Loading...
07-22-2004 Approved August 5, 2004 SELECTION ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING LAS CRUCES, NM A Selection Advisory Committee meeting was held on Thursday, July 22, 2004, in the City Council Chambers, City Hall, 200 N. Church Street. MEMBERS PRESENT: Robert Garza, Chairperson, Administration David Maestas, Public Works Jorge Garcia, Utilities Christine Ochs, Facilities Brian Denmark, Community Development Robert Romano for Mark Sutter, Financial Services OTHERS PRESENT: John Tortelli, Purchasing Nora Silva-Jones, Purchasing Pam Davis, Purchasing Terri Del Ferraro, Purchasing Theresa Cook, Facilities Robert Paul, Airport Advisory Board Member Robert Ebler, Public Works Tony Aguirre, Public Works Jerry Cordova, Public Works Benjamin Sauceda, Public Services Jaye Hawkins, Swim Las Cruces Victor Villarreal, Community Development Heather Pollard, Las Cruces Downtown Susan Lowell, Las Cruces Downtown Jerry Paz, Molzen-Corbin 1. Call Meeting to Order. Robert Garza called the meeting to order at 9:33 a.m. 2. Approve Minutes of June 17, 2004 Meeting. MOTION: Brian Denmark moved and Jorge Garcia seconded to approve the minutes as presented. Motion passed unanimously. 3. Evaluate Airport Architectural and Engineering Services Request for Proposals. Theresa Cook, Airport Manager, and Robert Paul from the Airport Advisory Board joined the committee as the user department. There was a short discussion prior to conducting the evaluations. Everyone agreed that there were seven very good proposals submitted. For the record, John Tortelli stated that the proposal from Armstrong Consultants was thrown out due to them being non-compliant, because they included cost in their initial proposal. Selection Advisory Committee 1 July 22,2004 Approved August 5, 2004 MOTION: Brian Denmark moved and Christine Ochs seconded to reject the proposal from Armstrong Consultants due to the fact that they submitted a cost. Motion passed unanimously. The post evaluation procedure does not apply in this case. Local preference does not apply. Per John Tortelli, based on the Brooks Act, the best-qualified candidate is chosen, and then cost is negotiated afterwards. The total final ratings were: ASCG, Inc. of NM 2045 Gannett Fleming West 1960 Kimley-Horn& Assoc. 1905 Molzen-Corbin 2325 Pierce Gordon Alexander 1820 URS Corporation 2105 There were two firms that made the 10 percent cutoff of 2092.5. These were Molzen-Corbin and URS Corp. MOTION: Christine Ochs and Brian Denmark seconded to have staff negotiate contracts with the firms of Molzen-Corbin and URS Corp. as stated in the RFP and present to the City Council for consideration. Motion passed unanimously. Interviews will not be conducted. Theresa Cook and Robert Paul left the committee at this time. 4. Evaluate Reynolds Drive Design and Survey Request for Proposal. Robert Ebler, Tony Aguirre, and Jerry Cordova joined the committee as the user department. There were a few general comments made before the evaluation ratings were conducted. Robert Ebler stated that they have been having problems with Southwest Engineering. There is trouble having them get work done on time and correctly. After the evaluation ratings were handed in and calculated, the results were as follows: The subtotal ratings were: Larkin Group 2000 Molzen-Corbin and Associates 2310 Parsons Brinkerhoff 2050 Southwest Engineering 1615 URS Corporation 2095 Selection Advisory Committee 2 July 22,2004 AWN Approved August 5, 2004 The cutoff score was 2079. Firms falling within 10 percent of this score will be considered. These firms are Molzen-Corbin and Associates and URS. The cost proposals were: Molzen-Corbin and Associates $136,920.00 URS $245,000.00 The cost ratio points were: Molzen-Corbin and Associates 462 URS 234 NM residential preference points were: Molzen-Corbin and Associates 139 URS 116 The total final ratings were: Molzen-Corbin and Associates 2911 URS 2446 MOTION: Jorge Garcia moved and Brian Denmark seconded to authorize the user department to negotiate a contract with Molzen-Corbin and present to the City Council for consideration. Motion passed unanimously. Robert Ebler, Tony Aguirre, and Jerry Cordova left the committee at this time. S. Review of Architectural Services for a Swimming and Recreational Facility for the City of Las Cruces Request for Proposals. Benjamin Sauceda and Jaye Hawkins joined the committee as the user department. The committee and users made some general comments before going through the proposal page by page. PAGE 1 This proposal will be a site and facility design request for proposal. This needs to be clarified in the document. The cost will be included in the selection process. If federal funds are used, cost _\\ cannot be a factor. There needs to be an Overview paragraph added to the proposal as Roman Numeral I and the Introduction paragraph will be Roman Numeral I1. In the second paragraph, Jaye