Brentwood City Hall

Our home pageContact UsPrevious Page

Central Park Gazebo


Meeting Date: April 23, 2002

Subject/Title: Approve a resolution authorizing the City Manager to execute an agreement with Maximus, Inc. to provide a Facilities Master Plan for the proposed City of Brentwood Public Works Department Maintenance Facility on Sunset Road APN 018-230-030.

Submitted by: Paul Zolfarelli, Public Works Director

Approved by: John Stevenson, City Manager

Approve a resolution authorizing the City Manager to execute an agreement with Maximus, Inc. for the Public Works Department Master Plan and relocation of the Maintenance Facility currently located at 161 Sycamore Avenue. The proposed site for the Maintenance Facility is located on City owned property on Sunset Road and identified as APN 018-230-030. Cost for this work is not to exceed $61,080. Completion of the Master Plan should be 120 days from the date of contract approval.


The Public Works Maintenance Facility needs to be relocated due to its limited size and scheduled redevelopment of the current site at 161 Sycamore Avenue by Christian Church Homes of Sycamore Place II Senior Housing. The new location of the facility is slated for the area west of the new Wastewater Treatment Plant off Sunset Road. The new facility will house all divisions, excluding Waste Water, of the Public Works Department including Streets & Collections, Water, Solid Waste and Fleet Maintenance. While numerous plans have been discussed to address this move, the Public Works Department has not conducted a Facilities Master Plan or a Site Evaluation Plan. Staff believes this is an important first step in meeting the current and long-term needs of the City of Brentwood through the Public Works Department.

To ensure that the needs of the community are appropriately met, staff is recommending conducting a Facilities Master Plan for Public Works. This plan will include a complete review of the Department operations, an assessment of the organizational and departmental growth, a recommendation for future facilities based on current and projected operations, a room-by-room detailed design specification, and an accurate cost estimate to facilitate a phased building approach over the next five years.

It is recommended that Maximus, Inc. be hired to perform this evaluation and master plan. Maximus, Inc. is a consulting firm specializing in cost allocation, cost accounting and master planning for local governments. They have performed similar studies for approximately two dozen public agencies including, Turlock, California, Contra Costa County and Appleton, Wisconsin. 

To meet the public service needs of the City of Brentwood a Facility Master Plan is critical. Determination of current and future service and staffing needs will have a significant impact on the design and use of the site. Council approval of the Manager’s agreement with Maximus, Inc. is requested.

The total project cost not to exceed $61,080 is budgeted through the Public Works Capital Improvement Project No. 336-3030.

· Resolution
· Agreement with Exhibit A
· CIP Form #336-3030



WHEREAS, the Public Works Department Maintenance Facility currently located at 161 Sycamore Avenue needs to relocate due to its limited size and its scheduled redevelopment by Christian Church Homes of Sycamore Place II Senior Housing; and

WHEREAS, a Facilities Master Plan will help to ensure that the needs of the community are appropriately met through an accurate review of the Department operations, an assessment of the organizational and departmental growth, a recommendation for future facilities based on current and projected operations, a room-by-room detailed design specification and a cost estimate to facilitate a phased building approach over the next five years; and

WHEREAS, Maximus, Inc. is a consulting firm specializing in cost allocation, cost accounting and master planning for local governments and has performed similar studies for other public agencies; and

WHEREAS, the total project cost not to exceed $61,080 shall be funded through the Public Works Capital Improvement Project No. 336-3030; 

NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Brentwood hereby authorizes the City Manager to execute an agreement with Maximus, Inc. in an amount not to exceed $61,080 to provide a Facilities Master Plan for the proposed City of Brentwood Public Works Department Maintenance Facility on Sunset Road.

PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Brentwood at a regular meeting held on the 23rd day of April, 2002 by the following vote:


Michael A. McPoland, Sr.


Karen Diaz, CMC
Deputy City Manager/City Clerk


This Agreement, made and entered into this ____th day of March, 2001, by and between the CITY OF BRENTWOOD municipal corporation existing under the laws of the State of California, hereinafter referred to as “CITY”, and MAXIMUS, a Virginia Corporation, authorized to do business in California, hereinafter referred to as CONSULTANT”.


A. CITY desires certain professional consultant services hereinafter described.

B. CITY desires to engage CONSULTANT to provide these services by reason of its qualifications and experience for performing such services and CONSULTANT has offered to provide the required services on the terms and in the manner set forth herein.



The scope of services to be performed by CONSULTANT under this agreement is for professional services in the preparation of a facilities master plan as required by the City and as outlined in Exhibit “A.”


CONSULTANT shall be responsible for the professional quality, technical accuracy and coordination of all work furnished by CONSULTANT under this agreement. CONSULTANT shall, without additional compensation, correct or revise any errors or deficiencies in its work, which will not be unreasonably withheld.

CONSULTANT represents that it is qualified to furnish the services described under this agreement.

CONSULTANT shall be responsible for employing or engaging all persons necessary to perform the services of CONSULTANT.

It is understood that Roger L. Thompson will be the designated representative providing services to the City and this designated representative shall not be replaced without the City’s approval.


CITY shall provide pertinent information regarding its requirements for the project.

CITY shall examine documents submitted by CONSULTANT and shall render decisions pertaining thereto promptly, to avoid unreasonable delay in the progress of CONSULTANT’S work.

The Consultant shall provide guidance to the City in determining the data required for purposes of the contemplated services. The City further agrees to provide all data currently 

within the City’s possession specifically requested including documentation and information to the Consultant in a timely manner. The Consultant shall assume without incurring liability therefore, that all data so provided is timely, correct and complete.


The services to be performed under this agreement shall commence on March 20 2002 and be completed on July 10 2002. Provided however, the Consultant shall not be liable for delays in performance that are caused by third parties over which the Consultant does not have the legal right to control or forces de majeure. The period of performance shall be extended by the period of delay contemplated herein.


Payment shall be made by CITY only for services rendered and upon submission of a payment request and CITY approval of the work performed. For purposes of this Agreement, “approval” shall be defined as follows. In the absence of a written notice to the CONSULTANT within 30 days of the CITY’S receipt of the applicable deliverable, the deliverable shall be deemed approved, and payment shall be due and owing to the CONSULTANT. The CITY shall pay the CONSULTANT at the rates and for the hours actually performed by the CONSULTANT in accordance with the rates set forth in Exhibit “A” not to exceed $61,080.00


Without limitation to such rights or remedies as CITY shall otherwise have by law, CITY shall have the right to terminate this agreement or suspend work on the Project for any reason upon ten (10) days’ written notice to CONSULTANT. CONSULTANT agrees to cease all work under this agreement upon receipt of said written notice.

Upon termination and upon CITY’S payment of the amount required to be paid, which includes payment for services rendered and expenses incurred through the effective date of termination, documents become the property of CITY, and CONSULTANT shall transfer them to CITY upon request without additional compensation, except that Consultant may retain copies as part of its work papers. Upon termination or expiration of this agreement, the obligations of the parties shall cease, save and except from those provided under Sections 5, 7,8,10, 11, 12, 14, 15, and 16.


All documents prepared by CONSULTANT in the performance of this agreement, although instruments of professional service, are and shall be the property of CITY, whether the project for which they are made is executed or not. Use of the instruments of professional service by City for other than the project, is at CITY’S sole risk without legal liability or exposure to CONSULTANT.


All reports and documents prepared by CONSULTANT in connection with the performance of this agreement are confidential until released by CITY to the public. CONSULTANT shall not make any such documents or information available to any individual or organization not employed by CONSULTANT or CITY without the written consent of CITY before any such release. Provided however, this provision shall not apply to:
A. Information that was in CONSULTANT’S possession prior to its disclosure by the CITY.
B. Information that is disclosed by a third party to CONSULTANT where that third party is not under a duty of confidentiality.
C. Public Information; and
D. Information that is required to be disclosed pursuant to court or administrative order or subpoena.


CONSULTANT covenants that it presently has no interest, and shall not acquire any interest, direct or indirect, financial or otherwise, which would conflict in any manner or degree with the performance of the services under this agreement.


