/ City and County of San Francisco
Office of the Controller
CITY SERVICES AUDITOR
REQUEST FOR QUOTES (RFq) FOR
PROJECT COMPLIANCE AND APPROVAL PROCESSBENCHMARKING STUDY
RFQ#CON2012-11
CONTACT: Richard Kurylo, , 415-554-7536
Background
On behalf of the Citizens’ General Obligation Bond Oversight Committee (CGOBOC), the City and County of San Francisco (City) Controller’s Office is soliciting proposals from firms to conduct a benchmarking study to map San Francisco’s project compliance and approval process and identify best practices for improving the efficiency and effectiveness of the City’s process for obtaining compliance with relevant federal, state and municipal laws, regulations and codes, specifically as they relate to the City’s general obligation bond programs’ construction and capital projects.
The goal of this study is to gain a comprehensive understanding of the City’s project compliance and approvalprocess and determine opportunities for time and cost efficiency gains by identifying improvements to the process. As such, the selected Contractor will (1) describe the City’s current project compliance and approval process and policies; (2) identify and research at least three comparable jurisdictions to determine project compliance and approval process best practices; and (3) recommend a roadmap of strategies and plans for how to improve the City’s project compliance and approval process, making it more time- and cost-efficient. / Maximum Cost
$75,000
Desired Start Date
November 2012
Estimated Contract Term
The estimated contract term is six (6) months with the goal to have all work completed within three (3) months. Actual contract term may vary depending upon service and project needs.
Subcontracting Requirement
The Local Business Enterprise (LBE) subconsulting goal for this Request For Quotes and resulting contract(s) has been waived. However, the City strongly encourages responses from qualified LBEs. Pursuant to Admin Code Chapter 14B, rating bonuses will be in effect for any Proposers who are certified as a Small- or Micro-LBE. See the RFq Attachment for more information.
Schedule*
RFq Issued
Deadline for Questions
Deadline for Answers
Deadline for Quotes
Contract award intent notification
*Each date subject to change / 10-3-2012
10-10-2012 (12:00 pm PT)
10-17-2012 (5:00 pm PT)
10-26-2012 (12:00 pm PT)
11-9-2012 (5:00 pm PT) / RFq Questions and Communications
To ensure fair and equal access to information about this RFq, e-mail your questions to .
Questions must be in writing and received before 12:00 pm PT on Wednesday, October 10, 2012. No questions will be accepted after this time with the exception of City vendor requirements questions.
A summary of the questions and answers pertaining to this RFq will be e-mailed to each Proposer’s designated contact by 5:00 pm on Wednesday, October 17, 2012.
Controller’s Office ● City Hall, Room 316 ● 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place ● San Francisco, CA 94102 ● 415.554.7500

07-2009

1. Introduction

Citizens’ General Obligation Bond Oversight Committee

The Citizens’ General Obligation Bond Oversight Committee (CGOBOC) was formed subsequent to the passage of Proposition F (March 2002) to inform the public, through review and report, on the expenditure of general obligation bond proceeds in accordance with voter authorization. CGOBOC is comprised of nine members meeting certain minimum qualifications and appointed as follows: three members by the Mayor, three by the Board of Supervisors, two members by the Controller and one member by the Civil Grand Jury. Each member serves for a term of two years.

CGOBOC’s primary responsibilities are to ensure that bond revenues are expended only in accordance with the ballot measure and that no funds are used for any administrative salaries or other general governmental operating expenses unless specifically authorized in the ballot measure for such bonds. In addition, in furtherance of its purpose, CGOBOC may also review efforts by the City to maximize bond proceeds by implementing cost-savings measures. CGOBOC currently oversees a number of general obligation bond programs, including the following:

  1. 1999 Laguna Honda Hospital Replacement Program: In November 1999, voters authorized $299 million in general obligation bonds for the purpose of rebuilding Laguna Hospital and Rehabilitation Center.
  2. 2000 Neighborhood Recreation and Park Bond Program: In March 2000, voters approved $110 million in general obligation bonds for improvements in neighborhood parks.
  3. 2000 Branch Library Improvement Program: In November 2000, voters approved $105.9 million in general obligation bonds for improvements to 24 branch libraries throughout the City.
  4. 2008 Clean and Safe Neighborhood Parks Bond Program: In February 2008, voters approved the issuance of $185 million in proceeds from general obligation bonds for improvements in neighborhood parks.
  5. 2008 General Hospital Rebuild Bond Program: In November2008, voters approved Proposition A authorizing the issuance of $887.4 million in general obligation bonds for the purpose of providing a new acute care hospital on the San Francisco General Hospital Campus.
  6. 2010 Earthquake Safety and Emergency Response Bond: In June 2010, voters authorized the issuance of $412.3 million in general obligation bonds for three projects: (1) a new Public Safety Building ($243 million); (2) a new account for Neighborhood Fire Stations ($65.1 million); and (3) an Auxiliary Water Supply System ($104.2 million).
  7. 2011 Road Repaving and Street Safety Bond Program: In November 2011, voters approved the issuance of $248 million in general obligation bonds to modernize and improve street design to better accommodate all of the ways that today’s citizens utilize street space.

