HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 11 - Landscape Management Servicest tl
I I SEL eK.
MEMO TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: ROGER NELSON, CITY MANAGER /,
MEETING DATE: MARCH 15, 2005
SUBJECT: APPROVAL OF AN ANNUAL CONTRACT FOR LANDSCAPE
MANAGEMENT SERVICES FOR THE PARKS AND
RECREATION DEPARTMENT
RECOMMENDATION:
City Council to consider a contract award to O'Donnell's Landscape Service, Inc. as
primary contractor and to VMC Landscape Services as secondary contractor to establish
an annual contract for landscape management services to be rendered on a scheduled
basis. The total annual cost will be limited to the budgeted amount for this service.
Attached is the bid tabulation for review.
FUNDING SOURCE:
Funds for this service were budgeted in account 100-44540-312-3 General Fund/
Professional Services/ Park Maintenance and will be limited to the budgeted amount for
this service.
BACKGROUND:
Bids were taken in accordance with Local Government Code Chapter 252, Subchapter
B, Section 252.021 (a) and Section 252.041 (a). The bid advertisement posted in the
Fort Worth Star Telegram and the Grapevine Sun on February 3, 2005 and February 10,
2005. Staff issued bid documents to thirteen contractors with six contractors responding.
The invitation requested fixed annual pricing for landscape management services such
as mowing, litter removal and chemical treatments of city facilities, parks, and roadways
on a fixed service schedule. The bid specifications stated that the recommendation for
the award would be based on the best overall value for the City and included
considerations such as price, references, experience, equipment, professionalism and
several other factors. The bid specifications specify a one-year contract with options to
renew for four additional one-year periods. Attached is a comparison of the two lowest
bids based on the award recommendation criteria and a bid tabulation of all contractors
submitting bids.
The lowest price received was from Landscape Consultants of Texas. Landscape
Consultants is located in Houston, Texas and currently does not have contracts in the
North Texas area. All references submitted were from the Houston area. The total
annual price submitted was $272,648.00.
March 2, 2005 (4:35PM)
This total was $158,738.93 below the next lowest bid and $286,752.00 below the
amount paid for this service during the last budget year. Staff contacted four of the
references in Houston to verify service. The references included the Cities of Sugar
Land, Bellaire, Missouri City and West University Place. Of these references, Staff
received a number of comments that this vendor did not provide satisfactory service.
Comments included not wearing appropriate uniforms, poor turf maintenance, inability to
meet contract schedules, and repeated requests to re -mow certain areas. Three of the
four references indicated that this vendor failed to meet contract schedules. In addition,
this vendor does not currently have any mowing equipment in the North Texas area and,
therefore, the condition and type of equipment as specified in the bid could not be
verified. In addition, this vendor stated in telephone conversations that equipment would
have to be purchased in order to service the contract.
The next lowest bid was received from O'Donnell's Landscape Service, Inc. The total
annual price submitted was $431,386.93. This vendor is located in Southlake, Texas
and currently has contracts with the Cities of Southlake, Colleyville and Euless as well
as the Saginaw and Northwest Independent School Districts. Staff contacted these
references and received good to excellent comments from the four references given. In
addition, Staff also checked a reference from the City of Hurst that was known to have a
contract with O'Donnell's. Hurst Staff indicated they did have a problem with this
contractor and decided not to renew the contract. Upon investigation, however, it was
determined that the unsatisfactory service was performed by another company
(Vaughan's) that O'Donnell's had purchased and that the problems were transitional and
have since been corrected. Parks Staff met with all key staff at O'Donnell's and
inspected the equipment to be used to service the contract. Staff is satisfied that this
company meets all of the requirements specified in the invitation to bid.
The third lowest bid received was from VMC Landscape located in Dallas. Council has
awarded the contract to this vendor for the past five years and VMC has performed
excellent service during that period. The total annual price submitted was $558,364.48.
This price is consistent with the amount paid for the service last year. This vendor met
all of the requirements and specifications of the bid invitation.
Considering the significant difference in price of the Landscape Consultants of Texas
bid, the inconsistency of the price compared with previous years, the inability of Staff to
confirm satisfactory service from the references submitted, the lack of any contracts in
the North Texas area and the inability to inspect equipment, Staff recommends that this
vendor not be awarded a contract for this service.
Because the O'Donnell's bid represents an annual savings of $125,929.73 ($629,638.65
over the life of the contract), and because references and other criteria submitted by
O'Donnell's met the requirements specified in the bid invitation, it is recommended that
this vendor be awarded the primary contract for this service.
March 9, 2005 (2:49PM)
In addition, to insure the availability of service, Staff also recommends that a contract
also be awarded to VMC Landscape Consultants as secondary vendor for the requested
services. The secondary contract would only be used if the primary contractor could not
fulfill the requirements of the contract.
