Loading...
10-06-2004 Approved 11-19-04 SELECTION ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING LAS CRUCES,NM A Selection Advisory Committee meeting was held on Wednesday, October 6, 2004, in the Purchasing Bid Room, 1501 E. Hadley, Las Cruces,NM MEMBERS PRESENT: Mark Sutter, Chairperson, Financial Services David Maestas, Public Works Robert Garza, Administration Jorge Garcia, Utilities Christine Ochs, Community Development Brian Denmark, Facilities Mike Johnson, Public Services OTHERS PRESENT: John Tortelli, Purchasing Nora Silva-Jones, Purchasing Lori Grumet, Public Services Tomas Mendez, Facilities Kevin Dasing, Member of the Veteran's Museum Development Committee David Maestas, Public Works Brian Denmark, Facilities Jorge Garcia, Utilities Mike Bartholomew, Public Services Tom Murphy, Community Development 1. Call Meeting to Order. Mark Sutter called the meeting to order at 8:30 a.m. Since Tom Murphy was part of the user department, and he wasn't in attendance at this time, the committee decided to begin the meeting by discussing the Architectural Services for Branigan Library Children's Wing Request for Proposal as the first item of business. 2. Review Architectural Services for Branigan Library Children's Wing Request for Proposals. Lori Grumet and Tomas Mendez joined the committee as the user department. Lori gave a background regarding the need for this proposal. It is being proposed to add another 20,000 sq. ft. to the Branigan Library. This is to provide a children's area and a New Mexico collections area—a genealogical area. They do have $210,000 to jump-start this project. Once the design is presented, they'll need to figure out how to get more money, either by getting more funding or having a bond issue. They also need to figure out where the addition needs to be added—preliminary scoping. CTomas stated that the construction costs do not have to be included in this proposal. Selection Advisory Committee 1 October 6,2004 Approved 11-19-04 4W Lori stated that they need to get a plan, model, and a drawing. Brian suggested adding language to confirm the assessment that was done through the feasibility study. The feasibility study is for the entire operation of the library. What affect does it have on the children's wing? The proposal has to be more specific throughout the document. Mark suggested that the proposal needs to be written as a standpoint directed to the children's wing. In the Scope of Required Services, the first sentence in the Feasibility Study paragraph states that the library staff will be conducting the detailed analysis of the specific library market. Lori explained that they want to know who uses their system and what areas are being used and not used. There is a need for architectural services for the children's wing and the comprehensive plan needs to be updated. Staff suggested staying within the confines of what the legislature gave the City. The City needs to make sure that it does not go beyond what that money is used for. Brian suggested the preliminary design needs to be strengthened and the focus needs to be on short-term. Tomas suggested revising and placing more emphasis on the design for the children's wing, and updating the comprehensive study that was done to integrate into the expansion of the children's wing. In the architectural pre-design services, regarding the statement of probable costs, Robert suggested to use a phase or step process. We have to make sure we pin down what the construction costs will be. In the Cost Proposal Content, Robert asked why cost is not a factor. After discussing this, it was the consensus of the committee to have cost as a factor. This proposal needs to come back to the next SAC meeting for another review. Lori Grumet left the committee at this time. Since the next item on the agenda was the Veteran's Museum Request for Proposal, and it relates to Public Services, the committee decided to continue the meeting by reviewing this item. 3. Review Feasibility Study for Proposed Veteran's Museum Request for Proposals. Tomas Mendez and Kevin Dasing joined the committee as the user department. CKevin Dasing stated that the one question that comes up is "How big, how much, and where will this museum be located?" Selection Advisory Committee 2 October 6,2004 Approved 11-19-04 This study will show how much money we are asking for. We have up to $60,000 to spend. Kevin would like to get this to City Council around November 18, 2004. It will not make the January legislative session, but this session is 60 days long. Brian asked what exactly is the feasibility study geared to do? Will this tell us the need for a museum or a type or size of a museum? This isn't clear in the proposal. Tomas stated that we need to identify what the actual constructions costs will be. After discussing this proposal, it was the consensus of the committee to negotiate a contract with a firm or firms that the City already has on board. Tomas Mendez and Kevin Dasing left the committee at this time. 4. Review Professional Services for Transit Network Reconfiguration, Site Selection, and Conceptual Design of an Intermodal Transit Facility Request for Proposals. Tom Murphy and Mike Bartholomew joined the committee as the user department. The user department gave an overview, and the committee went through the proposal page by page. PAGE 1 The proposal needs to demonstrate that it will have Intermodal Scope of Services. Mike Bartholomew stated that there would be interaction with other modes. This project will be paid with federal funds in large part. Brian said that this proposal needs to be drafted in such a way that it will indicate that we are asking for transit and not intermodal. Don't call it something that it is not. The title needs to be changed to read "Request for Proposals for Professional Services for Transit Network Analysis for Site