Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.council.worksession.20100302ASPEN CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION TUESDAY, MARCH 2, 2010 4:30 P.M. CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS Burlingame Phase II Commissioning Agent Selection Recommendations II. Burlingame Phase II Contractor at Risk Selection Recommendations 7Lj THE CITY OF ASPEN MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Chris Everson, Affordable Housing Project Manager THRU: Scott Miller, Capital Asset Director DATE OF MEMO: February 26, 2010 MEETING DATE: March 2, 2010 RE: Burlingame Phase II Commissioning Agent Selection Recommendation REQUEST OF COUNCIL: The Burlingame Phase II Commissioning Agent selection committee is recommending Engineering Economics Inc. as the Commissioning Agent for the Burlingame Phase II Integrated Project Delivery design effort. The initial contract amount for the conceptualization, criteria design and detailed design phases of the Integrated Project Delivery design is $25,830.00. Future Council approval would be required to add the implementation documents phase by addendum which would be an additional $25,240.00. Future Council approval would also be required to add the construction phase by addendum which would be an additional $128,895.00. PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: In work sessions with City Council on June 30, 2009 and October 20, 2009, staff presented a detailed projected cash flow for the 2009 & 2010 Burlingame Phase II IPD design effort. At that time, staff presented projected total costs for the IPD design effort of $4.3 million. City Council instructed staff to design the contracts with an initial contract amount for the conceptualization, criteria design and detailed design phases of the IPD design process with the potential to add the implementation documents phase at a later date by addendum. BACKGROUND: Per the recommendations of the Construction Experts Group (CEG) in 2008 and the subsequent approval of the CEG recommendations by City Council, staff is moving forward with the Integrated Project Delivery (IPD) model approach for the design of Burlingame Phase II. The IPD model entails that the City hire an Owner's Agent, an Architect/Design Team, a Contractor at Risk and a Commissioning Agent for the IPD process. Page 1 of 2 THE CITY (W ACPFN DISCUSSION: The Commissioning Agent evaluation process and recommendation rationale is outlined in detail in "Exhibit A". A letter from John Slotkin, a public volunteer on the selection committee and member of the Construction Experts Group, is included as "Exhibit B" FINANCIALBUDGET IMPACTS: The budget for the design phase portion of the Commissioning Agent role is $103,730.00. This contract would provide a savings of $52,660.00 against the design phase budget. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: All of the finalists evaluated have communicated a strong commitment to providing an analysis of environmental considerations as part of the IPD process which will consider first -cost implications as well as long-term cost considerations as compared to effectiveness in mitigating environmental impacts. Those decision -making studies will be presented to Council for consideration during the IPD design effort. RECOMMENDED ACTION: The selection committee is recommending contract award of contract as described. PROPOSED MOTION: Staff requests approval from Council to put this contract on the March 22, 2010 consent agenda CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: ATTACHMENTS: "Exhibit A" PowerPoint presentation describing the evaluation process and recommendation rationale "Exhibit B" Letter from John Slotkin, public volunteer on the selection committee and member of the Construction Experts Group Page 2 of 2 .. city c f Burlingame Phase 11 lPD Team Selection Aspen March 2.2010 Pagel %% li a e RX a 1wftl c Affordable Housing Phase 11 Integrated Project Delivery Team Selection ****Commissioning Agent Aspen City Council Work Session March 2, 2010 I h C ify of Burlingame Phase II IPD Team Selection As pe n March 2 2010 Page 2 Commissioning Agent Summary Description ❖ Participates in all phases of the design and construction ❖ Consults on the design of building systems, energy efficiency ❖ Consults on analysis of potential sustainability certifications such as Building America or LEED •:• Formal peer reviews of MEP systems designs ❖ Develops a detailed commissioning plan ❖ Specifications for installation, testing, balancing, training and turnover of all building systems ❖ During construction, coordinates with the contractor to ensure systematic implementation of the commissioning plan ❖ Verifies and documents system functionality meets owner's goals .. Acity cif Burlingame Phase II IPD Team Selection '�•� _ x spen March 2. 