Staff recommends approval.
CID
March 2, 2005 (4:35PM)
MEMORANDUM City of Grapevine, Texas
TO: Charles Dent, Purchasing Agent
FROM: Kevin Mitchell, Park Superintendent
DATE: February 28, 2005
SUBJECT: Bid 218-2005 Landscape Management Services Contract Justification
Mr. Dent, listed is the process that was followed to make the recommendation on the contract for
Landscape Management Services. The lowest 2 bidders were considered for the "Best Value"
Bid Landscape Consultants of Texas and O'Donnell's Landscape Services Inc... Both vendors
were contacted on February 23, 2005 to set a time to view shop and equipment per the
specifications in the bid document. References were called regarding both vendors, a vendor
reference check sheet was used and findings documented (attached). Site visits were made
February 24, 2005 during our vendor visit we asked questions and documented answers on a
Landscape Maintenance Contract Question sheet (attachment). We also requested to view all
equipment that the vendors submitted in there bid packet.
O'Donnell's Landscape Services Inc.:
Douglas Arendt Contract Administrator and I, interviewed references and visited the offices and
shop areas of O'Donnell's Landscape Services February 24, 2005. We met with all key staff and
discussed the contract parameters to include staffing levels (over 100 at peak season) work
scheduling, community involvement, accessibility of key management staff, client /contractor
communication along with quality control methods (all properties inspected by Client Manager on
a weekly basis). Also discussed was their herbicide program (in-house applications), Color
planting/change-outs, shrub and ground cover maintenance, litter removal, and Ozone work
days. We inspected the available fleet of equipment to make sure it would service the contract
and found it very acceptable (in-house mechanic). Upon our reference checks, fleet inspection,
and the evaluation of the 21 items on the best value criteria it is our recommendation to accept
the bid from O'Donnell Landscape Services on the following basis.
Best Value criteria attached (Dq. 8 of specifications): O'Donnell's Landscape Services Inc.
a.
Total bid pricing, including life cycle costs
Bid pricing seems justified based on the fact that all
determined by published data (Low bids
services performed are done "in-house" and not
may be excluded if in the opinion of City staff
subcontracted out...
the pricing is too low for the material or
service to be performed.
b.
Any special need or requirements of the
Very good, no complaints from references.
City.
c.
Results or demonstrations or tests samples
N/A
(if needed/applicable).
d.
Lead time/delivery dates.
Good
e.
The City's experience with the products or
N/A
services BID.
f.
The Vendors past performance records with
N/A
the City.
g.
The City's evaluation of the Vendors ability.
City is satisfied vendor has the ability to service the
contract per the specifications.
h.
Maintenance, Service, Warranties, and
N/A
Support Factors.
i.
Completeness and adequacy of BID
Very good. Professional package.
responses.
j.
Terms and Discounts.
N/A
k.
Estimated costs of Supplies, Maintenance,
N/A
Storage, etc.
I.
Minimum of Five (5) Years Verifiable
4 years as O'Donnell Landscape, Owner and
Experience on Projects of Similar Size and
management has over 10 years experience in the
Type.
industry with other companies.
m.
Minimum of Three (3) Qualified References.
All references checked out very good.
n.
Proof of Workers Compensation Insurance.
Insurance provided as specified.
(ALL EMPLOYEES -AUDITED REPORT)
o.
Proof of General Liability Insurance.
Insurance provided as specified.
(Minimum $2,000,000 -AAA Rated)
p.
Cleanly Uniformed Employees (ALL
Site visit showed all staff uniformed properly and
EMPLOYEES)
references validated.
q.
Well Maintained Equipment (Safety) &
On site visit of vendor's facilities all equipment listed in
Vehicles (Clearly marked with Company
the bid package was verified. All equipment appeared
Name and Logo & Phone #.
new and clean.
r.
Accessibility of Key Management
City was provided all necessary information during
(Ownership) and or Site Manager. (24/7)
meeting with Key staff. Owner and managers all hands
on in operation of business.
s.
Flexibility and Willingness to Meet City
All references concur a flexible and willingness to meet
Schedules and Demands.
schedule and demands requested.
t.
Criminal Background Checks Conducted.
N/A
(ALL FULL TIME EMPLOYEES)
u.
Professional Image Presented to the Public.
All references stated O'Donnell's presented a
professional image to the public.
References: O'Donnell's Landscape Services Inc.
Saginaw Independent School District:
Currently under contract for'the past (2) years and just renewed for an additional (3) years.