Given its authority to review efforts by the City to maximize bond proceeds through the implementation of cost-savings measures, CGOBOC has requested the Controller to contract with a qualified firm to provide consulting services that would map San Francisco’s construction and capital projects’compliance and approval process and identify best practices for improving the efficiency and effectiveness of this process for obtaining compliance with relevant federal, state and municipal laws, regulations and codes, specifically as they relate to the City’s general obligation bond programs’ construction and capital projects. The results of this benchmarking study are aimed to provide the City with a documented understanding of the City’s current project compliance and approval process and a roadmap of strategies for improving the City’s such process to make implementation of future general obligation bond programs’ capital projects more time- and cost-efficient.

The following is a sample list of regulations and standards with which capital project design plans must comply: California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)/National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), Historical Preservation requirement, Administrative Code, Building Code, Fire Code, Planning Code, Public Works Code, Transportation Code, Arts Commission Civic Design Review, San Francisco General Plan, Department of Public Work’s Disability Access Coordinator/Mayor’s Office on Disability, Department of Public Work’s Bureau of Street Use and Mapping (BSM), Board of Supervisors, SF Public Utilities Commission, SF Police Department, and SF Fire Department.

City Services Auditor

Proposition C, passed in November 2003, instructed the City’s Controller to serve as City Services Auditor (CSA). The Controller’s Office is responsible for providing objective, rigorous measurement of City service levels and effectiveness. CSA will provide oversight to ensure that the Contractor selected is meeting staffing, timeline, and work product targets and deliverables, as approved by CGOBOC and agreed upon in the contract. CSA staff will be managing this Request for Quotes process. CGOBOC willcontract with the selected firm and will have final approval on all contract deliverables prior to payment. For more information regarding the Controller’s Office, CSA and CGOBOC, visit

2. Scope of Work

This scope of work is a general guide to the work the City expects to be performed, and is not a complete listing of all services that may be required or desired. The City is soliciting qualifications to create a pre-qualified list of consultant firms that may be selected for the services described below.

To minimize duplication of effort and to allow the City to coordinate data requests and data available for the multiple projects solicited within this RFP, as well as for previous and future projects, the selected Contractors' findings and data may be shared by the City with other City Contractors, as deemed appropriate by the City.

Selected Proposer will work closely with the City’s team, composed of members of the Citizens’ General Obligation Bond Oversight Committee and the Controller’s Office. CSA will act as the liaison between the selected Contractor and CGOBOC and the departments involved in this study.

The scope of work for this project involves researching the City’s project compliance and approval process and comparing it against that of other jurisdictions to identify best practices and opportunities for improved efficiency. Through the project compliance and approval process study, the City aims to achieve the following objectives:

Understand the City’sproject compliance and approval process for its general obligation bond programs’ capital and construction projects.

Identify project compliance and approval process best practices that may be applicable to its general obligation bond programs.

Identify opportunities for time and cost efficiency gains in the project compliance and approval process for its general obligation bond programs’ capital and construction projects.

The following is a sample list of regulations and standards with which capital project design plans must comply: California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)/National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), Historical Preservation requirement, Administrative Code, Building Code, Fire Code, Planning Code, Public Works Code, Transportation Code, Arts Commission Civic Design Review, San Francisco General Plan, Department of Public Work’s Disability Access Coordinator/Mayor’s Office on Disability, Department of Public Work’s Bureau of Street Use and Mapping (BSM), Board of Supervisors, SF Public Utilities Commission, SF Police Department, and SF Fire Department.

Successful completion of the following will be established by a negotiated Agreement between the City and Contractor:

task 1: Project Management

The goal of this Task is to provide a structure for the activities described in the scope of work.

  1. The Contractor shall create a project plan that details the tasks and deliverables, provides a project organizational structure describing roles and responsibilities, and creates a timeline illustrating deliverable due dates and project tasks by start and finish dates.
  1. The Contractor shall facilitate a “kick-off” meeting with the City’s team. Prior to the meeting, the Contractor shall provide the City’s team with the draft agenda and draft project plan to solicit the City’s team’s input. The Contractor shall develop the final agenda and other materials as required to ensure the following meeting objectives are met:
  • Confirmation of the project goals, tasks, deliverables, timeline, and roles and responsibilities of the project participants (project plan).
  • Protocol for project communications.
  • Identification of City resources that may be needed to complete the project successfully, including data requests and assistance in obtaining information.
  • Other topics as needed.
  1. The Contractor shall develop a meeting schedule with tentative meeting dates and times for the duration of the project. For all formal meetings, the Contractor shall prepare and provide agendas, meeting materials (presentation and handouts), and meeting notes. The Contractor will participate in a minimum two formal meetings with CGOBOC.
  1. The Contractor shall provide the City’s team with monthly status reports. The monthly status reports shall include, at a minimum, the Contractor’s completed and pending tasks, timeline, any performance and completion issues, and next steps.
  1. The Contractor shall submit a draft survey instrument and a draft list of survey jurisdictions to the City’s team for review and approval. Based on the City’s team’s review, the Contractor shall revise and finalize the survey instrument and the list of survey jurisdictions.
  1. The Contractor shall submit a draft list of potential interviewees (e.g. name and/or organization affiliation) in the approved list of survey jurisdictions, including those involving San Francisco. The list will represent a broad cross-section of stakeholders including government agencies and commissions, non-governmental organizations, neighborhood associations, and others. Based on the City’s team’s review, the Contractor shall revise and finalize the list of interviewees.