It is expressly agreed that in the performance of the professional services required under this agreement, CONSULTANT shall at all times be considered an independent contractor as defined in Labor Code Section 3353, under control of the CITY as to the result of the work but not the means by which the result is accomplished. Nothing herein shall be construed to make CONSULTANT an agent or employee of CITY while providing services under this agreement.


(A) CONSULTANT, in the performance of professional services, under this Agreement shall indemnify, defend, and hold harmless CITY, its directors, officers, employees and agents from any claim, loss, injury, damage, and expense and liability to the extent arising out of the negligence, errors, omissions, or wrongful acts of CONSULTANT, its employees, subcontractors, or agents except for any loss, injury, or damage caused by the sole negligence or willful misconduct of personnel employed by CITY. The terms and conditions of this Section 11(A) shall terminate one year after the City’s approval of the final report or one year after the expiration date of this Agreement, whichever event occurs last. 
(B) For liability arising out of the product of the professional services, Consultant shall indemnify, defend, and hold harmless, City, its directors, officers, employees, and agents from any loss, injury, damage, and expense and liability resulting from injury to or death of any person and loss of or damage to property, or claim of such injury, death, loss, or damage, caused by an act or omission in the performance under this Agreement by consultant, its employees, subcontractors, or agents, except for any loss, injury, or damage caused by the sole negligence or willful misconduct of personnel employed by City. The terms and conditions of this Section 11 (B) shall not survive the termination of this agreement or City’s approval of the final report, whichever event occurs last.


The CONSULTANT shall provide and maintain:
A. Commercial General Liability Insurance, occurrence form, with a limit of not less than $1,000,000 each occurrence. If such insurance contains a general aggregate limit, it shall apply separately to this Agreement or be no less than two (2) times the occurrence limit.
B. Automobile Liability Insurance, occurrence form, with a limit of not less than $500,000.00 each occurrence. Such insurance shall include coverage for owned, hired, and non-owned automobiles.

C. General Provisions for all insurance. All insurance shall:
1. Include the City of Brentwood, its elected and appointed officers, employees, and volunteers as additional insureds with respect to this Agreement and the performance of services in this Agreement. The coverage shall contain no special limitations on the scope of its protection to the above-designated insureds except for Workers Compensation and errors and omissions insurance.
2. Be primary with respect to any insurance or self-insurance programs of City, its officers, employees, and volunteers with respect to City’s interest as additional insured.
3. Be evidenced, prior to commencement of services, by properly executed certificate of insurance.
4. The certificate of insurance shall provide 30 days prior written notice to the City in the event of cancellation and/or material reduction in coverage or limits of the insurance policies required under this Agreement.


Personal Services of Consultant: Both parities hereto recognize that this agreement is for the personal services of CONSULTANT and cannot be transferred, assigned, or subcontracted by CONSULTANT without the prior written consent of CITY.


It is mutually understood and agreed by and between the parties hereto that CONSULTANT is skilled in the professional calling necessary to perform the work agreed to be done under this agreement and that CITY relies upon the skill of CONSULTANT to do and perform the work in the most skillful manner, and CONSULTANT agrees to thus perform the work. The acceptance of CONSULTANT'S work by CITY does not operate as a release of consultant from said obligation.


The waiver by either party of any breach or violation of any term, covenant, or condition of this agreement or of any provisions of any ordinance or law shall not be deemed to be a waiver of such term, covenant, condition, ordinance or law or of any subsequent breach or violation of same or of any other term, covenant, condition, ordinance or law or of any subsequent breach or violation of the same or of any other term, condition, ordinance, or law. The subsequent acceptance by either party of any fee or other money which may become due hereunder shall not be deeded to be a waiver of any preceding breach or violation by the other party of any term, covenant, or condition of this agreement of any applicable law or ordinance.


Attorney fees in an amount not exceeding $85 per hour per attorney, and in total amount not exceeding $5000, shall be recoverable as costs (by the filing of a cost bill) by the prevailing party in any action or actions to enforce the provisions of the agreement. The above $5000 limit is the total of attorneys’ fees recoverable whether in the trial court, appellate court, or otherwise, and regardless of the number of attorneys, trials, appeals, or actions. It is the intent of this agreement that neither party shall have to pay the other more than $5000 for attorneys’ fees arising out of an action, or actions to enforce the provisions of this agreement.