2010 Page 3 i r r� Commissioning Agent Phase -by -Phase Design Initial Contract Minor Contract Addendum (Requires future Council approval) Construction Major I Contract Addendum (Requires future Council Approval) city )r Burlingame Phase II IPD Team Selection r Aspen March 2 2010 Page 4 Commissioning Agent Selection Committee: **.*John Slotkin - Public volunteer, Construction Experts Group ':' Scott Miller - City of Aspen, Capital Asset Director ****Shaun Rourke - City of Aspen, Senior Engineering Technician ****John Laatsch - City of Aspen, Capital Asset Project Manager 's' Steve Bossart - City of Aspen, Capital Asset Project Manager '®° Chris Everson - City of Aspen, Affordable Housing Project Manager Ih �,. city of Burlingame Phase II IPD Team Selection Aspen March 2 2010 Page 5 .r - Commissioning Agent selection Timeline ❖ October 20, 2009 City Council budget approval for 2010 Burlingame phase II IPD design effort ❖ October 21, 2009 RFQ issued, 8 participants, 5 finalists were issued the RFP ❖ December 23, 2009 RFP issued, 5 participants, 3 finalists were interviewed ❖ January 15, 2010 Fixed -fee proposals received City, 1-f Burlingame Phase II IPD Team Selection Aspen March 2, 2010 Page 6 Commissioning Agent RFC Firms were asked to provide the following information: Firm Overview: firm description, ownership structure, company mission, background of the company and principals Project Experience: size references, affordable housing emphasis mountainous setting, involvement & value of each project, project and/or residential relevance, sustainable certifications, scope of y Firm Capabilities: firm's overall capabilities as they relate to each phase of the IPD process Personnel: qualifications of the firm's principals, in-house team leader and the proposed team members Financial Standing: bankruptcies, lawsuits, liens, letter from firm's financial institution stating firm's financial stability "Exhibit A" city 6f Burlingame Phase II IPD Team Selection Aspen March 2 2010 Page 8 -- } Commissioning Agent RFC Evaluations Finalists of the RFQ process: (invited to participate in the RFP) ❖ Beaudin Ganze ❖ EMC ❖ Engineering Economics Inc. ❖ Lightly Treading ❖ ME Group ❖These finalists demonstrated stronger multifamily residential commissioning experience, excellent firm leadership and stronger financial standing. he Acity of Burlingame Phase If IPD Team Selection '•- spen March 2 2010 Page 9 t .. Commissioning Agent RFP Firms were provided a detailed scope of work and contracts and were asked to provide the following information: Firm Overview: firm description, ownership structure, company mission, background of the company and principals Project Experience: size & value of each project, project references, affordable housing and/or residential relevance, emphasis mountainous setting, sustainable certifications, scope of involvement Project Team Qualifications: qualifications of the principal -in -charge and the proposed project team members, proposed roles and decision -making capabilities for the project, current resumes Financial Standinq: bankruptcies. lawsuits, liens, letterfrom firm's financial institution stating firm's financial stability Proposed Services: detailed description of the services proposed during each phase of the project Proposed Staffing: proposed staffing and billing rates for each team member in each phase of the project Proposed Fees: phase -by -phase breakdown of fixed fees, detailed staffing & billing rates lhn c n; ,f Burlingame Phase II IPD Team Selection AsV ` ,e n March 2. 2010 Page 10 commissioning Agent RFP Evaluations Proposals were evaluated in the following areas: Each selection team member studied, compared and contrasted the proposals from each firm and provided quantitative evaluations. The quantitative evaluations were then compiled and discussed in an open environment and were vetted among the team to arrive at three finalist firms to participate in interviews. Ih, city 6f Burlingame Phase II IPD Team Selection `-•� Aspen March 2. 