Task 1 deliverables may include, but are not limited to, the following:

  1. Draft project plan.
  2. Final project plan.
  3. “Kick-off” meeting materials, attendee list and meeting notes.
  4. Meeting schedule.
  5. Agendas, materials, and notes for each meeting.
  6. Written monthly status reports.
  7. Draft and Final survey instrument and list of survey jurisdictions.
  8. Draft and Final list of interviewees, representing a broad cross-section of stakeholders including government agencies and commission, non-governmental organizations, neighborhood associations, and others.

Task 2: DETERMINE project Compliance and Approval Process BEST PRACTICES

The goal of this Task is to identify improvements to the City’s current project compliance and approval process, including strategies for standardizing and streamlining procedures and potentially reducing costs. This benchmarking study will determine effective and cost-efficientproject compliance and approval processes that the City could implement to ensure quality outcomes, specifically as they relate to the regulatory compliance and approval processfor the City’s general obligation bond programs’ construction and capital projects.

This Task involves comparing the City’s project compliance and approval process against those of other jurisdictions to identify best practices and opportunities for improvement. The Contractor will issue a written report that addresses the following key sub-tasks:

  1. Describe the City’s Project Compliance and Approval Process: The Contractor shall research and describethe City’sproject compliance and approval process for its general obligation bond programs’ capital and construction projects, including but not limited to parks and buildings.
  • The Contractor shall focus research on at leastthree general obligation bond programs including the 2010 Earthquake Safety and Emergency Response Bond Program and others, to be determined in consultation with the City’s team.
  • The Contractor shall identify and account for all federal, state, and City regulations and standards against which all design plans are reviewed for compliance. Contractor shall identify and describe the primary challenges encountered by construction program managers in the project compliance and approval process, and describe the causes, delays and cost impacts that resulted.
  1. Map the City’s Project Compliance and Approval Process: The Contractor shall provide a process flow map of the City’sproject compliance and approval process for its general obligation bond programs’ capital and construction projects. The project compliance and approval process map shall be an accompanying document to the above narrative (Task 2A).
  • The Contractor shall map the sequence, dependencies, and timeline for all reviews and permits required for a completed design plan prior to construction for all types of general obligation bond program capital projects including, but not limited to, parks and buildings.
  • The Contractor shall identify on the map all points of time delays and inefficiencies.

C. IdentifyProject Compliance and Approval Process Best Practices: The Contractor shall identify and research at least three comparable jurisdictions to determine project compliance and approval process best practices for improving the efficiency and effectiveness of the City’s process for obtaining compliance with relevant federal, state, and municipal laws, regulations and codes.

  • The Contractor shall identify a minimum three jurisdictions, with at least two outside the Bay Area and at least one outside California. In identifying the comparable jurisdictions, the Contractor shall consider such factors as population density, governmental structure (e.g., city, county, or city and county), complexity, geography, economy, size and type of capital projects, and other variables for comparison(e.g., those based on information from entities such as the National League of Cities, National Association of Counties, and/or League of California Cities).
  • The Contractor shall collect information on and interview representatives from these comparable jurisdictions to identifyproject compliance and approval process best practices. The information collected and interviews shall focus on identifying approaches, techniques and strategies for efficientlyobtaining project compliance and approval, including the number and type of required permits and approvals, sequence and timeline.

D. Recommend Project Compliance and Approval Process Improvement Strategies:Based on the results of its observations of the City’s current process and best practices review, the Contractor shall recommend a roadmap of strategies and plans for how to make the project compliance and approval process more efficient, with attention to the City’s political, operational, and civic environment. The Contractor shall consider and report on policy and cost implications for these recommendations within the City context. At a minimum, these recommendations shall address the followingquestions:

  1. What approaches, techniques, and strategies should City departments use in order to address the challenges and obstacles identified in the City’s current project compliance and approval process?
  2. What are the proposed ways to make the City’s current project compliance and approval process more cost and time efficient?
  3. At what points in the current project compliance and approval process, if any, can the City achieve time and cost savings?
  4. Are there any duplicative or unnecessary permits or approvals?
  5. Is there a more efficient sequence for obtaining the required permits and approvals that may reduce the overall timeline?
  6. Are there any permits or approvals that can be obtained simultaneously?

Task 2 deliverables may include, but are not limited to, the following: