Loading...
08-12-2004 Approved September 23,2004 SELECTION ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING LAS CRUCES,NM A Selection Advisory Committee meeting was held on Thursday, August 12, 2004, in the City Council Chambers, City Hall, 200 N. Church Street. MEMBERS PRESENT: Mark Sutter, Chairperson, Financial Services David Maestas, Public Works Pat Dominguez for Jorge Garcia, Utilities Christine Ochs, Community Development Brian Denmark, Facilities Mike Johnson, Public Services OTHERS PRESENT: John Tortelli, Purchasing Nora Silva-Jones, Purchasing Terri Del Ferraro, Purchasing Bertha Chavira, Purchasing Robert Garza, Administration Ken Mompellier, Public Services John Rickey, Lodger's Association, General Mgr., Hilton Joe Martinez, CVB Advisory Board Ted Novack, Facilities Chuy Garibay, Facilities 1. Call Meeting to Order. Mark Sutter called the meeting to order at 9:17 a.m. Mike Johnson was not present at this time. 2. Approve Minutes ofAugust 5, 2004 Meeting. MOTION: Brian Denmark moved and Robert Garza seconded to approve the minutes as presented. Discussion: Christine Ochs stated that she works for Community Development not Facilities and Theresa Cook works for Facilities not Community Development. These changes need to be made on the minutes. Also, Robert Garza should be added as member present. He was in attendance. John said that because of an error in one of the rater's score on the Marketing Services evaluation, the final total score for Wilson Binkley was changed to 2275. This doesn't have an affect on the final outcome. On Page 2, Mark suggested changing the wording of the motion to read, "...lack of addenda acknowledged since they were immaterial ..." Mark called for the vote on the motion to approve the minutes as amended. Motion passed unanimously. Selection Advisory Committee 1 August 12,2004 Approved September 23,2004 3. Review Financial Feasibility and Location Analysis for a Convention Center Request for Proposals. Ken Mompellier, John Rickey, and Joe Martinez joined the committee as the user department. The committee gave their general comments on the proposal, and then went through it page by page. PAGE 1 Brian said there needs to be verification that there is truly a need for a convention center. In the Overview section, Paragraph B, the acronym CVB needs to be spelled out followed by the acronym. The 1999 PKF Consulting Study; 2002 Jones, Lang, and Lasalie Study; Information on Potential Sites from Site Selection Committee, and the additional information on CVB web site are on the City's web site available to everyone. The ADR Hotel History; Occupancy Hotel History, and the 2002 Survey of Meeting Planners interested in Las Cruces are not available through the City's web site, but they can all be made available to them on a disk. John suggested the three options would be to download the information, a PDF, or they can put down a deposit for the information. John will work with IT to make the information available to the proposers. PAGE 2 The third paragraph, third sentence from the bottom, the word"Eleven" was deleted. The sentence will begin with"Potential sites for the convention center..." The fourth paragraph, the last sentence was deleted. Robert suggested adding something like "Therefore, the City is desiring A, B, and C (whatever those elements might be). The last paragraph on that page, the first sentence was changed to read, "The planned funding for the convention center may be provided by a hotel/motel room surcharge." Robert Garza left the committee at this time (9:40 a.m.) and Mike Johnson joined the committee. David Maestas stated that since Robert Garza just left the meeting, Robert had given him his comments. David said that the title of the proposal should have the word"Facility" in it so that it reads, "A Financial Feasibility and Location Analysis for a Convention Center Facility." Selection Advisory Committee 2 August 12,2004 Approved September 23, 2004 PAGE 3 In the Project Description, Brian suggested again that there needs to be a determination of need, and if so, financing of the site, etc., etc. In the Scope of Work, in the Project Coordination paragraph,Number 1 and Number 2 will change to read: 1. Coordinate all public meetings with the City and the public. 2. Prepare meeting notes for all public meetings. PAGE 4 In Paragraph 2, letter d, this sentence was changed to read, "Final site rankings and public input for each." In Paragraph 3, the second sentence was changed to read, "This survey will request feedback on possible amenities including meeting space, location, and possible different uses." In Paragraph C, Information Gathering and Analysis, Brian stated that a needs assessment will need to be added. PAGE 5 In Paragraph d, Mark suggested adding a sentence to read something like, "Develop a new financial model for construction and operations including pro forma financial statements." Paragraphs a, b, and c, their order was changed as follows: a) Determine physical characteristics...b) Complete a minimum of three...c) Provide estimates for the...Brian also suggested that these three paragraphs need to use the same wording so that they can be consistent. PAGE 6 In Paragraph D, Brian commented and suggested that a needs assessment for a convention center needs to be included in this section. PAGE 7 On the tentative schedule, John will work with Ken on finalizing the schedule. In the General Instructions section, an insurance clause needs to be added. John will meet with the Legal Department to obtain their expertise on this matter. John will use the SAC verbiage for Paragraph B. The committee's consensus was to just use local preference. This change required a motion. MOTION: Robert Garza moved and Brian Denmark seconded to just use local preference. Motion passed unanimously. Selection Advisory Committee 3 August 12,2004 Approved September 23, 2004 PAGE 8 In Paragraph 4, the sentence will be changed to read, "Descriptions of past similar contracts in similar sized areas." Paragraph 1, the last sentence, the words "Exhibit A" will be added at the end of the sentence. The last paragraph on Page 8 will be deleted. PAGE 9 The evaluation criteria differed from the SAC standard. The committee's consensus was to use the standard SAC evaluation criteria. The weights were distributed per Ken's input. I. Technical approach to the project. 