2010 Page 11 Commissioning Agent RFP Evaluations Invited to interview ❖ Beaudin Ganze •:- EMC ❖ Engineering Economics ❖ These three finalists demonstrated similar level of fees proposed, stronger multifamily residential experience, stronger financial standing city 6f Burlingame Phase II IPD Team Selection March 2 2010 Aspen Page 12 Commissioning Agent RFP Evaluations ❖ After the interviews, the selection committee felt it necessary to gather additional information for further clarification ❖Additional information requested: Beaudin Ganze: Clarification of detailed description of proposed services on a phase -by -phase basis EMC: Clarification of fees and description of construction phase services Both firms were forthcoming with the additional information, however it was taken into consideration that EEI had provided a high level of detail in their proposal and thus did not require additional clarification. "Exhibit A" ComMISMoning Services EE1 gG, EMC' 4.2.1 Conceptualization 4.2.1.1 Consult on the development of owner's requirements for the following systems: Heating, Ventilating, Fire Alarm, Sprinkler, Domestic Hot Water, Solar Preheating, Ground -source Preheating, ✓ ✓ ✓ Photovoltaic, Other (see section 8 below) 4.2.1.2 Consult on the early design to meet owner's requirements / ✓ �/ 4.2.1.3 Participate in conceptual construction methodology analysis from commissioning perspective ✓ ✓ �/ 4.2.1.4 Number of on -site meetings dedicated to this phase 1 1 4.2.1.5 Number of personnel dedicated to the above number of on -site meetings 2 2 1 2 4.2.2 Criteria Design 4.2.2.1 Consult on the development of owner's requirements for the systems listed above to develop th owners requirements into project design criteria that address systems function, performance, and ✓ ✓ ✓ maintainability 4.2.2.2 Early design review: first -cost and long-term cost considerations, potential system performanc problems, energy -efficiency improvements, indoor environmental quality issues, operation and ✓ ✓ �/ maintenance considerations 4.2.2.3 Consult to identify potential problems early, before they can affect later phases of the proje ci and cause delays or require corrections ✓ ✓ ✓ 4.2.2.4 Participate in final construction methodology analysis from commissioning perspective ✓ v ✓ 4.2.2.5 Number of on -site meetings dedicated to this phase 1 4.2-2.6 Number of personnel dedicated to the above number of on -site meetings 2 1 2 1 2 c fy of Burlingame Phase II IPD Team Selection As pe n March 2 2010 Page 14 j Commissioning Agent - Fee Proposals Of the three finalists: ✓ Beaudin Ganze is the low bidder ✓ Engineering Economics is second ✓ EMC is highest ACItYof Burlingame Phase II IPD Team Selection spen March 2. 2010 z Page 15 Commissioning Agent Recornmenclati Enqineerinq Economics Inc. Selected unanimously by the committee Best understanding of the City's needs for this project Fee proposal provides the best level of service for the price (i.e. best "bang for the buck") Best qualifications and multifamily residential experience for commissioning projects Solid financial standing Strong references and proven track record on commissioning projects Most detailed description of services proposed Scored the highest in all key categories of evaluation c iy � f Burlingame Phase 11 IPD Team Selection "y As pe n March 2. 2010 Page 16 Commissioning Agent RFP Evaluations Positive references for Engineering Economics were verified by the selection committee from representatives on the following Engineering Economics projects: Cascades Residences, Vail, CO Mountain View Residences, Vail, CO Pitkin County Public Works, Aspen, CO Viceroy Hotel, Snowmass Village, CO rhn City (af Aspen Burlingame Phase II IPD Team Selection "• March 2, 2010 Page 17 Discussion? Questions? - "Exhibit B" John Slotkin Aspen Colorado 02/24/2010 As a member of the original Burlingame construction experts group I was asked to participate in the phase two commissioning agent committee. I was the only private citizen to partake. WE studied eight proposals from top to bottom. Arrived at five proposals through an elimination process We scored them on every aspect one could imagine, from Leed projects, to previous work in our county, financials, and many of their projects around the country. With discussion and due diligence we arrived at four final bidders Interviews were held with three of these companies and after discussion we arrived at two finalists. Our job was to find the best company for our needs. I would also add a company that will still be operating down the line since this project might take quite a while to restart Engineering Economics, and Beaudin Ganze ,and EMC the three finalists, proposals were again dissected and many aspects of their proposals were again evaluated. Engineering Economics was our unanimous choice. "Exhibit B" The reason was simple although their bid was a few thousand dollars more the offer and breakdown of services were a much better deal and the spectrum was far better than Beauden Ganze. This was the best and most efficient offer across the board. In the long run it will save this project much more. From my point of view I thought the financials of these bidders were imperative since this project won't take place for quite a