CONSULTANT warrants that is an Equal Opportunity Employer and shall comply with applicable regulations governing equal employment opportunity. Neither CONSULTANT nor any of its subcontractors shall discriminate in the employment of any person because of race, color, national origin, ancestry, physical handicap, medical condition, marital status, sex, or age, unless based upon a bona fide occupational qualification pursuant to the California Fair Employment and Housing Act.


Should any dispute arise out of this Agreement, any party may request that it be submitted to mediation. The parties shall meet in mediation within 30 days of a request. The mediator shall be agreed to by the mediating parties; in the absence of an agreement, the parties shall each submit one name from mediators listed by either the American Arbitration Association, the California State Board of Mediation and Conciliation, or other agreed-upon service. The mediator shall be selected by a "blindfolded" process.

The cost of mediation shall be borne equally by the parties. Neither party shall be deemed the prevailing party. No party shall be permitted to file a legal action without first meeting in mediation and making a good faith attempt to reach a mediated settlement. The mediation process, once commenced by a meeting with the mediator shall last until agreement is reached by the parties but not more than 60 days, unless the maximum time is extended by the parties.


After mediation above, and upon agreement of the parties, any dispute or claim arising out of or relating to this agreement may be settled by arbitration in accordance with the Construction Industry Rules of the American Arbitration Association, and judgment upon the award rendered by the arbitrator may be entered in any court having jurisdiction thereof. The costs of arbitration shall be borne equally by the parties.


CONSULTANT shall testify at CITY'S request if litigation is brought against CITY in connection with CONSULTANT'S services under this agreement. Unless the action is brought by CONSULTANT, or is based upon CONSULTANT'S wrongdoing, CITY shall compensate CONSULTANT for preparation for testimony, testimony, and travel at CONSULTANT'S standard hourly rates at the time of actual testimony.


All notices hereunder shall be given in writing and mailed, postage prepaid and notice shall be effective upon receipt, addressed as follows:

To CITY: City of Brentwood
150 City Park Way
Brentwood, CA 94513

To CONSULTANT: Roger L. Thompson
60 Revere Drive, Suite 200
Northbrook, IL 60062


This document represents the entire and integrated agreement between CITY and CONSULTANT and supersedes all prior negotiations, representations, and agreements, either written or oral.

This document may be amended only by written instrument, signed by both CITY and CONSULTANT.


The City and the Consultant are the only parties to this Agreement and are the only parties entitled to enforce its terms. Nothing in this Agreement gives, is intended to give, or shall be construed to give or provide, any right or benefit, whether directly or indirectly or otherwise, to third persons.


This agreement shall be governed by the laws of the State of California.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, CITY and CONSULTANT have executed this agreement the day and year first above written.


__________________________ ROGER L. THOMPSON


Karen Diaz, CMC, City Clerk


Dennis Beougher, City Attorney


We herein propose our services to complete a Facilities Master Plan for the Department of Public Works and the Department of Parks and Recreation, Brentwood CA. We have divided this proposal into four sections:
1. A brief history of our firm and the Facilities group;
2. Our proposed approach;
3. A list of the consultants who will be working on this engagement; and
4. A Fee Schedule.

Attachments include:
A. MAXIMUS Facilities Planning and Programming Client Listing;
B. Short Form resumes for the consulting team members;
C. An article describing Facilities Programming and Planning; and
D. A suggested contract for this engagement. 

We are a 25-year old management consulting firm specializing in the provision of services to government clients. The firm was originally founded to provide cost accounting, cost allocation, and user fee development services.

In recent years, our service and client base was expanded to include assignments in all aspects of government: general management, planning, finance, and operations for state agencies, cities, counties, school districts, municipal utilities, and public authorities, as well as colleges and universities. Today MAXIMUS employs more than 3000 professionals, operates from 100 offices across the United States, and projects revenue in excess of $500M for this year. Our Dun & Bradstreet rating is 4.2, we have been profitable for twenty-five straight years, and have been internationally recognized in publications like Forbes, and Business Weekly.

