9.E.
City Council Meeting - FINAL
- Meeting Date:
- 04/05/2016
- Co-Submitter:
- Patrick Bourque
- From:
- Adam Miele, Senior Project Manager
Information
TITLE:
Consideration and Approval of Contract: Consideration of approval of Design/Build agreement: Core Services Maintenance Facility
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Approve Design/Build agreement with Core construction for the programing and design phased services in the amount of $2,209,660.00 with a contract allowance of $220,966 and a contract time of 515 calendar days and authorize the City Manager to execute the necessary documents.
Executive Summary:
Award of this Design/Build contract will authorize the final programming and design of the new Core Maintenance Facility to proceed. The new facility will bring together core services into one centralized location (currently these services are spread throughout four different facilities).These services are: Park Maintenance, Sustainability / Environmental Management, facility Maintenance, Fleet Maintenance, Street Maintenance, Solid Waste and Public Works Administration.
Financial Impact:
In the Fiscal Year 2016 budget the City has appropriated $21,500,000 in account No. 406-09-424-3276-3-4444 for the Core Services Maintenance Facility.
Connection to Council Goal and/or Regional Plan:
3) Provide sustainable and equitable public facilities, services, and infrastructure systems in an efficient and effective manner to serve all population areas and demographics
Has There Been Previous Council Decision on This:
Yes. Council in 2007 initiated a discussion on the need for a new Public Works Facility. In 2008, staff provided Council with a list of alternative site locations, facility space needs, and a conceptual layout plan. Staff requested a renewal of the fee until the project could be completed. Council approved the extension of the $2.50 fee for another year instructing staff to produce 1) a property/location selection; 2) conceptual site plan development; and 3) preliminary cost estimate. In 2010, Council extended the collection fee (suspended in 2012) and approved proceeding with bond initiative. In 2012, bond proposition 406 passed, authorizing the City to issue up to $14,000,000 in general obligation bonds. In 2014, council reinstated the $2.50 landfill fee.
Options and Alternatives:
1. Authorize the acceptance of the Design/Build contract from Core Construction for preconstruction services.
2. Reject the acceptance of the Design/Build contract from Core Construction for preconstruction services and re-solicit for the services.
3. Reject the contract and continue existing operations in the existing facilities.
2. Reject the acceptance of the Design/Build contract from Core Construction for preconstruction services and re-solicit for the services.
3. Reject the contract and continue existing operations in the existing facilities.
Background/History:
The existing Core Services Maintenance Facility is located at 419 N. Mogollon, Flagstaff, Arizona. This facility was originally built as a horse barn for the Army Corps of Engineers and was later purchased by the City of Flagstaff and used as a Public Works yard. Over the years, there have been numerous structures built on this property as growth dictated. The existing facility is not adequate to maintain the numerous vehicles and equipment necessary to provide core services. A new facility would also provide an indoor space for all fleet maintenance repairs, some of which are currently performed outdoors in inclement weather, including snow.
The City has been in need of a new Core Services Maintenance Facility for many years. The City has outgrown the existing facility and core service operations are scattered throughout the City. In 2010, Council approved a bond initiative to construct a new facility on McAllister Ranch located on West Rt. 66. The bond question was for a total dollar amount of $42 million to build the new facility, which included all new infrastructure (e.g., water, sewer, electricity, as well as Rt. 66 road improvements for traffic flow). This measure was not approved by the voters. At the April 2012 Budget Retreat the project was discussed and Council approved setting budget authority for the project. The Council then voted on July 17, 2012 to approve the measure for a November election through Resolution 2012-30. A $14 million authorization was approved in November 2012 to be repaid through secondary property taxes.
Design-Build Information
Design-Build is a delivery method where the design and construction services are contracted with a single entity known as the design-builder. The Design-Build team includes the general contractor and the design professionals. The contract covers both disciplines and is structured/split into two parts with respect to the associated fees and notice to proceeds. At this time the scope and fee is for design and preconstruction services. At a later date, once the design is near completion (approx 90% complete), a contract amendment will be brought before Council for approval which will include the Guaranteed Maximum Price (GMP) for construction. Once approved by Council the notice to proceed to start construction is issued. Throughout the design process the contractor will be performing construction estimates at each design milestone (schematic design, design development, construction documents) to make sure the architects design can be built within budget. If the estimate exceeds the budget the design team, contractor and owner look to alternatives (value engineering) to bring the project within budget. This is one example of why it is beneficial to have the contractor on board during the design stage. Owners risk is minimized with this delivery method by incorporating the designer and contractor as a team.