while, in this economy it was important to choose a company I felt that would still be in a responsible position down the line. I would like to add how lucky the town of Aspen is to have Chris Everson, Scott Miller, Shaun Rourke, Steve Bossart, and John laatsh watching out for Aspen's best interest. It was an honor to work with the selection committee and sincerely hope our recommendation is carried out by our town council. John Slotkin THE CITY OF ASPEN MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Chris Everson, Affordable Housing Project Manager THRU: Scott Miller, Capital Asset Director DATE OF MEMO: February 26, 2010 MEETING DATE: March 2, 2010 RE: Burlingame Phase II Contractor at Risk Selection Recommendation REQUEST OF COUNCIL: The Burlingame Phase II Contractor at Risk selection committee is recommending Haselden Construction as the Contractor at Risk for the Burlingame Phase II Integrated Project Delivery design effort. The initial contract amount for the conceptualization, criteria design and detailed design phases of the Integrated Project Delivery design is $122,174.00. Future Council approval would be required to add the implementation documents phase by addendum which would be an additional $54,925.00 for a total design phase contract of $177,099.00. PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: In work sessions with City Council on June 30, 2009 and October 20, 2009, staff presented a detailed projected cash flow for the 2009 & 2010 Burlingame Phase II IPD design effort. At that time, staff presented projected total costs for the IPD design effort of $4.3 million. City Council instructed staff to design the contracts with an initial contract amount for the conceptualization, criteria design and detailed design phases of the IPD design process with the potential to add the implementation documents phase at a later date by addendum. BACKGROUND: Per the recommendations of the Construction Experts Group (CEG) in 2008 and the subsequent approval of the CEG recommendations by City Council, staff is moving forward with the Integrated Project Delivery (IPD) model approach for the design of Burlingame Phase II. The IPD model entails that the City hire an Owner's Agent, an Architect/Design Team, a Contractor at Risk and a Commissioning Agent for the IPD process. DISCUSSION: The Contractor at Risk evaluation process and recommendation rationale is outlined in detail in "Exhibit A". A letter from Peter Louras, a public volunteer on the selection committee and member of the Citizens Budget Task Force, is included as "Exhibit B" Page 1 of 2 0 THE CITY of ASPEN FINANCIALBUDGET IMPACTS: The budget for the design phase portion of the Contractor at Risk role is $280,500.00. This contract would provide a savings of $103,401.00 against the design phase budget. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: All of the finalists evaluated have communicated a strong commitment to providing an analysis of environmental considerations as part of the IPD process which will consider first -cost implications as well as long-term cost considerations as compared to effectiveness in mitigating environmental impacts. Those decision -making studies will be presented to Council for consideration during the IPD design effort. RECOMMENDED ACTION: The selection committee is recommending contract award of contract as described. PROPOSED MOTION: Staff requests approval from Council to put this contract on the March 22, 2010 consent agenda CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: ATTACHMENTS: "Exhibit A" PowerPoint presentation describing the evaluation process and recommendation rationale "Exhibit B" Letter from Peter Louras, public volunteer on the selection committee and member of the Citizens' budget Task Force Page 2 of 2 lh� _ city =--f Burlingame Phase II IPD Team Selection Aspen March2. 2010 Page 1 Affordable Housing Phase 11 Integrated Project Delivery Team Selection ****Contractor at Risk Aspen City Council Work Session March 2, 2010 c ty ,f Burlingame Phase II IPD Team Selection r' As pe n March 2. 