Maintains 500 acres of school property. Contractor met all contractual schedules, flexible in
meeting special needs or unscheduled requests. Contractor is prompt in addressing contractual
issues (same day). All staff cleanly uniformed with a professional public image. Quality of all
work is very good. On a scale of 1 to 10 contractor was given a, 7.5/8.0 rating by the School
District.
Northwest Independent School District:
Currently under contract for (1) year. Maintains in excess of 230 acres of school property, along
with all shrub and ground cover maintenance at the schools facilities. When the contractor took
over the School District athletic fields they were in bad shape, contractor implemented a turf
maintenance program and has brought them into good playable shape. Contractor has met all
contractual schedules, flexible in meeting special needs or unscheduled requests. Any
contractual issues were addressed promptly (same day). All staff presented a clean public image
and service equipment is clean, safe, clearly marked and had company name, logo and phone
number. School District has had no major issues with the contractor. On a scale of 1 to 10 the
contractor was given a 9.0/10.00 rating by the School District.
City of Colleyville, Texas:
Currently under contract for (1) year. Maintains 65 acres to include City parks, facilities, medians
and ROW's. Contractor maintains all shrub and ground cover throughout the City to include
pruning, shaping, weeding, mulching and fertilization. Seasonal planting/color change -out (3 to 4
per year) are done by the contractor to include bed prep, mulching, weeding and seasonal
fertilization. Contractor provides a complete herbicide program to include pre/post emergents,
nut sedge, grassy weed applications along with a roadside and ROW herbicide program. All
staff presented a clean public image and all equipment was clean, safe and properly marked.
Contractor is meeting all contractual schedules, flexible in meeting special needs or unscheduled
requests. All contractual issues were addressed promptly (same day). Colleyville has had no
major issues with the contractor. On a scale of 1 to 10 the City gave the contractor a rating of
7.5.
City of Southlake, Texas:
Currently under contract for the past (4) years. Maintains over 300 acres to include parks,
medians, and ROW'S. Contractor meet all contractual schedules and was flexible in meeting
special needs on an as needed basis (State Hwy. 114). Contractor was prompt in addressing
any issues as they relate to the contract. All staff presented a clean public image and service
equipment is clean, safe, clearly marked and had company name, logo and phone number.
Southlake has had no major issues with the contractor. On a scale of 1 to 10 the contractor was
given an 8.5/10.00 rating by the City.
References: O'Donnell's Landscape Services Inc. cont.
City of Euless, Texas: th
Currently under contract for the past (3) years and will renew contract for the 4 year. Maintains
all parks, facilities, medians, and ROW's. Contractor meet all contractual schedules and was
flexible in meeting special needs on an as needed basis. Contractor was prompt in addressing
any issues as they relate to the contract. All staff presented a clean public image and service
equipment is clean, safe, clearly marked and had company name, logo and phone number.
Euless has had no major issues with the contractor and is real happy with the quality of work. On
a scale of I to 10 the contractor was given a 7/10.00 rating by the City.
City of Hurst, Texas:
Staff was notified that Hurst was canceling a landscape maintenance contract with O'Donnell's
and was going out to bid. Upon investigation it was determined that the contract was under
Vaughn Landscape which was purchased by O'Donnell's this past year. Hurst indicated that the
contract was for maintenance of 13 different properties. The level of service they received was
not up to the standards that Hurst specified in the contract. Hurst had 2 other contracts up for
renewal and decided to rebid the current contract that O'Donnell's had acquired based on
performance issues. On a scale of 1 to 10 the contractor was given a 5/10.00 rating by the City.
During our initial visit with O'Donnell's Scott O'Donnell indicated that they had purchased
another company and that it was a mistake and they were having come performance issues with
that portion of the company.
Landscape Consultants of Texas:
Landscape Consultants of Texas was contacted on February 23, 2005 to set a time to visit their
shop and view the equipment available to service the contract. We were told that the equipment
was not in the area and all equipment was in Houston, Texas and not available for inspection.
We were also told that more equipment would need to be purchased to implement the contract.
No site visit was done based on the fact that they did not have the equipment available to be
inspected per the bid specifications. After reviewing the references provided and not meeting
some of the items in the best value chart per the bid specifications it is our recommendation to
not accept the low bid from Landscape Consultants of Texas. Only one of the four references
for Landscape consultants was positive the other three were not positive.
Racf Vahip criteria attached (no_ 8 of specifications): Landscaae Consultants of Texas:
a.
Total bid pricing, including life cycle costs
City staff is of the opinion that the pricing is too low
determined by published data (Low bids
for the quality of services requested. They were $
may be excluded if in the opinion of City
158,738 lower than the next vendor.
staff the pricing is too low for the material
or service to be performed.
b.
Any special need or requirements of the
Numerous complaints and issues from references.
City.
