Consideration of Proposals:  New Municipal Court Building.

City staff were unable to negotiate a successful agreement with the highest scoring proposer.

N/A 

Maintain and deliver quality, reliable infrastructure: address the need for a new Municipal Court Building.

No

1.)  Reject the proposals as submitted
2.)  Reject the proposals as submitted and re-solicit
3.)  Reject the proposals as submitted and revisit all options, including re-solicit and/or re-evaluate other City owned property and funding sources

The existing court facility is located at 15 North Beaver St., Flagstaff, Arizona.  This facility was originally built as a retail store and later purchased by the City of Flagstaff and remodeled to be the City Hall facility.  It was remodeled again in 1984 to be the court facility.  At just under 10,000 GSF, it is currently in need of significant repair and maintenance and is no longer adequate to keep up with the significant increase in case load over the years.  There are only three (3) courtrooms and we need improved security, zoning, and prisoner transport. 

In January of 2012, the City conducted a Request for Proposals (RFP) that allowed proposers to offer property only, property and construction, or construction only.  There were a total of seven (7) proposal responses submitted, which were evaluated and scored according to the evaluation criteria outlined in the RFP document as follows:

Property
1.)  General Site Description                                             50%
2.)  Conditions of Sale                                                       40%
3.)  Description of Site/Surrounding Areas                        10% 
                                                                                          100%
Design/Construction
1.)  Qualifications and Expertise of Firms on the Team     60%
2.)  Experience of Project Manager and Key Personnel
      to be Assigned to the Project                                       50%
3.)  Understanding of the Project and Presented
      Approach                                                                      70%
4.)  Value Added Knowledge and Experience                   20%
                                                                                          200%

After the initial evaluation and scoring of all seven (7) proposal responses, the evaluation committee shortlisted to the top three (3) highest scoring proposers to participate in the interview and presentation phase of the overall evaluation process. After the interview and presentation phase, the evaluation committee scored Kinney Construction Services the highest, based on both the initial scoring results and the interviews and presentations.  In July of 2012, City staff began negotiations with Kinney Construction Services.  Despite everyone's efforts, we were not able to come to a mutual agreement, given the City's available funding.  The City's RFP contained language allowing the City to reject any and all offers, or portions thereof; or cancel and reissue an RFP.

The City and Kinney Construction Services were not able to negotiate a mutual agreement. Rejecting all proposals as submitted will allow the City to consider other City owned property that were not proposed in any of the proposal responses, as well as funding sources.  

The community could benefit from potential savings in City funds being spent through consideration of utilizing other City owned properties to construct the new court facility.

Inform

1.) Reject the proposals as submitted
2.) Reject the proposals as submitted and re-solicit
3.) Reject the proposals as submitted and revisit all options, including re-solicit and/or re-evaluate other City owned property and funding sources