Loading...
03-108 Public Resource Management Group03 -I ~~ ACCOUNT NO. CONTRACT AMOUNT $ 29,000.00 (NTE) PURCHASE ORDER NO. AGREEMENT BETWEEN CITY OF CUPERTINO AND PUBLIC RESOURCE MANAGEMEI\fT GROUP FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES THIS IS AN AGREEMENT MADE AS OF November 20, 2003, BETWEEN CITY OF CUPERTINO (hereinafter referred to as CITY), and Public Resources Management Group (PRM) (hereinafter referred to as Consultant). WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, CITY intends to conduct an Overhead Cost F~llocation study and Development Fee and Rate Study (hereinafter referred to as Project) and, WHEREAS, CITY requires certain professional services in connection with Project (hereinafter referred as Services); and WHEREAS, Consultant is qualified and prepared to provide such Services; NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the promises contained herein, the parties agree as follows: ARTICLE 1 -SERVICES TO BE PERFORMED BY CONSiJLTANT 1.1 Specific Services and the associated scope of services, payment, schedule, and personnel will be defined in specific Task Order as mutually agreed by City and Consultant. 1.2 All Task Orders will by reference incorporate the terms and conditions on this Agreement, and become formal amendments hereto. ARTICLE 2 -COMPENSATION 2.1 For the full performance of the services described herein by Consultant, City shall pay Consultant based on a Time and. Materials basis for a Cost Not To Exceed 29 000. Consultant shall submit monthly requisitions to City specifying the amount due for services performed by Consultant's staff and a list of incurred expenses for the past calendar month. Upon appro~ral of the services performed and the requisition, City shall pay Consultant in accordance with such requisition up to the agreed-upon maximum. PC/DIR/GTY/FRM S/A92502 2.2 Reimbursement for mileage shall not exceed the prf:vailing Internal Revenue Service's standard mileage rate. 2.3 Consultant shall invoice City monthly for the actual costs incurred. If the Maximum Fee Ceiling is reached, the Consultant will complete the agreed-upon work for the Maximum Fee Ceiling. With City staff approval, labor hours maybe reallocated within the tasks without renegotiation in such a manner so as not to exceed the Maximum Fee Ceiling. 2.4 The Consultant shall provide the City with a review of the budget amounts when 75 percent of the Cost Ceiling for any task has been expended. Consultant may request a revision in the Cost Ceiling for performance of this Agreement, and will relate the rationale for the revision to the specific basis of estimate as defined in the Scope of Services. Such notification will be submitted to the City at the earliest possible date. The authorized Cost Ceiling :hall not be exceeded without written approval of the City. 2.5 Direct labor rates are subject to revision to coincide with Consultant's normal salary review schedule. Adjustments in direct labor rates shall not affect the firm ceiling without prior written authorization of the City. ARTICLE 3 -PERIOD OF SERVICE 3.1 Consultant's services shall commence on November 20, 2003, and will continue until terminated by either party or until completion. 3.2 Consultant's services under this Agreement will be considered complete when the services are rendered and/or final deliverable i~~ submitted and accepted by City. 3.3 If any time period within or date by which any of tree Consultant's services are to be completed is exceeded through no fault of Consultant, all rates, measures and amounts of compensation and the time for completion of performance shall be subject to equitable adjustment. ARTICLE 4 -CITY'S RESPONSIBILITIES. City will do the following in a timely manner so as not to delay the services of Consultant. 4.1 Provide all criteria and full information as to City's requirements for the services assignment and designate in writing a person with authority to act on City's behalf on all matters concerning the Consultant's services. 4.2 Furnish to Consultant all existing studies, reports acrd other available data pertinent to the Consultant's services, obtain or authorize, Consultant to obtain or provide additional reports and data as required, an~~ furnish to Consultant services of others required for the performance of Consultant's services hereunder, and Consultant shall be entitled to use and rely upon all such information and services provided by City or others in performing Consultant's services under this Agreement. 4.3 Arrange for access to and make all provisions for C~~nsultant to enter upon public and private property as required for Consultant to perform services hereunder. 4.4 Perform such other functions as are indicated in each Task Order related to duties of City. 4.5 Bear all costs incident to compliance with the requirements of this Section. ARTICLE 5 -STANDARD OF CARE 5.1 Consultant shall exercise the same degree of care, s};ill, and diligence in the performance of the Services as is ordinarily provided by a professional Consultant under similar circumstance and Consultant shall, at no cost to City, re-perform services which fail to satisfy the foregoing standard of care. ARTICLE 7 -SUBCONTRACTING 7.1 No subcontract shall be awarded by Consultant until prior written approval is obtained from the City. ARTICLE 8 -CONSULTANT-ASSIGNED PERSONNEL 8.1 Consultant shall designate in writing an individual to have immediate responsibility for the performance of the services acid for all matters relating to performance under this Agreement. Key personnel. to be assigned by Consultant will be stipulated in each Task Order. Substitution of any assigned person shall require the prior written approval of the City, which shall not be unreasonably withheld. If the City determines that a proposed substitution is not responsible or qualified to perform the services then, at the request of the City, Consultant shall substitute a qualified and responsible person. ARTICLE 9 -OWNERSHIP OF DOCUMENTS 9.1 All work products, drawings, data, reports, files, estimate and other such information and materials (except proprietary com~~uter programs, including source codes purchased or developed with Consultant monies) as maybe accumulated by Consultant to complete services under this Agreement shall be owned by the City. 9.2 Consultant shall retain custody of all project data and documents other than deliverables specified in each Task Order, bui shall make access thereto available to the City at all reasonable times the City may request. City may make and retain copies for information and reference. 9.3 All deliverables and other information prepared by Consultant pursuant to this Agreement are instruments of service in respect to this project. They are not intended or represented to be suitable for reuse by City or others on extensions of this Projector on any other project. Any reuse ~n~ithout written verification or adaptation by Engineer for the specific purpose intended will be at City's sole risk and without liability or legal exposure to Consultant; and City shall indemnify and hold harmless Consultant against all claims, damages, losses, and expenses. including attorney's fees arising out of or resulting from such reuse. Any such verification or adaptation will entitle Consultant to further compensation at rates to be agreed upon by City artd Consultant. ARTICLE 10 -RECORDS OF LABOR AND COSTS 10.1 Consultant shall maintain for all Task Orders, records of labor and costs used in claims for compensation under this Agreement. Rf~cords shall mean a contemporaneous record of time for personnel;.a methodology and calculation of the Multiplier for fringe benefits and indirect costs; and invoices, time sheets, or other factors used as a basis for determining other nonlabor Project charges. These records must be made available to the City upon reasonable notice of no more than 48 hours during the period of the performance of this Agreement. 10.2 After delivery of. Services (completion of Task-Orders) under this Agreement, the Consultant's records of all costs used in claim's for compensation under this Agreement shall .be available to City's accountants and auditors for inspection and verification. These records will be maintained by Consultant and made reasonably accessible to the City for a period of three (3) years after completion of Task Orders under this Agreement. 