Selection Process
Staff issued a Request for Statement of Qualifications (RSOQ) solicitation to select the Design-Build firm/team. On November 25, 2015, eleven Statements of Qualifications (SOQs) were received. Procurement staff conducted an initial review of all eleven (11) SOQs for determining responsiveness to the requirements presented in the RSOQ. All eleven (11) SOQs were deemed responsive and were distributed to the evaluation committee. The evaluation committee consisted of six people and included four (4) City staff, two of which are registered engineers, and two (2) principals of a commercial licensed general contractors. Specific evaluation criteria were provided within the RSOQ and were used by the committee during the selection process.
After scoring all the submittals, the evaluation committee met to discuss the evaluation results. Based on the evaluated SOQ scores, it was then recommended that the top five (5) candidates be invited for an in-person interview/presentation phase. On February 8, 2016 the interview/presentation phase of the evaluation took place. Based on scoring of the identified criteria, the evaluation team came to a consensus.
The evaluation team evaluated the interview/presentations, the resulting scores were inclusive of the scores received on their SOQs. The total resulting scores of all evaluators, of the five candidates are as followed:
Candidate Total Score
CORE/APMI 1074
FCI/HDA 1053
KCS/DLR Group 945
Haydon/JWA 936
Adolfson/Architekton 930
Scope and Fee
Immediately following the selection, the most qualified firm (Core Construction and APMI Inc.) was asked to provide a scope of work and fee proposal for Design and PreConstruction Services. After review and discussions between the City and CORE/APMI a fee was agreed upon; see attached exhibit of the contract for a detailed scope and fee. The fee is broken down as follows:
Preconstruction Services - $173,809
Full architectural & engineering services – $1,782,480
Design phase reimbursable – $66,821
LEED Certification, Design & Project Commissioning – $150,965
Geotechnical Studies and Flow Tests – $35,585
The overall fee for the above scope is$2,209,660.00. This leaves $19,290,340 in the budget for construction. The industry standard for estimating design and construction fees based on the overall project budget is to use the 20% design - 80% construction rule. Staff estimates the costs using 11% for design and soft costs (printing, presentations, meetings, etc) and 89% for construction. The design/preconstruction fee of $2,209,660.00 equates to 10.6% of the overall budget for the project. The amount and percentage are well within the range anticipated by staff.
The City has been in need of a new Core Services Maintenance Facility for many years. The City has outgrown the existing facility and core service operations are scattered throughout the City. In 2010, Council approved a bond initiative to construct a new facility on McAllister Ranch located on West Rt. 66. The bond question was for a total dollar amount of $42 million to build the new facility, which included all new infrastructure (e.g., water, sewer, electricity, as well as Rt. 66 road improvements for traffic flow). This measure was not approved by the voters. At the April 2012 Budget Retreat the project was discussed and Council approved setting budget authority for the project. The Council then voted on July 17, 2012 to approve the measure for a November election through Resolution 2012-30. A $14 million authorization was approved in November 2012 to be repaid through secondary property taxes.
Design-Build Information
Design-Build is a delivery method where the design and construction services are contracted with a single entity known as the design-builder. The Design-Build team includes the general contractor and the design professionals. The contract covers both disciplines and is structured/split into two parts with respect to the associated fees and notice to proceeds. At this time the scope and fee is for design and preconstruction services. At a later date, once the design is near completion (approx 90% complete), a contract amendment will be brought before Council for approval which will include the Guaranteed Maximum Price (GMP) for construction. Once approved by Council the notice to proceed to start construction is issued. Throughout the design process the contractor will be performing construction estimates at each design milestone (schematic design, design development, construction documents) to make sure the architects design can be built within budget. If the estimate exceeds the budget the design team, contractor and owner look to alternatives (value engineering) to bring the project within budget. This is one example of why it is beneficial to have the contractor on board during the design stage. Owners risk is minimized with this delivery method by incorporating the designer and contractor as a team.
Selection Process
Staff issued a Request for Statement of Qualifications (RSOQ) solicitation to select the Design-Build firm/team. On November 25, 2015, eleven Statements of Qualifications (SOQs) were received. Procurement staff conducted an initial review of all eleven (11) SOQs for determining responsiveness to the requirements presented in the RSOQ. All eleven (11) SOQs were deemed responsive and were distributed to the evaluation committee. The evaluation committee consisted of six people and included four (4) City staff, two of which are registered engineers, and two (2) principals of a commercial licensed general contractors. Specific evaluation criteria were provided within the RSOQ and were used by the committee during the selection process.