Through the years, our professional staff has conducted several Public Works Facilities Planning projects, and, as shown in the appendix, dozens of projects for public sector organizations delivering service in many ways. Examples include:
· City of Turlock CA – Public Works Facilities
· Contra Costa County CA – Facilities Size and Cost Estimate Report
· City of West Des Moines IA -- Public Works and Parks Dept Facilities
· City of Kansas City KS – Public Works and Parks Dept Facilities
· City of Arlington Heights IL – Public Works and Parks Dept Facilities
· City of Carroll IA – Public Works and Parks Dept Facilities
· City of Keller TX – Public Works Facility
· City of Olathe KS – Public Works Facility
· City of Burlington IA -- Public Works/Transit Facilities
· City of Davenport IA -- Public Works/City Hall 
· City of Moline IL -- Public Works Facility
· City of Dubuque IA -- Public Works and Water Department Facilities
· Lake County IL -- Public Works Maintenance Facility Addition
· City of Marquette MI -- Public Works Facility
· City Of Appleton WI -- Public Works Service Center Renovation 
· City of Hutchinson KS -- Public Works Facilities
· City of Thornton CO -- Public Works Facilities
· City of Davenport IA -- Public Works Facilities
· City of Lynchburg VA -- Public Works Facilities
· City of Wilmington DE -- Public Works Facilities
· City of Shawnee KS -- Public Works Facilities
· City of Appleton WI -- Public Works Facilities
· City of Janesville WI -- Public Works Facilities
· City of Jefferson WI -- Public Works Facilities


MAXIMUS can bring several unique strengths to the assignment. These include:
· Proven experience in conducting Facilities Master Plans for growing municipalities.
· A professional staff with hands﷓on management and consulting experience.
· A Project Director and staff who have completed dozens of Facilities Master Plans nationally.
· A successful track record of assisting cities/villages, counties, and states in managing their equipment, Parks, and Public Works operations more efficiently and effectively.
As a professional services firm with significant Public Works management expertise, we believe we possess the right skills to address your planning issues.
When developing a master plan for facilities, there are many critical issues that should be addressed in the early phases in order to make the master plan a complete success in the long run.

Our approach is unique in that the Master Plan we propose will be conducted only after staffing levels are evaluated, service delivery approaches are understood (e.g., in-house versus outsourced maintenance), and current and future fleet size and composition are identified. These parameters will provide a clear indication of what the future space requirements really are. This holds true for the facility, capital equipment, and facility site issues.

The following list represents a typical facility programming and planning effort:
· Current Operations in-depth examination
· Site and Facility Assessments
· Fleet Composition/Staffing Analysis
· Existing Facilities Review 
· Management Information System (MIS) review
· Inventory Examination
· Outsourcing Alternatives Analysis
· Master Plan
· Master Plan development for Facilities and Site 
· Cost estimating
· Schematic Design

We have found that a typical architectural/engineering firm would approach a building solution by listing the clients assumed needs and then allocating build space according to the list. We believe there are several deficiencies with such an approach.
· If an architect is unaware of present operating inefficiencies, it is difficult for them to accurately state what may be needed in a new or renovated facility. The result is that present inefficiencies are designed and built into the new or renovated facility.

· If an architect is aware of particular inefficiencies, they may not be capable of addressing and correcting them. In some cases, it is believed to be easier to allocate large amounts of space for the future, the bigger the better, rather than correct an existing problem and build according to what may really be needed.

· If an architectural firm is not made aware of operating inefficiencies such as excessive or deficient staffing levels, oversized or aging fleets, inadequate inventory levels, or changing industry practices (such as outsourcing), the architect will probably not account for such conditions in the final product. What develops is a Master Plan that is prematurely outdated, inefficient, costly to remedy and possibly hazardous. 

The major difference between the typical architectural firm approach and the MAXIMUS Facility Programming and Planning approach? - We are capable of identifying and addressing such inefficiencies. From the operations and condition assessment to site planning and cost estimating, MAXIMUS has a proven track record of providing our clients with accurate and beneficial Master Plans. Our professional recommendations usually result in substantially lower architectural fees (lower by perhaps 3.5%), and lower overall construction and renovation costs. Many architectural and engineering firms have come to realize the value of the services we provide. They now engage us solely to conduct this important effort for them.