10.3 Consultant agrees to cooperate and provide any and all information concerning the Project costs which are a factor in determining r_ompensation under this Agreement as requested by the City or any public agency which has any part in providing financing for, or authority over, the Services which are provided under the Agreement. 10.4 Failure to provide documentation or substantiation of all Project costs used as a factor in compensation paid under Article 2 hereof will be grounds for City to refuse payment of any statement submitted by the Consultant and for a back charge for any City funds, including interest from payment; or grant, matching or other funds from agencies assisting City in financing the Services specified in this Agreement. 4 ARTICLE II -INSURANCE Consultant shall provide and maintain at all times during; the performance of the Agreement the following insurances: 11.1 Workers' Compensation and Employer's Liability Insurance for protection of Consultant's employees as required by law and as will protect Consultant from loss or damage because of personal injuries, including death, to any of his employees. 11.2 Comprehensive Automobile Liability Insurance. Consultant agrees to carry a Comprehensive Automobile Liability Policy providing bodily injury liability. This policy shall protect Consultant against all liability arising out of the use of owned or leased automobiles both passenger and commercial. Automobiles, trucks, and other vehicles and equipment (owned, not owned, or hired, licensed or unlicensed for road use) shall be covered under this policy. Limits of liability for Comprehensive Automobile Liability Insurance shall not be less than $1,000,000 Combined Single Limit. 11.3 Comprehensive General Liability. Insurance as wi..l protect Consultant and City from any and all claims for damages or personal injuries, including death, which maybe suffered by persons, or for damages to or destruction to the property of others, which may arise from the Consultant's operations under this Agreement, which insurance shall name the City as additional insured. Said insurance shall provide a minimum of $1,000,000 Combined Single Limit coverage for personal injury, bodily injury, and property damage for each occurrence arid aggregate. Such insurance will insure Consultant and City from any and all claims arising from the following: 1. Personal injury; 2. Bodily injury; 3. Property damage; 4. Broad form property damage; 5. Independent contractors; 6. Blanket contractual liability. 11.4 Consultant shall maintain a policy of professional liability insurance, protecting it against claims arising out of negligent acts, error;, or omissions of Consultant pursuant to this Agreement, in an amount of not less than $1,000,000. The said policy shall cover the indemnity provisions under this Agreement. 11.5 Consultant agrees to maintain such insurance at Ccrosultant's expense in full force and effect in a company or companies satisfactory to the City. All coverage shall remain in effect until completion of the Project. 11.6 Consultant will furnish the City with certificates of insurance issued by 5 Consultant's insurance carrier and countersigned ley an authorized agent or representative of the insurance company. The certificates shall show that the insurance will not be cancelled, altered, or reduced without at least thirty (30) days' prior written notice to the City. The certificates for liability insurance will show that liability assumed under this Agreement is included. ARTICLE 12 -LIABILITY AND INDEMNIFICATION 12.1 Having considered the risks and potential liabilities that may exist during the performance of the Services; and in consideration of the promises included herein, City and Consultant agree to allocate such Liabilities in accordance with this Article 12. Words and phrases used in this Article shall be interpreted in accordance with customary insurance industry usage and practice. 12.2 Consultant shall indemnify and save harmless and defend the City and all of their agents, officers, and employees from and against all claims, demand, or cause of action of every name and nature arising oixt of negligent error, omission, or act of Consultant, its agents, servants, or employees in the performance of its services under this Agreement. 12.3 In the event an action for damages is filed in which negligence is alleged on the part of City and Consultant, Consultant agrees to c.efend City. In the event City accepts Consultant's defense, City agrees to indemnify and reimburse Consultant on a pro rata basis for all expenses of defense and any judgment or amount paid by Consultant in resolution of such claim. Such pro rata share shall be based upon a final judicial determination of negligence or, in the absence of such determination, by mutual agreement. 12.4 Consultant shall indemnify City against legal liability for damages arising out of claims by Consultant's employees. City shall indernify Consultant against legal liability for damages arising out of claims by City's employees. 12.5 Indemnity provisions will be incorporated into all Project contractual arrangements entered into by City and will protect City and Consultant to the same extent. 12.6 Upon completion of all services, obligations and duties provided for in the Agreement, or in the event of termination of this Agreement for any reason, the terms and conditions of this Article shall survive. 12.7 To the maximum extent permitted by law, Consult,~nt's liability for City's damage will not exceed the aggregate compensation received by Consultant under this Agreement or the maximum amount of professional liability insurance required by this Agreement, which ever is greater. ARTICLE 13 -INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR Consultant undertakes performance of the Services as an independent contractor and shall be wholly responsible for the methods of performance. City will have no right to supervise the methods used, but City will have right to observe such performance. Consultant shall work closely with City in performing Services under this Agreement. ARTICLE 14 -COMPLIANCE WITH LAWS LZ performance of the Services, Consultant will comply with applicable regulatory requirements including federal, state, and local laws, rules, regulations, orders, codes, criteria and standards. Consultant shall procure the pernuts, certificates, and licenses necessary to allow Consultant to perform the Services. Consultant shall not be responsible for procuring permits, certificates, and licenses required for any construction unless such responsibilities are specifically assigned to Consultant in Task Order. ARTICLE 15 -NONDISCLOSURE OF PROPRIETARY II\'FORMATION Consultant shall consider all information provided by Ciiy and all drawings, reports, studies, design calculations, specifications, and other documents resulting from the Consultant's performance of the Services to be proprietary unless such information is available from public sources. Consultant shall not publish or disclose proprietary information for any purpose other than the performance of the Services without the prior Written authorization of City or in response to legal process. ARTICLE 16 -TERMINATION OF CONTRACT 16.1 The obligation to continue Services under this Agreement maybe terminated by either party upon seven days written notice in the event of substantial failure by the other party to perform in accordance with the terms hereof through no fault of the terminating party. 16.2 City shall have the right to terminate this Agreement or suspend performance thereof for City's convenience upon written notice to Consultant, and Consultant shall terminate or suspend performance of Services on a schedule acceptable to City. If this agreement is suspended or terminated for fault of Consultant, City shall be obligated to compensate Consultant only far that portion of Consultant's services which are of benefit to City. In the event of termination of suspension for City's convenience, City will pay Consultant for all services performed and costs incurred including termination or suspension. expenses. Upon restart of a suspended project, equitable adjustment shall be rriade to Consultant's compensation. 