indicated that a kid's play area needs to be listed in the amenities. Public meetings should be added to the list under the Scope of Services section, Paragraph A. Selection Advisory Committee 3 July 22,2004 Approved August 5, 2004 The proposal will be going out to both architectural and engineering services to acquire a larger pool of candidates. The total square footage should be added to the functional area sq. ft. list. This pool is a competition pool, not an Olympic size pool. The last paragraph above the Scope of Services needs to be changed. The first sentence will be deleted as well as the last two sentences in that paragraph. The first sentence will be replaced by the sentence, "The facility cost has been estimated at $6,500,000." Robert stated that the last sentence could say something like, "The City is currently exploring alternative funding mechanisms to cover the construction and related costs." Regarding the location site of the pool, the committee suggested to ask the proposer to submit a rectangular design to fit in the three different sites that were chosen as suggested sites for the pool in case the first choice does not pass inspection. The proposer will need to design the pool with the knowledge of the soil profile and EPA findings. Jaye clarified that this design has to be ready before it goes out to a vote on the bond issue in March 2005. Brian stated that there are a lot of site issues. The proposal should have two elementsA design concept for a neighborhood pool and a design concept for Swim Las Cruces. PAGE 2 Throughout the document, the word "architect" needs to be changed to "proposer". In the Schematic Design paragraph, Robert suggested to clarify what the design will look like, i.e., culturally sensitive. The first sentence will be changed to read, "The architect shall prepare conceptual site and building plans appropriate to the area, including perspective sketches as well as a statement of Probable Construction Cost." In the Bidding/Negotiations and Construction paragraph, the Construction Contract Administration paragraph needs to have the cost separated, i.e., inspecting, testing, permitting, etc. and submit these two things. Maybe a project manager can be used to make sure that the job is getting done right and on time. C Selection Advisory Committee 4 July 22,2004 i Approved August 5, 2004 PAGE 3 In the General Instructions, Paragraph C, the insurance amount needs to be changed to $1 million. A Paragraph E needs to be added saying that the Winfield Study is available on the City's web site at www.las-cruces.org A Paragraph F needs to be added saying that a blueprint is attached. PAGE 4 In Paragraph 4, the sentence will read, "Descriptions of three past similar contracts completed by the proposer for other clients." The committee suggested including a cost proposal form and having it as part of the proposal. It can be named Attachment 1. This type of form should eventually become a standard for SAC. A footnote can be added to the form stating that the contract will be awarded for the cost listed in the total box. In the Evaluation and Selection Paragraph, the weights were changed. The first box, Project Team's direct participation was changed to 25%. PAGE 5 In the Evaluation and Selection Paragraph, the second box, qualifications and tw competence, was changed to 25%. The fifth box, performance of the firm, was changed to 10%. Paragraph C regarding local preference was deleted. PAGE 6 There will be no pre-proposal conference, so Paragraph D will be deleted. Advertising will be the standard four weeks. Benjamin Sauceda and Jaye Hawkins left the committee at this time. 6. Review of Planning and Design Services for City of Las Cruces Downtown Revitalization. Victor Villarreal, Heather Pollard, and Susan Lowell joined the committee as the user department. There were some minor general comments made before the committee discussed each page in detail. PAGE 1 There are three main services that are being requested through this proposal—A plaza, streetscapes, and gateways. This can be put together as a form of a master plan. Selection Advisory Committee 5 July 22,2004 Approved August 5, 2004 It needs to be clarified as to where the plaza will be located. The plaza area needs to be defined. The title of the proposal will be changed to read, "Request for Proposals for Comprehensive Urban Design and Planning Services for Downtown Plaza, Streetscapes, and Gateways for the City of Las Cruces." In the Overview paragraph, the last sentence will be deleted. The City does want other design services with this proposal. This needs to be left open. In the Introduction paragraph, a sentence needs to be added to say something like, "The City will inform proposers that projects will be forthcoming as funding becomes available." PAGE 2 The last paragraph on Page 2, first sentence, the sentence will read, "The City has decided