard —10 Days) TPI B &F Alt 1 Alt 2 Up to 2500 sq. ft. $400 $400 $340 $300 2501 to 4000 sq. ft. 446.25 550 467.50 412.50 °1 t 4001 to 6000 sq. ft. 575 700 595 525 c ,� 6001 to 8000 sq. ft. 650 856 727.60 642 Q 0 8001 to 10,000 sq. ft. 693 1095.40 931.09 821.55 10,001+ sq. ft. 760 1251.90 1064.12 938.93 each add 1,000 sq.ft. 15 8 6.80 6 Up to 2500 sq. ft. 661.50 500 425 375 2501 to 4000 sq. ft. 808.50 687.50 584.38 515.63 c r- 4001 to 6000 sq. ft. 975 875 743.75 656.25 o 6001 to 8000 sq. ft. 1080 1070 909.50 802.50 CL M 8001 to 10,000 sq. ft. 1234 1369.30 1163.86 1026.94 0 10,001+ sq. ft. Bldg fee x2 1564.90 1330.15 1173.66 each add 1,000 sq.ft. N/A 8 6.80 6 Additional Plumbing 100 base + N/A N/A N/A Fixtures $4 /opening Notes: 1) Alternate 1: Includes a 15% reduction for excluding occupant load and egress analysis from reviews (currently performed by Fire Dept). 2) Alternate 2: Includes a 25% reduction if work involves a tenant improvement. 3) TPI did not provide any discounts for the above in their proposals. 4) TPI adds additional fees for plumbing fixtures, B &F includes in their pricing. Request for Proposals - Selection of TPI Building Code Consultants, Inc. for Building Inspection and Plan Review Services Page 7 of 7 Table 8. Expedited Commercial Plan Review Costs (Cost Per Review in Dollars) Commercial Review B &F B &F TPI B&F (Expedited - 3 Days) Alt 1 Alt 2 Up to 2500 sq. ft. $800 $800 $680 $600 2501 to 4000 sq. ft. 892 1100 935 825 a� s 4001 to 6000 sq. ft. 1150 1400 1190 1050 c 6001 to 8000 sq. ft. 1300 1712 1455.20 1284 Q �' 8001 to 10,000 sq. ft. 1386 2190.8 1862.18 1643.10 10,001+ sq. ft. 1520 2503.8 2128.23 1877.85 each add 1,000 sq.ft. 30 8 6.80 6.00 Up to 2500 sq. ft. 1323 1000 850 750 2501 to 4000 sq. ft. 1617 1375 1168.75 1031.25 c r- 4001 to 6000 sq. ft. 1950 1750 1487.50 1312.50 o .2- 6001 to 8000 sq. ft. 2160 2140 1819 1605 CL 0 8001 to 10,000 sq. ft. 2468 2738.5 2327.73 2053.88 10,001+ sq. ft. Bldg fee x2 3129.8 2660.30 2347.32 each add 1,000 sq.ft. N/A 8 6.80 6 Additional Plumbing 200 base + N/A N/A N/A Fixtures $8 /opening Notes: 1) Alternate 1: Includes a 15% reduction for excluding occupant load and egress analysis from reviews (currently performed by Fire Dept). 2) Alternate 2: Includes a 25% reduction if work involves a tenant improvement. 3) TPI did not provide any discounts for the above in their proposals. 4) TPI adds additional fees for plumbing fixtures, B &F includes in their pricing.