Selection and Conceptual Design of an Intermodal Transit Facility for the City of Las Cruces." In the Overview section, Paragraph B, the last line in that paragraph, "2004 Downtown Revitalization Concept Plan" needs to be deleted. PAGE 2 In the fourth paragraph,the third sentence, the word "West" needs to be changed to "East", and a sentence needs to be added that will say that there is a potential employment growth on the West Mesa Industrial Park. This will require additional transit needs in the future. Selection Advisory Committee 3 October 6,2004 Approved 11-19-04 The fifth paragraph where it states that the City is in the process of implementing a revitalization plan needs to be deleted. PAGE 3 In the second paragraph, the third line, the words "the existing"will be inserted after the words, "professional services to evaluate ..." In the Introduction section, there needs to be a DBE statement in the proposal stating that this is not a requirement but is encouraged. In the third paragraph, the words "area for the" intermodal center location will be added. In that same paragraph, the three final sites need to be clarified. In the Project Description, Paragraph b, the last sentence will read, "Surveys shall be approved by the City Manager and/or his/her designee." The last sentence on Page 3, the word "examined" will be replaced by the word, "evaluated". PAGE 4 The word "Cost"will be inserted before the word "benefits" in the first paragraph where it talks about points being evaluated in each proposed network reconfiguration. In the Final Network paragraph, the word "Reconfiguration"will be replaced with the word "Analysis". In the Site Analysis paragraph, the word "analysis"will be replaced with the word "evaluation". The word"area" will be inserted after the words "Central Transfer Point". PAGE 5 Mike Johnson suggested adding a sentence that reads, "Cost benefits of using smaller buses on less traveled routes, that are difficult to access, or where potential travel time can be reduced." This will be a Paragraph h. The sentence that reads, "Present 3 final sites and a..." needs to be changed to read, "Present 3 final sites and a recommended location and justification to the TAB (Transit Advisory Board) and City Council work session for determination." In Paragraph c, Phase III, the end of the sentence will read, "...(Traffic Impact Analysis) including traffic and infrastructure." In the Conceptual Facility Design paragraph, the second sentence will be changed to read, "This work shall be completed through a public meeting." Selection Advisory Committee 4 October 6,2004 Approved 11-19-04 PAGE 6 to In the first paragraph on top of the page, the word "configuration" will be replaced by the word "analysis." PAGE 7 The consensus of the committee was to have the proposer provide the schedule. John will work out the details on the schedule after the meeting. An end date needs to be indicated. PAGE 8 AND PAGE 9 Robert suggested stating in the General Instructions section that cost will not be a factor. Bonuses and deductions will not be used. This deviates from the standard SAC rules so a motion is required. MOTION: Robert Garza moved and Christine Ochs seconded to eliminate cost as a factor. Motion passed unanimously. MOTION: Robert Garza and Christine Ochs seconded to eliminate bonuses and deductions because of the federal regulations. Motion passed unanimously. PAGE 10 Advertising time will be the standard four weeks. PAGE 11 No changes. EXHIBIT "A" There was a discussion regarding having a cost estimate for the final recommendation. "Exhibit A" needs to be taken out of the packet before it goes out to the City Council. Tom Murphy and Mike Bartholomew left the committee at this time. S. Other Items of Interest. The committee discussed some general observations regarding the SAC rules and procedures. They discussed that it would be a good idea for the using department to have a boilerplate for Request for Proposals to help them out when they need to write the proposals. Frequently Asked Questions can be written up to help the department understand the issue of Request for Proposals and the SAC process. A separate checklist could be created so that the using department can put down information such as the funding sources, cost estimate, etc. A cost estimate could be provided before it goes to the SAC. This checklist could be used not only for Request for Proposals but for other uses. An architectural and engineering Selection Advisory Committee 5 October 6,2004 Approved 11-19-04 template would be the primary use for this type of service, and then this one could be modified for other types of services. On the reference checks, a checklist of questions to ask the companies and what type of questions the user group should ask would be developed. A standardized reference sheet could be attached to the SAC Rules and Procedures. These various forms could be accessed through the City's Intranet. John asked the committee to send him some reference questions that they would like to see on the standardized reference sheet. Robert suggested that we should include on the standardized reference sheet a question on whether the using department would like to deviate from the standard questions. If so, they could submit with their proposal. Nora will put the SAC Rules and Procedures in formal format. John stated that under the Public Meetings Act, you could close the meeting during the evaluation of the proposals, and then reopen the meeting after the evaluations are completed. The committee's individual scores are not public record. The next regular SAC meeting will be held on Thursday,November 4, 2004 at City Hall from 9:15 to Noon. 6. Adjourn. MOTION: Brian Denmark moved and Robert Garza seconded to adjourn. Motion passed unanimously. The meeting ended at 10:45 a.m. Selection Advisory Committee 6 October 6,2004