16.3 Upon such suspension or termination, Consultant shall turn over to the City Manager immediately any and all copies of studies, sketches, drawings, computations, and other data, whether or not com~~leted, prepared by Consultant or its subcontractors, if any, or given to Consultant or its subcontractors, if any, in connection with this agreement. Such materials shall become the permanent property of City. Consultant, however, shall not be liable for City 's use of incomplete materials or for City 's use of complete documents if used for other than the project contemplated by this agreement. 16.4 Consultant shall furnish City with every reasonable opportunity for City to ascertain that the services of Consultant are being performed in accordance with the requirements and intentions of this agreement. All work done and all materials furnished, if any, shall be subject to the Project Manager's inspection and approval. The inspection of such work shall not relieve Consultant of any of its obligations to fulfill its agreement as prescribed. 16.5 Failure of City to agree with Consultant's independent findings, conclusions, or recommendations, if the same are called for under this agreement, on the basis of difference in matters of judgment shall not be cons-trued as a failure on the part of Consultant to meet the requirements of this agreement. ARTICLE 17 -UNCONTROLLABLE FORCES 17.1 Neither City nor Consultant shall be considered to be in default of this Agreement if delays in or failure of performance shall be due to uncontrollable forces, the effect of which, by the exercise of reasonable diligence, the nonperforming party could not avoid. The term "~ulcontrollable forces" shall mean any event which results in the prevention or delay of performance by a party of its obligations under this Agreement and which is beyond the control of the nonperforming party. It includes, but is not limited to, fire, flood, earthquake, storms, lightening, epidemic, war, riot, civil disturbance, sabotage, inability to procure permits, licenses, or authorizations from any state, local, or federal agency or person for any of the supplies, rr~aterials, accesses, or services required to be provided by either City or Consultant under this Agreement, strikes, work slowdowns or other labor disturbances, and judicial restraint. 17.2 Neither party shall, however, be excused from performance if nonperformance is due to uncontrollable forces which are removable or remediable, and which the nonperforming party could have, with the exercise of reasonable diligence, removed or remedied with reasonable dispatch. Th.e provisions of this Article shall not be interpreted or construed to require Consultant or City to prevent, settle, or otherwise avoid a strike, work slowdown, or other labor action. The nonperforming party shall, within a reasonable time of being prevented or delayed from performance by an uncontrollable force, give written notice to the other party describing the circumstances and unco~ltrollable forces preventing continued performance of the obligations of this Agreement. The Consultant will be allowed reasonable negotiated extension of time or adjustments for City initiated temporary stoppage of services. ARTICLE 18 -MISCELLANEOUS 18.1 A waiver by either City or Consultant of any breach of this Agreement shall not be binding upon the waiving party unless such waiver is in writing. In the event of a written waiver, such a waiver shall not affect the waiving party's rights with respect to any other or further breach. 18.2 The invalidity, illegality, or unenforceability of any provision of this Agreement, or the occurrence of any event rendering any porti~~n or provision of this Agreement void, shall in no way effect the validity or enforceability of any other portion or provision of the Agreement. Any void provision shall be deemed severed from the Agreement and the balance of thf~ Agreement shall be construed and enforced as if the Agreement did not contain the particular portion or provision held to be void. ARTICLE 19 -INTEGRATION AND MODIFICATION 19.1 This Agreement (consisting of pages 1 to 12 including Attachment A and B), together with all Task Orders executed by the undE~rsigned, is adopted by City and Consultant as a complete and exclusive statement of the terms of the Agreement between City and Consultant. This Agreement supersedes all prior agreements, contracts, proposals, representations, negotiations, letters, or other communications between the City and Consultant pertaining to the Services, whether written or oral. 19.2 Page 27 of Attachment B shall be modified as follows: Hourly Rates: Senior Team Members F 125_ hr Deleted: $iso/tu 19.3 The Agreement may not be modified unless such modifications are evidenced in writing signed by both City and Consultant. ARTICLE 20-SUCCESSORS AND ASSIGNS 20.1 City and Consultant each binds itself and its direct~~rs, officers, partners, successors, executors, administrators; assigns and legal representatives to the other party to this Agreement and to the partners, successors, executors, administrators, assigns, and legal representatives of such other party, in respect to all covenants, agreements, and obligations of this Agreement. 20.2 Neither City nor Consultant shall assign, sublet, or transfer any rights under or interest in (including, but without limitation, monies that may become due or monies that are due) this Agreement without the written consent of the other, except to the extent that the effect of this limitation maybe restricted by law. Unless specifically stated to the contrary in any written consent to an assignment, no assignment will release or discharge the assignor from any duty or responsibility under this Agreement. Nothing contained in this paragraph shall prevent Consultant from employing such independent consultants, associates, and subcontractors as he may deem appropriate to assist him/her in the performance of the Services hereunder and in accordance with Article 7. 20.3 Nothing herein shall be construed to give any righ:s or benefits to anyone other than City and Consultant. ARTICLE 21- EXECUTION IN WITNESS THEREOF, the parties hereto have made ar,d executed this Agreement as of the day and year first above written. CITY OF CUPE TINO .v~(7 ~~~ (Zc~ul~. ~ , ;q u~t~Gw~ ~ ~ `~ / (CONSULTANT) B By: _ ~ '~ii~L~i G~ Date: I Z ~ 3 0 ~ ©~ CHARLES T. KILIAN LEGAL COUNSEL /~, , ~ lr'r . ~' Counsel Title: U~-~'~ Date: ~Z ~~ U 10 ATTACHMENT A SCOPE OF SERVICES REQUIRED -OVERHEAD CO'~T ALLOCATION STUDY The Consultant shall complete the following tasks: 1. Work with City staff to define the purpose, uses, and goals for an overhead cost allocation plan, ensuring that the development of he plan will be both accurate and appropriate for the City's current needs. 2. Develop a Cost Allocation Model for calculating the full costs of providing each City service for the Community Development and Public Works Departments. The requirements of the model shall allow for: a. The addition or removal of direct and overhead costs so that the overhead cost allocation plan can be developed from a simple plan to a progressively more inclusive plan. b. The ability to continuously update the model and cost: allocation plan from year-to- year as the organization grows and develops or as the organization changes. c The addition of hypothetical service area information for future services enhancements, and the ability to calculate the estimated costs of providing the service under consideration. 3. Work with the City in developing service provisions, cost categories, and allocation criteria for current and future programs. 4. Draft the Cost Allocation Plan and participate in the presentation to City staff and City Council. Collect and document commen`s and concerns from staff and Council members. 