After scoring all the submittals, the evaluation committee met to discuss the evaluation results. Based on the evaluated SOQ scores, it was then recommended that the top five (5) candidates be invited for an in-person interview/presentation phase. On February 8, 2016 the interview/presentation phase of the evaluation took place. Based on scoring of the identified criteria, the evaluation team came to a consensus.
The evaluation team evaluated the interview/presentations, the resulting scores were inclusive of the scores received on their SOQs. The total resulting scores of all evaluators, of the five candidates are as followed:
Candidate Total Score
CORE/APMI 1074
FCI/HDA 1053
KCS/DLR Group 945
Haydon/JWA 936
Adolfson/Architekton 930
Scope and Fee
Immediately following the selection, the most qualified firm (Core Construction and APMI Inc.) was asked to provide a scope of work and fee proposal for Design and PreConstruction Services. After review and discussions between the City and CORE/APMI a fee was agreed upon; see attached exhibit of the contract for a detailed scope and fee. The fee is broken down as follows:
Preconstruction Services - $173,809
Full architectural & engineering services – $1,782,480
Design phase reimbursable – $66,821
LEED Certification, Design & Project Commissioning – $150,965
Geotechnical Studies and Flow Tests – $35,585
The overall fee for the above scope is$2,209,660.00. This leaves $19,290,340 in the budget for construction. The industry standard for estimating design and construction fees based on the overall project budget is to use the 20% design - 80% construction rule. Staff estimates the costs using 11% for design and soft costs (printing, presentations, meetings, etc) and 89% for construction. The design/preconstruction fee of $2,209,660.00 equates to 10.6% of the overall budget for the project. The amount and percentage are well within the range anticipated by staff.
Key Considerations:
The City has developed preliminary site plans and identified design/construction scoping that meets the budget needs for the new facility. The solicitation for the Design/Build contractor was very successful and generated 11 interested bids. The highest scored contractor is very much aware of the preferred design/construction timeline. The contractor is confident the project will be completed on time and on budget.
Expanded Financial Considerations:
The City will be able to operate from a new Core Services Maintenance Facility in a more cost effective manner by providing City services from a centralized location, allowing cost savings on fuel when moving vehicles from various storage locations around the City to the current yard. Cost-related efficiencies also include having street maintenance, storage of materials (cinders, deicer, sand, rock, signs, gravel), snow plowing and clearing operations personnel, equipment and administration of these functions co-located in order to respond and perform drainage maintenance, pot hole and sidewalk repair and street sweeping; residential and commercial trash and recycling collection, bulking trash collection; maintenance of all City vehicles and equipment, including fire, police, streets, solid waste, and water and wastewater department vehicles; maintenance operations for all City parks, trails and athletic fields.
Project funds will be provided through the issuance of general obligation debt repaid through secondary property tax, revenue debt repaid through a dedicated landfill fee, solid waste revenues and land sales.
Project funds will be provided through the issuance of general obligation debt repaid through secondary property tax, revenue debt repaid through a dedicated landfill fee, solid waste revenues and land sales.
Community Benefits and Considerations:
The City will benefit in numerous ways with the completion of this project. There will be a consolidation of facility resources (staff, equipment…) and thus, efficiency in these services is expected to increase. This new facility will increase the capacity for the following services: Streets, Parks and Facilities (equipment and materials storage) as well as consolidating the service personnel for Streets, Parks, Facilities, Fleet Services, Solid Waste Collections and Public Works Administration.
Community Involvement:
Consult - The City has provided numerous work sessions and agendized council sessions to discuss the progress in the development of the Core Services Maintenance Facility.
Empower - The community approved the 2012 bond election authorizing the $14 million dollars in funding to be used for this project.
Expanded Options and Alternatives:
1. Authorize the acceptance of the Design/Build contract from Core Construction for preconstruction services.
2. Reject the acceptance of the Design/Build contract from Core Construction for preconstruction services and re-solicit for the services.
3. Reject the contract and continue existing operations in the existing facilities.
2. Reject the acceptance of the Design/Build contract from Core Construction for preconstruction services and re-solicit for the services.
3. Reject the contract and continue existing operations in the existing facilities.