to seek professional planning, conceptual, and final design services to assist in the realization of this vision for the Downtown area." Cost will not be a factor, because the source of funding is legislative money—the severance tax bonds fund money. The state won't let us use cost as a factor. PAGE 3 Susan Lowell stated that she planned on adding four new elements to the existing three elements for the Project Description. Robert suggested that these could be listed in other services as another paragraph that can be added as Paragraph D on Page 5. In the Project Description paragraph, Paragraph A, the committee suggested having templates and site specific when proposers submit their design space elements. Clarify in Number 7 that there will be no on-street parking. Also, include that temporary closures will occur. The last paragraph in Paragraph A, the proposers need to give specific recommendations for expanding the space. In Paragraph B, the entranceways need to be defined. PAGE 4 In Paragraph C, the second to the last sentence, "ADA compliant"needs to be inserted after the words "aesthetically pleasing". Robert suggested specifying as to what type of design will be on the ground as well not just what is going to be designed above the mall. In Paragraph 3, Robert suggested removing the word"calm" from that paragraph. Selection Advisory Committee 6 July 22,2004 Approved August 5, 2004 PAGE 5 John suggested including in the proposal that the City is pursuing wireless connections in the downtown area. In Number 4, the word "textures" will be changed to "types". The last paragraph on Page 5, the first sentence will read, "The City wishes to have complete biddable construction drawing sets and specifications created for each of the elements outlined above." Another paragraph needs to be added as Paragraph D to read, "Other services which may be included but not limited to ..." Robert suggested that the proposer could provide hourly rates if we use the proposer in the future for other types of service as ideas present themselves. PAGE 6 AND PAGE 7 The scope needs to be expanded. It needs to be made clear to get the costs for all of the elements that Susan Lowell wants to implement under the Scope of Work. PAGE 8 In Number 6, the number of printed copies required will be changed to 50 copies. The schedule is a tentative schedule. Robert suggested adding verbiage that will ask the proposers how they will meet these deadlines on the tentative schedule. Astericks will be used to point out that these will be the dates that the proposer must meet. Robert suggested moving the dotted line in the tentative schedule after the words, "Interviews conducted." He also said that we wouldn't know if interviews would be conducted at this time. John said that the schedule would begin after the notice to proceed goes out to the proposer. The advertising will be the standard four weeks. PAGE 9 In Paragraph 4, the word "similar"will be added after the word"past". Selection Advisory Committee 7 July 22,2004 Approved August 5, 2004 PAGE 10 The committee agreed that a form for cost would be created where the proposer will fill in the blanks and the form will be similar to the Scope of Work Paragraphs A-H on Pages 6-8. Robert suggested adding a sentence that says, "Even though cost will not be a factor in the evaluation of the proposals, the cost proposals must be submitted on the form attached, and it will be used as a basis for negotiating a contract with the successful proposer." This will help make payments when deliverables are met. Paragraphs 1-4 will be deleted in the proposal evaluation and selection criteria section. If this proposal is federally funded, then local preference can't be used. The paragraph regarding the post-evaluation procedure will be changed to read as the standard verbiage, "SAC will use the evaluation and post-evaluation procedure described in Schedule B with the exception of Section A which are the bonuses and deductions—Section III-A." On the Evaluation Criteria, the standard SAC criteria will be used. John will work with Victor on the weight percentages. The standard criteria will be used for the interview paragraph. John will provide the wording for this section. MOTION: Christine Ochs moved and Jorge Garcia seconded to waive Section III-A from the requirements in the post evaluation procedure. Motion passed unanimously. PAGE 11 No changes. This is standard SAC format. Victor Villarreal, Heather Pollard, and Susan Lowell left the committee at this time. 7. Other Items of Interest. The next SAC meeting will be held on August 5, 2004 in the City Council Chambers at 9:15 a.m. There will be a special SAC Meeting on August 12, 2004 in the City Council Chambers at 9:15 a.m. to Noon. 8. Adjourn. MOTION: Christine Ochs moved and Jorge Garcia seconded to adjourn the meeting. Meeting ended at 12:30 p.m. Selection Advisory Committee 8 July 22,2004