5. Prepare the final plan and provide ten bound copies and one unbound copy to the City. The Cost Allocation Model developed shall also be made available to the City in an electronic format providing the ability to add or delete, and/or update information as needed. SCOPE OF SERVICES REQUIRED -DEVELOPMENT USER FEE AND RATE STUDY The consultant shall conduct a comprehensive review of the City's fee and rate structure with the goal of establishing a consistent and objectively based fee and rate structure that meets the needs of the City and its citizenry. 1. The review shall encompass the following at minimum: a. A review of the documentation supporting the current fee and rate structures for all relevant departments and services. 11 b. Calculation of the costs of providing current levels of City services to develop the Overhead Cost Allocation Model. c. A survey comparison of rates and fees with similar cities and with cities in Santa Clara County. 2. Prepare a Draft Development Fee and Rate Study and participate in the presentation to City staff and City Council. Collect and document comments and concerns from staff and Council members. 3. Prepare the final plan and provide ten bound copies and one unbound copy to the City. The Cost Allocation Model developed sr.all also be made available to the City in an electronic format providing the ability to add or delete, and/or update information as needed. CITY'S RESPONSIBILITIES The City staff will provide the consultant with all relevant information it has pertaining to the City and its operations including operating and capital budgets, the existing cost allocation plan and current fee Resolutions and related documents. SCHEDULE The following is a tentative time schedule: ^ Proposal deadline ^ Screening of proposals and determination of finalist(s) ^ City interviews with final candidates (if necessary) ^ Staff submits recommendation to City Manager ^ City Manager's recommendation to the City Council ^ Work begins ^ Completion of project September 19, 2003 September 22- 26, 2003 Sept 29-Oct 3, 2003 October 6, 2003 November 3, 2003 November 5, 2003 February 2004 12 ATTACHMENT B Public Resource Management Group Proposal to the City of Cupertino for: A Development Fee and Rate Study dated September 19, 2003 D: \ Aarti \ Projects \ Fee Sttrdy\ PRMContract.doc 13 September 19, 2003 Aarti Shtivastava, Senior Planner City of Cupertino Planning Department 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 Dear Ms. Shrivastava, Public Resource Management Group (PRM) is pleased t:o submit this proposal for a Development Fee and Rate Study. By way of introduction, PRM was started with the belief that to be successful, a company must focus its attention on a limited number of services, hire only the best people, and provide them with the best tools. I believe that PRM is accomplishing these three criteria. The goal of this PRM proposal is to provide the city with the confidence that PRM has a high level of interest in this project, has the very best people to provide this service, and that the tools and proposed budget will be at a level that will allow us to complete the project in a professional way. Through our telephone conversations and a thorough review of the R1~P, we believe we have developed a good understanding of the goals and objectives for this project. People The first person to join PRM after its inception was Ms. Erin Payton. Ms. Payton is the state's expert on user fee/cost plan studies, having completed more of these projects for California city governments than any other person. Since Ms. Payton has joined PRM, we; have successfully completed user-fee projects for the following agencies: • La Mirada (All Services) • Campbell (Citywide with a Focus on Development Related Departments) • Los Gatos (Development Related Departments Only) • Roseville (Building Department Orily) • Whittier (All Services) • Placer County (Building Department Only) As noted above, we have recently focused on the calculations of the full cost of service for development related services. Given our recent experience in Los Gatos, Roseville, Campbell and Placer County, we are very attune to the unique aspects of development related services in a city. Tools PRM software is written using Microsoft products. We take full advantage of the common software tools that our clients use. This has been key in communicating with our clients. We make full use of email, which allows us to send drafts back and forth electronically. This has speeded up the process - which is integral in meeting project schedules. Our fee study software is Excel-based, which facilitates making updates and changes, as requested in the RFP. Our cost allocation plan model and our user fee calculation model are linked -both using Excel This integration oi'software allows for the seamless transfer of citywide indirect costs into the fee calculations. PRM has used Excel as our software choice on all of our fee study projects. This is key, because your city will receive a fully tested model, not one that is untested and was created just to meet the requirements of this RF~P. Summary PRM believes that the actual on-site team providing the service is the best indicator of the success of any project. In addition, the comments of recent actual clients who can provide feedback on the day-to-day process of that team is the best independent judge of the potential success of any firm or team. That is why we are so proud of our 100% client satisfaction which we have. We do not want to do anything that will break our record! Please contact any of our clients, and specifically ask those who have participated with us on city-wide user fee projects about our level of commitment. We think this is our strongest asset. Thank you very much for considering our firm. Our entire PRM team looks forward to working with the city of Cupertino in this important project. Sincerely, J Bradley Wilkes Public Resource Management Group Public Resource Management Group City of Cupertino Proposal Page 2 TABLE OF (:ONTENTS cF.rTinN Cover Letter Executive Summary Scope of Services I Description of Project Team II Description of Recent Projects and References III Proposed Process, Workplan and Strategy IV Schedule Meetings Proposed Budget V Cost Plan Fee Study Hourly Rates ATTACHMENT A - Public Resource Management Group EX~~NIPLE USER FEE PRINTOUT City of Cupertino Proposal Page 3 EXECUTIVE SLiMMARY Public Resource Management Group emu City of Cupertino Proposal Page 4 Executive Summary Public Resource Management Group (PRM) is a firm focused on the analysis of the full cost of governmental services. This includes the development of OMB A-87 and full cost allocation plans, indirect cost rates, the full cost of providing user fee and SB 90 claiming services and other related cost and revenue enhancement consulting services. As a small, California based company, PRM's business model facilitates providing excellent service and quick response at professional fees that reflect a low overhead structure. Its principal consultant and owner has a long history of providing professional consulting services to local government in California. Mr. Brad Wilkes began working with local governments in California in 1982 as afront-line consultant with DMG. Since that time, he has prepared hundreds of cost allocation plans, user fee calculations and indirect cost rate studies. When he left DMG-Maximus he was the company's Director for all consulting projects, staff members and offices in the Western States. The City of Cupertino (City) RFP presents a complex opportunity. The services requested are challenging and require not only technically sound consultants, but ones who have the stature required to make presentations to a diverse group of City staff and managers. The PRM team of local government consultants represents the most experienced individuals available in the western United States. Between our proposed project team members, we have completed hundreds of cost of service studies for city governments. PRM will conduct a thorough analysis of the full cost of city development related services as requested in the RFP. In addition, we would like drawn particular attention to the following areas of focus: Public Resource Management Group City of Cupertino Proposal Page 5 1. Development Fee Full Cost Calculation: PRM staff have a long history of developing; the full cost of planning, building, engineering and public works related services. Ms. Payton and Mr. Wilkes have prepared fee service cost analysis for cities as large as Sacramento, Fresno and San Francisco. But perhaps more importantly for the city of Cupertino, our ex~~erience has also included cities such as Campbell, Los Gatos, Roseville, La Mirada, Whittier, Ventura, Burbank, Santa Paula, San Luis Obispo, Santa Clara, etc. In just the past few months we have completed development fee studies for Campbell, Los Gatos, Whittier, La Mirada, Roseville and Placer County. This recent experience has added to our long 16 year history of providing this service to California local government. 