>I have some serious problems with the way the county is letting these contracts. They're treating them as construction projects via RFQ, when they should be treating them as professional services projects using a QBS process.
Taken from [msg=190850]this thread.[/msg]
Is there any recourse or compensation available in California?
I don't think that there is any here in WA, which makes the law a bit difficult to enforce.
I suppose that someone could sue an agency, but how would you prove loss?
Jim Frame said that he would take this up with the county. It seems to me that this is exactly the kind of thing that our societies and such should be directing our money and their time to.
What say all of you?
California Government Code requires QBS for all A&E contracts (includes surveying).
HOWEVER... Ca Code includes this little diddy:
4529. This chapter shall not apply where the state or local agency
head determines that the services needed are more of a technical
nature and involve little professional judgment and that requiring
bids would be in the public interest.
So good luck crying foul on a monument preservation project like Jim's.
not sure about California but in NC any agency can exempt themselves from these laws. Its a joke.
QBS went down in flames this week
A Senate bill in Kansas proposed QBS procedures be the standard for professional services selection. Every possible opponent came out in force carrying on as if someone was spitting on mom and her apple pie. No real discussion about professionals and appropriate contracting procedures. The bill was gutted. One of the sticking points was a "new" definition of professional surveying services because it included drafting and GIS-type services.
> California Government Code requires QBS for all A&E contracts (includes surveying).
>
> HOWEVER... Ca Code includes this little diddy:
>
> 4529. This chapter shall not apply where the state or local agency
> head determines that the services needed are more of a technical
> nature and involve little professional judgment and that requiring
> bids would be in the public interest.
>
> So good luck crying foul on a monument preservation project like Jim's.
In WA monuments must be preserved/replaced by a Professional Land Surveyor, not a contractor. In rare exceptions a County Engineer (and maybe State) can replace monuments, but irregardless they are Professionals, not contractors and should be treated as such.
I do most of my work in Idaho so I am not fully up to speed on the QBS requirements for WA. Here is Idaho QBS is very prevalent and we are educating the small communities and municipalities one staff at a time. Most we have encoutnered just don't know the rules and are typically happy to comply.
> California Government Code requires QBS for all A&E contracts (includes surveying).
>
> HOWEVER... Ca Code includes this little diddy:
>
> 4529. This chapter shall not apply where the state or local agency
> head determines that the services needed are more of a technical
> nature and involve little professional judgment and that requiring
> bids would be in the public interest.
>
> So good luck crying foul on a monument preservation project like Jim's.
I would have no problem opposing that argument in regards to monument preservation responsibilities in California.
I haven't heard it tried before and would welcome an inquiry or complaint from Jim on this
> > California Government Code requires QBS for all A&E contracts (includes surveying).
> >
> > HOWEVER... Ca Code includes this little diddy:
> >
> > 4529. This chapter shall not apply where the state or local agency
> > head determines that the services needed are more of a technical
> > nature and involve little professional judgment and that requiring
> > bids would be in the public interest.
> >
> > So good luck crying foul on a monument preservation project like Jim's.
>
> I would have no problem opposing that argument in regards to monument preservation responsibilities in California.
>
> I haven't heard it tried before and would welcome an inquiry or complaint from Jim on this
Ric,
This isn't a question of professional responsibility, rather it is a question of whether an agency can obtain the services of a land surveyor by lowest responsible bid vs using most qualified selection.
State and local agencies are bound to use qualifications based selection in California, however the section I quoted above allows them to use price alone as a selection criteria if the project is deemed to be technical in nature. They still contract with a surveyor, but do it on a price bid comparison.
Jim's project was advertised on a cost comparison. My comment was in regards that a monument preservation project likely does not involve much professional judgement, rather it is mostly a matter of protecting existing monuments, primarily through the installation of street well monuments. It likely falls within the definition of GC 4529. My comment was basically one would have a hard time getting a District Attorney to believe that GC 4529 doesn't apply.
So, no, this likely isn't a matter for the Board to investigate.
> I haven't heard it tried before and would welcome an inquiry or complaint from Jim on this
Clearcut is probably correct about the applicability of the technical exception to most aspects of monument preservation, but the contract under discussion includes the following:
If a monument is missing (could not be physically found), and the County determines to establish the location of monument by means of survey, it is surveyors' responsibility to establish a location of the monument by means of survey, do control and boundary retracement survey.
It's impossible to accomplish this on a purely technical basis, as well as impossible to accurately put a unit cost figure on it without actually undertaking the work.
Ric, I'll be happy to email you a copy of the solicitation if you'll send your email address to me at jhframe@dcn.org.
Thanks!
> > I haven't heard it tried before and would welcome an inquiry or complaint from Jim on this
>
> Clearcut is probably correct about the applicability of the technical exception to most aspects of monument preservation, but the contract under discussion includes the following:
>
> If a monument is missing (could not be physically found), and the County determines to establish the location of monument by means of survey, it is surveyors' responsibility to establish a location of the monument by means of survey, do control and boundary retracement survey.
>
> It's impossible to accomplish this on a purely technical basis, as well as impossible to accurately put a unit cost figure on it without actually undertaking the work.
>
> Ric, I'll be happy to email you a copy of the solicitation if you'll send your email address to me at jhframe@dcn.org.
>
> Thanks!
Jim: ric.moore@dca.ca.gov
Clear cut: I understand where you are coming from, but we have been successful in convincing public agencies to comply with laws when we are notified of situations like this that involve land surveying and engineering services. A case in point...
Agency issues RFQ to map electric utilities and the scope includes preparation of topographic mapping and DTM. We contact the agency and explain that successful candidates must be firms that meet the appropriate licensing requirements before they can offer to perform the services. And that does not include firms that wish to sub contract the review and stamping to a licensed individual. They modified the RFQ.
Jim is heading in the directon that I would go. I do not believe that 8771(b) gives agencies the authority to determine if the work is technical or professional in nature. The code specifically states that the land surveyor carries that right. In addition, we have opined that to meet compliance with 8771(b), record research and determination of what constitutes a monument lies solely with the land surveyor and that is not limited to technical issues.
It would be interesting to see the Board tackle an agency for not following QBS.
Regardless, from what I know of Jim, they likely not only received the lowest price, they also received a very highly qualified surveyor.