2010 Paget Contractor at Risk Summary Description ❖ Participates in all phases of the design effort ❖ Consultation on constructability, means and methods ❖ Analysis of stick -built versus modular versus panelized ❖ Estimates the project and creates the GMP bid ❖ City Council may choose to source the construction of the project to the contractor at risk ❖ Alternatively, City Council may choose to bid the project out I h ,. ACity 6f Burlingame Phase II IPD Team Selection spen March 2 2010 Page 3 Initial Contract Design Minor Contract Addendum (Requires future Council approval) Phase- Construction Major Contract Addendum (Requires future Council Approval) _l h� cIcy, 6f Burlingame Phase II IPD Team Selection Aspen ... March 2 2010 Page 4 Contractor at Risk Selection Committee sus Peter Louras - Public Volunteer, Citizens' Budget Task Force, CPA •'.o Bob Daniel - Public Volunteer, Construction Experts Group, Developer ❖ Scott Miller - City of Aspen, Capital Asset Director •:° Tricia Aragon - City of Aspen, City Engineer •o• Shaun Rourke - City of Aspen, Senior Engineering Technician + John Laatsch - City of Aspen, Capital Asset Project Manager •e° Steve Bossart - City of Aspen, Capital Asset Project Manager '®° Chris Everson - City of Aspen, Affordable Housing Project Manager Ih City oof Burlingame Phase II IPD Team Selection Aspen March 2. 2010 Pages Contractor at Risk Selection Timeline *.**October 20, 2009 City Council budget approval for 2010 design effort ❖ October 21 2009 RFQ issued, 10 participants, 6 finalists Burlingame phase II IPD ❖ December 23, 2009 RFP issued, 6 participants, 3 finalists were interviewed *.**January 15, 2010 Fixed -fee proposals received ❖ January 29 and Februa 19, 2010 Received additional information, as requested c tT h Burlingame Phase II IPD Team Selection Aspen .. March 2 2010 Page 6 ontractor at Risk RFQ Firms were asked to provide the following information: Firm Overview: firm description, ownership structure, company mission, background of the company and principals Project Experience: size & value of each project, project references, affordable housing and/or residential relevance, emphasis mountainous setting, sustainable certifications, scope of involvement Firm Capabilities: firm's overall capabilities as they relate to each phase of the IPD process Personnel: qualifications of the firm's principals, in-house team leader and the proposed team members Financial Standing:_ bankruptcies, lawsuits, liens, letter from firm's financial institution stating firm's financial stability Th Ac4Y of Burlingame Phase II IPD Team Selection spen March 2. 2010 Pagel Contractor at Risk RFQ Evaluations Qualifications were evaluated in the following areas: ❖ Management Experience and Capabilities Qualifications of the firm principals Qualifications of the proposed team members Preconstruction services experience and capabilities ❖ Building Experience and Capabilities Large-scale construction experience and capabilities Multifamily construction experience and capabilities Public projects experience and capabilities Green building experience and capabilities ❖ Financial Stability & Capacity Financial Standing Size and scale of projects completed Bankruptcies, lawsuits, liens Each selection team member studied, compared and contrasted the qualifications of each firm and provided quantitative evaluations. The quantitative evaluations were then compiled and discussed in an open environment and were vetted among the team to arrive at the six finalist firms to participate in the RFP. i I I'? City caf Burlingame Phase II IPD Team Selection Aspen March 2 2010 Page 8 Contractor at Risk RFQ Evaluations Finalists of the RFQ process. (invited to participate in the RFP) ••• C FC ❖ Evans Chaffee Construction Group ❖ Fenton Construction ❖ Haselden Construction ❖ R.A. Nelson ❖ Shaw Builders ❖ The finalists generally had extensive large-scale multifamily residential experience, excellent team leadership and stronger financial standing I he city of Burlingame Phase II IPD Team Selection �-•- Aspen March 2. 2010 Page 9 Contractor at Risk RFP Firms were provided a detailed scope of work and contracts and were asked to provide the following information: Firm Overview: firm description, ownership structure, company mission, background of the company and principals Project Experience: size & value of each project, project references, affordable housing and/or residential relevance, emphasis mountainous setting, sustainable certifications, scope of involvement Project Team Qualifications' qualifications of the principal -in -charge and the proposed project team members. proposed roles and decision -making capabilities for the project, current resumes Financial Standing: bankruptcies, lawsuits, liens, letter from firm's financial institution stating firm's financial stability Proposed Services' detailed description of the services proposed during each phase of the project Proposed Staffing: proposed staffing and billing rates for each team member in each phase of the project Proposed Fees: phase -by -phase breakdown of fixed fees. detailed staffing & billing rates c t'y{ " r Burlingame Phase II IPD Team Selection Asri e 1 1 March 2 2010 Page 10 �J' Contractor at Risk RFP Evaluations Proposals were evaluated in the following areas: ❖ Experience & Qualifications: r Relevant