2. Cost Allocation Model Development: PRM is the state's expert in the development of cost allocation models. We have found that the accurate calculation of citywide and departmental overhead is vital in a study like this. "Overhead" is a word that draws attention from city management, city council officials and the public. Typically, customers who use development related services at a city do not object to pay the direct cost of a fee. It is the indirect cost that attracts attention. Having the ability to illustrate, explain and defend the overhead p~~rtions of a fee study to "non-cost accounting" audience builds credibility to the acceptance of the entire study. PRM entire methodology is pointed to that goal. Our approach, the desi~~ of our integrated software, our database models (described below), our reports and presentations, all work together to provide confidence in the study results. 3. Building Inspection Fees and the Nexus Approach: PRM has recently completed several "Nexus" studies for building departments which provides the city with the calculations to move from the traditional UBC method of charging for building inspection services, to what marry feel is a more defensible approach based on the actual cost of providing these services. PR1V[ discussed this approach with the city and understands that this RFP is focused on maintaining the traditional approach to charging for building services. This method is mentioned here as an option in case other firms also provide it as an option. 4. Full Cost Hourly Rates: In addition to providing the full cost of development related services, PRM will also provide the full cost billing rates for all staff position:; reviewed in the study. The rates will be format so that each category of cost is shown: a. Full Cost productive hourly rates i. Salary ii. Benefits iii. Departmental indirect costs iv. Citywide indirect costs Public Resource Management Group u City of Cupertino Proposal Page 6 5. Development Related User Fee Comparisons: PRM is currently completing the development of a statewide development related user fee database. Over 200 city fee schedules have l~een gathered (mostly planning fee schedules), and a centralized user fee database is being developed for fee comparisons. Therefore, in addition to the requested comparisons mentioned in the RFP, PRM will also have the database available for additional information. The database will enable comparisons to be made by county, population size, fee title, etc. Selected comparisons can be drawn to provide the city with an "unscientific" look at how their fees compare. As cost analysts, we know that comparisons should be made carefully, but we also know through experience that city decision makers (such as city council members) need such comparisons to provide a certain "unscientific comfort" level as they approach fee increase decisions. 6. New Fees: With the statewide user fee database, combi~ied with our team's experience in development related areas of city user fee services, PRM will be able to identify new areas of fee opportunity. During departmental interviews, we provide the departments with an exhaustive list of fees we have found in other cities. 7. User Fee Excel Model: The PRM user fee model is 100% based in Excel. The model is fully featured, linked to our cost allocation plan (for a seamless link - asst allocation data linking with the user fee data to present the full cost analysis needed), and fully tested. This same software was recently used with Cupertino's neighboring cities of Campbell and Los Gatos. An example of the software is attached in attachment 1. The example shows each schedule of the software allowing the reader to follow an example fee service (in this case, fee #34 -Use Permits.) The software is extremely detailed and accurate. However, flexibility is built into the software giving it the ability to by-pass some of the most detailed steps if the city desires a more streamline, aggregate approach. In summary, the project proposed is a wide ranging ;study of all the general fund services in the city. The PRM project team has the varied background ar~d experience to address all the areas of concern expressed in the city's RFP and during the RFP conference call. PRM considers this RFP a premier opportunity to work with the City of Cupertino. It also offers a chance to tackle a challenging project and build a solid foundation of full cost analysis that will benefit the City for years to come. Public Resource Management Group slur City of Cupertino Proposal Page 7 I. SCOPE OF SERVICES Public Resource Management Group City of Cupertino Proposal Page 8 I. Scope of Services s PRIM approaches this project for the city of Cupertino, we are guided by three ovemding goals, 1) producing the most technically sound project possible, 2) managing the project in a professional manner to ensure as much "buy-in" as possible by city departments and, 3) producing management reports that are professionally presented, informative and useful. Our project approach supports these objectives. A. Project Approach: Introduction: The city has requested information related to the full cost of providing city services. Specifically the: - Development of cost allocation study for the community development and public works departments - Full cost of providing development related user fee services - Installation and training related to the PR.M's excel based user fee software The steps required to calculate the full cost of services involve the calculation of 1) indirect cost and 2) direct cost. The chart below provides an overview of the calculation process. Each example of indirect and direct cost is illustrated. Indirect costs are broken into three levels. The first level illustrates costs to support the entire city government structure or "citywide" indirect costs. In the example below, a citywide cost such as payroll service to community development staff is labeled a citywide indirect service (yellow squares). Department-wide support services, or the second level of indirect costs, are those that support ::tall only in one department (dark blue squares). Finally, the third level of indirect costs are those accounted for within the program itself (light blue squares). This level includes costs such as: clerical support, certain supply and services, etc. Finally, the direct cost is solely the cost of the service providc;d by the "planner I" who directly interacts with the citizens who request planning related services (green square). The chart below illustrates the three levels of indirect versus direct cost: Public Resource Management Group City of Cupertino Proposal Page 9 Citywide payroll Svc Bldg Maint City Manager Legal Support Indirect Costs Depamnentwide Park & Rec Community Redevelopment Indirect Costs Pollce Dept Department Developmt Dept Agency Program Indirect Costs Building Division Planning Div Public Works Program Direct Planner Costs II Planner I PRM uses federally approved guidelines and generally accepted indirect costing methods to identify and calculate these levels of costs. The cost allocatio~a plan is used to allocate citywide indirect costs throughout the city government structure. The review of the city's cost allocation plan is the first step in calculating the full cost of city services. This document will be key to all other cost calculations made in the study. Departmental and program indirect cost rates are also calculated to determine the level of departmental indirect costs used to support a direct city service. Once the indirect costs are calculated, the