25% 2. Qualifications/competence of project team members to perform services required by the project. 25% 3. Capacity and capability of the firm to perform the project, and to do so in a timely manner. 20% 4. Management structure and approach to the project including detailed time-line, task breakdowns and assignments. 15% 5. Performance of the firm with previous clients on to similar projects, based upon quality of the work, control of costs, ability to meet schedules and responsiveness to the client. 10% 6. Clarity of proposal. 5% John will use the standard SAC verbiage for Paragraph B on the evaluation and post-evaluation procedures. PAGE 10 The committee decided to put language in the RFP to have the proposers provide portfolios as a separate technical proposal. There will be a non-mandatory pre-proposal conference. Advertising will be the standard four weeks. PAGE 11 There was a lengthy discussion regarding Exhibit A. There needs to be an indication of a needs assessment point in the proposal. Brian suggested that a needs assessment will be done first, and then they could move forward to the rest of the project. The consensus of the committee was to specify that a City Council work session would be held on the needs assessment first before going further. Selection Advisory Committee 4 August 12,2004 Approved September 23, 2004 There was a concern whether the total cost on Exhibit A included ALL costs. Mark suggested making sure that the proposer knows that each task will include all costs. Additional expenses such as out-of-pocket expenses and travel need to be taken into consideration. On the cost, Mark asked John to include a statement that each task would include all incidental costs including travel, etc. The bottom line includes everything, but we will also know what we will expect on billing as a separate point including travel, etc. The committee also suggested including hourly rates in the proposal. Ken Mompellier, John Rickey, and Joe Martinez left the committee at this time. 4. Review Landscape Architectural Services Request for Proposals. Ted Novack and Chuy Garibay joined the committee as the user department. The using department made some general comments, and then the committee went through the proposal page by page. PAGE 1 The using department stated that they want to hire more than one architectural firm to do this type of work. In the Scope of Work, sentence No. 5 needs to be defined by what"Construction Procurement Services"means. Brian said that this is asking for bidding and specifications. PAGE 2 John stated that the proposer couldn't design and bid. Ted Novack stated that they want to have the ability to use their expertise when it comes to construction management. He said that the proposer wouldn't be doing the work themselves. The committee discussed this issue to clarify the paragraph to have the option to use their expertise. The consensus was to delete the last sentence in Paragraph B, and delete the word"not" in the first sentence. In the General Scope of Work, the sentence in the General Project Types, Mark suggested to add the words "Design of Parks, Streetscape, ..." The word "Annual" will be inserted in between Estimated Budget in that same table. The word"Landscape" will be inserted in front of"Architect" in Paragraphs C and D under General Instructions. John will meet with the Legal Department to discuss the insurance liability to make sure whether or not this clause needs to be added to this section. Selection Advisory Committee 5 August 12,2004 Approved September 23, 2004 PAGE 3 The word "Landscape" will be inserted before the word "Architect" in Paragraph 2 in the Technical Proposal Content. Paragraph 7 will be deleted. PAGE 4 No changes. PAGE 5 In the Evaluation and Selection section, Mark pointed out that the third criteria states "principal member", but it is not just all staff but also employees and subs. Because the evaluation criteria deviate from the standard SAC criteria, a motion is required. MOTION: Brian Denmark moved and Christine Ochs seconded to accept the proposed evaluation criteria as discussed. Motion passed unanimously. PAGE 6 John will use the standard SAC verbiage for Paragraph C. Cost will be waived. The committee will just do bonuses and deductions. A motion is required for this action. MOTION: Christine Ochs moved and Brian Denmark seconded to eliminate cost as a factor. Motion passed unanimously. The last sentence in Paragraph D will be deleted. There was a lengthy discussion regarding choosing the best qualified firm to do the job and cost. Brian stated that"qualified" means that of those firms that are qualified, we would take the qualified top three rated firms. Cost will not be a factor. John will add a paragraph in the Technical Proposal Content to state that if they are a licensed architect in the State of New Mexico, they are qualified. PAGE 7 The word "mandatory" will be deleted from Paragraph D. The paragraph immediately following Paragraph D will be deleted as well. The using department stated that they would like a two-week advertising period. This deviates from the standard SAC criteria, so a motion is required. MOTION: Brian Denmark moved and Christine Ochs seconded to advertise for two weeks instead of the standard four weeks. Motion passed unanimously. Selection Advisory Committee 6 August 12,2004 Approved September 23, 2004 Ted Novack and Chuy Garibay left the committee at this time. S. Other Items of Interest. The next SAC meeting will be held on September 2, 2004 in the City Council Chambers at 9:15 a.m. John will discuss and educate the SAC members on the liability insurance requirements. John stated that Nancy Montoya would be scheduling SAC meetings in three-month increments. 6. Adjourn. MOTION: Christine Ochs moved and Brian Denmark seconded to adjourn the meeting. Meeting ended at 11:40 a.m. Selection Advisory Committee 7 August 12,2004