experience Project team qualifications References :® Proposed Services: . Project understanding Proposed services Proposed staffing Financial: Fee proposal Financial standing & bonding Bankruptcies, lawsuits, liens Each selection team member studied, compared and contrasted the proposals from each firm and provided quantitative evaluations. The quantitative evaluations were then compiled and discussed in an open environment and were vetted among the team to arrive at three finalist firms to participate in interviews. the c4 ,->f Burlingame Phase II IPD Team Selection Aspen r March2 2010 Page11 Contractor at Risk RFP Evaluations Invited to interview •:• CFC / John Olson Builder ❖ Haselden Construction ❖ Shaw Builders ❖ All three had detailed fee proposals, strong multifamily residential experience, strong financial standing and scored highest within the evaluation criteria c t'y of Burlingame Phase II IPD Team Selection ;a Aspen March 2 2010 Page 12 Contractor at isk RFP Evaluations ❖ After the interviews, the selection committee felt that additional information should be requested ❖ Additional information request #1 Additional information request #1 focused on depth of experience based on total dollar volume of work over the past three years for: Mid -range versus high -end residential construction Multifamily construction by construction methodology Commercial versus residential construction Single most expensive construction project Public versus private work Projected overhead & profit for Burlingame II Projected general conditions for Burlingame II This information was received and incorporated into the evaluations he ACity 6f Burlingame Phase II IPD Team Selection spen March 2 2010 Page 13 Contractor at Risk RFP Evaluations ❖ For further due diligence, the selection committee chose to ask for additional information a second time: ❖ Additional information request #2 Audited Financial Statements Quality control/assurance procedures & protocols Experience modification worksheets (insurance claim history) Subcontractor prequalification & selection process Work completion history General liability loss runs for past 5 years Pending litigation BIM service description General conditions matrix identifying service levels This information was received and incorporated into the evaluations rrC..1.�Mlr err PRECONSTRUCTION FEE CONSTRUCTION FEE GENERAL CONDITIONS DIKED I UUa I Iu ussncrc WORK HEADING SHAW HASELDN CFC SHAW HASELDN CFC SHAW HASELDN CFC SHAW HASELDN CFC PROJECT MANAGEMENT 1. AKhMchad CZ-F dWWd Selection x Sinrchad Camullartt Sdacdon x Sam : Additia a items Wshown here HASELDN CFC SHAW HASELDN CFC SHAW HASELDN CFC SHAW HASELDN CFC CONTRACT DOCUMENT COORDINATION SHAW t. reel con x x x x x constucbm con &rd9el x x 3. Cmahucbon con offot a x CFC AdWmW items not shown here CFG SHAW HASELDN CFC SHAW HASELDN CFC SHAW HASELDN SUBCONTRACTOR SELECTIONIPURCHASING SHAW HASELDN 1. Set Crietia X x x x x 2 Remnnew COn� Me1tpM x x x x 25e*cum 3. RewrrenerM CarNeceor Awanf hnev x x x Only: AddMonal items not ahorrn here HASELDN CFC SHAW HASELDN CFC SHAW HASELDN CFC SHAW HASELDN CFC TRACT DOCUMENT COORDINATION SHAW bi Reviewand Recmvnnndims X x xx x x xx XwucbMitll x:Additional Review andRecamnende6ons Work Scopn9 contactor hemsnotshownhereTE SHAW HASELDN CFC SHAW HASELDN CFC SHAW HASELDN CFC SHAW HASELDN CFG STAFF ject Ewadive (time essodated wim project) lStmoffT X X X x x xxject xxmr* stgiwn xjent rdenga xxisdnt ssmWe SHAW HASELDN CFC SHAW HASELDN CFC SHAW HASELDN CFC SHAW HASELDN CFC . Additional items not shown hereEL&LODGING f Travel Cost ablate X x x x x tyr x x x Project Stilt Movin I x x x x Staff SulrwKlence Costa x x x x 5. Stdf ttauai me Sam Only: Adddiond items not shown hero i---A ciri of Burlingame Phase II IPD Team Selection Aspen March 2 2010 Page 15 to Contractor at Risk RFP Evaluations ❖ Comparison of Overhead & Profit and General Conditions Costs These costs apply ONLY to the construction phase, not design phase Contractor's construction phase fees are much larger than preconstruction fees Committee was cautious about selecting a contractor with low design phase costs and high construction phase costs c tv r Burlingame Phase II lPD Team Selection Aspen March 2 2010 Page 16 Contractor at Risk RFP Evaluations Preconstruction Fixed -Fee Proposals * These fixed -fee proposals apply to the design phase only. Of the three finalists: ✓ Haselden is the low bidder ✓ CFC is the second lowest bidder ✓ Shaw is the highest bidder the Acity of Burlingame Phase II IPD Team Selection "�•� t spen March 2010 Page17 _ Contractor at Risk RFP Evaluations ❖ Throughout the entire process, the selection committee unanimously agreed that Haselden clearly ranked