data is integrated into the PRM user fec; software and combined with the direct cost analysis to form a full cost calculation. The steps involved in a full cost of services study include: Budgeting sportation 1. Development of the city's Cost Allocation Plan - (for development and PW's departments) a. Costs allocated -ensure all indirect costs are being allocated for use in a user fee study b. Allocation base selection c. Allocations of indirect costs to user fire services 2. Development of a User Fee Study a. Identification/Inventory ofall user fey related services b. Calculation of the direct cost of each user fee service i. Salary cost of direct staff supplying service ii. Fringe benefits iii. Direct services and supplies c. Full Cost Identification i. Integrate indirect cost data from the cost allocation plan ii. Integrate direct cost data d. Subsidy Analysis e. Develop a comparison of fee levels among other selected cities. Public Resource Management Group City of Cupertino Proposal Page 10 B. Work Plan: Step 1: Project Introductory Meeting To ensure a successful start,. PRM recommends holding an introductory meeting with key staff members. Of course, PRM will look to city staff for guidance for the purpose and content of the meeting and for a list of invitees. PRM considers an initial meeting designed to review the project's overall goals and objectives vital to a successful out~~ome. Agenda items for the introductory meeting could include: - An explanation of the cost plan and user fee analysis process - The purpose of a full cost study - How other cities use full costing - Example summary reports produced by the project - Questions and answers - Etc. Step 2: Data Review As soon as possible, lists of basic data requirements will be developed. They include: lists of selected staff salary levels, benefit cost detail, operational budgets, transaction statistics, etc. PRM will work with the city to develop and gather needed data in the most efficient way. Once this basic data is acquired, the cost plan and rate structures will be developed. Step 3: Cost Allocation Plan Review a) Central Service Department Review b) Departmental Cost Distribution c) Developing Allocation Bases d) Brief Cost Allocation Review Report Step 4: User Fee Direct Cost Analysis: a) User Fee Inventory: Working with city staff, an inventory of all current user fee charges will be developed. This list will include all general fund services within the community development and public works departments that are provided to the public for which fees are charged or could be charged. The objectives of the inventory is to identify all general fund user fee charges matched to the departments which supply the services. In some cases, more than one department will participate on a particular service. Information such as the following; will be reviewed: Public Resource Management Group n>; City of Cupertino Proposal Page 1 1 - fee history - rate increase history - revenue history - fee purpose - # of units completed each year - departments providing servic;e b) Departmental Interviews: With information from the fee inventory, each department supplying user fee services will be interviewed. Using the PRM interview forms, the following data will be gathered: - Staff members providing service - Amount of time: Required to complete one unit of the service Per year spent suppl~ring the service - Activity statistics such as: # completed per year # completed last fiscal year estimated # of units completed in the coming fiscal year The key statistics needed from a departmental interview are individual staff estimates of time spent providing each service and the number of units completed on an annual basis. The attached PRM interview form provides an example of the data needed. In each department interview, 100% of each staff member's time is identified to ensure no servicf;, user fee related or not, is excluded from the full cost analysis. (Optional - Buildin>; Department Nexus Studer Traditionally, city building departments have depended on the Uniform Building Code (UBC) rate tables to establish building inspection and plan check fees. A fee study can review the revenue generation of these tables and recommend general increases and/or adjustments to the UBC rate factors depending on the total cost of the building department. Several PRM clients have requested that PRM conduct a more thorough "Nexus" study that develops a new method and basis for charging fetes. This nexus method makes a firm connection between hours and cost of service that some feel is picking in the traditional UBC table method. The city's RFP is silent on which method is desired. Therefore, PRM would like to offer this more detailed method if it is a priority for the city. We are currently conducting this analysis for both the cities of Roseville and Whittier. Because the process; is more detailed and time consuming, we offer it at on an optional basis and show this as a part of the user fee range of costs. c) Financial Analysis: Once the basic time and workload transaction data is gathered from the departmental interviews, salary data, departmental service and supply cost data is entered into the PRM user fee software. This departmental data is integrated with the indirect cost data developed within the PRM cost allocation plan module. The direct costs and indirect cost of each fee is calculated and displayed for review. Public Resource Management Group City of Cupertino Proposal Page 12 d) User Fee Management Reports: All the financial, transaction and comparison data is reported in the final management reports. Each department is provided an opportunity to review the cost/revenue data at least two separate times. This ensures that the raw data is as accurate as possible, resulting in a more reliable final report. Step 5: Software trainin and implementation: a) PRM also offers a 100% Excel based user fee spreadsheet system that is not proprietary. This system has all the power of the proprietary system and has been tested in several other citywide fee studies. This user fee system currently links with the PRM cost plan system which also uses Excel, therefore, the system should be able to link with the city's current cost plan. Public Resource Management Group City of Cupertino Proposal Page 13 II. PROJE;CT TEAM Public Resource Management Group ~ City of Cupertino Proposal Page 14 II. Proiect Team: he project will be conducted by Mr. Brad Wilkes, Ms. Erin Payton, and Ms. Nicky Cass. Mr. Wilkes has over 20 years of experience and Ms. Payton over 16 years of experience in local governmental consulting, specifically, in cost allocation and indirect cost rate calculation. Ms. Cass is an expert in cost allocation preparation and brings added strength to our team. We will be responsible for the complete project. A. Project Management: The consultants offered on our project team, Mr. Wilkes, Ms. Payton and Ms. Cass are all senior level consultants. Together our team will serve both as management and as on-site consultants. We will have no junior level consultant working on the Cupertino project. Together we will be responsible for project schedules, on-site interviews, data management, document preparation and presentations. Mr. Wilkes has served as a project consultant, manager, senior manager, vice president and regional director for David M. Griffith and Associates, Ltd. (DMG) and DMG-Maximus. He has participated, managed, and led hundreds of consulting engagements -many similar to the project requested by the City of Cupertino. B. Experience: A sample of the agencies Mr. Wilkes has personally prepared cost full cost studies for include: City/County of San Francisco City of Campbell, California City of Sacramento, California City of Burbank, California City of Culver City, California City of Concord, California City of Watsonville, California City of Stockton, California Public Resource Management Group »r City of Cupertino Proposal Page 15 City/County of Kauai, Hawaii City of Los Angeles, California County of Sacramento, California Counties of Glenn, Inyo, Lassen, Mono and Marin California City of Portland, Oregon County of Clackamas, Oregon County of Pierce, Washington City of Provo, Utah