As discussed, we are very familiar with your current situation. The shop and site from which you currently operate have been dramatically outgrown and have reached the end of their useful life. 

The vehicle and equipment maintenance shop is separately located, too small, poorly configured, and serves to hinder operations. We have reviewed the Sunset Road site, and find it to be adequately sized and positioned to support effective and efficient service delivery, now and into the future. Constructing new facilities out there will dramatically improve the City of Brentwood’s capabilities.

In order to accomplish the Master Plan, it will be necessary to conduct a full background orientation, reviewing and analyzing each Department’s 
· Organization; 
· Management;
· Staffing levels;
· Current service delivery approaches; 
· Projected growth – all resources; 
· Parts and materials analysis;
· Fleet size and composition; and 
· Fleet maintenance requirements

Tasks we intend to include in our work plan:

1. Current Public Works and Fleet Maintenance Operations Review. We intend to look at Public Works operations from a tactical standpoint. We need to learn, in great detail, how you deliver service to the growing population of residents and visitors. We do this by interviewing all the employees from all of the departments to learn not only how service is delivered, but when, to whom, with what equipment, in what environment. Having accomplished dozens of operational reviews, we look for key indicators to find out where and when your facilities are helping you do your job, providing no assistance, and/or providing negative assistance. 
2. Current Parks & Recreation Operations Review. A similar rational applies for Parks & Recreation, in that we will want to interview all the employees to determine the operational characteristics. Several key indicators that we look for are specific to Parks & Recreation operations (unique outdoor storage requirements is one example), and a close look at those will allow us to determine the best facilities solution for the department. 
3. Fleet Composition/Staffing Analysis. A vehicle-by-vehicle analysis of the fleet to determine and report on its size and composition, and its impact on the current facilities. By collecting growth information, and using the national standards we have developed over time (the collected results of more than three hundred engagements), we can project your fleet operations into future facilities, insuring they are right-sized and correctly positioned. 
4. Current Staffing. An analysis of the current staffing position as relates to the staffing potential for the future based on growth and changing service delivery requirements. We want to be able to predict the staff of the future for all the impacted organizations, so we can propose facilities in concept that “fit” the workforce.
5. Vehicle Maintenance Shop Operations. An understanding of current shop operations and the impact the existing facilities have on those operations will lead us to the 

development of future shop operations, and solutions for the issues that confront day to day operations. Growth is inevitable in this area as well, and must be adequately addressed in order to insure the facilities are adequately sized. We want facilities that match and support what takes place in and around them!
6. Parts and Materials Inventory Analysis. An analysis of the parts and materials inventories and the associated potential for economies of scale, to include accountable property and capital equipment. 
7. Outsourcing Alternative Analysis. Sometimes we find that certain tasks and functions that are now performed in-house can best be accomplished through outsourcing, and vice versa. We have a great deal of experience in suggesting alternative methods for delivering service. We will look closely and carefully at the current and projected tactical operations to determine if outsourcing is an effective, efficient solution.
8. Assess Alternative Options. As and if alternative options present themselves, we will highlight them as part of the Master Plan. Again, because our experience is nationwide, we can propose alternative solutions that may not have been considered in the past.
9. Conduct In-Process Review[s]. We have found that on-going dialogue between our staff and City officials is not only a valuable way to obtain information, but it also serves to give employees “ownership” of the project in its earliest stages. It is often during these important meetings that we can quickly home in on positive solutions, and refrain from wasting time pursuing options that will never be implemented. 
10. Develop and Deliver Preliminary Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendations. Once we have a draft Master Plan in hand, we will provide it to the City for their review and comment.
11. Develop and Deliver Revised Findings Conclusions, and Recommendations. We receive and review the constructive criticisms from key officials after they have had a chance to look at our draft report. We make the necessary adjustments, then deliver the report in final.
12. A Presentation to City Officials. We want to describe the results of our analysis to the right group of officials, those that can have an impact on project funding and/or approval. 