See justifications.
c.
Results or demonstrations or tests
N/A
samples (if needed/applicable).
d.
Lead time/delivery dates.
Complaints of scheduling and completing work on
time.
e.
The City's experience with the products or
N/A
services BID.
f.
The Vendors past performance records
N/A
with the City.
g.
The City's evaluation of the Vendors
City is not satisfied that vendor has the ability to
ability.
service the contract.
h.
Maintenance, Service, Warranties, and
N/A
Support Factors.
L
Completeness and adequacy of BID
All items were turned in as requested.
responses.
j.
Terms and Discounts.
N/A
k.
Estimated costs of Supplies, Maintenance,
N/A
Storage, etc.
I.
Minimum of Five (5) Years Verifiable
Yes
Experience on Projects of Similar Size
and Type.
m.
Minimum of Three (3) Qualified
Yes
References.
n.
Proof of Workers Compensation
Yes
Insurance. (ALL EMPLOYEES -AUDITED
REPORT)
o.
Proof of General Liability Insurance.
NO only $1,000,000 provided in bid response.
(Minimum $2,000,000 -AAA Rated)
p.
Cleanly Uniformed Employees (ALL
Complaints from references.
EMPLOYEES)
q.
Well Maintained Equipment (Safety) &
Could not view equipment. All equipment in
Vehicles (Clearly marked with Company
Houston area. Vendor stated they would have to
Name and Logo & Phone #.
purchase new equipment to service contract.
r.
Accessibility of Key Management
No meeting was set up to verify this.
(Ownership) and or Site Manager. (24/7)
s.
Flexibility and Willingness to Meet City
Complaints from references.
Schedules and Demands.
t.
Criminal Background Checks Conducted.
N/A
(ALL FULL TIME EMPLOYEES)
u.
Professional Image Presented to the
No, complaints from references.
Public.
References: Landscape Consultants of Texas
City of Sugarland, Texas:
Currently under contract for the past (5) years. Maintains 300 acres of parkland. Does fine and
rough cut mowing of property, no shrub or ground cover maintenance except for fertilizer
applications. Litter pick-up only in areas mowed. Annual planting/color change outs were not
satisfactory, poor quality of plant material and lack of maintenance. Turf fertilization was
acceptable, as was their herbicide program. Contractor meet all contract schedules. City had
problems with contractors staff not wearing appropriate uniforms, repeated complaints and did
not present a professional public image. Turf maintenance was poor, repeated re -do's and
proper equipment not used to mow fine cut areas. Contractor was made to purchase reel mower
to satisfy contract specifications. Invoices were held repeatedly to get work done per
specifications and the City was invoiced for services not provided. The City gave no satisfaction
rating on Landscape Consultants of Texas.
City of Bellaire, Texas:
Landscape Consultants of Texas not under contract at this time. Maintained 13 parks a total 40
acres of parkland was maintained. Vendor did not meet contract schedules. Mowing quality was
acceptable, however contractor was requested to re -mow areas per specification repeatedly.
Response to re -do's was poor with repeated calls needed to get work completed per
specifications. No litter pick-up was done under the contract. Contractor did shrub and ground
cover maintenance, fertilizer and herbicide applications. Constant supervision was needed to get
quality workmanship. Annual planting/color change outs were very poor, repeated complaints by
City staff on quality of work, plant materials and follow-up maintenance. Vendor agreed to
replace all plant material at City Hall for free to appease City staff based on numerous contract
deficiencies. Overall detail work on properties was not good and repeated follow-ups were
needed. On a scale of 1 to 10 the Contractor was given a weak 5.0 by the city.
City of Missouri, Texas:
Landscape Consultants of Texas is not currently under contract. No maintained acreage was
given. When under contract vendor only did mowing of properties. No shrub or ground cover
maintenance, annual planting or color change outs, litter pick up, fertilization or herbicide
applications. Contractor failed to meet contractual schedules, invoices had to be held to get
services completed to specifications. Vendor subcontracted work to other vendors without
notifying the City. When asked to rate the vendor the City representative would only say to be
very careful with this vendor and did not comment any further.
City of West University Place, Texas:
Currently under contract for the past 5 years. No maintained acreage was given. Contractor does
all shrub and ground cover maintenance, annual/color change -outs and all fertilizer and
herbicide applications. No litter is included in this contract. Vendor did not meet contract
schedules as prescribed in specifications. Vendor's staff did not present themselves in a
professional public image, tee shirts were provided, but not kept clean and presentable. On a
scale of 1 to 10 the contractor was given an 8.0 rating by the City.
U) 1 (1) 1 0) 1 (nU)
rrrrr
01010
LOIV,I(0
CN O N O
N IT M O
M O tM M