County of Salt Lake, Utah City of Tacoma, Washington City Gresham, Oregon In addition to the direct consulting work representec'. by the partial list above, Mr. Wilkes also led the development of cost allocation plan and user fee software. In this role, he assisted in the requirement definition, documentation, programming, packaging; and testing of the full costing software. In these roles he demonstrated project management skills, a eadership role in the firm, and a detailed understanding of the cost allocation plan and indirect rate calculation process. Ms. Payton has a similarly impressive list of clients. Below is a sample of the 205 cost accounting related projects she has completed over the last 16 years: Alameda Long.Beach San Fernando Brentwood Los Gatos San Francisco Burbank Manhattan Beach San Jose Calistoga Menlo Park San Luis Obispo Camarillo Milpitas San Mateo Campbell Missicm Viejo Santa Clara Colfax Mode:>to Santa Monica Compton Moorhark Santa Paula Concord Morgan Hill South San Culver City Morro Bay Francisco Danville Ontario St. Helena Dixon Orange Stockton EI Centro Orovi'le Suisun City EZ Segundo Palo fllto Sunnyvale Emeryville Pasadena Temecula Fairfield Pinole Torrance Fresno Placer County Watsonville Grover Beach Rancho Wheatland Hercules Cucamonga Whittier Hermosa Beach Redondo Beach Woodland Lathrop Richmond Lompoc Sacramento Public Resource Management Group > City of Cupertino Proposal Page 16 Mr. Brad Wilkes Proiect Director Mr. Wilkes specializes in governmental cost of service studies. He has a 20 year background in local government consulting focusing on cost allocation development, user fee rate calculations, indirect cost rate calculations, information technology, operations reviews, and cost of services for state and local governments. He is the former Regional Dirf;ctor for all DMG-Maximus consulting offices in the Western United States. His areas of expertise include state and local OMB A-87 cost allocation plans and user fee analyses, information technology requirement and cost-benefit studies, project management, and rate and service cost analyses. During his consulting career, Mr. Wilkes served as a consultant, manager, senior manager, vice president, regional director and board member of DMG and DMG-Maximus, both national management consulting firms. Mr. Wilkes received his B.A. from Brigham Young University, and his M.B.A. from California State University. RepresentativF~ Experience 1982-1985: As a consulting staff member, Mr. Wilkes was responsible for approximately 20 annual cost allocation plan, user fee and indirect cost rate calculations for city and county governments in California, Oregon and Washington. As a team member, Mr. Wilkes participated in data gathering efforts, departmental interviews, and document preparation. 1985-1987: As a consulting manager and senior manager, Mr. Wilkes was responsible for all phases of a consulting project. Responsibility for client management and project scheduling were added to the day-to-day responsibilities of project work.. 1987-1992: As a vice president, Mr. Wilkes became responsible for project staff, project scheduling, and project management. During this time, Mr. Wilkes was responsible for over 100 annual cost allocation plan and indirect cost rate projects. 1992-2002: DMG-Maximus Regional Director for all consulting offices in the Western States. Duties included the direction of 90 employees, five consulting offices, and over 400 annual individual consulting engagements. 1982-2002: Each year during this 20 year period, IV[r. Wilkes continued to participate in all phases of consulting projects. In addition to his management responsibilities, he consistently maintained a list of local government clients for whom he completed cost allocation plan and indirect cost rate projects. By maintaining a continuous exposure to on-site client work, Mr. Wilkes maintained all the consulting skills needed to complete any cost analysis related consulting project. 2002- Present: Owner of Public Resource Management Group (PRM) currently completing cost of service projects for several California public agencies. Public Resource Management Group > City of Cupertino Proposal Page 17 Ms. Erin Payton Senior Manager Ms. Payton has been .performing governmental cost of service studies since 1985. She has a background in local government consulting focusing on cost allocation development, and user fee rate calculations. She was formerly a Senior Manager at Maximus Inc. Ms. Payton received her degree from UC Santa Barbara. Representative Experience • 1995-2002: As a senior manager with DMG-Maximus and Maximus Ms. Payton was responsible for the management of all complex cost allocation and user fee related projects She participated in all levels of service -project design, on-site interviewing and data gathering, computer modeling, and all levels of presentations. • 1990-2002: As a senior member of DMG, DMG-Maximus and Maximus, Ms. Payton continued to service her cost allocation clients while taking on the additional responsibilities of training new consultants, product development and other managerial duties. • 2003: As a senior member of the PRM team, Ms. Payton has completed cost plan and user fee studies for the California cities of Los Gatos, Whittier, Campbell, Roseville and Placer County. She has completed numerous cost allocation plans and special cost analysis studies as well. The following is a sample of representative go ~ernmental entities for which Ms. Payton has provided professional services: Alameda Long Beach San Fernando Brentwood Los Gatos San Francisco Burbank Manhattan Beach San Jose Calistoga Menlo Park San Luis Obispo Camarillo Milpitas San Mateo Campbell Mission Viejo Santa Clara Colfax Modesto Santa Monica Compton Moo 1~ark Santa Paula Concord Morgan Hill South San Culver City Morro Bay Francisco Danville Ontario St. Helena Dixon Oran~~e Stockton El Centro Orovi,!le Suisun City El Segundo Palo alto Sunnyvale Emeryville Pasaa'ena Temecula Fairfield PinolE' Torrance Fresno Placer County Watsonville Grover Beach Rancho Wheatland Hercules Cucarzonga Whittier Hermosa Beach Redondo Beach Woodland Lathrop Richmond Lompoc Sacramento ~, Public Resource Management Group ~ City of Cupertino Proposal Page 18 III. RECENT PROJECTS AND REFERENCES Public Resource Management Group n City of Cupertino Proposal Page 19 III. REFERENCES RM has 100 percent client satisfaction. To underscore how confident we are about our client service, we have requested, and have received positive letters of recommendations from all PRM clients. The attached letters represent a sample of the ones we have received. PRM would also like to include the following project synopsis. These projects are described because they each have an aspect that relaters well with the requirements stated in the 1ZFP. They include a large county project which requires great communication and management skills (County of Spokane), a large comple:~c cost allocation plan project (City of Sacramento), and finally, user fee projects that attest to P1Z1VI's determination and commitment to meeting project schedules end providing client service (Cities of Campbell, La Mirada and Whittier). Cities of Campbell, Los Gatos and Whittier: These projects are highlighted to represent our determination to meet project schedules. Both cities requested user fee full cost studies for fees charged by their general funds. The projects included cost allocation plan development ~tnd the analysis of the direct costs of user fee related services. In both cases the demands for increased general fund revenue required the cities to request the studies be completed in two to three months. Most citywide user fee projects take 5 to 6 months. But in order to meet the new fiscal year starting in July, both cities requested the very aggressive comple~rion schedule. PRM worked with the city finance departments and created strategies to meet the schedule. A heavy emphasis was placed on the development and public works related fie services. Existing fees and potential fee services were studied. As a result, all three cities have increased fees based on sound cost accounting data. All three cities were pleased with PRNI's