It is extremely important to note that we have completed a number of Facilities Plans for municipalities where growth played a major role in the development of the conceptual designs. The County is growing dramatically, and Brentwood projects population in the City will more than double over the course of the next twenty years. This kind of growth will have a major impact on service delivery, and therefore on the facilities – not only on the size of the facilities but the layout of the various departments and organizations.

We reviewed growth in the initial report by organization, developed growth factors, and made the organizational assignments. We need to take an even closer look at growth in Master Planning. We want to be able to assign growth factors to the each of the departments within the organizations, so that we can project the appropriate adjacencies, space allocations, and work area assignments.

Traditionally, City Management will work with the departments (in this case Public Works, Parks & Recreation, and Water) to develop strategies for service delivery. Reacting to these strategies, each organization - and the departments within – have developed tactical solutions that carry out the strategies. By carefully analyzing the tactical operations, we intend to apply growth assessments to each. This will allow us to project the appropriate facilities solution in our Brentwood Master Plan.

At the conclusion of the engagement we will deliver 4 bound copies of the Master Plan, including one that is camera ready. The plan will contain all the information needed to proceed to the next step: 
1. A complete review of your current operations;
2. A thorough assessment of organizational and departmental growth;
3. A full detailed Master Plan, including our recommendations for your future Facilities based on current and projected operations;
4. Room-by-room detailed design specifications;
5. Two-dimensional, scaled CAD drawings that will allow you to visualize our recommendations on the proposed site; and
6. Accurate cost estimates you can use to establish or validate a baseline budget submission.
For this project, we intend to include four of our most experienced consultants:

Roger Thompson: Mr. Thompson will be the Project Manager. He is the Founder and Director of the Facilities Programming and Planning Group, with more than sixty facilities engagements under his belt. Just as he has done on dozens of other engagements, he will lead the team, direct the study, lead presentations to the City, assist in the develop of, and approve all proposed solutions. Mr. Thompson worked on the previous engagement with the County.
Jeffrey Schoenborn: Mr. Schoenborn, a senior architectural consultant in Roger’s employ, has completed dozens of engagements with Roger. He has worked with Roger on many City Master Plans and Facilities Master Plans. Mr. Schoenborn is proficient in the use of CAD software (release 14). Jeff will work specifically on the site-specific information, modeling the proposed solutions, creating the two-dimensional drawings, and developing the cost estimates. His two-dimensional drawings were included in the County report.
Tom Adams: Mr. Adams is a manager with experience in conducting facilities planning and programming studies in over twenty municipalities from coast to coast. He has been a key member of Roger’s team on several important engagements. He will be tasked with conducting employee interviews, obtaining information about and accounting for growth, developing operational information used in assessing current and predicting proposed adjacencies, space allocations, and work area assignments. Mr. Adams was the project leader for the County engagement.

Tony Yankovich: Mr. Yankovich has 14 years experience in organizational management. He has been with MAXIMUS since April 2000 and has participated on over 15 consulting engagements. Recently he has worked on asset replacement programs for Jefferson County, CO and Chapel Hill, NC. Additionally he has been on teams that performed facilities programming and operational reviews for Rochester Hills, MI and Door County, WI. He has also developed operating charge-back rates for Summit County, CO and performed operational reviews for Colorado Springs, CO, Baltimore MD; McMaster University (Hamilton, Ontario); Monroe County FL; Scottsdale AZ; and Wichita, KS. 

Full resumes for these consultants can be provided upon request.


MAXIMUS will accomplish this engagement and provide the Master Plan for a total fixed fee of $61,080, including expenses, which are fixed at 20%. This cost offer will remain valid until March 15, 2002.

The proposed period of performance is estimated to be ninety calendar days, commencing no earlier than the day the contract is signed, according to an agreed-upon start date. We will bill 25% ($15,270) thirty days after work starts, 25% ($15,270) sixty days after work starts, and the remaining 50% after ninety days. The following cost breakout applies.

Roger Thompson $160 65 $10400.00
Tom Adams $140 118 $16520.00
Tony Yankovich $110 148 $16280.00
Jeff Schoenborn $110 70 $7700.00
Subtotal $50900.00
Expenses at 20% $10180.00
TOTAL COST (Fixed) $61080.00