best and highest: Cif'y 6f Burlingame Phase II IPD Team Selection Aspen March 2 2010 Page 18 1 i Contractor at Risk RFP Evaluations ❖ Positive references for Haselden construction were verified by the selection committee from representatives on the following Haselden projects: Roaring Fork School District Eagle County Eagle County School District National Renewable Energy Laboratory Aspen Valley Hospital Lodge at Mountaineer Square, Crested Butte c r'%e f Burlingame Phase Il IPD Team Selection AeSp '"- � ( March2,2010 Page -- i i Contractor at Risk Recommendation Haselden Construction Selected unanimously by the committee Demonstrated the best understanding of the City's needs for this project Excellent qualifications and the most public experience Strongest demonstrated financial standing Comprehensive, very strong proposed team Lowest preconstruction fee proposal Lowest general conditions and overhead & profit Strong references and proven track record Most detailed description of services proposed Scored the highest in all key categories of evaluation "Exhibit A" "Exhibit B" February 24, 2010 The City of Aspen City Council City Hall 130 S. Galena St Aspen, CO 81611 Dear Councilmen: I have been a citizen member of the Contractor at Risk Selection Committee since the group was officially organized on December 9, 2009. Our committee was charged with the responsibility of making a recommendation for the Contractor at Risk role in the City's Integrated Project Delivery (IPD) Team for Burlingame Ranch Phase II. It is the role of the Contractor at Risk to develop preconstruction recommendations and specifications regarding building systems designs, construction means, scheduling and construction costs, as well as be the contractor at risk for the construction of the project. Citizen Role: As a private citizen of Aspen, I saw my role as twofold: first, to participate in all aspects of the committee's work to arrive at a final recommendation for the Contractor at Risk; and, second, to provide objective oversight and an independent voice for the community in the overall process. With regards to the first role, the committee was very diligent and purposeful in its work with all committee members having an equal voice. To complete the task at hand, assignments were given, documents were reviewed, and evaluation forms were completed, compiled, and later discussed in open meetings. Discussions during a number of meetings led to additional information requirements from respondents to the RFP. Each committee member participated fully in each step of the process, and as a private citizen, there were no aspects of the work that I wasn't fully involved with. 11�111:71m 3i 2 On the second role, I was impressed with how City Staff organized the overall recommendation process, how committed they were to identifying the very best contractor at a reasonable price and how objective they were in evaluating the strengths and weaknesses of different proposals. In addition, Staff was very respectful of the City's Request for Qualifications (RFQ) and Request for Proposal (RFP) processes. The overall process was well organized; all necessary material was provided in a timely fashion; evaluation techniques and forms were fair and objective; and the overall process was very open and candid. Each and every committee member was conscientious about completing assignments and attending meetings. As a private citizen, less familiar with the overall IPD process, I asked many questions which were always answered candidly with the necessary facts to satisfy my concerns. In summary, I want to commend all members of the committee for their efforts during this recommendation process, but in particular Chris Everson and John Laatsch who played important leadership roles in guiding the overall effort. ............................................................................... As a member of the Citizens Budget Taskforce (CBTF) in 2008, I also want to commend City Staff for following through and implementing the many different recommendations of the CBTF, and the related recommendations of the Construction Experts Group, regarding capital project management and planning. The IPD process was one of those recommendations and it is very comforting to know our many recommendations are being embraced and implemented as intended. Finally, I recommend that more citizens of our community find the time to volunteer and serve on committees or taskforces to learn more about how our municipal government operates and gain a better appreciation for the many hardworking staff members performing so many valuable functions for our community. Sincerely, Pete Louras 260 Mountain Laurel Dr. Aspen, CO 81611