ability to tackle difficult obstacles and to develop solutions by thinking outside; the norm. County of Spokane Washington: This is the fourth largest county in the state of Washington. It is a full service-county which faces budget, organizational and political is:;ues. PRM was selected to replace its traditional Public Resource Management Group »~ai City of Cupertino Proposal Page 20 cost plan consultant in order to bring a fresh look at challenges that were facing the county. The PRM contract was initially designed to address just the traditional citywide cost allocation plan. Once the initial meetings were held with the county, additional responsibilities were added. All the PRM contract additions centered on the calculation of full cost, with the goal of finding alternative methods that could be used to increase revenue to the general fund. Jail rate calculations, low security holding facilities rates, departmental indirect rate calculations, etc. were all added to the PRM list of responsibilities. In addition, charging issues related to county services being provided to the city of Spokane, the newly incorporated Spokane Valley City also pre:>ented challenges to the county. PRM was asked to assist in the full cost analysis of these county supplied services to these city governments within the county. Since the beginning of the project, PRM has met with over 15 county departments and senior county financial officials in an effort to explain the full cost calculation process and develop strategies that will ensure that the county is recovering as much cost as possible from services it provides to outside agencies and to non-general fund operations. PRM was able to establish a sense of trust and confidence with the county in a very short period of time which led to PRIM becoming an integral part of the county's strategy to increase general fund revenue in a very tight budget year. City of Sacramento: This project is highlighted to show PRM's ability to handle one of the most complicated cost allocation plan projects in the country. The; city of Sacramento cost plan has over 45 central service departments and hundreds of cost plan functions and allocation bases. The cost plan printout is over 1,100 pages. PRM recentl~r completed the city's cost plan after interviewing over 90 individuals spread over the 45 central service departments. PRM held citywide cost plan workshops to address the negativity that had developed across the city as related to the previous cost plan process. PRM was selected by Sacramento after having a previous cost plan consultant for over 15 years in a row. The Sacramento project is an example of the power of the PRM software, our communication style and our determination to tackle a very difficult project which was surrounded with built-up confusion and discouragement. City of La Mirada: The city of La Mirada is a full service city. They had particular concern related to facility and field use and rental. PRM provided added service and attention to areas not usually addressed in fee studies. The full cost of facility, field and theatre use was analyzed in conjunction with the citywide cost of servi<;e analysis. Several city council workshops and presentations were made and the project w:ls enthusiastically received by all levels of staff and managers within the city. Reference Letters Attached Public Resource Management Group ~~ City of Cupertino Proposal Page 21 Please feel free to contact any PRM client, as we ha~~e 100% client satisfaction. The following are a sample of PRM references: Mr. Gene Paolini City Manager - or - ChiefBuilding Official John DiMario City of Roseville Assistant City Manager 311 Vernon Street City of La Mirada Roseville, Ca 95678 13700 La Mirada Blvd. 916-774-5332 La Mirada, CA 90638 562-943-0131 Mr. Dave Rogers Chief Building Inspector Mr. Rod Hill City of Roseville Finance Manager 311 Vemon Street City of Whittier Roseville, Ca 95678 13230 Penn Street 916-774-5332 Whittier, CA 90602 Ms. Gretchen Conner Mr. Steve Conway Finance Director City of Los Gatos City of Campbell Finance Director 70 North First Street 408-354-6828 Campbell, CA 95008-1436 408-866-2111 Ms. Andrea Travis Public Resource Management Group ~ City of Cupertino Proposal Page 22 IV. WORKI'LAN Public Resource Mana ement Grou '' g P City of Cupertino Proposal Page 23 IV. WORKPLAN PRM proposes to conduct the project in a team approach, with each team dedicating the necessary amount of time required. As with our other successful projects, a commitment from city staff is also a requirement. Using the team approach the project will be divided up into 2 teams - or focus groups. The two teams will focus on the following areas with the goal of completing each task in a parallel manner. This strategy gives us the best chance to complete a project this size in the 90 day time period requested in the RFP. The teams/tasks are as follows: 1. Cost Allocation Plan Review Team 2. User Fee Study The teams are as follows: Team One -Cost Allocation Plan Nicky Cass Team Two- User Fee Study Erin Payton and Brad Wilkes We have devised a solid schedule and strategy to complete the study in an aggressive timeline. For proposal purposes, the following example schedule is provided. PRM will work with the City to fine-tune the schedule to meet the City's goals and objectives: Week One: On-site meetings in Cupertino -October :? 1St 1) Meeting with city management team and department heads to introduce study. 2) Obtain budgets, salary levels, staff list:;, etc. to begin the cost plan. 3) Begin meetings with departments Explain the data needs for the study Public Resource Management Group mi_ City of Cupertino Proposal Page 24 Handout the PRM data sheets already developed 4) Begin review of the cost allocation plan. Week of November 3rd: On-meetings in Cupertino -Monday - PJednesday: 1) Obtain any feedback from departments, continue communication, and answer questions. 2) Continue cost plan review and user fee; department interviews and data collection Week of November 17tH: 1) Continue to meet with departments and obtain draft fee data and begin to enter data into PRM software. Week of December 1St: 1) Project teams will provide a draft of user fee calculations back to city staff for review. 2) Project teams will update data as needed. 3) Meetings with city management will be conducted to review progress and to provide a draft look at the numbers. Week December 15tH: 1) Project teams will again provide second draft of numbers to city staff for review. It is important that this step be done before the Christmas season. It has been our experience that this time period is difficult to schedule meetings with city staff. Therefore, our goal will be to a good set of draft numbers back to the city before :his time period. Second Week in January: 1) Management reports will be developed. for each department in the study. The user fee and cost plan will be finalized. Meetings, as described in the RFP, will be held as scheduled by the city. Updates and Corrections: 1) Any changes as requested during the rr~anagement meetings will be made and final reports will be delivered. User fee software will tie installed on a city computer. As mentioned, the above schedule is an example ~~f how the project could proceed to meet the project completion deadline of January 2004. ~, Public Resource Management Group rims City of Cupertino Proposal Page 25 V. PROJECT BUDGET Public Resource Management Group City of Cupertino Proposal Page 26 V. PROJECT BUDGET RM has been successful providing the best level of service for reasonable prices. The schedule proposed in our proposal is based on using only experienced team members. Mr. Wilkes, Ms. Payton and Ms. Cass will actually be on-site working day-to-day. Our experience is un-matched in these fields. Our proposed budget is developed knowing that we will be using only the most experienced staff and dedicating them to the aggressive schedule shown. Cost Allocation Plan Development: User Fee Study: Community Development and Public Works Departments $7,000 $22,000 Hourly Rates: Senior Team Members: Team Members: Support: $150/hr. $110/hr. $ 15/hr. Public Resource Management Group uac City of Cupertino Proposal Page 27